Works?

[BBAS 64]

The readers may review my response to ILUVLIGHT and notice that I had offered over 60 references from Scripture in support of my statements—including four Baptist confessions, from the 17th to the 20th century—and then they may review his reply to me and observe how many of those Scripture references he directly addressed (i.e. none). Furthermore, it is deeply ironic to witness a self-professed Baptist refer to these statements from historic and contemporary Baptist confessions as "unbiblical"; ILUVLIGHT neglects the Scripture references presented and throws out the history of the Baptist church in one fell swoop—and all of this by the strength of his mere assertion! This is terribly impressive. He accuses me of eisegesis (e.g. "Where you get this from is the doctrine of men and not the Bible"), claiming that my exegesis is erroneous, but irresponsibly neglects to interact with the texts in question in order to make his case! Are we supposed to just take his word for it? He does not say, but it's not as if he left us with anything else. It is almost as if he is working from the Dave Hunt manual for apologetics (even going so far as to repeat the same errors Hunt made). ILUVLIGHT makes a great deal of noise about what the Scripture I presented cannot mean but he does not offer a single positive exegetical argument to tell us what it does mean. Anyone can make contrary assertions—is anything easier?—but I implore the reader to never mistake that as sound exegesis. It simply is not. Until the alleged errors are proven, by interacting directly with the text presented through a responsible hermeneutic of sound exegesis, the scriptural argument stands as established.


Anyone that has been reading along can discern the difference easily and immediately: ILUVLIGHT simply asserts that regeneration is equal to being saved and leaves it at that, while I assert that it cannot be and then argue why it cannot (that regeneration "is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath"). He responds to this by repeating his blanket assertion that being regenerated "is being saved"—still without adding anything to advance our understanding of how this can be so. Recognizing this, I even gave him a head start by prompting him to describe from Scripture (1) the nature of gennao anothen and (2) how this event is expiatory and propitiatory. What did ILUVLIGHT do with this prompting? The readers already know that ILUVLIGHT ignored it, referred to my position as "nonsense," and merely asserted for a third time that regeneration is equal to being saved—and moved on, once again without offering any exegetical support. All careful readers can decide for themselves which side of this discussion is establishing his argument.


I offered a number of passages from Scripture that state this quite explicitly—and some used precisely those words ("unable to hear" and "cannot understand")—in my response to [name]Reformationist[/name], which he, [name]nobdysfool[/name], and [name]BBAS 64[/name] certainly seemed able to discern. And in one of those passages, it was Jesus himself speaking; and not only did he tell them "you are unable to hear what I say" but he even told them why—"You belong to your father, the devil . . . The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." ILUVLIGHT is free to pretend that I did not offer any Scripture to this effect, but the readers know otherwise. I would also state the painfully obvious, that to simply pretend Scripture was not presented is a complete abdication of sound exegesis. Ignoring an argument does not refute it, and so it therefore remains unrefuted.


1. To remind the readers, what I said is that ILUVLIGHT completely failed "to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post." Is this a false accusation? Anyone can easily review his post (here) and verify whether or not he had engaged any of the Scripture I had quoted. It does not take long to discover that he had not, and therefore it was not a false accusation but a verifiable statement of fact.

2. Although ILUVLIGHT insists that he "answered with scripture," what he does not seem to realize is that this has no bearing on what I had said. I know he answered with Scripture. We all know that. However, it still remains that he had not "engaged any of the Scripture I had quoted"—not once did he exegetically critique, for example, John 10:26.

