# Is Faith a Choice?



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

This is somewhat bothering my mind at the moment, so I want to be sure I'm right. I believe faith is not a choice, in any shape or form. Faith is not a choice any more than love is a choice. God's command to have faith in Christ does not make it a choice any more than His command to love God makes love a choice. _By the power of a mere decision_, we cannot force ourselves to love God _more_, neither can we force ourselves to have faith in Christ _more_. Our love for God is the direct response of knowing God's love for us. Likewise, our faith in Christ is the direct response of knowing the person and work of Christ for us. 

Faith is no different than a scientist discovering another planet in the universe with his telescope; he _cannot help_ his faith in that planet, he cannot choose to not believe it. What he can do is _lie_ _to himself _about the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence which is the foundation of his faith in the planet; he can _distract_ and darken his own mind by _abusing_ it. 

For the Christian, the Word of God is the foundation of his faith (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God). When the Holy Spirit enables him to understand the Scriptures, and the person and work of Christ of which they are essentially about, his immediate response is faith. 

Faith includes knowledge (its object), assent (the mind's inevitable acknowledgement of the object of faith; not a choice) and trust (the reflection of a person's _affection_ or _will_ for the object of faith).

Rather than saying faith is a choice, our choices are the result of our faith, our choices being _works_ (as opposed to _the nature_ of faith). Faith is not a choice, because a choice is essentially what defines a work. Why can Christ boast in His righteous works? Because they are by _His choice_ (choice implies there is _a person_ and _a will_ behind the work). Exclude choice from work and all you are left with is _a mere thing_. Things don't have value or merit in themselves.

I know understand why I've had such a hard time defending monergism, in regeneration and the act of faith, against my father's synergistic, freewillish theology. Regardless of my defence of the necessity of regeneration preceeding the act of faith and justification, I have always admitted that this act of faith is a choice, and thereby I've unwillingly encouraged my father's theology of freewill in our receiving of Christ. When I now think about it, this idea of faith not being a choice completely destroys the idea of freewill and any reason of boasting in a sinner's regeneration. I believe this is essentially what it means when the Bible says faith is _not of works _(Eph. 2:8).

Feel free to comment.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

Actually, I think that neither have I presented the truth to my father accurately in saying regeneration necessarily preceeds the act of faith. I just realized that the very reason why I've put them in that order is because I thought the act of faith is _a choice_. However, since it is not, I should rather say regeneration, the act of faith (I think "act" is a bad term here; at least for me it sounds like "acting in faith") and justification all happen _simultaneously_. Regeneration includes faith and repentance, and where there is faith there is justification.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 31, 2014)

God fundamentally changes our choices. We love because he first loved us. We freely choose God because he has given us hearts to love him more than all others, including our own life, comfort and happiness. This is a supernatural change and love. Praise God!


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> God fundamentally changes our choices. We love because he first loved us. We freely choose God because he has given us hearts to love him more than all others, including our own life, comfort and happiness. This is a supernatural change and love. Praise God!



Since I see nothing contradictory in your statements to mine, that must be an affirmation of my thoughts, correct?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

I should add the necessary implication of our faith being the _gift _of God. Why is it a gift? Because we cannot come to it completely on our own. What separates the unbeliever and the believer is the element of _trust_ in the object of our faith, Jesus Christ. The gift of faith, then, includes the gift of new heart which receives Christ with joy and affection.

When we look at this fact from the synergistic perspective, receiving faith (including trust) or cooperating with God to effect faith (including trust) in Christ becomes impossible, since all the sinner can do is have knowledge and assent, but God has to give a new heart to make this historical faith a living faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 31, 2014)

Samuel,

I think you are already grasping hold (or trying to grasp) important truths. Here are some thoughts that might help. The Gospel of John frequently brings together the concepts of "seeing" (physically) and "believing." e.g. Jn.1:34, 50-51; 2:23; 3:3, 36; 4:48; 6:26, 30, 62-65; 7:3; etc.

Jn.8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." This is clearly a spiritual seeing.

The healing of the man born blind, Jn.9, is particularly good because by the end of Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees after the healing and their treatment of the one restored, Jesus says,


> 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. 39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.



