Blog methodology

What is a good way to blog? A little while ago I asserted that I would be blogging less often, with greater finality, and with the comments off. Well, I'm sure most of you realized that I failed epically in following through with those intentions. My desire and delight to speak out and discuss issues are just too great to limit myself like that, and in the end there really is no reason for such a limitation at this time of my life. Since my various arenas of discussion are not impinging upon the health of my life in any significant way (so long as my envelopment in discussion doesn't become yet another cause of nighttime anxiety), I will probably continue with them indefinitely for those precious few who are open to hear my seemingly endless pontifications. The frequency of my discussion is only outstripped by the frequency of my thinking, I assure you. Those who have less tenacity or interest can jump in and jump out as they please, of course. People like me realize that differences of personality are real and must be respected.

So how shall I blog? I've learned that I can't predict what will work for me, so I'll just blog as I go. It would be cool to set up a system where I can rate my thoughts on a scale between prima facie (on first glance, initial impressions) and "all things considered." The more I consider objections and the more I think through a view, the closer it would get to "all things considered." That way, I won't appear as though I hold all of my views with equal firmness, which I don't. Perhaps the most worked out element in my web of beliefs at the moment is my soteriology. A good example of something I have initial opinions on but with which I am only vaguely familiar would be philosophers such as Hegel and Kant or perhaps politics. For now, I will just continue blogging if I am deeply concerned about an issue or if I delight in the furtherance of truth even on fun but less important matters.

Anybody ready for Conan to take over the Tonight Show?!?!?

Why hard rock rocks, and why pop can be fun

I'd like to piggy back on an insightful post over at Existential Faith about Slipknot and the merits of heavy metal (by the way, kudos to Adam for telling a vivid story and letting that argue for him. This appealed to me in a unique and memorable way). Here are some short reasons why I think hard rock and heavy metal glorify God.

These genres of music convey certain things that other types of music do not and cannot. First, they have a sense of conviction and pining. These guys take their struggles seriously and sing as if they actually care that things aren't as they ought to be. I really like that. This is often written off as immature angst, and perhaps sometimes that's what it is; but even such angst should be taken seriously. Such struggles are far from trivial for young people going through them. There is passion and deep concern in this music. Granted, you can depict pining with other genres, but you can't convey the sheer indignation found in hard rock, an emotion that is an integral part of a healthy moral life. Second, they often make us feel deep meaning and power. They point to something intangible and eternal, something transcendent. They make us feel unsatisfied with living for selfish pleasure. In fact, they often depict precisely where the pursuit of selfish pleasure leads: destruction. Finally, hard rock is just downright gratifying for our more aggressively joyous feelings. It's balls-to-the-wall, face-melting, head-exploding POWER. There are some pretty intimidating depictions of divine omnipotence in Scripture that are intended to inspire awe, worship, and even fear. God is a dangerous reality, one that cannot be domesticated or emasculated. Hard rock captures this glory - and that really is the most apt word for it, GLORY.

Now, on the other hand, I often find myself being an apologist for softer and lighter music among my hard-rock-loving friends. I think that there are certain facets of human experience and emotion that cannot be captured by heavy metal and hard rock, including some that are found in light-hearted, infectious, and catchy pop tunes! =) One example of this is whimsy. A song like Pink's "So What" may be poor from a strictly musical standpoint, but it's just darn fun to listen to. Something similar is true with music aimed at the dancing crowd. While fear of reprisal sometimes gets the best of me, on my better days I shamelessly roll down the windows and blast a fun pop tune just because it makes me feel good. It helps us not take ourselves too seriously, to enjoy the lighter side of life. I think the reason that this music smacks of superficiality to many is because there are people out there who listen to nothing but this variety of music, which may indeed say something about the depth, or lack thereof, of their personality. But there is just something undeniably fun about a catchy pop tune. It may have a shorter lifespan in terms of its ability to satisfy deep souls - sort of like a musical candy - but in small doses, it's just dandy.

Saved by our works?

You've heard of expositional preaching? Well, it's time for some expositional blogging! Here is our text for today:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10).