3. I used to be a Seventh-Day Adventist. I was forced to confront the errors of that belief system and eventually gave way to a more Evangelical theology (Mennonite Brethren). As any learned person knows, both views are extensively Arminian. I was, for many years, thoroughly convinced that Reformed theology was not just sadly mistaken but utterly heretical. It was a grotesque infection on the history of the Christian church and needed to be lanced. For years I contended that it was pure heresy. What I mean to say is, please do not presume that I refuse to investigate your proof-texts. My friend, I had used those very same ones while I fighting tooth-and-nail against that heresy known as Reformed theology, clinging to them and defending them tenaciously for years. Out of spiritual and intellectual honesty, I finally had to admit that my views on these passages were in error and I had to start from square one with everything I believed. As a result of all this, I suspect that there are few people out there that have examined such texts closer or more thoroughly than I have. It was a long, hard battle and I did not accept anything until it was proven. Trust me, I have spent years investigating these texts of yours—and not just those ones.


1. My explanation is not "better" than Scripture's explanation. I encourage the readers to note that my critique was exegetical in nature. By definition, that means the only thing I presented was Scripture's explanation. My critique examined two things: (1) what the passage does not say, which anyone can verify be reading the text, and (2) what the passage does say and—more importantly—what that means; as the readers can see, I did this by examining not only the internal grammar but also the immediate and surrounding context. This is how sound exegesis is conducted.

2. ILUVLIGHT does not agree with my exegesis, but it cannot escape the reader's notice that his attempted refutation committed a major exegetical error. He said that "the word 'Jerusalem' implies all of Jerusalem." First, notice that this is nothing more than a bare assertion on his part. He makes this statement without drawing any support from the text itself. As I had said before, we must not mistake bare assertions as sound exegesis. Second, his interpretation does violence to the text itself, by eisegetically imposing a conclusion that is contrary to the text. I want the reader to notice three very important things: (1) v. 37 itself refutes his interpretation, by showing that the term 'Jerusalem' here is constrained to "you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"; (2) the preceding verses (vv. 13-36), connected contextually to v. 37, show that these are the "teachers of the law and Pharisees." So ILUVLIGHT is simply in error: 'Jerusalem' in this passage refers to the "teachers of the law and Pharisees" who "kill the prophets and stone those sent to you" (cf. v 34); (3) relevant to v. 37 itself is v. 13, which establishes the context further: "You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to" (v. 13), "how often I have longed to gather your children together . . . but you were not willing" (v. 37).


This is an irrelevant prevarication, for nowhere in Matt. 23:13-39 does Jesus refer to Rome.


This is a canard. No one said there was.


This is a canard. No one said otherwise.


1. The idea that "grace is through faith" does not somehow establish that faith precedes regeneration. There are too many hidden premises here which ILUVLIGHT needs to bring out of hiding before we can scripturally examine his argument. But complicating this even more is the fact that grace is not always through faith: unbelievers exhibit no faith in God and yet they receive all kinds of grace, starting with the fact that they are not immediately condemned to the fires of hell despite their defiant enmity against God. Their continued existence is a testimony of God's grace.

2. Romans 5:2 says that "we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand." What grace is that? Verse 1 tells us: "being justified by faith." Justification is the particular grace in view in these verses—indeed, in this chapter. There are more saving graces beside justification, however: sanctification is a saving grace, so is adoption and regeneration, and so forth. As I had written earlier, "salvation" is a multifaceted complex that involves a number of elements in man's redemption and reconciliation with God.

Finally, ILUVLIGHT had said that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which he interpretted as something given in return for a favor. I had asked of him, "Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis." The readers will note his complete lack of any Scripture whatsoever.

Good Day, Ryft

That pretty much summs up most of this thread.

In Him,

Bill

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

[/font][/size]

Good Day, Iluv

You miss the form of the question, the italic aside...

Would you like to do the greek word for word the nature and type of the question remains....

Even in my Greek interlinear verse 43 is still two questions. Neither of which can be made to say that man cannot hear in his natural state. You say it does. and it doesn't.

Jn 8:45 a question

Nope the form is a "infact" statement didactic in nature, does not address their willingness as it is a stament and does not adress the cause. Very misleading to put words in the text, can get you twisted.

On the contrary your claim of man being unable to hear just isn't in this verse at all.

You really have to take verse 44 to understand 43 and 45...
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the.
devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.


