# Phrasiology: Does Faith Save/Justify You?



## Romans922 (Apr 29, 2009)

Would it be incorrect to say that Faith Saves or Justifies you?

On the other hand, wouldn't it be correct to say that Faith is the instrument by which you are saved/justified?


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 29, 2009)

Just making sure my phrases are correct. Preaching on Eph. 2:8-10 this Lord's Day. 

Keep it coming, if you have something else to add.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Apr 29, 2009)

THROUGH faith works


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

Only if you can say the hammer drove the nail, the wrench tightened the nut ... oh, and the gun killed the person. Faith is the instrument or means, not the actor or cause.


----------



## Idelette (Apr 29, 2009)

Yes, I would say that faith is the instrument and means of grace. Many Arminians use those same Scriptures to claim that it is by the "work" of faith that we are saved, thus demonstrating that we have a free will etc. I think it is important to make that distinction.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> It would be incorrect that Faith saves you. Jesus saves. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to what the Scriptures teach alone, to the glory of God alone.



It is correct to say that faith saves us - but it is incomplete. If you leave that statement all by itself, it would imply that faith if the _only_ thing that saves you, and of course that's not the case.

But you cannot disallow the statement "faith saves you" altogether, for scripture says that much directly. That we are "justified by faith" can be exactly restated as "faith has justified" us. To react against this language is premature and inconsistent with scripture.

The danger is in saying or implying that faith is the only necessary element for salvation, leaving aside election, regeneration, sanctification and every other aspect of salvation.

It is perfectly appropriate to say that a wrench turns a bolt, or that a hammer drives a nail. The problem comes when that statement is not expanded and explained, leaving the hearer to believe that wrenches and hammers are not used and controlled directly by the Almighty, in this case.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > It would be incorrect that Faith saves you. Jesus saves. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to what the Scriptures teach alone, to the glory of God alone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hence the importance of the prepositions _by_ and _through _and the usual passive form of the verb _to save_. Faith does not save, it has no power to do so, but it is the means or instrument through which God saves us. God saves us; the means He uses is not the thing that saves us.

The next time I'm going to build something, I'll just lay the hammer and nails on the board and say, "Do your thing hammer." And I'll go get a cup of coffee.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> Hence the importance of the prepositions by and through and the usual passive form of the verb to save. Faith does not save, it has no power to do so, but it is the means or instrument through which God saves us. God saves us; the means He uses is not the thing that saves us.



The thing he uses is exactly what saves us. But that is subordinate to _who_ saves us.

Romans 3:28 - "For we maintain that a man is *justified by faith* apart from observing the law."

Every translation of that verse I've seen says BY not THROUGH. Of course, both are true. 

If we can use the words "justified BY faith," then its equivalent statement "faith justified us" is also fine.



> The next time I'm going to build something, I'll just lay the hammer and nails on the board and say, "Do your thing hammer." And I'll go get a cup of coffee.



Respectfully, this is nonsense.

The hammer drives the nail. The wrench turns the bolt. The pen writes on paper. All of those are perfectly accurate, and to deny so is fighting an uphill battle.

The only problem with that phrasing is when it is used to deny the existence of a Who acting on it.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > Hence the importance of the prepositions by and through and the usual passive form of the verb to save. Faith does not save, it has no power to do so, but it is the means or instrument through which God saves us. God saves us; the means He uses is not the thing that saves us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why did you drop the instrumental preposition "by"? You cannot just drop an instrumental preposition out of a sentence and say it means the same thing.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> Why did you drop the instrumental preposition "by"? You cannot just drop an instrumental preposition out of a sentence and say it means the same thing.



Yes, you can.

"The wrench was turned BY me."

"I turned the wrench."

Those are logically equivalent statements in every respect, yet I dropped the 'by.' Are you saying those two statements are not equivalent?



> Our justification was procured by Christ's observing the law. It is applied to us by the instrument of faith, but our actual justification was not secured by the faith with which we believe. It was secured by Christ's perfect active and passive obedience. So there may be a talking past one another. I think we can all agree on this.



Again, you are mistaking the word "by" to mean "only by" and it's just not the case.

Just because we are saved BY faith, doesn't mean that we are not also saved BY other things. To say we are saved by faith does not in any way negate that we are saved by other things as well.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

Romans 3:28 has faith in the dative but your argument is we can change faith to a nominative and it means the same.

-----Added 4/29/2009 at 03:58:50 EST-----



> "The wrench was turned BY me."
> 
> "I turned the wrench."



