Q & A: Is faith the efficient cause of salvation?

could we state it better, as faith instead of the cause, be the effect, or result of salvation(ie God reaching out to us)

Well, the article above was pointing out faith in so far as it is an act of the will. Actualy there are several distinctions that must be made as it relates to faith in general.

Borrowing from Peter Kreeft’s classification, there are four aspects or dimensions to faith in general. They are:

1. Emotional Faith - This is an assurance or confidence that an act or a person will come through for you. This includes hope which is stronger than wishing.

2. Intellectual faith - This is what you believe, despite if your emotions tell you to the contrary. As Kreeft quotes, “it is an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe everything God has revealed on the grounds of the authority of the One who revealed it.”

3. Volitional Faith - This reflects the manner in which the above article was using faith. this manifests itself in the act of willing. This is where its more behavioral more than anything. Again, “for the root of voiltional faith - the will - is the faculty or power of thesoul that is closest to the prefunctional and center called the ‘heart.’”

4. The heart faith - This is the deepest most center part of our soul. The center is where the God the Holy Spirit works in and through us. Because of the grace that God fore-gave us and the whooing of His Spirit is that we are able to respond to God according to his predetermined will. You see, it is not because of our faith (efficient cause), or despite our faith (strong Calvinism), but in accordance to our faith (instrumental cause) that we are able to respond. And I must reiterate what Max said that this is not because of our faith but because of God’s grace.

Hi Guys,
Let me make the following clear. No person saves themselves, nor can they contribute to their salvation. We are incapable of saving ourselves. Only God can save.

The issue between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist is philosophical. How do we know this is the case?

Every passage that would seem to support Arminianism is interpreted differently by the Calvinist, and every passage that would seem to support Calvinism is interpreted differently by the Arminian.

Why is it that two groups of people can read identical text and conclude different interpretations?

The problem cannot be the text, for it has not changed. What else can account for the divergent interpretations?

Answer: Philosophical presuppositions concerning the nature of man, the basis for Goodness, the nature of causality, etc.

In other words, the Calvinist and the Arminian (either wittingly or unwittingly) are using their philosophical presupposition concerning freedom, determinism, etc. to interpret the Scripture, and then they use their interpretation of the Scripture to conclude freedom, determinism, etc.

Let me given an example: 1 Cor 2:14 clearly states, “He [the natural man] cannot understand them [the things of the Spirit].

Consider the Calvinist interpretation of this text:
P1: The word “understand: ginosko” means “to have knowledge.”
P2: So, 1 Cor 2:14 should be understood as saying that the “natural man” does not have knowledge concerning the things of the Spirit.
P3: The “natural man” is the unsaved person.
P4: Therefore, the unsaved person cannot have knowledge concerning the things of the Spirit.
P5: The gospel is a “thing of the Spirit.”
P6: Therefore, the unsaved person cannot have knowledge of the gospel.
Calvinist interpretation: intellectually, the unsaved person does not understand what is being said when the gospel is preached

Consider the non-Calvinist interpretation of this text:
P1: The word “understand: ginosko” means “to acknowledge.”
P2: So, 1 Cor 2:14 should be understood as saying that the “natural man” does not acknowledge the things of the Spirit.
P3: The “natural man” is the unsaved person.
P4: Therefore, the unsaved person cannot acknowledge the things of the Spirit.
P5: The gospel is a “thing of the Spirit.”
P6: Therefore, the unsaved person cannot acknowledge the gospel.
Non-Calvinist interpretation: intellectually, the unsaved person understands the gospel, but they will not receive the gospel (i.e., acknowledge the gospel).

Words have a semantic range of possible usages. For example the word “cleave” can mean “to divide” or “to join.” Consider the sentence “I will cleave to the axe so that I may cleave the log.” The same word connotes two different meanings in the same sentence, but based on the context, it becomes evident that the first cleave means “to join,” whereas the second cleave means “to divide.”

Similarly, the semantic range of the word “ginosko” can mean any of the following: “to know, to have knowledge of (sexual relations), to find out, to learn, to understand, to perceive, to discern, to have knowledge, to acknowledge, to recognize”

How does the Calvinist decide whether he should interpret the text as “to have knowledge” or “to acknowledge” given that the word can be rightly interpreted one way or another?

