I cannot believe the wild success that I've achieved against Calvinists with a "new" argument that I've developed. It stems from the series of my recent articles addressing the Protestant favorite proof-text: "for by grace you have been saved through faith, this is not of yourself, it is a gift from God; it is not of works, so that nobody may boast". The Protestant mindset is that Paul's frequent contrast of "faith vs works" means faith is good because it comes from God, while works are bad because they come from man. But it's silly to put faith in opposition to works for a Christian since both faith and good works are gifts from God, both produced by God's regenerating power within the person. In other words, it is impossible for a Christian to produce good works apart from God! We can see this absurdity of categorizing "works come from man" versus "faith coming from God" by looking at a few of the very texts Calvinist Protestants point to in support of their doctrine of Regeneration:
- 1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes in Jesus has already been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
- Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.
- Rom 6:13 present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
- James 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
- Phil 2:12 Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
As you can see here, anyone who does good works has been enabled by God to do so, and in fact God is the one producing the good works within them. Notice that none of these texts limit God's gift to merely faith, but rather to good works in general. Thus "obey his commandments" above is just as much a product of Regeneration as is believing in Jesus. This completely undermines the Protestant paradigm of "faith vs works" because now they must read it as "Holy Spirit produced faith versus Holy Spirit produced works," which is nonsense. We can bring out this absurdity even further within another key Protestant passage, Romans 4, where Paul mentions Abraham. We must certainly think Abraham was "Regenerated" since otherwise he wouldn't have been able to believe in the first place. Thus, Romans 4 should actually look like this from the Reformed perspective:
2 For if [regenerate] Abraham was justified by [regenerate good] works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “[regenerate] Abraham believed God, and his [regenerate] faith was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the [regenerate] one who [produces regenerate] works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the [regenerate] one who does not [regenerately] work but [regenerately] believes in him who justifies the [regenerate] ungodly, his [regenerate] faith is counted as righteousness. Just as [regenerate] David also speaks of the blessing of the [regenerate] one to whom God counts righteousness apart from [regenerate] works.
Look how outrageous this famous text now reads with the Calvinist paradigm applied to it: Why can someone who produces regenerate works not have those counted as a
gift? Why would there be a regenerate person who "does not regenerately
work"? Why would there be a regenerate ungodly person? Keep in mind, Calvinists don't actually read the text this way, but this is how they logically should be reading it. When you show this to them, they realize that it is true, but they also resist it because it is obviously absurd. This demolishes the "gift of faith vs human works" reading they've been projecting on this text all this time. The only possible reading for "works" here that fits is the ceremonial works of the Law.
We can take this one step further by another great text, taken from the words of Jesus: “The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mk 1:15) Jesus was distinguishing repenting from believing here, so Jesus is saying both repentance and faith are needed to be Justified. And we must logically conclude that repenting is just as much a gift as faith is and just as much a result of regeneration. This prompts the devastating question: does this mean "repentance" is a work? The Protestant side mistakenly thinks that anything that isn't "faith" must be categorized as a "work," so they logically are forced to say repentance is a work. But you can see the obvious problem now, for then Jesus would be explicitly saying "faith plus works" saves us. I'm sure some Protestants will attempt to say Repentance isn't actually required for Justification, but this is pure desperation:
We can take this one step further by another great text, taken from the words of Jesus: “The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mk 1:15) Jesus was distinguishing repenting from believing here, so Jesus is saying both repentance and faith are needed to be Justified. And we must logically conclude that repenting is just as much a gift as faith is and just as much a result of regeneration. This prompts the devastating question: does this mean "repentance" is a work? The Protestant side mistakenly thinks that anything that isn't "faith" must be categorized as a "work," so they logically are forced to say repentance is a work. But you can see the obvious problem now, for then Jesus would be explicitly saying "faith plus works" saves us. I'm sure some Protestants will attempt to say Repentance isn't actually required for Justification, but this is pure desperation:
- Acts 2:38 Repent ... for the forgiveness of your sins
- Acts 3:19 Repent that your sins may be blotted out
- Acts 11:18 God has granted repentance that leads to life
- 2 Cor 7:10 repentance that leads to salvation
Since we have proven that Repentance is required for getting justified, we can turn back to the Ephesians 2:8-9 text and ask: where does Repentance fit into the text? Should we read it as: "for by grace you have been saved
through repentance and faith, this is not of yourself, these are a gift from God; it is not
of works, so that nobody may boast". Or read it as: "for by grace you have been saved
through faith, this is not of yourself, it is a gift from God; it is not
of repentance, so that nobody may boast". The Protestant side is trapped. If they say Repentance is a "work," then Paul is saying Repentance doesn't save and (somehow) lets us boast, which is obviously false! But if they say "faith" implies repentance, which it often does, then they just exposed the fact "faith" doesn't automatically mean "only faith," but rather can include other Christian actions. For instance, this forces Protestants to admit that they cannot simply categorize Baptism as a "work". They must either show Baptism is considered a "work" in Paul's mind, or admit that Baptism might very well be implied when Paul talks about faith saving us, such as in Col 2:12-13, "having been buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith".
