Saving faith content

Among those who believe that one is saved by faith alone ("free grace" folks), there is a difference of viewpoint as to what the content of saving faith (cosf).

There are some differences about the nature of faith and how it relates to the will.    But putting that aside for now…the cosf is an issue that has created division and hostility between those who use to work together and were friends.

Whatever view one takes on the cosf, it is agreed among free grace folks that salvation is not a result of one’s own righteousness, but that righteousness (called “justification”) by which we are saved is conferred (or imputed or reckoned) when one believes that cosf. 

Free grace folks would not equate the faith by which we are saved with the works that the Apostle Paul said that do not save us.  Faith in Christ for salvation is to be distinguished from the works of the Law or righteousness (which we have done).

 

Free grace folks would agree that salvation is received through faith in Christ. Yet they would associate more content to that faith in Christ.  Now I know some would say there are prerequisites that one must believe, about God and man, but the cosf  is really the issue. 

Whatever one is believing when salvation takes place, is what one has to believe when salvation takes place-it would seem.   It may seem that one would need to believe other things to get to that point, but that really is another issue.  Because a person could believe a lot of right and true things and not be saved.  Whatever a person believes when salvation takes place is what he has to believe for salvation to take place.   But what is that?

What is the content that is to be believed when salvation takes place?  And does that content communicate with certainty to the believer that salvation has taken place?  I ask this because one would think that if the content does not include assurance of salvation, what and why are they believing, if there is no outcome revealed in the content? Why would one believe in something unless it calls for belief and promises an outcome worth believing in?

For example, if I said that Jesus died for your sins and said nothing else, I haven’t communicated to him what the outcome is.   If I tell them that Jesus died for their sins, and they need to believe in him, I gave them more content, but I still haven’t communicated what the outcome of that is.   If I tell them that Jesus died for their sins, and if they believe that, they will be saved, I’ve given them content that includes an outcome that includes assurance of salvation, an outcome that requires a response of faith in not only that Jesus died for their sins, but that if they believe in Him, they will be saved.  (Now I haven’t explained what Jesus dying for sins can mean in this content, such as Jesus’ death satisfied the righteous demands against our sins by which God is able to justify and regenerate us, but if that was explained, there still would need to be communicated how God justifies and regenerates or saves since the death of Christ for sin does not automatically result in salvation to everyone.) 

Most would probably include the outcome with the content of saving faith, but what about how the outcome is received?  Some would identify the faith by which we are saved as just the response (and some may even call faith a kind of work), but it is part of the content.  Doesn’t one have to know and believe they are saved by faith?  

If you believe Christ died for all, and all are not saved, then how can one know they are saved, even if they believe Jesus died for their sins?  If his death didn’t save everyone, then how do you know it saves you?  (Some believe Christ’s death took everyone’s sins away in a judicial sins sense, while others believe the judicial remission of sins does not happen until one believes, but in either case, no one is automatically saved because Jesus died for them; salvation is still conditional.)  

How can one know they are saved?  Do they have to know they are saved by faith?    Does one have to believe they are saved by faith to be saved?  For if the death of Christ is for all, and not all are saved, how do you know you are saved, even if you believe Jesus died for your sins.

It would help if there were some biblical accounts of people getting saved in response to words spoken that we could examine every detail of the message.

What about the Cornelius account?  He was to send for Peter who would “tell him words by which [he] …would be saved.” (Acts 11.14)  When we examine those words, we have content spoken that is immediately followed by Cornelius’ salvation, evident by his speaking in tongues. (Some believe Cornelius was already an Old Testament Gentile saint, since he feared God and was a godly man, and even if that is true, his salvation had to be connected with believing certain words about Jesus--maybe for his sake and a Jew like Peter to know how Gentiles are saved).

Peter said: “To Him All the prophets bear witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10.43)  Prior to this, Peter makes references to Jesus being proclaimed throughout Judea, and Cornelius knew about this.  Peter makes reference to Jesus being killed and resurrected and the judge of the living and dead.  He then says that whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. 

Peter doesn’t really explain the value of Christ’s death, he only says that by believing in him, one receives remission of sins, which I understand to be the same as being saved from sin.  But we see here the need for faith in Christ ("whoever believes in Him")—which everyone in the content debate should agree on, and the response of faith that brings an outcome of remission of sins.   I think we need to see all this as the content:  salvation (11.14) is a result in believing in Jesus for remission of sins, and this was the witness of the prophets.  The means and the outcome are both there.  I think a proper understand of Jesus' divine authority has to be included, though it isn't really brought out.  But Cornelius could have had a similar understanding as the Samaritans who anticipated the Messiah who would be the Savior of the world.

How do I know I have salvation or the remission of sins?  Because the Words of Scripture says that if you believe in Him, Jesus, you will receive remission of sins.  Obviously, I am believing in Him for the remission of sins, because that is what is offered or prophesied or promised in the words.  If the purpose of the coming of Peter was to speak words by which Cornelius would be saved, and Peter spoke the words, and Cornelius believed and was saved, then we have a biblical example of the content of saving faith.   If Cornelius was already saved, then his salvation was to be connected specifically with believing in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and son of God who would suffer for sin and give forgiveness of sins to all who believed in him for it.  That connection was for the benefit of both Cornelius and Peter--who still had to learn that gentiles could be saved just like Jews by faith alone in the Christ and Savior.