What can we learn from this? Well, first, it's clear from our text that faith can be distinguished from human works. Faith does not have any power in it; no, faith looks to the power of Another beyond itself. Faith stands at the polar opposite of any human achievement that would allow for boasting. Salvation, therefore, is the work of God - it is God's achievement in us. God creates us in Christ Jesus, and out of that work we can now do good works. Of course, faith is a living thing - it is not some dead assent to truths of the gospel. Faith is a radical trust in God that leans intently upon Him alone for salvation rather than ourselves (hence, sola fide). Faith involves human effort (you gotta let go and give God control!), but it's not a human work that accomplishes a task. We do not save ourselves by our own works by exercising faith - rather, we allow God to save. This openness, this faith, invites God in, and we are then able to actually obey God from the inside out. Transformation flows from God's work appropriated by faith, not from our own works that we smuggle into faith. We cannot love until we let God do a mighty work in us first by faith.

Second, our text shows us that good works properly speaking are the prerogative of regenerate believers alone. While works in response to prevenient grace may be good in a qualified sense, since the unbeliever seeks to respond to his conscience - they are not "splendid sins" as Wesley thought early on in his career - they are not good in the sense of our text here and other texts. The unbeliever apart from sanctifying grace is in bondage to sin. He is selfish. He may have natural loves and affections, and he may even try to obey God out of servile fear (which is good in some sense, and which I did for many years), but he utterly lacks the holy love of God in his heart. He does not walk in thankful piety to God, nor does He wish to glorify God purely by His actions. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, for without faith it is impossible for God to transform the heart to love Him and our neighbor. God may look down with favor upon these responses to prevenient grace in one sense, but in another real sense the wrath of God is upon him. Evidently, the Bible thinks that the qualitative difference between regenerate and unregenerate is considerable enough to relegate good works and holiness (which means to be set apart) to believers alone.

Finally, it is clear from this text and others that good works, obedience, holiness, love, and so forth are the fruit of salvation, not the cause or means of it. We do not bring these to the table or work them up within ourselves by our own self-efforts - rather, it is God who works them in and through us. The sinner who lacks all of these things but unites to Christ in radical faith now becomes a conduit of God's love to the world. The more he opens himself up to God's sanctifying work through faith, the more holy he will be. After all, we do not sanctify ourselves, nor is it that God gives us the tools to sanctify ourselves. God sanctifies us as we open ourselves up to God for Him to do so. His works of grace are what change us from glory to glory, enabling us more and more to obey Him. The more we trust in Him and get lost in His grace, the more we will find ourselves transformed. The more we allow God in (faith) the more we will be able to go out in true goodness (love).

Why is this all so important? Because human beings have a strong fallen inclinations to trust in themselves for their own spiritual renewal. They don't want God to do it; they want to remain on their own apart from God and accomplish it by their own works. They want to clean themselves up, to live the Christian life on their own power, to justify themselves by their own merits or achievements, to find a way to save themselves by their own efforts apart from sanctifying grace. The gospel calls us to crucify this sinful pride and present ourselves to God in radical faith alone so that HE can work on US. Only out of His work can we work, only through leaning on His power (faith) can we obey (love). To confound faith and works or faith and love is to distort the gospel and make it into a self-help exercise in which we try to "work up" love of God and neighbor in ourselves rather than throwing ourselves at the mercy of God for the power to do it (faith). Transformation can only come when we die to our own schemes of self-salvation.

Of course, it is true that Final Judgment (also called Final Justification in Scripture) is by our works (note that this hardly means we are saved by our works) - God will judge our characters and works, and only those who are obedient and holy will be fit for glory and reward. No holiness, no heaven. We are absolutely required by God to live in holy love - not because we accomplish our own salvation by this, but because that's the whole point of salvation, namely, to be saved from sin in order to love. Salvation is instrumental to obedience and love. It is also true that we must continually exercise effort in putting more of ourselves on the altar in consecration and faith so that God can sanctify us more and more - and out of this salvation, we are enabled and required to obey God. Works play a part as the fruit of the saving work and grace of God, and human effort does play a part in our offering of ourselves to God through faith. But all of this is a far cry from saying that we are saved by our own works or effort! Is sanctification something we do, or something God does? Salvation remains the work of God alone, received by faith alone. Obedience, love, and holiness are possible only through trust and reliance upon God's continual work. The goal of salvation is obedience and love, not the means of salvation. Humans are unable to obey God rightly without a continual appropriation of power that lies beyond themselves, a power that is made available as we stretch out our hands continually in faith (remember, faith has no inherent power of its own, nevermind love!). How anyone can say we are saved by our works is beyond me, as well as beyond the biblical pale. We are saved from sin so that we may love. God works in salvation, so that we may work in love of God and neighbor.

