Q & A: Is faith the efficient cause of salvation? Part Deux
There have been some responses and counter responses to this issue that merit this as a posting. I will post the answers given by Reformation Theology and then the subsequent responses. This makes it better than going to see the comments all the time.
Original:
My critique of this common response:
Dear Alejandra K. Cares Henriquez
Thanks for your extended response. A few things need to be said with regard to your assertions:
you said >>>>
By grace through faith you are saved, NOT, by grace you can have faith and are saved.
Actually it is not grace PLUS faith that one is saved but grace through faith. Faith is the instrument which takes hold of Christ and his work, but it has no redemptive value in itself. It is the Holy Spirit which unites us to Christ through faith, not because of it. We all agree that a person must believe for justification before God. But no one is naturally willing to submit to the gospel (Rom 3:11, 12; John 3:3). Faith is not part of the price of redemption, as you would have it. Look at the context of the passage you are quoting: it says, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] quickened us (made us alive) together with Christ–by grace you have been saved." In other words, an unregenerate man who does not have the Holy Spirit, cannot understand spiritual things, they are foolishness to him (1 Cor 2:14). Apart from the Holy Spirit, man has no free will to believe the gospel. His will is in bondage to the corruption of nature. Are you claiming that a person, dead in sin, blind, deaf to the things of God, desires Christ apart from a supernatural work of the Spirit? There is overwhelming evidence to overthrow this false understanding.
C.H. Spurgeon, in his "Fire: the Want of the Times" once said:
"Brethren, there is nothing in the gospel, apart from the Spirit of God, which can save a man, for man hates the gospel with all his heart! Though the reasonableness of the gospel of Jesus ought to make the belief of it universal, yet its plain dealing with human sin excites deadly antagonism. Therefore, the gospel itself would make no progress were it not for the divine power. There is an invisible arm which pushes forward the conquests of the truth. There is a fire unfed with human fuel, which burns a way for the truth of Jesus Christ into the hearts of men."
Your response presupposes that man has a 'free will' but does the the Bible gives any evidence of this?. May I ask where the Bible tells us a man has a free will, or are you using unaided logic alone to draw this conclusion? It appears, from my perspective at least, that you are claiming that, apart from the Holy Spirit opening his heart, a person, of his natural strength, can open their own dark heart to the light having a natural desire for spiritual things. But can the unspiritual desire the spiritual? Does the unspiritual have the mind of Christ that he might understand spiritual things? More
Response:
Dicendum est (it ought to be said) that two things must be considered to resolve whether or not the will is involved in being saved. First, the argument against the will’s inability to respond to God. Second, in what sense is the will a cause of being saved.
The will’s inability to respond to God
Some people, Calvinists, interpret "dead in our sins" and "spiritually dead" as incapable to respond to God because dead things do not respond. The spirit in the unsaved man is dead, therefore, it cannot respond.
However, the Calvinist’s interpretation is based on a false analogy, for to say a thing is "spiritually dead" does not entail that it is unresponsive. Consider Satan who is a spirit and who is alive. Is Satan spiritually alive and the unbeliever spiritually dead? If the unbeliever is spiritually dead afortiori Satan is also spiritually dead. Yet, one finds Satan responding to God in the book of Job. Thus, it is not the case that a spiritually dead entity cannot respond to God.
Furthermore, in every metaphor, which is a form of analogy, there is a part that is similar and a part that is dissimilar. Moreover, metaphors communicate similarity in action. Unfortunately, the Calvinist has erred by grasping on to the dissimilar aspect of the analogy: unresponsiveness. Instead, of grasping to the part of the analogy that is similar: separation.
Physical death is the separation of body and soul. Similarly, Spiritual death is the separation of a person from God. However, the separation is not ontological; rather, it is relational. Thus, to say, that a person is “spiritually dead” means that the person is NOT rightly related to God, whereas to say that a person is “spiritually alive” means that the person IS rightly related to God. So, when a person goes from being "spiritually dead" to "spiritually alive," one does not go from unresponsive to responsive as the Calvinist would have us believe; rather, one goes from not being rightly related to God to being rightly related to God.
Causality and the will
The person is speaking metaphorically when he says that faith is the "instrument." All instruments (e.g., hammers) are instrumental causes when used, but not all instrumental causes are instruments. Faith is an instrumental cause, but it is not an "instrument." Properly speaking, faith is in an "act of the will," which is instrumental in salvation unless one is a Calvinist who denies that man's will has any bearing on salvation.
Moreover, salvation is not a thing; properly speaking salvation is an "act performed by God." That is why one cannot give back salvation because it was never a thing (e.g., a stone, a gift box, etc.), which can be exchanged between two persons. The term salvation is the substantive form of "being saved" in the same manner that "grasp" is the substantive form of "grasping." For example, when I say, I have a pen in my grasp, I am saying, "I am grasping a pen." Thus, an action "grasping" is being expressed in language as a noun "grasp." The same applies to the term "salvation." Thus, both faith and salvation are acts: the former is performed by man and the latter is performed by God.