"This verse shows that they could hear and understand"

That idea is no where in that verse, the words you need to make this true are absent from the text.

Verse 44 answeers why the could not (unable) to hear 8:43,

They are of thier father the devil, not that they choose not to listen as you assumed out side of the text in your last post.

I like contextual reading and exergesis of what the text really says, it works so well no real need to add words and or idea or whole phrases to that which the Lord spoke.

Peace to u,

Bill

Verse 44 does not tells us man is not able to hear but tells us that the mans father is the devil. You say "I like contextual reading and exegesis of what the text really says" But then you make this to be evidence that all natural men are unable to hear and those verses don't say that at all. At most this man is either not listening or has a defect in his hearing. This is still one man and not all men. You assume that it refers to all natural men and it just doesn't say that at all. It seems to me you're assuming that it does.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[nobdysfool]

Even in my Greek interlinear verse 43 is still two questions. Neither of which can be made to say that man cannot hear in his natural state. You say it does. and it doesn't.

On the contrary your claim of man being unable to hear just isn't in this verse at all.

Verse 44 does not tells us man is not able to hear but tells us that the mans father is the devil. You say "I like contextual reading and exegesis of what the text really says" But then you make this to be evidence that all natural men are unable to hear and those verses don't say that at all. At most this man is either not listening or has a defect in his hearing. This is still one man and not all men. You assume that it refers to all natural men and it just doesn't say that at all. It seems to me you're assuming that it does.
ILUVLIGHT

Apparently you don't understand the use of a rhetorical question as a teaching device. Jesus was not asking the question because He didn't know, nor was He asking out of exasperation. Everything Jesus said in some way taught, encouraged, rebuked, or condemned.

You've already been shown where you err, and your rejection of correction does not change that correction, or set it aside.

 

[BBAS 64]

Even in my Greek interlinear verse 43 is still two questions. Neither of which can be made to say that man cannot hear in his natural state. You say it does. and it doesn't.

On the contrary your claim of man being unable to hear just isn't in this verse at all.

Verse 44 does not tells us man is not able to hear but tells us that the mans father is the devil. You say "I like contextual reading and exegesis of what the text really says" But then you make this to be evidence that all natural men are unable to hear and those verses don't say that at all. At most this man is either not listening or has a defect in his hearing. This is still one man and not all men. You assume that it refers to all natural men and it just doesn't say that at all. It seems to me you're assuming that it does.
ILUVLIGHT

Good Day, Iluvlight

More baseless assertions that are void of any backing with in the text of Scripture.

I made no assumptions, the text says:


So Jesus said to them, "If God were your* father, you* would love Me, for _I_ came forth and am come from God. For I have not come from Myself, _but_ that One sent Me.
Joh 8:43 "Why do you* not understand My speech? Because you* are not able to be hearing My word.

The text says them it is not sigular "man.

Not able to hear, answers your first posted question, the text is clear. Equivicate and dodge all you desire the text is the text.

To some it is a stumbling block.

In Him,

Bill

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Good Day, Iluvlight

More baseless assertions that are void of any backing with in the text of Scripture.

You still haven't shown where the bible says that man is unable to hear. Just because the man Jesus was speaking to could not hear that doesn't stand for all natural men and you know it.

I made no assumptions, the text says:

Yes you do when you assumed this meant all men.

So Jesus said to them, "If God were your* father, you* would love Me, for _I_ came forth and am come from God. For I have not come from Myself, _but_ that One sent Me.
Joh 8:43 "Why do you* not understand My speech? Because you* are not able to be hearing My word.

The text says them it is not sigular "man.

Not able to hear, answers your first posted question, the text is clear. Equivicate and dodge all you desire the text is the text.

To some it is a stumbling block.

In Him,

Bill

"Them" does not mean all natural men. that is just not so. He spoke to them because there were more than one. It still doesn't say all natural men.
you originally responded to this "scripture never says man has an inability to hear or understand that is not so. "
Still you have not shown a disability but assume that Jn 8:43 is saying these men are disabled. It does not say that at all. You have assumed that it did.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[Reformationist]

Here you go ILUVLIGHT:

/me hands ILUVLIGHT some straws...

