Solifidian Answers a Traditionalist's Confusing and Contradictory Position on 'Faith'

For context of this post, please read : Does ‘believe’ and ‘have faith’ mean something different?

What follows is Daniel of Doulogos’ reply to the previous link above (my comment on my blog). What follows this is a reply by none other than Solifidian, to which Daniel replies, to which Solifidian makes a tremendous reply.

The whole reason that I am posting this is that I want you to read Solifidian’s reply! It is excellent and really puts the Free Grace theology and Traditionalist religion into clear distinction.

It is a little long, but it will be WELL worth it!

I hope Solifidian doesn’t mind that I have formatted some of his response.

You may read my response to Daniel of Doulogos' Traditionalistic confusion Answer to Traditionalism's Fatal Error on 'Faith'

==============

Daniel said:

==============
A teacher once explained the pendulum effect to a classroom of students. He demonstrated that with each iteration, because of friction, the pendulum would swing a little less each way, each time.

He showed the mathematics, and demonstrated that this was a scientific certainty - a truth that could not be denied.

He asked the class if they believed that these calculations were true. They all agreed - with each passing iteration the pendulum would lose energy due to friction, and that this loss would be manifested by shortening (ever so slightly) the length of each iterative arc.

Then the teacher took a 600 lb wrecking ball, and suspended it from the main beam which was high enough above the lecture hall to allow a physical demonstration.

He then asked for a volunteer to "test their faith" in the pendulum effect, and so had the volunteer stand flat against one wall - then the professor, with the help of some students pulled the wrecking ball towards the student so that it just lightly touched his nose. He then demonstrated the difference between acknowledging the truth, and having perfect trust in it, by telling the student to remain there.

They let the weight go, and through its silent arc across the room the class was hushed, but as it began to come back, 600 lbs, the student who fully accepted the pendulum truths, upon seeing this weight accelerating towards him - the same stepped to the side in fear before the weight fully returned.

One might argue that the student didn't really believe the maths - or one might come up with some explanation that satisfies their intellectual position, but I recognize, even if you cannot, a grand difference between an intellectual assent that something is certain and true, and a willingness to trust that truth. The first is mere intellectual persuasion, carnal consent that something is fact - the second requires more than an assent to the truth - it requires faith in the pendulum effect. No one can exercise trust in the gospel truth except that God's Spirit enables them - they may, like anyone, accept that it is true - but that is not the same as trusting "in" that truth.

I confess - this seems quite obvious to me, but then, I am not merely articulating it - I lived it. I know full well what it means to believe that God saves people, but to refuse to believe that God will save --ME--. God be praised for the grace He freely bestowed on me so that I was able to exercise faith in what I knew to be true (that is, I was able to believe what I already held to be true - to apply that truth to myself.)

I think your focus on the synonymity (in English) of the words "faith" and "believe", perhaps has clouded your thinking!

Clearly, (even in English!) we see a gulf between acknowledging (assenting to) the truth, and trusting in the truth.

==================

Solifidian said:

==================
I think that Dyspraxic Fundamentalist’s post on Blondina while back did a good job of discussing this concept of faith that Daniel is articulating in his most recent comment.

I posted this excerpt from the internet in the comments of that thread as well, but it seems relevant when these types of discussions occur.

[Quote]
As a child and youth I was taught that in addition to my assent to the propositions that the Scriptures clearly assert are the only necessary and sufficient conditions for salvation that I must also do something more. This usually was presented in the form of an analogy. They said, “You can accept the fact that this chair will hold you if you sit in it but you must actually sit down on it to demonstrate your belief.” But even that is generous. It was not so much said that I must sit down do demonstrate my belief but that I must sit down to complete my belief. In some mysterious way I was expected not only to assert my belief in the saving propositions but also “sit down on the chair.” And I was never told exactly what that meant. In fact, no one could ever tell me what it meant because it didn’t mean anything that could be rationally described. And quite frankly, things that cannot be described rationally cannot be discussed! So I was left with the totally mystical notion that saving faith required a step that could not be described.
[End Quote]

The entire article can be found hereThe author, David Dilling, has posted his bio He is a member of Covenant Presbyterian Church

==================

Daniel said:

==================

I too see some similarities between the chair analogy and my description above.