Finally, in light of comments that have been said recently, it needs to be said that the only fear that this Protestant has is the fear of being unscriptural. I repudiate Roman errors not merely because they are Roman - for what would that be but groundless prejudice? - but rather because they fail the biblical test. The fear of Rome comes from fear of the harmful effects of Roman teaching, not from fear of Protestant or Wesleyan reprisal. Insinuations to the contrary are simply wide of the mark. Don't worry, some of us have still refused to give into the gutless spirit of the age in order to stand for truth, no matter where it lies! =)

May we see the crucial importance of soteriological questions and pursue and defend truth in such matters vigorously for the sake of the urgent task of the salvation of dying souls on the way to eternal death. And may those who are called to glorify God and His truth by demolishing falsehoods never tire as they seek His pleasure above all things (2 Cor 10:5) -

Kyle

Calvinism or Atheism?

[Note: When I speak of Calvinism, I usually speak with its logical entailments in mind. Most Calvinists are confused and do not see the implications of their system, so I am not implying that most Calvinists will agree with my depiction of their system - although they ought to if they are to be consistent.]

A while back I made a quip to a friend regarding the exceeding unpleasantness of Calvinism that he insisted was uncharitable and unfair. Having thought it through a little more in light of the objections I have heard, I find myself even more persuaded that my quip was and remains dead on. What was the quip in question?

If I had to choose between atheism (with the result of facing annihilation at death) and falling into the hands of the Calvinistic God, I would unhesitatingly choose the former. But how could I say that? Perhaps this makes sense if you happen to be reprobate, but certainly the elect experience eternal bliss, don't they? How could eternal bliss possibly be worse than annihilation?

But this line of reasoning leaves out several crucial factors that vitiate this objection. First of all, there is no way to know if we are elect in this life. It is not open to the Calvinist to reject the theology of the False Hope, for that theology follows straightforwardly from Calvinistic premises. The reason for this is because Calvinism itself is a defeater for the reliability of our cognitive faculties. If Calvinism is true, then God's nature is fundamentally at odds with our clearest judgments about morality. Our noetic faculties with respect to moral truths are hopelessly unreliable, since everything in us cries out against the Terrible Tenet - unconditional damnation. Now if this is true, how can we trust our noetic faculties with respect to any truth? How about the truth that Scripture is veracious, or that Scripture teaches Calvinism, or that Calvinism is true? Certainly if we must be skeptical about these matters, we cannot possibly hope to fathom the mysterious depths of God's eternal decrees. If Calvinism is true, God is fundamentally "we know not what."

Second of all, if Calvinism is true, what good reason do I have to believe that God will continue to promote my happiness throughout eternity? Even if I find out I'm elect after my many years of tormenting ignorance here on earth, nothing in God's capricious character would stop Him from changing His mind a thousand years down the road and begin promoting my misery along with the rest of the reprobate. Lacking good reasons to trust God's character, eternal "bliss" would forever be mixed with unyielding anxiety from the thought of what this God might plausibly do next. The only option left to me would be abject fear, unless I took some kind of perverse satisfaction in worshipping such a perverse God. Sure, one can postulate that God will determine me to be happy for all eternity, but that just begs the question I have raised, namely, what warrant would we have to believe such a postulate if Calvinism were true? Calvinism's insuperable problem is an epistemological one: there are no good reasons to trust God if it's true.

I said earlier that if Calvinism is true, God's character is inscrutable. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that according to our best judgments, he's evil , which leads me to heart of my argument: There is nothing more conceivably horrible than an all powerful and evil God. If I had to choose between falling into the hands of an evil God and annihilation, there would be no contest: atheism beats Calvinism hands down.