I could see you were reaching for them...

 

[BBAS 64]

You still haven't shown where the bible says that man is unable to hear. Just because the man Jesus was speaking to could not hear that doesn't stand for all natural men and you know it.

Yes you do when you assumed this meant all men.

"Them" does not mean all natural men. that is just not so. He spoke to them because there were more than one. It still doesn't say all natural men.
you originally responded to this "scripture never says man has an inability to hear or understand that is not so. "
Still you have not shown a disability but assume that Jn 8:43 is saying these men are disabled. It does not say that at all. You have assumed that it did.
ILUVLIGHT

Good Day, Iluvlight

Define "are not able"

Disabled??? That would be:

egkoptō

Not used in this text at all.

Nice try though

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Gyorg]

In consideration of the OP, I find Titus 3:5 sheds even more clarity along with Ephesians 2:8-10:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
KJV

 

[Reformationist]

In consideration of the OP, I find Titus 3:5 sheds even more clarity along with Ephesians 2:8-10:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
KJV

Not that I don't love that verse, because I certainly do, but what light do you believe this sheds on the topic?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Gyorg]

Not that I don't love that verse, because I certainly do, but what light do you believe this sheds on the topic?

Thanks,
God bless

Sorry for my ignorance. I misread .

 

[Reformationist]

Sorry for my ignorance. I misread .

Well, if it means anything, I think the verse is certainly applicable. I'm just trying to get a grasp on how you understand the verse to apply to the question of works.

Thanks,
God bless

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

In consideration of the OP, I find Titus 3:5 sheds even more clarity along with Ephesians 2:8-10:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
KJV

Good verse, good version, I agree with it but what's your point?.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[Gyorg]

Well, if it means anything, I think the verse is certainly applicable. I'm just trying to get a grasp on how you understand the verse to apply to the question of works.

Thanks,
God bless

Well, from what I gather the additional in the two sets of scripture [Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5] is the word "righteousness".

I see a 'work' as that in a Biblical context, obedience.

 

[Gyorg]

Good verse, good version, I agree with it but what's your point?.
ILUVLIGHT

See above ^^.

 

[RussT]

Quote from Ryft - “Reformationist - With regard to your original question, I should think that we may regard a work as any actualization of human activity (assuming that mankind is the object of your question, which the context suggests). Any term describing the actualization of human activity, whether that be a thought, an attitude, a behavior, an action, etc., is thereby describing a work. The term is simply not restricted to physical labour or exertion; as an intransitive verb it also includes "mental effort or activity." To observe is a work, to contemplate is a work, a change in attitude is a work, because these are things that we 'do'. (This is notably different from a term which describes something that we 'are', for that is not a work but a property; e.g. female.) “
“Having said that, I wish to contribute a couple of thoughts to this thread.
With regard to salvation and all that it comprises: turning from rebellion against God to faith in him through Christ Jesus (i.e. faith and conversion) is a work; we are agreed that it is not physically demanding but it is nevertheless a work because it is something that one does. "When a man works," Paul notes, "his wages are not credited to him as a gift but as an obligation."

Ryft - I think that is an excellent definition of ‘a work’, and as such I would have no problem with stating that salvation is by works; but, at the same time I would not see that as contradicting Paul when he said that salvation is by grace and not by works. The reason I see no contradiction is because with this definition, faith and conversion are ‘works’. When Paul speaks of ‘works’, he is not referring to ‘faith’. You quoted Rom. 4:4, ”Now to the one working, his wage is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt”. If one reads on however, we see that Paul does not include faith in the ‘works’ he has just referred to. Verse 5 reads, ”but to the one not working but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness”. Paul is contrasting ‘faith’ and ‘works of the law’. This is made clear in Rom.3:27-28,”Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”(see also Gal. 2:16)