The reason for pointing this correlation out (also conveyed in Paul's contrasting statement, "For we walk by faith, not by sight," 2Cor.5:7) is that we can expand upon the idea of "sight" to enhance our understanding of faith.

Seeing requires certain elements: light, an organ, and life. We ourselves can not make ourselves see. We cannot give life to ourselves. We cannot create an eye. We do not produce the light. All are given to us. And where these are present, we see. As an infant, eyes opening in the world for the first time, the eyes open, they blink, the brain takes in visions that the mind cannot comprehend. He will learn, he will grow, he will begin to process the visions, for that is how he was designed.

He sees... because he must, because he is alive, his eyes work properly, and the light shines in them. "His whole body is full of light," Mt.6:22.

So it is with faith, which is the instrument by which we "see" the truth of our salvation. All by which we see is God's gift. Those who cannot see dwell in darkness, Is.9:2. Calvin calls faith that passive thing (in contrast to active working) by which we are saved. It is the man who believes (sometimes anti-calvinists say we think God believes for us).

The man doesn't will himself to believe (do you "will yourself" to see, after you roll out of bed in the morning?). Having grown up from the new birth, when his vision lacked comprehension, in his maturity he does more effectively engage his mind (or, maybe as he gets older he struggles to make sense of it all). But the fact is, spiritually alive people, who "have eyes to see," just believe because of the Light. Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world," Jn.1:9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9; 12:46.

Thanks be to God.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

To be quite brief (not unhelpfully so, I hope,) I will say this by way of scripture: *"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."*

And by anecdote: when I was trying, laboring, and striving to *choose* to believe on Christ, I clearly did not trust Him. 

When faith came, I ceased my efforts. His grace has made me trust Him. 

As our lungs breathe, as our hearts beat, so our souls believe-- "not of ourselves, it is the gift of God."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Samuel,
> 
> I think you are already grasping hold (or trying to grasp) important truths. Here are some thoughts that might help. The Gospel of John frequently brings together the concepts of "seeing" (physically) and "believing." e.g. Jn.1:34, 50-51; 2:23; 3:3, 36; 4:48; 6:26, 30, 62-65; 7:3; etc.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much, Rev. Buchanan. I was kind of hesitating to use the language of _sight_ in defining the nature of faith, since it is said "we walk by faith, not by sight," but this does not nullify the truth that faith has become our _spiritual_ eyes. Once we were blind, now we see. I like how Calvin calls faith _passive_, since that was _exactly_ my point.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

BDB said:


> To be quite brief (not unhelpfully so, I hope,) I will say this by way of scripture: *"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."*
> 
> And by anecdote: when I was trying, laboring, and striving to *choose* to believe on Christ, I clearly did not trust Him.
> 
> ...



So, you're saying as an unbeliever you were _actively_ believing, but when you got regenerated your believing became _passive_? I don't see any Biblical proof for asserting the former.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

Not in the least.

I was not believing at all, in the former situation. My attempts to muster up "faith," whereby God would necessarily save me (for, as I was taught and as I thought, faith depends on us), were in no way true faith, nor could they procure it, nor even if I could procure it was God obligated to save me or put me in Christ. 'Twas nothing but human effort and will, and "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

BDB said:


> Not in the least.
> 
> I was not believing at all, in the former situation. My attempts to muster up "faith," whereby God would necessarily save me (for, as I was taught and as I thought, faith depends on us), were in no way true faith, nor could they procure it, nor even if I could procure it was God obligated to save me or put me in Christ. 'Twas nothing but human effort and will, and "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."



I see. So, as an unbeliever you had both knowledge and assent, but you were lacking trust and tried to choose to trust in Christ. That is, you were trying to choose to love God when you actually hated Him. The Bible says no unbeliever seeks after God, so what you are saying about trying to choose to trust in Christ cannot be true. But here is the thing: even if you said you are trying to _choose_ to trust in Christ as a born-again Christian, if you really intend the literal meaning of that sentence, you are not being wise. Why? As I've shown in my OP, we cannot add to our faith (including trust) and love anything by "the power" (there is none!) of a mere choice. It doesn't matter how many times you are making a choice to trust in Christ, unless you are doing something that actually benefits and increases your trust (searching the Scriptures for knowledge in prayer and meditating on the person and work of Christ). The problem is choices are the result of our faith, not the other way around. You can't make yourself become something you are not by making a decision to be something else. That is a waste of time and you should not expect any positive result from such practise. I cannot but think about believers who are putting their trust in their decisions to believe in Christ that they made in the past.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

Whew. 