I personally have heard the chair analogy used, and don't much care for it - it doesn't really picture what it is trying to model very well.

Believe it or not, there are Satanists who intellectually acknowledge that the gospel is true. They believe that there is such a God, and that Jesus Christ is His Son who died for sins on the cross - that is, they believe the gospel to be true, but hate it and reject it for themselves.

These Satanists are not "saved" simply because they possess a correct understanding of the gospel and assent to it's truthfulness - that is, they are not saved because they believe the gospel is true, nor do they imagine themselves to be saved because they agree to its truthfulness.

The chair analogy, though imperfect, attempts to explain the difference between knowing something is true, and using that truth to some effect - meaning that one can believe the gospel is true (such as a satanist), but never apply the gospel to themselves in order to be saved (never sit in the chair).

A person may believe that penicillin will cure their sexually transmitted disease, but they are not cured unless they take the penicillin themselves. Believing the concept doesn't cure them no matter how "pure" their assention to that truth is.

Whatever model is put up, the thing that is being modeled is that one is saved by obeying the gospel, and not by acknowledging that the gospel exists.

If belief were mere intellectual assent, Paul would have been a fool to suggest that someone examine themselves to see if they are in the faith or not.
The point is - if I may continue - that there are people out there who have been told the truth, who acknowledge that it is true, but who don't have faith in God.

Some of them are Satanists such as I described above - but some of them are deceived into thinking that merely acknowledging that the truth is true makes them a Christian - and these same are slapped on the back in some churches and declared "saved" - then they are promptly indoctrinated into a habit of religious activity (that rivals Rome), until like the Pharisees before them, they are devout followers, bible readers, church goers, and prayer warriors, and even admirers of God - but not children of God. Because these have never obeyed that same gospel that they know to be true.

These are the stony ground hearers who grow in everything but fruit! Likewise these are the thorny ground hearers who love all that truth, but can't let go of the world long enough to produce fruit in their own lifes.

They are false, converts - deceived and deceiving.

==================

Solifidian said:

==================

Daniel,

Thanks for the cordial discussion. These types of dialogues can tend to get heated rather fast. While I’m sure Antonio may have some further input, below are my responses to your comments.

(Daniel says) ***I too see some similarities between the chair analogy and my description above.***

(Solifidian says) -- Yes. The similarity is that in addition to knowing and agreeing with the promise of the gospel, both your pendulum analogy and the chair analogy seem to make another step required.

(Daniel says) ***I personally have heard the chair analogy used, and don't much care for it - it doesn't really picture what it is trying to model very well.***

(Solifidian says) -- I’m not sure that being willing to stand against a wall next to a swinging pendulum is a better model.

(Daniel says) ***Believe it or not, there are Satanists who intellectually acknowledge that the gospel is true. They believe that there is such a God, and that Jesus Christ is His Son who died for sins on the cross - that is, they believe the gospel to be true, but hate it and reject it for themselves.***

(Solifidian says) -- The content of saving faith necessarily includes the promise of the gospel. The death, burial, and resurrection are critically important to understanding how God made our salvation possible, but does the person take Christ at His word when He promises them eternal life?

(Daniel says) ***These Satanists are not "saved" simply because they possess a correct understanding of the gospel and assent to it's truthfulness - that is, they are not saved because they believe the gospel is true, nor do they imagine themselves to be saved because they agree to its truthfulness.***

(Solifidian says) -- If by gospel you are referring to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then nobody is “saved” because they possess a correct understanding of those events and assent to their truthfulness. It is critically important that a person believe the promise of the gospel. God justifies a person when they believe the promise of the gospel – that Christ guarantees their eternal destiny.

(Daniel says) ***The chair analogy, though imperfect, attempts to explain the difference between knowing something is true, and using that truth to some effect - meaning that one can believe the gospel is true (such as a satanist), but never apply the gospel to themselves in order to be saved (never sit in the chair).***

(Solifidian says) -- Applying the gospel to ourselves is not some additional step to believing the promise of the gospel. When we take Christ at His word, i.e., that He is the Guarantor of our eternal destiny, we are applying the gospel to ourselves. We are simply agreeing that what He has promised is true. Cp. Romans 4:21-22 - and [Abraham] being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness."

