|
 (continued
from previous page) In discussing "Man's Part" in his
salvation it should be clearly stated that his doing, even his
"faith," is not the MEANS or SOURCE of redemption.
Having sinned man stands condemned, and his only hope is
unmerited mercy or grace. God has provided the means of
redemption, but we believe Joe Doe must, of his own free will,
respond to God's invitation in order to be saved. Faith, which
obeys, is the CONDITION upon which God promises to save Joe.
Grant this, and we still must consider a basic issue. Is this
faith a human response, something Joe Does; or is it something
God does for Joe! Calling it “natural" response just
beats about the bush. The evangelical says God gives the
faith, or enables (by direct operation) Joe to believe. He thus
maintains his theory that God is the ONLY part in man's
redemption. (Note: "Solely by Grace, Solely by Christ,
Solely by Faith" in Present Truth-Verdict literature.)
If
Joe's faith is not his own response, something he is capable of
doing or not doing, then he must be individually,
unconditionally elected. If some heavenly power must enable him
to believe, he is individually elected, or, justice demands that
all men be equally enabled. But if God presents the good news of
salvation in Christ to all men, and all are able to understand
and believe, the MEANS of redemption is from God, but the
CONDITION upon which Joe or Sue is saved is their own response
to the invitation. This is not earned or merited righteousness
--- it is unworthy sinners saved by the grace of God, through a
faith which, despite man's "depravity," God considered
him capable of rendering.
| |
Somehow our neo-theological brethren
will accept a freewill response of "faith" without
crying "works!" "law!" or
"legalist!" To maintain this position they will have
to strengthen Moser's "natural" dodge or perhaps take
up Martin Luther's distinction in justification and
sanctification. That will not be easy, for the justifying
in faith of Abraham (Rom. 4) was one which was manifested all
through his life (Heb. 11:8, Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:20-22, Jas.
2:21-f). Too, if "sanctification" is essential to
one's being saved in heaven we are again faced with "human
implementation" or "enabling power" that
overrides the free agency of man. What a tangled web we mortals
weave —.
Early
debate propositions often used the words "at the point of
faith without further acts of obedience" versus "at
the point of baptism." The issue was: did God promise
remission of sins before a man's faith led him to be
baptized, or when his faith led him to be baptized? Such
a proposition recognizes the broad "trust" meaning in
"faith" as used in Rom. 3: 5: etc., but raises the
valid question, "At what point" in that faith does God
promise salvation. If faith is truly a free will, human
response that is essential, there should be no objection to
including "obedience of faith" without being blasted
with charges of "law" "works" etc.
And
that is exactly what the early sermons: "God's Part, Man's
Part" sought to get across. The illustrations may have been
crude, but may God help us get back to such preaching before
neo-theology does us in.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