I confess when I was laboring to know God, I knew not God, and was searching after a Christ who could be subject to my will. And so the statement "no man seeks for God" yet stands. 

Did you misread me somewhere and conclude that I said that I am still choosing to have faith, or still trusting in a decision? Those were in my days of darkness-- I no longer hold to such, since God gave me faith. I cannot tell if you misread me, or if you just decided to restate everything. 

As I said, the believer is no more responsible for the origination or continuation of his faith than he is of his own heartbeat. All things are of God.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

BDB said:


> Did you misread me somewhere and conclude that I said that I am still choosing to have faith, or still trusting in a decision? Those were in my days of darkness-- I no longer hold to such, since God gave me faith. I cannot tell if you misread me, or if you just decided to restate everything.



No, that is why I used the theoretical words, "even if you said." I cannot understand your thinking or what exactly you have against my reasoning in my OP, but not that I care to start arguing about it. I'm sure there has been laid sufficient evidence in this thread to conclude faith is by definition passive and not dependent on choice.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

Samuel, 
That is exactly what I am saying. I was not reasoning against your original post in any way.

Faith is by definition passive. I agree, completely. When I was blind to God's grace, I thought it was by choice. Now I know it is passive. I have said about 3 times that I "used" (in the past, not anymore) to believe it was by choice, and I now, by grace, know otherwise. 

I've been agreeing with you the whole time and trying to show it.  My comments were to chime in on your side, an "amen," if you will.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

BDB said:


> Samuel,
> That is exactly what I am saying. I was not reasoning against your original post in any way.
> 
> Faith is by definition passive. I agree, completely. When I was blind to God's grace, I thought it was by choice. Now I know it is passive. I have said about 3 times that I "used" (in the past, not anymore) to believe it was by choice, and I now, by grace, know otherwise.
> ...



Ben, I'm so sorry for not seeing this. I just couldn't get that sense from the second paragraph of your first post.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

It is OK! An indication I should have been more clear. I re-read my posts and saw how it was perhaps misunderstood.

It is a favorite saying of mine when people ask me incredulously, "Are you saying we do not have free-will to believe," to reply, "No more than we have free-will to live."


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 31, 2014)

Faith is by no means passive, just as unbelief is not passive. We freely choose life just as the unbeliever freely pursues a life in opposition to God. We are freely obedient to Christ because we have been given a new nature that delights to do his will, while the unbeliever is at enmity to God because he is, at heart, God's enemy. I disagree with the OP that states that faith is not a choice.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

JWithnell, 

How then are we to understand Heb 11:1, for example? I am asking sincerely. I do not see how that scripture makes sense unless you would say assurance and confidence (which is equated to faith) are also active choices (which I believe they are not.)

Furthermore, it does not say that the *acts *of the saints of the faith *was faith.* It says that *by faith* they did those acts-- the acts they did, are distinguished from the faith they had. That is, by faith, which is passive, proceeds action, which is active.

Even further, in James it says, Faith without Works is dead-- not that faith is works. Again the passive is the foundation, which is distinguished and separate from that which it produces.

This is my understanding.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 31, 2014)

I am pretty narrowly focused here on the faith that flows out of a regenerated heart rather than on good works and assurance which are topics that deserve discussion on their own.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> Faith is by no means passive, just as unbelief is not passive. We freely choose life just as the unbeliever freely pursues a life in opposition to God. We are freely obedient to Christ because we have been given a new nature that delights to do his will, while the unbeliever is at enmity to God because he is, at heart, God's enemy. I disagree with the OP that states that faith is not a choice.



You do realize you are neither agreeing with John Calvin and Rev. Buchanan's view above? You are failing to see what has been presented here. I have NOT said we cannot freely choose life, or that we cannot choose to believe in Christ. What I HAVE said is that faith is not a choice, and that _choosing_ to believe in Christ does not do _anything_! As Rev. Buchanan said above, "We ourselves can not make ourselves see. We cannot give life to ourselves. We cannot create an eye. We do not produce the light." That is the argument here.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> I am pretty narrowly focused here on the faith that flows out of a regenerated heart rather than on good works and assurance which are topics that deserve discussion on their own.