These are equivalent. But they are not equivalent to "The wrench turned the nut."


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> Romans 3:28 has faith in the dative but your argument is we can change faith to a nominative and it means the same.



It _does]_ mean the same.

Again, "we have been justified by faith" and "faith justified us" are identical in every respect.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > Romans 3:28 has faith in the dative but your argument is we can change faith to a nominative and it means the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, in Greek nominative and dative do not serve the same purpose; neither do they in English.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 29, 2009)

Grammatically, it is not incorrect; it simply depends on the intention behind the words: if by "Faith justifies" you mean either properly, formally, materially, efficiently, etc., then it is incorrect; if by the same phrase you intend an instrumental meaning, or one in which faith is used by figure for the _object_ of faith, then you speak most accurately. Wrangling over the words themselves is unnecessary.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> No, in Greek nominative and dative do not serve the same purpose; neither do they in English.



If you claim these two statements are different ("We have been justified by faith" and "Faith has justified us"), then the burden is on you to spell out exactly where they differ.

I understand that you have asserted they are different - but what exactly is their difference in meaning?



> Grammatically, it is not incorrect; it simply depends on the intention behind the words: if by "Faith justifies" you mean either properly, formally, materially, efficiently, etc., then it is incorrect; if by the same phrase you intend an instrumental meaning, or one in which faith is used by figure for the object of faith, then you speak most accurately. Wrangling over the words themselves is unnecessary.



This is exactly what I am saying. I accept both phrasings as valid, though some here are assuming that because a phrase can be used by someone wrongly, then the phrasing itself is bad. And it's not.


----------



## KMK (Apr 29, 2009)

> LBC 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness *by faith*,4 which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5



Justification is a free act of God. It is imputed to the sinner by faith. Justification is by grace through Christ, imputation is by faith.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 29, 2009)

Andrew, consider the words of the Belgic Confession:



> we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.



And the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 61 



> Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
> 
> Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God; and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than *by* faith only.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > No, in Greek nominative and dative do not serve the same purpose; neither do they in English.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the first statement faith is dative and hence the instrument used to save.

In the second statement faith is nominative and is the actor doing the saving.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> In the second statement faith is nominative and is the actor doing the saving.



Not true. The nominative case allows for this to be a possibility, but it does not necessarily mean that. In no way does the nominative case deny that it may be an instrument of some other actor.

The nominative implies that faith may be the main (or only) actor - but it does not necessitate it. And that is why the intent of the speaker is what makes this phrasing good or bad.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > In the second statement faith is nominative and is the actor doing the saving.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why leave the phrasing unclear? It only allows for confusion. If we know that God saves through faith, (and faith is not the thing, the actor who saves us) why not just say it as clearly as possible. An Arminian hears "faith saves" much differently than a Calvinist, and they should not be allowed to sit comfortably in their Arminian seats in such a critical matter.


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 29, 2009)

> Why leave the phrasing unclear? It only allows for confusion. If we know that God save through faith, why not just say as clearly as possible. An Arminian hears "faith saves" much differently than a Calvinist, and they should not be allowed to sit comfortably in their Arminian seats in such a critical matter.



I absolutely agree - and we _should_ use the dative rather than nominative. It helps in every respect.

I am only saying that one who slips and uses the nominative has not said something incorrect - only potentially misleading.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 29, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Wrangling over the words themselves is unnecessary.



Wrangling over words is an important part of exegesis.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 29, 2009)

Only when they requiring wrangling; if two forms of expression are both perfectly allowable, then to wrangle, contending for one to the exclusion of the other, is little more than divisive.

To say "justified by faith" is open to just as many misinterpretations by others; and, lest we forget, Jesus frequently said, "Go, your faith has made you whole/saved you/healed you/etc."


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 29, 2009)

It's also what false Teachers do: "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain."

I never knew that one could do the following in saying: "we have been justified by faith" and "faith justified us" are identical in every respect.

Would it be true to say that these two statements are identical, "We see by eyes." and "Eyes see us"? It's the same thing as what Jeremy is saying, I'm just wondering.


----------



## KMK (Apr 29, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Only when they requiring wrangling; if two forms of expression are both perfectly allowable, then to wrangle, contending for one to the exclusion of the other, is little more than divisive.



Do the Confessions ever state "faith saves"?