(Daniel says) ***A person may believe that penicillin will cure their sexually transmitted disease, but they are not cured unless they take the penicillin themselves. Believing the concept doesn't cure them no matter how "pure" their assention to that truth is.***

(Solifidian says) -- Now instead of standing against a wall next to a swinging pendulum, we are taking penicillin. Christ gives us penicillin when we take His word for it. Christ gives us eternal life through the instrument of faith. Believing (assenting to the truth of) the promise of the gospel does cure us because Christ has told us believing the promise cures us.

(Daniel says) ***Whatever model is put up, the thing that is being modeled is that one is saved by obeying the gospel, and not by acknowledging that the gospel exists.***

(Solifidian says) -- The model you are proposing (a type of faith analogous to a willingness to stand in front of a pendulum) is something altogether different than believing the promise of the gospel. In your case it is something that you do; in the other case, it is taking Christ at His word, i.e., believing Him.

(Daniel says) ***If belief were mere intellectual assent, Paul would have been a fool to suggest that someone examine themselves to see if they are in the faith or not.***

(Solifidian says) -- Please note your use of the pejorative “mere.” Understanding and agreeing with Christ’s promise of the gospel is never “mere.” Paul was not asking his readers to question their salvation. He was commanding them the make sure their practice was in line with the teachings of the Christian faith. In the event that you have never seen a Free Grace understanding of the passage (2Cor. 13:5), one such example can be found here.

(Daniel says) ***The point is - if I may continue - that there are people out there who have been told the truth, who acknowledge that it is true, but who don't have faith in God.***

(Solifidian says) -- If the truth is the promise of the gospel, and they are persuaded that it is true, i.e., they believe that Christ guarantees their eternal destiny, then they do have faith in God—they take Him at His word.

(Daniel says) ***Some of them are Satanists such as I described above - but some of them are deceived into thinking that merely acknowledging that the truth is true makes them a Christian - and these same are slapped on the back in some churches and declared "saved" - then they are promptly indoctrinated into a habit of religious activity (that rivals Rome), until like the Pharisees before them, they are devout followers, bible readers, church goers, and prayer warriors, and even admirers of God - but not children of God. Because these have never obeyed that same gospel that they know to be true.***

(Solifidian says) -- Yes, that’s why assurance does not come by looking at our lives. These religious people may very well think they pass certain “tests” and are therefore Christians. The question, however, is have they believed the promise of the gospel?

(Daniel says) ***These are the stony ground hearers who grow in everything but fruit! Likewise these are the thorny ground hearers who love all that truth, but can't let go of the world long enough to produce fruit in their own lifes.***

(Solifidian says) -- As you mentioned earlier to Antonio, it is clear that you hold a different understanding of this parable than many in the Free Grace community. Suffice it to say that most in the Free Grace community do not believe that salvation is attained by letting go of the world long enough to produce fruit.

(Daniel says) ***They are false, converts - deceived and deceiving.***

(Solifidian says) -- Anyone who thinks that they are justified apart from faith alone (taking Christ at His word in the promise of the gospel) is deceived.

Thanks for your time. If you have not done so already, you may want to pick up a copy of Gordon Clark’s, Faith and Saving Faith. He was a Calvinist who espoused a view of faith which in some ways is very similar to many within the Free Grace community.
==================

Daniel said:

==================

Solifidian - we may be talking past one another to some extent. You acknowledge that "the promise must be believed" - I concur.

Using your nomenclature, I would say that there is a difference between "believing that the promise is a valid promise" and "believing the promise." The Satanist may understand and believe that the promise is a true promise, and that if the Satanist were to trust Christ to save them, that they could be saved - but having that knowledge doesn't save them unless/until they actually believing the promise for themselves. I think you would concur? That is what the chair analogy is all about. Not that they have to do some else besides "believe" - but that belief is not simply having the knowledge of what you must believe in order to be saved, but actually believing it!