So am I. You are the one talking about good works-- you mentioned our "obedience," saying that we "delight to do his will," and thereby you are directly referring to good works. Shall we define faith as obedience and doing His will?

The aforementioned confidence and assurance, according to Heb 11:1, is faith. 
Which, does proceed from a regenerated heart. 
Which, is passive, in that we cannot procure it or sustain it. 

We may act based on faith, and in a sense you may say that is our faith acting, but really, faith would be the basis of our acting, and the acting itself would be an entirely different thing. 

Hebrews 11:1 is THE definition of Faith in scripture-- I would much appreciate your thoughts on it, or at least your reasoning based upon other scriptures which you may have in mind.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 31, 2014)

[QUOTE\Rather than saying faith is a choice, our choices are the result of our faith/QUOTE]
Some ideas are getting mashed together here. In reformed circles, the topics of regeneration and faith are place in a logical -- not temporal -- sequence. A person is regenerated by the sovereign and merciful work of God so that he may respond in faith. A great deal of effort has been made over the years, most notably by people such as Jonathan Edwards, to recognize that man's will has been changed as a result of this regeneration.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> [QUOTE\Rather than saying faith is a choice, our choices are the result of our faith/QUOTE]
> Some ideas are getting mashed together here. In reformed circles, the topics of regeneration and faith are place in a logical -- not temporal -- sequence. A person is regenerated by the sovereign and merciful work of God so that he may respond in faith. A great deal of effort has been made over the years, most notably by people such as Jonathan Edwards, to recognize that man's will has been changed as a result of this regeneration.



Withnell, regeneration consists of both faith and repentance. What this means is that both faith and repentance are now _qualities_ that are part of our very nature; they are not acts/choices distinct from our nature, but the nature of our acts/choices. Our choices stem ultimately from our nature, and faith being part of it, I can state that our choices are the result of our faith.

And again, sure we _can_ choose to have faith or choose to repent or choose to love or whatever, but those are _qualities_ of our nature, not acts or choices. And doing that won't help our sanctification whatsoever. Rather we should be choosing to _do_ _works_, to _work out _our salvation by the means God has given us.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

What do you mean by "respond in faith?" Is that not simply most aptly described as... believing? It seems to me, that your definition, would have faith not be a simple believing, but a "believing and doing" of something. Obviously, to "respond in faith," is two words more than faith. If you are doing something in faith, then faith cannot be the doing. If I breathe in the air, my breathing is not the air. If I donate in love, my donation is external to my love. Love is a separate thing, from which comes results. So with faith. 

I do not believe that sinners are regenerated so as to be made able to choose to believe. Otherwise, they live before believing, which is contrary to scripture that says that "by believing, we may have life in his name." John 20:31. But I believe that they are given life and given faith, and having faith, are justified. And so, in that sense at least, it is passive.

I have read Edwards' Freedom of the Will, which largely deals with the changing of man's will as a result of regeneration, as you say. Yet nowhere does he equate faith to "volition," and he does define "volition" as choice. So that, as far as I know, he never called faith a choice or choosing, leastways not in this book. Nor can I recall him setting forth faith as a product of regenerated volition (at least not in this book.)

I do not know what you mean by faith being active, because I have not seen you talk about faith-- instead you mention obedience, delight, volition, responses, and will, none of which are faith.

If you could kindly explain both John 20:31 and Heb 11:1 to ease my perplexity, I would be much obliged, or at least proffer some scriptures to support your proposition, so that they can be compared?


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> And again, sure we _can_ choose to have faith.



Samuel, I have a question-- how can we choose to have that which is the very quality or state the precedes and permits the supposedly enabled choice? 

It is to say, we may choose to live, which I think is an intrinsic falsehood because if we are choosing to live, we are already alive. And so with faith, in that if we are choosing to have it, we must already have it-- as you have said above, those who have no faith cannot choose to have faith, and so anyone choosing to have faith must already have faith, in which case they need not choose it, but only to demonstrate it, by a regenerated nature that acts (or wills) in a holy and godly manner (which is really not ourselves working, but Christ working in us, as you all know and affirm.)