11 comments:
Nick,
Let me answer the question that is also the title of your latest article. >>Does "Repent and Believe in the Gospel" refute Faith Alone?<<
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No way.
The only way for "repent and believe" to refute sola fide is to misrepresent one or the other. If you define sola fide as the opposite of repent and believe, then the two ideas would be mutually exclusive.
I would like to tell you that no Protestant does this. But some do. Those in the hyper grace and non-Lordship salvation camp effectively pit faith against repentance.
The guardians of sola fide, however, come mainly from the ranks of the Reformed who argue that obedience and repentance are essential. But in exactly what way are they "essential." That's where the dividing line lies.
TBC.....
A Reformed understanding of "repent and believe" in relationship to sola fide would go along these lines.
1. Jesus' command to "repent and believe" is God's prescriptive will for everyone.
2. It is not, however, God's sovereign will to grant faith and repentance to everyone.
3. In order to repent and believe, regenerating grace is necessary. Hence Augustin's prayer: “Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.”
4. Therefore only the elect will truly repent and believe.
5. Thus repentance and belief are like the fruits that tell us the tree is good. They are indicators of a prior regeneration. They are not, however, what makes the tree good. The tree generates the fruit, the fruit doesn't generate the tree.
6. Thus in all Augustinian (and therefore Reformed) understandings of the relationship between faith and works, works are considered essential in the order of knowing.
TBC....
Compare this to all Pelagian-esque (on a sliding scale of semi to full) understandings of the relationship between faith and works:
1. Jesus' command to "repent and believe" is God's antecedent will for everyone.
2. The first half of Augustine's prayer, however, is wrong, for God has either created humanity with an innate ability to repent and believe (so the Pelagians) or He grants them a prevenient, operative grace that enables them to do so if they so choose (so the semi-Pelagians, Arminians and most Roman Catholics).
3. Repentance and belief, therefore, are the basis upon which God considers one to merit entry into the state of grace.
4. Repentance and belief, therefore, are essential to salvation in the order of being. They don't tell us merely who is saved, but also upon what basis.h
So in the Reformed understanding, if there is no evidence of faith and repentance, then there is no basis upon which to affirm that someone is regenerate and therefore in the state of grace. But when there is such evidence, we attribute salvation to grace alone, and not to the repentance and faith, which are the fruits, not the roots of salvation.
Hello Michael,
You said: ///Thus repentance and belief are like the fruits that tell us the tree is good. They are indicators of a prior regeneration. . . . we attribute salvation to grace alone, and not to the repentance and faith, which are the fruits, not the roots of salvation.///
None of this really gets at the heart of what I was arguing in the OP.
First of all, "repent and believe" is not "belief alone," so on a practical level, Sola Fide is unwarranted. This is why I asked when it comes to Ephesians 2:8-9, where does "repentance" fit in, is it in the 'faith' or the 'works' category?
Second, the fact you lump repentance and faith (and I assume good works in general) into the 'fruit' of Regeneration simply affirms what my OP was saying about. It affirms that when we read Romans 4, we must read it as talking about a regenerated Abraham, and thus both faith and works he would be producing would be simply affirming he was regenerate. If both faith and works are necessary fruits to prove regeneration, then to speak of 'faith alone' would be to either deny the works fruit, or to place works fruit in opposition to faith fruit, but neither of those options are feasible. The Reformed reading of Romans 4 should be a harmony of both faith fruit and works fruit coming forth to prove Abraham was regenerated, not that only faith could save Abraham.
Nick>>First of all, "repent and believe" is not "belief alone," so on a practical level, Sola Fide is unwarranted.<<
That's why I was trying to distinguish between those Prots who say that repentance as necessary for salvation and those who do not. All (or at least the vast majority) the original Reformers were in the "those who do" column, while those, mainly from among American evangelicals, who say that you can have Jesus as your savior, without necessarily making him your Lord. They too would claim that they are being faithful to sola fide, but that was never what the principle was meant to convey.
The historic understanding of sola fide does not pit repentance against belief as you seem to be doing here. But your criticism would be valid against a certain kind of Protestant who does.
>> This is why I asked when it comes to Ephesians 2:8-9, where does "repentance" fit in, is it in the 'faith' or the 'works' category?<<
I would caution you not to read things like repentance or baptism in to texts where they are not in view. Go with what it says, not with what it does not say. The text clearly makes salvation entirely a work of Grace and removes from the calculus any work or cooperation on our part. It does not say that we do not work and do not cooperate. It just doesn't attribute salvation to what we do-hence the language "not of yourselves."
So it is entirely possible that Paul had all kinds of human endeavors in mind when he said "by grace through faith" (repentance, baptism, belief, etc.). It's just that he doesn't believe that any of those things in and of themselves is what saves us. In other words, our repentance (per se) doesn't save us, neither does our baptism (per se) and neither does our belief (per se). Only grace. All those things may be considered as part of grace (per accidens). In other words, it is possible that Paul could have understood grace as coming through those things, but not that those things were the cause of salvation themselves-hence the proviso, "not of yourselves."