==================

Solifidian said:

==================

Daniel,

Once again, here are my responses.

(Daniel says)***Solifidian - we may be talking past one another to some extent. You acknowledge that "the promise must be believed" - I concur.***

(Solifidian says)-- I’m not sure we are talking past one another. I think that we have fundamentally different understandings of the nature of faith. Your viewpoint seems to involve something more than knowledge and assent (understanding and agreeing with the promise of the gospel).

(Daniel says)***Using your nomenclature, I would say that there is a difference between "believing that the promise is a valid promise" and "believing the promise." The Satanist may understand and believe that the promise is a true promise, and that if the Satanist were to trust Christ to save them, that they could be saved - but having that knowledge doesn't save them unless/until they actually believing the promise for themselves. I think you would concur? That is what the chair analogy is all about. Not that they have to do some else besides "believe" - but that belief is not simply having the knowledge of what you must believe in order to be saved, but actually believing it!***

(Solifidian says)-- There is certainly a difference between knowing something and believing something. The difference is assent or agreement. My local politician may promise to lower my taxes. I understand that he makes that promise. I, however, do not agree with him. Jesus Christ offers me eternal life if I believe Him, i.e., take Him at His word. Unlike my lack of faith in the politician, I do agree with Jesus Christ’s promise to me of eternal life. I take Him at His word. I believe Him.

The chair illustration, as I understand it, implies that in addition to knowing and agreeing that the chair will support me (support is the promise implied by the chair designer), I must be willing to sit on the chair or choose to sit on the chair. Comparing that to the promise of the gospel is to suggest that in addition to knowing and agreeing with Jesus Christ's promise to guarantee my eternal destiny (i.e., I believe Him), I must then be willing or choose to believe Him. If I already understand His promise and agree with it, then I already believe Him. There are no additional steps involved. Adding additional steps is, in my humble opinion, to confuse the simplicity of faith alone in Christ alone.

Thanks again for your time. Enjoy your weekend.

==================

Thank YOU, Solifidian, for your patience and thorough answer to Daniel’s Traditional confusion!

Motivations

by Antonio da Rosa

I am teaching a hermeneutics class at my Bible college alma mater for a group of pastors and other ministers. During our discussion on interpretation of parables I found it necessary to teach quite extensively on many of Christ’s parables, for the author of the hermeneutics text that we are using seems to have failed to employ the principles that he had taught in the earlier chapters, namely the grammatical, historical, literal, and rhetorical interpretation of the text, when making reference to these parables.

I have not taken a tally, but I am convinced that many of Christ’s parables have much to do with eternal rewards. This led to a discussion on motivations to serving Christ.

As a simple and quick project I assigned my class to speak to at least 3 Christians and ask them their motivations for service to God. I have done the same.

Person #1
1) Bring God glory
2) To have a better relationship with Him
3) To learn more about Him

Person #2
1) Love for God
2) Personal benefit (temporal?)
3) Family benefits from it

Person #3
1) Love of Christ
2) Joy and satisfaction
3) God’s glory

This third person added this element:
I would NOT say gratitude!
I think it is VERY unbiblical
Many people say that we are to serve Christ because He did this or that for us.
Paul says here serve out of Joy

I was asked by this third person what my greatest motivations are. I could not pick three:

1) for God's glory
2) out of gratitude for eternally saving me
3) eternal rewards
4) fear of temporal chastening and rebuke at the judgment seat of Christ (the bema)
5) The meaning and purpose that it gives

Many people in the Traditionalist camp would say that we must work for Jesus without any self-concerned motivations whatsoever, but merely for "God’s glory". First I would say that they are being much more humble then the apostle Paul was:

1 Cor 9:24-27
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
NKJV

Next I would say that they have a very narrow view on what it means to glorify God. Any motivations that God gives us for Christian service ought to be considered as God-glorifying! When Jesus says:

Matt 6:19-21
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
NKJV

Luke 12:33-34
33 Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
NKJV

He is giving a grand and God-ordained motivation for Christian service! God knows what motivates a man, and He put such a motivation in his heart when He created man. What is the reasoning that Jesus gives?

For where our treasures are, there our heart will be also.