The choice, then, is not a choosing of faith itself, but of things that demonstrate the reality of our possession of said faith, i.e., the repentance, or the good works, or the acts of love and kindness, all of which is not faith but exists (and indeed can only exist) in the framework of faith. And because the Arminians love the word "choice," as it implies free-will to some, I think it best that we Christians think of "choice" as the inevitable volitional outcome of possessing faith. If we are led by the Spirit, we really have no choice-- it is a sure thing.


And if I might add, the difference between sincerely swapping Faith itself with the Produce of said Faith, i.e. calling Faith itself the Good Works thereof, is the difference between justification by faith, and justification by [insert alternate definition of Faith here, namely, good works.]


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2014)

Faith must include "choice," if by that is meant an act of the will. Faith is simply the man believing. Man thinks, wills, and affects. Therefore faith is defined in terms of knowledge, assent, and trust. It is certain that man cannot will anything spiritually good in a fallen and unregenerate condition, but it is equally certain that when a man is regenerated he is enabled to believe in Christ for salvation. God does not believe for him. God works in him to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Hebrews 11:1 provides a definition of what faith does rather than what faith is. It is describing the function rather than the nature of faith. It is regrettable that it has been translated in subjective terms when it is indicating something that is objective.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 31, 2014)

I'm finally willing to admit faith is a choice, as long as knowledge and assent are passive (therefore, not choices), but trust is active (that which renders faith a choice).


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

How in the world is Heb 11:1 describing the *function* of faith by using a *noun*? They are not even participles (which I am sure you know what means.) 

What is more, I think the nouns used have no verbal counterpart. I have never heard of a function being described by employing a noun. 

Furthermore, how are the nouns ὑπόστασις, "assurance, substance, reality" and ἔλεγχος "a proof, persuasion, reproof" in the least way translated subjectively, by "assurance" and "confidence?" Such words imply absoluteness. 

Furthermore, if they were translated subjectively, only then would it make sense for their meaning to be interpreted as a function. A *definition,* being an objective thing, is much more in line with an *objective* word that a *subjective*, and by your own statement, they are indicating that which is objective.


Also, faith must indeed include "choice" if by that is meant an act of the will. However, faith is *not* an act of the will, any more than is breathing. And so, faith must not include choice in the least. As stated above, faith is a quality, an attribute, and not a volition. Man does think, but not always volitionally. Man may believe, and he may believe autonomously, i.e. that the sun will rise (we do not choose to believe such, do we?) and above that, by God's grace, he may believe autonomously in Christ, i.e. faith. 

*If we have to choose to believe, then we may sin sometimes by choosing wrong and having no faith, as we may choose to do other sins. However, no place in scripture ever indicates that a Christian may ever for a moment be without faith. * And, any area in which we have choice, we will undoubtedly fail-- as evidenced by the entire lives of anyone reading this sentence. 

No sir, faith is not a choice any more than grace of God is a choice.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

Furthermore, might I add, that while God's gracious providence and assistance in keeping us from sins and upholding us by His Spirit are wonderful things, they are not called the "gifts" of God. 

The "Gifts" of God include such things, according to Scripture, as the Holy Spirit, Grace, Calling, Justification, Eternal Life, and also, Faith. (These exclude what are known as "spiritual gifts," which are ministerial gifts.) And we know that the gifts of God are without repentance-- so to say that faith is a choice and our volition, is to say that one of God's gifts, being without repentance, may nevertheless be temporarily lost by us, through our sinful volition. 

Unless, perhaps, someone can procure a scripture to the effect that, the one "sinful choice" we are unable to make is the "choice" not to have faith-- as we know that all other sinful choices are a possibility, and sadly often a reality, in the life of a believer. 

My ideas could afford to be more fleshed out, but time presses and I believe I have said enough for now.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

One last thing: when a man is regenerated, he is not "enabled" to believe in Christ, with a possible choice thereof. Not even with a certain "choice." If something is certain, then there is no choice, either. 