Quote from Ryft - “Here is a question that is rarely asked: If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited. How, exactly, does one merit that which is unmerited? No one has ever told me.“


I have a couple of comments on what you wrote here. You state that surely God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; yet in your quote by Mansfield at the bottom of your post, it says, “God is God and He can do whatever He wants….whatever pleases Him.” If God can do whatever He wants, then He most assuredly can damn someone who has placed faith in Christ, but I believe He will not. That is grace. Our faith does not obligate God (in the sense that you use it) to save us. But He graciously saves those who put their faith in Him. You state that grace 'by definition is unmerited'. I found that definition in The American College Dictionary, but I didn’t find that particular definition in Vine’s, nor in the abridged TDNT. Neither of them mentioned ‘merit’ or ‘unmerited’ in their treatment of ‘charis’. If one uses the definition of ‘merit’ as ‘something that entitles to reward’, then I think one could safely say that grace is ‘unmerited’. But, there are examples of ‘grace’ being bestowed on individuals of ‘worth’. For instance, in Gen.6:8, “Noah found favor(Hb.-hen; Gk.-charis) in the eyes of the LORD”. And immediately following, in verse 9, we are told that “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.” In Ex. 33:17, God tells Moses, “you have found favor in My sight.” In Lk 7:2-10, we have Jewish elders coming to Jesus to ask that He heal a centurion’s slave and saying to Jesus that this centurion was ‘worthy’ for Jesus to grant his request, and shortly thereafter the centurion saying that he was not fit for Jesus to come into his house nor worthy for him to have come to Jesus in person. And we see Jesus granting his request and marveling at the faith of this non-Jew. (Perhaps those who are truly worthy are those who consider themselves unworthy.) Although not specifically mentioned as ‘worthy’, I would argue that Cornelius(Acts 10) was found worthy by God and as such was the first Gentile convert. I don’t think that we can force God to do what doesn’t please Him by some ‘meritorious work’. In Paul's usage, 'meritorious works' are 'works of law'. Faith does not fit into that category.

I would pose a question: What obligates God? If God makes a promise, is He obligated to it? If God makes a covenant with a person or with a nation, is He obligated by it?

God bless!

 

[Reformationist]

Ryft - I think that is an excellent definition of ‘a work’, and as such I would have no problem with stating that salvation is by works; but, at the same time I would not see that as contradicting Paul when he said that salvation is by grace and not by works. The reason I see no contradiction is because with this definition, faith and conversion are ‘works’. When Paul speaks of ‘works’, he is not referring to ‘faith’. You quoted Rom. 4:4, ”Now to the one working, his wage is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt”. If one reads on however, we see that Paul does not include faith in the ‘works’ he has just referred to. Verse 5 reads, ”but to the one not working but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness”. Paul is contrasting ‘faith’ and ‘works of the law’. This is made clear in Rom.3:27-28,”Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”(see also Gal. 2:16)

So if we are justified by faith apart from our obedience to the law, from whence does the faith come by which we stand before God justified?

I have a couple of comments on what you wrote here. You state that surely God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; yet in your quote by Mansfield at the bottom of your post, it says, “God is God and He can do whatever He wants….whatever pleases Him.” If God can do whatever He wants, then He most assuredly can damn someone who has placed faith in Christ, but I believe He will not. That is grace. Our faith does not obligate God (in the sense that you use it) to save us. But He graciously saves those who put their faith in Him.

While I agree that salvation is unmerited, I think that God's own promise to bless with salvation those who have put their faith in Him is our assurance that God cannot go against Himself and deny that which He promised by faith. I don't say this to imply an obligation on God's part but, rather, an acknowledgement that God is a covenant keeper.

But, there are examples of ‘grace’ being bestowed on individuals of ‘worth’.

The inherent worth of the creation derives its value from the Creator. Therefore, those whom you feel are appropriately labeled "individuals of worth" are not the recipients of God's grace because of any "worth" that stems from something separate to that which God bestows upon them.