The Calvinist relies on his interpretation of “spiritually dead” reasons as follows:
(1) Dead things are unable to respond. (their interpretation of Eph 2:1)
(2) The unsaved man is spiritually dead to the things of God.
(3) Therefore, unsaved men cannot respond to the things of God.
(4) Coming to have knowledge of the gospel is a response to the things of God.
(5) Therefore, the unsaved man cannot have knowledge of the gospel
(6) Consequently, “to acknowledge” cannot be the correct interpretation.

(Notice that the reasoning is invalid. [Affirming a disjunct fallacy] To conclude their position, the Calvinist needs to show why it is impossible to interpret the text as “to acknowledge.”)

(7) Instead, the Calvinist has uses his presupposition concerning human nature and the will to adjudicate as to which interpretation is correct. His notion of man’s ability to choose is not drawn from the text; instead, it is inserted into the text to help him decide how he should interpret.

How does the Arminian decide whether he should interpret the text as “to have knowledge” or “to acknowledge” given that the word can be rightly interpreted one way or another?

The Arminian relies on his notion of freedom and the will.
(1) The will though affected by the fall is still free to choose between two options.
(2) Accepting or rejecting the gospel are two options.
(3) Therefore, the will is free to choose between accepting or rejecting the gospel
(4) Consequently, “to have knowledge” cannot be the correct interpretation.

(Notice that the reasoning is invalid. To conclude their position, the Arminian needs to show why it is impossible to interpret the text as “to have knowledge.”)

(5) Instead, the Arminian uses his presupposition concerning human nature and the will to adjudicate as to which interpretation is correct. His notion of man’s ability to choose is not drawn from the text; instead, it is inserted into the text to help him decide how he should interpret.

The philosophical presuppositions concerning human nature and the will, which they unwittingly accepted when they where indoctrinated as Calvinists or Arminians, are what divides the Calvinist and the Arminian.

So given the Arminian’s presuppositions concerning human nature and the will, he will say that the human intellect and will have been effaced, but they have not been obliterated; thus, man can still recognize his own sinfulness and cryout to God, and in response, because of God’s great grace and mercy, God saves the man who asked to be save.

On the contrary, the Calvinist will that that the human intellect and will have been obliterated when it comes to the things of God; so, man cannot respond to God. Thus, no man is able to recognize his own sinfulness and cryout to God. Rather, God must first regenerate the sinner before the sinner can believe the gospel.

In sum, instead of arguing over the interpretation of the text, the Calvinist and the Arminian ought to argue concerning the presupposition that they are using to interpret the text, for the Arminian-Calvinistic debate is not a problem with a biblical text, which is flawless; rather, the problem is with the presuppositions that both groups are bringing to the text.

In Him
Max

Oops, I forgot something. Remember that we had stated that context determines which meaning should be used (e.g., cleave).

Similarly, in 1 Cor 2:14, one finds that verse 14 is contrasted with verse 1 Cor 2:12-13. In verse 12, it is evident that the believers “ACCEPTS: Greek:elabomen” those things taught by the Holy Spirit, so given the contrast within context, “ginosko” should be understood as “to acknowledge.”

So, it is not the case that the non-believer does not understand in the sense that they do not know the meaning of what is being said. Instead, the unbeliever is guilty for rejecting that which he or she understands. Were the Calvinist correct, then the preaching of the gospel to the unsaved is like shouting to the blind; it is of null effect. Moreover, God would hold the unsaved accountable for their sins among which is the rejection of the gospel, which they are unable to understand, but underlying voluntarism in Calvinism that is not an ethical problem for the Calvinist because goodness, for the Calvinist, is determined by whatever God wills.

A logically consistent Calvinist will conclude that God is the author of God and evil. That is why although I disagree with the proclamation of John Robbins (www.trinityfoundation.org), yet I respect him for he is logically consistent and concludes that God is the author of God, and God is the author of evil. Finally, a logically consistent Calvinist.

Blessings
Max

Typos:
but given the underlying voluntarism in . . .
God is the author of good and evil.