He is, rather, "made" to believe in Christ, persuaded, convicted, assured, proved, and convinced. Faith does not depend on volition-- the Spirit gives faith which, by nature, causes the soul of man to believe on, trust in, and acquiesce to Christ. Faith is, as I say, the heartbeat of the soul, and we could not choose it nor stop it in the least, as with our own hearts beating.


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2014)

That Hebrews 11:1 speaks of the function of faith, not the nature of it, is clear from the context, which is believing to the saving of the soul, 10:38-39. Owen commented, "The observation of the design of the apostle, dischargeth all the disputes of expositors on this place, about the nature and definition of faith, seeing he describes only one property of it, with respect unto a peculiar end, as was said before." Reformed commentators in general make some such qualifying remark.

"Assurance" and "confidence" are subjective terms, that is, they describe the state of the believing subject rather than the objective function of faith itself.

For the most recent linguistic data requiring an objective rendering, see William L. Lane's Word Biblical Commentary in loc.


----------



## BDB (Jan 31, 2014)

Is there any other kind of believing? 

According to your proposition, then Scripture nowhere sets out the nature of faith, because everywhere faith is deeply treated of, it is made clear that it saves the soul, and that in subjective terms ("we are justified by faith," "we are saved by grace through faith," and saved and justified only describe our state, and not, as you say, the objective function, which I know not what is. Then, even your statement "Faith is simply the man believing," is dismissible as merely one of many functions, not the primary objective function, in that it only describes his state: believing.)

Owen also says, "I shall not make it my design to insist much on the nature of faith, and to debate the differences that are among men about it. Only so much must be spoken concerning it as may give us an acquaintance with that whereof we are treating." And he says, "Thus, some place faith in one distinct faculty of the soul, some in another, and some say there are no such things as distinct faculties in the soul. Some place it in both the chief, — the understanding and the will; and some say, it is impossible that one habit should have its residence in two faculties." 

And this type of reasoning and dissecting of faith belongs much more to the opposing view than to that which I hold. My definition is far less convoluted: it is the gift, given by God, that IS our trust and assurance in Christ. It is autonomous, like our life. In Him we live, and move, and have our being, which are not choices in the least, but in Him we believe, and you say that is a choice.

I say only this: if you hold that faith is a choice, then you do necessarily, by consequence, make justification and eternal life and life in Christ and sanctification and glorification, and even Christ Himself, to be choices as well.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 1, 2014)

Okay... All I want to know at the moment is _what exactly_ is passive in us? When a person _knows_ something, is it an act of his will, or is it that this knowledge _happens to_ him (like _regeneration_ does). What about assent? Is it an act of your will or is it something that happens to you? If it is an act of the will, how can an unbeliever have assent to Christ's person and work, when he hates Him with all of his heart? In that case, the element of trust is no longer what separates the unbeliever and the believer, but it is both assent and trust. The unbeliever cannot rest in the work of Christ, neither can he acknowledge its existence.

Is this correct?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 1, 2014)

NOW I GET IT! I came across the following paragraph concerning the nature of saving faith by George E. Meisinger,



> One must either believe the gospel or reject it in disbelief. In Acts 28:24, Luke contrasts persuaded with disbelieved, showing that persuaded and disbelieved are opposite sides of a coin. Accordingly, *not to believe is not to be persuaded*. To believe is to be persuaded of the truth of the gospel, thus Luke expresses the concept of ‘believe’ using its synonym. What about the term persuade (peiqw)? The New Testament uses it both in active and passive senses. That is, Scripture speaks of trying to persuade someone that the gospel is true; this is the active use. Alternatively, the word is used of someone becoming convinced that something is true, the passive use. Here are examples of someone taking initiative (active voice): Luke 11:22 speaks of armor in which a man trusted (lit. ‘had trusted,’ from peiqw), adding the nuance of trust (having been persuaded) to the notion of persuade. Acts 18:4 reveals that Paul persuaded, or convinced Jews and Gentiles. Acts 19:8 speaks of ‘reasoning and persuading’ others of the things concerning the kingdom of God. Acts 28:24 shows the apostle trying to persuade, or convince the Jews of Rome. Luke also uses the term in the passive sense of being persuaded, coming to depend on, trust, or rest confidence in something: Luke 16:31, the rich man was told that if his brothers would not believe Scripture, they would not be persuaded even by someone rising from the dead. Luke 20:6, the people are persuaded (sure, certain) that John was a prophet. Acts 17:3b-4, ‘this Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ. And some of them were persuaded.’ Acts 28:24, be persuaded, be convinced, come to believe. Here persuaded opposes disbelieved (epeiqonto… hpistoun)….Did Paul persuade unbelievers by his ability to communicate? The Holy Spirit used his words -- which were God’s words -- to persuade them. *God is the One who says ‘Let there be light’* (2 Cor. 4:6). Note how in John 3:36, being persuaded relates to eternal life: ‘He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe (apeiqew) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.’ To ‘not believe’ (apeiqew) is to refuse to believe the Christian message, even to refuse to be a believer, or to reject the Christian message (cf. Acts 14:2; Eph. 2:2).