Think of it this way, when Peter was sinking, he realized his lost condition and cried Lord save me, and immediately Jesus reached down and saved him. The same is true about us, when we realize our lost condition, we cry out (an act of our will) Lord save us, and it is He who reaches down and saves us. Thus, the cry for help is initiated by us, and our believing that He is able to save us is the impetus for our crying out. Yet, crying out for help and believing that He can save us will not save us unless God reaches down and saves us. Were faith an efficient cause of salvation, one could be saved apart from God, which is not possible according to Scripture.
Reformation Theology:
Your comment> Some people, Calvinists, interpret "dead in our sins" and "spiritually dead" as incapable to respond to God because dead things do not respond. The spirit in the unsaved man is dead, therefore, it cannot respond. However, the Calvinist’s interpretation is based on a false analogy, for to say a thing is "spiritually dead" does not entail that it is unresponsive. Consider Satan who is a spirit and who is alive. Is Satan spiritually alive and the unbeliever spiritually dead? If the unbeliever is spiritually dead afortiori Satan is also spiritually dead. Yet, one finds Satan responding to God in the book of Job. Thus, it is not the case that a spiritually dead entity cannot respond to God."
Thanks for your post. Please take the time to read why I think you may misunderstand thus making your comments erroneous and inconsistent. .. "dead in sin" simply is man's condition apart form the Holy Spirit [out of union with Christ]. The man without the Spirit does not understand the things of God and thinks they are foolish (1 Cor 1:14). You do admit that the natural man does not have the Holy Spirit, do you not?
So, in other words, by default, you are claiming that an unregenerate person is MORALLY ABLE and can be responsive to the gospel APART from ANY assistance from the Holy Spirit, correct? Please respond by posting what man and his will is able to do in the face of preaching the gospel if the Holy Spirit does nothing to open his blind eyes or illuminate his mind? Left to himself, what is his condition? Can he believe? Does he want to? Does a person without the Holy Spirit understand spiritual things? Can a natural man see beauty and excellency in Christ and His salvation? Will a man humble himself apart from grace to make him humble? Are some people more humble by nature, is that why they believe and others don't?
What Calvinists believe is just what the Scriptures do … like the following:
"we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction."
In other words, while the preaching of the gospel is necessary it is not sufficient to persuade. We can teach till we are blue in the face and people will not believe unless the Spirit works in the heart of the sinner. The Scripture says he knows they are chosen BECAUSE the the gospel came not only in WORD but in the power of the Spirit.
The Text also says that "no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by from the Holy Spirit."
1 Corinthians 12So any so-called gospel such as yours which preaches that we CAN believe apart form the Holy Spirit … i.e. that man has the natural moral ability to turn to Christ apart from God's help, is teaching pelagianism.
Now if you admit the need for the Holy Spirit AT ALL, that He is necessary for salvation then you have just admitted that man IS "dead in sin" and cannot even lift a finger toward his own salvation. So either way, your theology has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false.
So you need to admit that you are you are misrepresenting God.
Can man believe apart from any help of the Holy Spirit? no .. so he is dead in sin, unless Christ sets him free. Remember when we speak of this we are speaking of man's condition apart from the Spirit bringing Him into union with Christ.
By the way, Satan is spiritual dead. He is sealed in unrighteousness. He is a lair and the father of lies. Any obedience he gives to God does not come from a renewed heart, or one that loves God, but rather is slavish and based entirely on his own interests or because he has to. And this obedience is not redemptive. He can do himself no redemptive good. "Without faith it is impossible to please God". Satan has not placed his faith in Christ alone and he will not. God has already sentenced him to his doom. In fact, God has not provided any help or atonement whatsoever for fallen angels, as He did for man. Talk about being spiritually dead.
Related Essay
Do Humans Have More Freedom Than God
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/do_humans_have_more_freedom_th_1.phpPosted by: John H. | July 28, 2006 07:11 PM
Restatement of the argument (for their clarification and response):
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 preachedConsider 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 cry out 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 cry out 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.
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 deaf; 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 good 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.
David M's clarification on the uses of faith:
Well, the article above was pointing out faith in so far as it is an act of the will. Actually, 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 volitional faith - the will - is the faculty or power of the soul 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 wooing 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.
1 comment.
Does believing the gospel save us? »« Thomas and Protestants: A Second Chance for Thomas
I think I read Ephesians 2:8-9 wrong for years. "It is by grace that you are saved through faith.."
I always emphasized "by grace" and "through faith."
It do not think it means we are somehow saved through our faith, but rather it is by grace that our faith (regardless of if it is a gift or a choice) means anything. Without grace, our faith would be meaningles..