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 29, 2009)

See WLC 73


----------



## Skyler (Apr 29, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Would it be true to say that these two statements are identical, "We see by eyes." and "Eyes see us"? It's the same thing as what Jeremy is saying, I'm just wondering.



In the first sentence, "we" are doing the seeing with the help of the eyes. In the second, it is the eyes doing the seeing to us. "we" have changed from the subject to the direct object. I don't think it's quite the same as the examples provided.

I also think that, while such phrases can possibly be misleading, since the Bible occasionally speaks that way it's perfectly allowable. The context makes the meaning.


----------



## KMK (Apr 29, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> See WLC 73





> Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
> 
> A. *Faith justifies a sinner* in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,[304] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;[305] but *only as it is an instrument* by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.[306]



Thanks for that. It is interesting that the Divines were careful to clarify that faith justifies only because it is the instrumental cause. I think we should be equally careful. It may not be erroneous to declare that 'faith saves', but perhaps it is not expedient. Maybe I am overly cautious.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Apr 29, 2009)

Calvin on Romans 3:28:



> Paul states his main proposition as being now incontrovertible, and adds an explanation, for when works are expressly excluded, much light is thrown on justification by faith. For this reason our opponents spend their greatest efforts in their attempts to involve faith in the merit of works. They allow that indeed man is justified by faith, but not by faith alone...But Paul affirms in this passage that justification is free in such a way as to make it quite evident that no merit of works at all can be associated with it.



And earlier on 3:21:



> We are, therefore, in Christ, because we are out of ourselves; and therefore in faith because we rest on the mercy of God alone, and on His free promises...if justification does not depend on the law, or on ourselves, why should it not be ascribed to mercy alone? And if it is of mercy alone, then it is of faith alone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 29, 2009)

This goes to the point of why sound teaching by stable men and the charge to Pastors in 2 Tim 4 are so critical. We do not simply provide phrases in the English and permit people to draw their own conclusions but the work of the Preacher is to exposit and give explanation to what is meant by the phrases in the context of the whole. Paul didn't simply speak in aphorisms so we could cavil over how the phrase could be presented naked of its context.

One of the problems, for instance, in simply noting that "faith justifies" and giving no more explanation is the fact that many Christians affected by Arminian teaching believe just that: their faith justifies, full stop. It is inherent in Arminian theology for the Atonement to be deficient and requires the person's free will belief to make Christ's merit efficient since Christ has died for all in their scheme.

Faith, then, becomes not simply an instrument by which one clings to Another's righteousness but is looked to for its relative strength/weakness/continuance. Faithfulness, rather than faith, becomes the grounds for justification. Faith becomes a work.

People inherently understand that justification is going to have to require some sort of payment for sin. If they don't apprehend that faith simply lays hold of Christ's death and His righteousness then, like Arminianism, faith will be looked at as a form of righteous keeping of duty before God that merits His favor for its exercise.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 29, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ...but the work of the Preacher is to exposit and give explanation to what is meant by the phrases in the context of the whole. Paul didn't simply speak in aphorisms so we could cavil over how the phrase could be presented naked of its context.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 30, 2009)

There is a difference too between justification and salvation.

Justification is God's legally declaring us righteous. We will be no more justified in heaven than we are now.

Salvation includes also adoption, definitive and progressive sanctification (including foreordained good works), perfection and glorification at death, and resurrection at the end of time.


----------



## KMK (Apr 30, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> This goes to the point of why sound teaching by stable men and the charge to Pastors in 2 Tim 4 are so critical. We do not simply provide phrases in the English and permit people to draw their own conclusions but the work of the Preacher is to exposit and give explanation to what is meant by the phrases in the context of the whole. Paul didn't simply speak in aphorisms so we could cavil over how the phrase could be presented naked of its context.
> 
> One of the problems, for instance, in simply noting that "faith justifies" and giving no more explanation is the fact that many Christians affected by Arminian teaching believe just that: their faith justifies, full stop. It is inherent in Arminian theology for the Atonement to be deficient and requires the person's free will belief to make Christ's merit efficient since Christ has died for all in their scheme.
> 
> ...



Without exposition, 'faith' becomes 'decision' and, therefore, 'decision' saves.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 30, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > In the second statement faith is nominative and is the actor doing the saving.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The nominative case allows for this to be a possibility, but it does not necessarily mean that. In no way does the nominative case deny that it may be an instrument of some other actor.



That's the first time I've ever heard of the possibility of a word serving dual functions of subject and indirect object. How does the one word actually simultaneously serve both functions?


----------