Edit: OR I DONT... Man, my mind just keeps getting confused. Is assent passive or not? Is assent the same as being persuaded, OR is assent an act of the will that necessarily follows persuasion? Please help me here!


----------



## earl40 (Feb 1, 2014)

I always like to ask if one believes the sky is blue. If one has eyes to see the sky one do not choose it is blue, as a blind man cannot believe the sky is that color because he cannot see. The same is for those who believe in Jesus. They believe in Him because they have the spiritual eyes to see. The faith we receive to justification is the same faith that is exercised all our life which is not perfect and thus must grow. In other words, when we are faithless after justification, in the sense that we sin during our santification, our weakness shows Who is faithful. We sin while still knowing Who our Savior is. So our faith is grounded in The One Who is faithful, and The faithful One shall blow away the dross that is not clinging to Him or being faithful to Him.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 1, 2014)

I appreciated that comment Earl.

Let us say: that the _faculty_ of faith, given and brought to life by God (who sends the Light, Ps.119:130, "The entrance of thy words giveth light"), *engages* the will of a man.

Our physical eyes "see" in a very natural, passive, and unforced way simply because of what they are (assuming they work properly), the life within us, and the light that shines. But such vision barely conceived can be distinguished (for our purposes) from "sight," which we might define here as the faculty of seeing or vision being used to lay hold of a particular object that captures _attention_. There is a "registration" in the mind by the objects seen, a consciousness about them.

It's helpful to think of the fact that our eyes (and brain) take-in literally everything the light bounces off of in our room. But how much of that do we see? Consider how often we "miss" or "forget" the object right in front of us. Did we _not-see_ it? Was it always in our "blind-spot"? Our eyes drank the draught of information, but our "filters" shunted it aside as insignificant. Then, when we wanted the object, we could not remember ever seeing it (when surely we had).

This is why we would say that true sight takes the functional faculty of vision, and engages the will at some level to notice it, to register and index it; and when we wish (the will once again) to attend it again, we turn our head to where we expect it to be (thanks to the registry). So it is with faith. The point of the gift of saving faith is that we are enabled to apprehend Christ offered to us for our salvation. Like the infant who knows nothing of this world of light into which he is birthed--but who quickly learns to identify his mother's face, and his source of nourishment--so the new-born believer recognizes his Savior, and all about him that is lovely and life-giving. The inherently "passive" nature of the gift and its functionality is (by virtue of what it is, and the soul to which it is attached) put to USE by the one who has it. It is engaged.

It is as natural to "choose" engagement to the sight of Christ, as it is for the baby to "choose" his engagement to the sight of his mother's face, studying it as he nurses at the breast. It is the way it was meant to be. The baby didn't "choose" his mother, or where to be placed so he could study her--he was *chosen*! His life was imparted to him, and his eyes, and the light. As he grows, he starts to "choose" other objects to engage with. But naturally he returns most often to his mother's face. He "chooses" that. He chooses what was chosen for him.

See, sight, vision, attention, consciousness, registry, engagement, study, the faculty alongside the use of that faculty--so many nuances of a basic concept. How about adding "focus" to the mix? Think about how the will or choice must in the nature of the case be utilized for this function. The newborn cannot focus on anything. He's never used those muscles in his eyes. His eyes are naturally "focused" at about 12 inches, the distance to a mother's face from her nursing breast (where there's a big fuzzy bullseye). From that starting point, he begins to practice the art of focus, shifting his eyes about, and returning them to his resting focal length on his mother's face.