I would pose a question: What obligates God? If God makes a promise, is He obligated to it? If God makes a covenant with a person or with a nation, is He obligated by it?

I think it's a fair question and, in answer, I believe only God's own promises obligate Him, but only in the sense that His very nature requires that He remain true to His righteousness. I don't necessarily feel that "obligate" is appropriate verbiage because of the general connotation that the obligation is imposed from without, rather than within. In God's case, however, He does obligate Himself when He promises something covenantly.

God bless

 

[nobdysfool]

As far as the idea of "obligation" goes, with regard to God, it isn't that He is obligated to any man (He's not), He is obligated to Himself.

He is a God of Covenants, and any covenant is only as good as its guarantor. Since He does not change ( a self-proclaimed attribute He Himself has stated), if He has promised to do something, there is no possibility that He won't do it.

By saying He does not change, He is saying that He will not say one thing, and do another, or fail to fulfill that which He has promised.

 

[Ryft]

I think that is an excellent definition of ‘a work’, and as such I would have no problem with stating that salvation is by works; but, at the same time I would not see that as contradicting Paul when he said that salvation is by grace and not by works. The reason I see no contradiction is because with this definition, faith and conversion are ‘works’.

I submit that it does contradict Paul, and the whole counsel of Scripture with respect to the plan of salvation. Allow me to explain, if you will.

1. If, on your view, "salvation is by works,"
2. and if, in this context, 'works' refers to "the actualization of human activity,"
3. then you are found to be confessing that salvation is by a human activity.
​

I would be failing my duty as your brother in Christ if I did not strongly caution you against such a view. "If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" These are very strong words by the apostle Paul but his severity is not inappropriate: there is only one true gospel, established by Christ and faithfully transmitted by his apostles who later set it down as Scripture, and this true gospel is that "salvation is found in no one else [but Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

God's sovereign purpose is the cause of salvation and its ground is singularly the perfect vicarious sacrifice of Christ Jesus—and nothing else, for it was the entire sum of his life, death, and resurrection that alone victoriously procured the atonement of sinners, "apart from any supplementary work of man," writes George Smeaton, "or any merit of our own, appended to the work of atonement." After his resurrection, the exalted Christ ascended on high and sat at the right hand of the Father. Redemption, accomplished once for all by Christ, is now through Christ applied by the Spirit to those who belong to God, through means purposed by him, until the day of their glorification and the final restoration of all things.

Salvation is not—and could never be—by any human activity for one rather simple reason: 'atonement' is involved in removing the ground of the enmity and alienation that exists between man and God, which is sin along with its debt and guilt; to put the matter more briefly and obviously, man can offer no merit toward the 'solution' since, in his fallen state, he is the whole 'problem'. As Spurgeon observed, "All your meditations upon the evil of sin, and all your shiverings at the punishment of it, and all your soul-humblings and prostrations will never kill sin. It is at the cross that God has set up a mighty gibbet upon which He hangeth sin for ever, and putteth it to death." It is we who are the debtors, it is we who need redeeming. The one procuring atonement must be sinless; he who bears sin's penalty is of no use to anyone if it turns out that he is bearing the eternal penalty of his own sin. (The sacrificial lamb had to be without blemish; what else do you suppose this typified?) In Christ alone is our salvation grounded.

I do not mean to suggest that man plays no part at all. Man is actively involved in his own salvation but only in certain aspects of the means thereof, never in its ground or cause. This is a convenient segue into the next point I wanted to bring up that is particularly relevant to your post. Faith and repentance, which together we tend to describe as the conversion experience, are indeed regarded appropriately as 'works' in the sense of actualized human activity, but they are not the ground of salvation. What I mean is this: faith is the instrument of salvation, not the ground thereof. It is the grace of God realized through the perfect work of Christ that is the ground of our salvation; the faith which we invest in him (described succinctly by John Murray as that "whole-souled act of loving trust and self-commitment") is the instrument of salvation, i.e. the means by which we enter into this Christ-procured grace that saves. It is Christ that saves; it is through faith that we are in Christ. Christ is the ground of salvation; faith is the instrument of salvation. What we do does not save us; what Christ did saves us, and what we do is simply (yet significantly) access this redemption already purchased by him who is our only surety. As Benjamin Warfield so aptly phrased it, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." Ergo, while we may apprehend and exhibit saving faith, that does not itself secure salvation to any degree. Salvation is indeed by works—but Christ's, not ours.