A Measure of Free Will

I believe we have a certain measure of free will.   I believe that measure of free will has to do with the ability to make choices, even of a spiritual nature.  The argument is over there is any ability to make any kind of choices of a spiritual nature due to one’s fallen, sinful nature.

 

Free will does not mean one can do something he was not created to do, like choose to grow wings and fly like a bird.   Some will argue that one cannot respond to God positively because of his fallen nature, and this is why will require regeneration before one can respond, while others will say it’s not regeneration, but something like it—like a “quickening” (using the King James language in Ephesians 2.5) in which one is able to believe the gospel, and then they receive regeneration.  I would seriously question that there is both a quickening and a regeneration, because the quickening is really just another term for being made alive which is the same as regeneration:  it is the impartation of eternal life.  Whether one is regenerated or “quickened,” they surely mean the same thing, but I believe Scripture is clear that regeneration happens when we believe, not before we believe. 

 

Some (or many) believe in “total depravity,” which says one is totally unable to respond to God positively.  According to this total depravity, if man has any free will, it is within the limits of his total depravity, and that depravity is such that for him to respond to God, there must be regeneration or a quickening of some sort first.  

 

There was this guy who use to ridicule the idea of free will with a fictional story.  He told the story about a boy who grew up in a home in which his father told him that chocolate ice cream was bad for him, that it was poison, and if he ate it, he would die.  This was constantly taught to the child.  So, when the father and son went to get ice cream, and the offer was made to him of either vanilla or chocolate, he would obviously choose vanilla.  He could not by his free will choose chocolate because of his conditioning.  But this story leaves out the fact that one could be persuaded contrary to what he was always taught and accepted as true.  Choices are not always made in such an environment as this story, but even in such an environment, what difference could it have made if a reliable source and demonstration showed that the father was a liar?  What if the grandfather came along and told the boy that his father was not truthful, that he loved chocolate and always tried to keep it all to himself.  The grandfather said Chocolate ice cream is not poisonous, and to demonstrate it, he ate some in his presence.  The boy could know that his father lied, and so could actually then choose to have it.  This is the part the guy would leave out: the power of persuasion by demonstration to change one’s mind.  This is where free will actually does work, because through demonstration and persuasion, one can choose differently, even against previous beliefs and feelings. It is how I understand repentance as the resolve to think or do differently due to persuasion.

 

This is why God in Romans 11.11 can be said to be seeking to provoke the Jews to jealousy by salvation coming to the gentiles.  (I think this salvation is probably more than justification, but the purpose of God to have a people for his name through the gentiles.)  Why would God need to do this if he just needed to “quicken” or regenerate them to believe?  God, by putting gentiles into a role of privilege and blessing as the people for his purpose, just as previously was the nation of Israel, could stir up the unbelieving Jews to what they had missed, and then some might choose to seek the truth about the person of Jesus and come to the knowledge of salvation through faith in Jesus for salvation.  

 

Free will involves the ability to choose between different options.  Sometimes, a choice that seems very unlikely can be helped along by persuasion and repentance.  People can be persuaded to make choices contrary to what they prefer or desire, because they are persuaded otherwise.  It may be that some our more stubborn than others, or more fearful.  The reasons why some respond one way and others another is complex.  But if we are talking about salvation, why is it any different than anything else people agree and disagree on?  Why is it we make responding to the way of eternal life different than the way people respond to anything else?  I think because of certain theology that is so engrained in the thinking of so many.  Some are willing to be persuaded otherwise.  It’s probably often the case that one won’t be persuaded about anything unless they are willing to consider other arguments and have questions. 

 

By a “measure of free will,” I believe we have the capacity to make choices and to have a change of mind, if we are willing to consider different viewpoints and evidence that may be contrary to what we have believed before.  

Socialization and homeschool

When my wife and I decided to homeschool our children, and one of the concerns I heard was "what about their socialization?

Socialization (definition):
noun 1. the activity of mixing socially with others.
"Socialization with students has helped her communication skills."
2. the process of learning to behave in a way that is acceptable to society.
"Preschool starts the process of socialization."

We were not so concerned about this.  

My main concern was over the content of the teaching and the philosophy that the school material and the individual teachers would try to promote.

Children should learn their social skills primarily from their parents and maybe grandparents.  If parents do not provide a good example and try to instill proper behavior around others, I think it will be more difficult for their children to have good social skills.

Children can still have contact with other children through siblings, other relatives, neighbors and friends.  They also can have interaction with children at church.

Other children can often have a bad influence on your children.  There is usually pressure from other children to do things you know you shouldn't.

Kids in school are a varied bunch of immature characters.  I made some friends in school, but we didn't always get along.  Kids can be mean and form their little cliques.    Few kids are able to stand alone when the group is doing something they shouldn't, and I think this is a real concern for parents who want to instill certain values in their children, for they are under the pressure to adopt the behavior of the group of kids they are socializing with.  That pressure often involves some alcohol drinking, drug use, premarital sex or pornography, vandalism, and just rebellious behavior.  The socialization of the public school makes this easier to participate in, because so many are doing it.  I saw it all going on back in the mid 70's, so the need for socialization by the public school doesn't interest me. 

The majority of children in school have little or no exposure to the Bible, and that includes teachers, so don't be surprised if your children become even more alienated to spiritual things.  The public school is not a place for Christian education, but it makes it more difficult when the teaching has a subtle philosophy that is antichristian.