"Focus" is perfectly transferable to the realm of faith, just as much as the other ideas. The world of our faith-in-Christ has all the marvels of complexity and more than this world of our senses. Paul writing to the Corinthians, and the writer to Hebrews, both encourage the hearers to get beyond the "baby-stage" of their engagement with the truth of our religion. Think of all there is to "see" that pertains to God! And always, there is returning to rest in Christ at the center of everything.

But in speaking of childishness, those two writers show they already understand that their catechumens are on a growth curve. We do not come into the knowledge of the truth like an Adam-fully-formed (and surely he had some learning to do too). We cannot expect the enlightenment we have received to have imparted suddenly, instantly, a fully formed theological mind, all nice and grown-up and ready to teach others. That's arrogant. We must become like little children, Mk.9:33-37.

Let us, as children, *grow* in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, 2Pet.3:18. 2Ths.1:3, "We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your *faith groweth exceedingly*, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth." Our faith grows by exercising our knowledge, assent, and trust.

Like the marvelous eye of the body, faith too can be studied and analyzed so that we gain an appreciation for how it functions. There is a basic "passiveness" about it, as well as the act of engaging it, and using it. God saw fit to use this most "passive" of behaviors, viz. believing, to deny the place or power of "working" (actively) as to the means of making us acceptable to himself. And we are more than simply vacuums for data, storerooms for articles of faith that accumulate in our souls, absent the activity of the will. We are renewed humans, brought back into fellowship with God, restored in the image of God--in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KaphLamedh (Feb 1, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> God fundamentally changes our choices. We love because he first loved us. We freely choose God because he has given us hearts to love him more than all others, including our own life, comfort and happiness. This is a supernatural change and love. Praise God!



Yes, amen. Could we say that the faith is choice of God , because He have loved us?


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 1, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> Faith is by no means passive, just as unbelief is not passive. We freely choose life just as the unbeliever freely pursues a life in opposition to God. We are freely obedient to Christ because we have been given a new nature that delights to do his will, while the unbeliever is at enmity to God because he is, at heart, God's enemy. I disagree with the OP that states that faith is not a choice.



May I attempt to refine your statement a little? It is only once one is regenerated that we do choose to walk in faith, grow in grace (or however one wants to describe the human side of the complex of activities that make up sanctification). Yet even those choices, God overrules in the regenerate as he conforms us to Christlikeness.


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 1, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> faith must include "choice," if by that is meant an act of the will. Faith is simply the man believing. Man thinks, wills, and affects. Therefore faith is defined in terms of knowledge, assent, and trust. It is certain that man cannot will anything spiritually good in a fallen and unregenerate condition, but it is equally certain that when a man is regenerated he is enabled to believe in Christ for salvation. God does not believe for him. God works in him to will and to do of his good pleasure.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1 provides a definition of what faith does rather than what faith is. It is describing the function rather than the nature of faith. It is regrettable that it has been translated in subjective terms when it is indicating something that is objective.



amen and amen!!!!


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 1, 2014)

Thank you very much, Rev. Buchanan. I appreciated your idea of focusing or engaging one's faculties of the body and mind that are by default passive. Your allegory of a physically born baby was also helpful in illustrating spiritual birth.

By using or abusing my faculties of the mind, I can choose to know Christ more, to know what I still don't know about Him, OR I can choose to ignore Him. I can choose to acknowledge the truth of and in Christ OR I can choose to suppress that truth in unrighteousness by lying to myself. I can choose to trust in Christ, to accept, receive and rest upon Him for not only my justification, but also my sanctification, OR I can choose to trust in Christ for only my justification (like many unregenerate Christians do), OR I can choose to not trust Him at all.

Only by using, focusing, engaging, practising our faith can it grow! It won't grow by itself! Sure, it will work and operate passively by itself; it will even save our souls without us actively supporting it. Nevertheless, only by activating our faith can it grow!


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Feb 2, 2014)

Let me just answer to my original question as a conclusion (then a moderator can close this thread),

*Faith can be a choice, but it is not so necessarily.*


----------