You state that surely God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; yet in your quote by Mansfield at the bottom of your post, it says, "God is God and He can do whatever He wants . . . whatever pleases Him." If God can do whatever He wants, then He most assuredly can damn someone who has placed faith in Christ, but I believe He will not. That is grace.

This misses the thrust of what I had said, and it is a curiousity that you missed it since it was included when you quoted me. To recapitulate, what I had said was, "Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ." One might speculate that God could, if he wanted, damn someone who has placed faith in Christ, but to do so would not be just; such a notion consequently blasphemes God's holy name. This is therefore the very hub upon which my remark rests: If we take God seriously, in accordance with what he has revealed of himself in Scripture, then it follows necessarily that God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ, for God is just and immutably so. "Our faith does not obligate God to save us, in the sense that you use it," you had said. It does obligate God if that faith is of human origin and if God is just. A just and holy God cannot damn someone who has authentically placed faith in Christ. A just God must save such a person. It is for this reason that I said (re-emphasis supplied):

The question is, "To what is God obligated: man or his own holy nature?" We can see that if faith is of human origin then God is obligated to man, but if belief and faith are themselves gifts then God is obligated to his own holy nature—and salvation is then by God's merciful grace, and not by an obligation to man.
​

In Paul's usage, 'meritorious works' are 'works of law'. Faith does not fit into that category.

Unless, of course, believing on the name of his Son Jesus Christ is a commandment of God, in which case it would fit into that category (1 John 3:23). If God commands something, it is law; and 'works of the law' are 'meritorious works'.

I would pose a question: What obligates God? If God makes a promise, is He obligated to it? If God makes a covenant with a person or with a nation, is He obligated by it?

What God is obligated to is his own nature (e.g. 2 Tim. 2:13; Psa. 33:4 & Joh. 17:17, cf. Tit. 1:2 & Heb. 6:18, etc).

 

[RussT]

So if we are justified by faith apart from our obedience to the law, from whence does the faith come by which we stand before God justified?


I guess my response to your question of where our faith comes from would be to say that it comes from the same God-given faculty whereby we make choices of any kind. If one allows that God has given and continues to give us humans the ability and responsibility to make choices at all, whether that be to decide the color of shirt to wear, or whether to tell someone that we love them, then it would seem to me that we also have the ability to choose to put our faith in Him or not. That is not to say that we alone in and of ourselves determine the outcome of our choices. If I decide to get in my car and go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, there are all sorts of other factors that come into play in determining whether or not my decision results in actually buying the loaf of bread,i.e. whether my car starts, whether I wreck on the way to the store, whether the store has bread, etc.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I guess my response to your question of where our faith comes from would be to say that it comes from the same God-given faculty whereby we make choices of any kind. If one allows that God has given and continues to give us humans the ability and responsibility to make choices at all, whether that be to decide the color of shirt to wear, or whether to tell someone that we love them, then it would seem to me that we also have the ability to choose to put our faith in Him or not.

So your contention is that all people have faith in God, some just choose to not put that faith in Him? IOW, faith in God is an inherent and inalienable element of our constituent nature, is that it?

Tell me, when the non-believer adamantly denies the existance and authority of God, are they simply lying about their true belief in God?

If you would, please define faith as it relates to salvation. I ask because I understand that there are three distinct, and necessary elements of faith and I fail to see how those elements can exist in the heart of a non-believer.

God bless