Eternal rewards, the opportunities for the conditional honors, glories, and inheritance in the kingdom of God, are motivations par excellence. God knows how to command the affections of His people!

Being self-concerned and motivated in this arena is glorifying to God, and it is a shame that the Traditionalist does not see things this way. He is so busy trying to guard his conception of God, that he throws away the commands of Christ to lay up rewards for ourselves in heaven; for he, the Traditionalist, with false humility, regards the conscious pursuing of rewards as inherently (and sinfully?) selfish.

This mindset pervades Traditionalist theology!

The gospel of John consistently and constantly pictures eternal life as an absolutely free gift to be desired, and offers this gift as the motivation for faith in Christ! It would only take someone reading the gospel of John with his eyes open to come to the conclusion that the supreme motivation for faith in Christ is to appropriate for oneself the absolutely free gift of eternal life!

But for the Traditionalist, the motivation for faith in Christ as the reception of eternal life, eternal well-being, is sinfully anthropocentric. Thus with their skewed and narrow views on God’s glory, they “reject the commandment of God, that [they] may keep [their] tradition.” (Mark 7:9).

John 7:37-39
On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
NKJV

Jesus in essence is saying “Men and women! You have a need, you thirst! Quench your eternal thirst by believing in Me!”

Whatever God, in His word, puts forth as motivations for faith and actions glorifies Him, and are beautiful and legitimate incentives that should not be spurned, rejected, or impugned.

The Traditionalist has long used his argument and charges of "anthropocentricism" to sully and disparage both Free Grace theology and Christ's commands. When Jesus says be concerned about laying up rewards in heaven; when Jesus says be motivated to trust Me by the guaranteed prospect of receiving the grand and absolutely free gift of eternal life, He means what He says. The New Testament is streaming and cohesed by the theme of eternal rewards! This is a huge motivation for Christian living and ought to be heralded as such far and wide from our pulpits!

For an interesting discussion, go to Rewards and Selfishness, an excerpt from Zane Hodges on my personal blog.

Antonio da Rosa

Dating John's Writings

by HK flynn

Zane Hodges dates the Gospel of John as AD 48-52 and John's epistles at 64-65. I found this surprising when I first read it a few months ago and would like to hear your views.

These dates of Hodges were influenced by Redating the New Testament, by JAT Robinson. Robinson was a modernist Anglican bishop who thought he’d try to prove, originally as a joke, that much of the NT was written prior to the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and ended up finding a surprising amount of evidence for that premise.

The fact that John wrote in John 5:2 that “...there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool...” seems to indicate that John thought of Jerusalem as standing at the time of his writing his gospel.

Regarding Revelation, apart from Robinson’s theory that the destruction of the Jerusalem would have been mentioned in Revelation, Hodges believes that Revelation 17:10 pegs it to late 68, early 69. Rev 17:2 refers to five fallen emperors, a one that is, and one that is yet to come. Hodges thinks it is most natural to treat the five fallen emperors as Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, the one that is as Galba and the one that has not yet come as Otho. So Hodges places the writing of Revelation during the short reign of Galba. The fact that the epistles of John seem to have been written prior to the Book of Revelation is why he places it even earlier than 68. Hodges date for the epistles, if they were written together, is 64-65, but believes it is possible they were as early as AD 55.

I thnk all this is interesting since it seems as if early dates, despite Robinson’s theological modernism, tend to provide support for the NT’s authority. R.A. Torrey also argued for early pre-Jewish War date for all the Gospels:

"It is perhaps conceivable that one evangelist writing after the year 70 might fail to allude to the estruction of the temple by the Roman armies...but that three or four should thus fail is quite incredible. On the contrary, what is shown is that all four gospels were written before the year 70."

A side note is that I like how Hodges keeps up to date, and broadly so, with the theological literature, European and also non-Evangelical, like Robinson. Although I think Redating is pretty well-known. He does often engage with modernist scholarship. I see that type of diligence as important in scholarship, and am glad he does it without his having earned his own doctorate. It shows that Hodges’ lack of that particular educational attainment is not about being anti-intellectual, but (perhaps) more about his own personal priorities as a minister of the gospel.