TBC
Paul understands clearly that spiritually dead people cannot repent, believe and request baptism. A prior work of grace is needed.
The real question concerns the nature of that prior work of grace. Is it a prevenient grace that is operative (working in all to who it is given no matter what? Or is it only cooperative? (Working in only those who allow it to work in them?) Is it given to everyone? Or only some? Does this prevenient grace actually save, or only make us save-able?
Or, as I think Paul would argue, is it efficacious saving grace itself that will ultimately result in final salvation to all to whom it is given?
>>Second, the fact you lump repentance and faith (and I assume good works in general) into the 'fruit' of Regeneration simply affirms what my OP was saying about. It affirms that when we read Romans 4, we must read it as talking about a regenerated Abraham, and thus both faith and works he would be producing would be simply affirming he was regenerate.<<
Agreed. Abraham's faith is the evidence that he was already saved--it is not, strictly speaking--what saved him, for even faith itself is a gift from God.
>>If both faith and works are necessary fruits to prove regeneration,<<
Proof in the order of knowing--not in the order of being. Here, I think, is where you're misunderstanding our view and/or blurring of a very necessary (and very Catholic!) distinction.
>>then to speak of 'faith alone' would be to either deny the works fruit, or to place works fruit in opposition to faith fruit, but neither of those options are feasible. <<
Keep in mind that "faith alone" is always to be understood in opposition to "simple merit." The Reformers use "faith alone" as a shorthand way of expressing Paul's argument for justification by faith apart from works of the law. In Paul's argument found in Romans 3-4, it is simple faith or trust in Jesus, as opposed to any sense of simple merit by law-keeping, that justifies and therefore saves. Sola fide has to be understood in its historical context, just like anything else. When we take it out of that context and play word games, as you are doing here, then we are bound to misrepresent it.
Paul has much more to say about doing good works. But they are never, in Paul's view, what justifies. They are the fruit that comes from one who has already been justified by grace and by faith. In that sense, one could argue that Paul would agree with James that works are the evidence of saving faith. And James would most certainly agree with Paul that works are not some kind of quid pro quo--do works and by them be saved.
>>The Reformed reading of Romans 4 should be a harmony of both faith fruit and works fruit coming forth to prove Abraham was regenerated, not that only faith could save Abraham.<<
It is. No responsible Reformed understanding of Romans 3-4 is making the claim "that only faith could save Abraham." Such talk is theologically and exegetically imprecise, but unfortunately all too common in some Protestant circles.
I'm not sure why Michael Taylor cites Augustine, when Augustine rejects protestant heresy regarding moral inability.
@ Anonymous,
Well, whoeveryouare, it all depends upon what you mean by "moral inability." Augustine, for his part, didn't believe that we could do what God commanded to God's satisfaction. Pelagius disagreed. You sound like you're on Pelagius' side. By any standard, that would make you the "heretic" for affirming that the natural man can fulfill God's commandments.
Paul said this in Romans chapter 8: "7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
Augustine agreed with the Apostle. Pelagius did not, and by and large, neither does most of the Roman Catholic tradition.
"The flesh" can describe all those who are unregenerate. They not only do not fulfill the moral law, they "cannot." That is the sort of "moral inability" that the Augustinian tradition (held by both Protestant and Catholics) affirms.
But here we have to further distinguish between a mechanical compliance and a true and sincere desire to do what is pleasing to God. Paul could say of himself that he was "blameless" as a keeper of the law. But in light of the surpassing knowledge of knowing Jesus himself, he counts his law-keeping as "loss." (You can read about that in Philippians 3). So it's not enough to simply comply. God isn't seeking a bunch of religious law-keepers who give him lip service. He wants hearts that desire to draw near to Him.
Apart from God's grace, no one can have that true desire and therefore apart from God's grace, no one can do what is pleasing to God. That's the gist of Romans 8:7-8, which my tradition affirms unambiguously and which your tradition affirms with one hand, only to deny it with the other. Hence your utter confusion about Augustine and who exactly is the "heretic" in this scenario.
Michael Taylor,
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2020/01/not-by-works-otherwise-grace-is-no.html
Add this to the list:
Acts 26:20 RSV
but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.
Faith Alone, aka, Sola Fide has been refuted ever since Luther created the doctrine and has been refuted ever since in each succeeding generation.
Repentance is not required for eternal life.
The expression the gospel of the kingdom of God in Mark 1:14-15 means the good news that the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus was meaning that he was ready to bring his Kingdom for this generation if the Jews as a nation would repent and believe in him. Of course national repentance and acceptance of the good news didn't happen so Jesus will delay it for the future.
So this is an issue of national deliverance (salvation) and nothing to do with individual salvation.
Other verses of repentance either have to do with temporal and relational forgiveness not positional forgiveness. Or as in 2 Corinthians 7:10 is a repentance of people who are already born again. The believers fall back into sin but then repent and so are saved from the sorrows and troubles that a life of sin creates. This has nothing to do with eternal damnation. Paul rarely mentions repentance at all. The word salvation does not always assume eternal life but temporal deliverance from the consequences of sin.
Post a Comment