One more limit

I want to add one more limit to human reason that has recently been made explicit for me by a professor:

5) Our knowledge of God and His ways is adequate to relate to Him, but ultimately far from comprehensive. There will always be dimensions of the Triune God that elude our full grasp and understanding. There is in ineliminable amount of mystery about God that remains no matter how long we stay at seminary and no matter how long we live. In fact, I'd be willing to conjecture that we will never know all there is to know about God, even throughout eternity. It may be that we will forever gaze upon the beautiful and infinite face of God, never exhausting the riches of the knowledge of His glory. But it is important to understand that this is not the same as saying that within the domain of things we do know, something stands out as absurd. One good example of mystery is precisely how God creates the world out of nothing. We simply have no data on that subject, and I must confess to being unable to conceive of a way of comprehending it. Yet, so long as there is no successful rational objection against creation ex nihilo - and there isn't as far as I know - then this doctrine, with all of its mystery, remains rational. This is okay though, for faith is a risk that requires us to lack some knowledge. We do this all the time. How many of us know how a jet works before we trust ourselves to it? As long as we have some good reasons to trust the plane, our leap is not irrational - but it still remains a leap. The plane could crash. It may not pull through for us. There may be some reason we don't know of that renders it untrustworthy. But since our choices are often forced and momentous, and since our time is not unlimited in order to arrive at more certainty (even then, the plane STILL might fail!), the rational thing to do in such an indeterminate and forced situation is take the leap. Perhaps an even better analogy is love. Who of us fully understands the ins and outs of romantic love? But would that lack of comprehensive knowledge prevent any of us from desiring romantic love on the basis of the true knowledge we do have?

Mystery remains with God, and our reason finds itself coming up against the limits of a finite mind comprehending the Infinite. God is bigger than we can ever know. In the eminently eloquent words of Athanasius, "Thus far human knowledge goes. Here the cherubim spread the covering of their wings."

A small treatise on the limits of human reason

Here on Preach Faith, I am often found counteracting the erroneous fideist contention that truths of the Christian faith go against the faculty human reason when it is functioning properly by highlighting the divine giftedness of reason and how a good God would make sure our cognitive faculties can make sufficient sense of God's truth, provided we are open to it. I also point out that Scripture teaches that God's truth is "clearly seen" by all people in Romans 1, and I take it that this rules out the view that it is absurd (that is seems false or is not clearly seen as truth) - unless you are wicked, according to 1 Cor., or unless you are a confused Christian with unwarranted fideistic tendencies. Rational human beings ought not accept the absurd, which I define as that which is logically contradictory or that which goes against something we have clear and objective warrant in knowing.

I do not want to be misunderstood, however, as extolling human reason beyond its legitimate and salient limits. I strive for clarity of thought and expression on my blog, and part of that involves pre-empting potential misunderstandings that may arise in those who read what I write. Another part is considering and rebutting the strongest objections to my views. In this way, I aim to present a strong, rich, nuanced, and complete picture of what I believe on matters theological, philosophical, and biblical. We're going for truth here, and truth requires good communication and presentation to be fully grasped. Detractors from my positions often do me a great service by highlighting where I need to furnish supplementary argumentation in order to keep at bay difficult but ultimately unsuccessful objections. This brings me closer to the truth by either strengthening my position or causing me to change positions.

So, in an effort to safeguard against the opposite and equally pernicious error of overestimating the powers of human reason, allow me to lay out some of my admittedly inchoate thoughts on the limits of human reason:

1) Autonomous human reason easily leads to a posture of self-sufficiency, pride, and unbelief. I say autonomous intentionally, for the very essence of sin is autonomy, rebellion, and departing from the sway of a holy and loving God. Human beings are fallen and sinful, and consequently they have a profound ability to rationalize their stubborn self-will, even to the point of building lofty yet vain and foolish systems of philosophical thought that give off an air of intellectual respectability. Thinking themselves wise, such philosophers become fools when judged by God's objective wisdom, a wisdom that can only come from an openness to God's gracious revelation.

2) Reason alone could never discover truths that God reveals immediately and directly. Reason was simply not built to replace the evoking and inviting voice of the personal God of holy love. Perhaps reason alone can point us in the direction of theism through solid natural theology, but it cannot bring us any further. We were built with cognitive faculties that light up when God reveals and witnesses to certain truths to us in an immediate and direct way - a way that bypasses completely inference, argument, and evidence. However, I do believe reason can explore and understand God's special revelation just as it can explore general revelation. God's truth, once revealed, is intelligible and rational, not absurd or incomprehensible. Scripture is indispensible when it comes to the saving truth of God. Incidentally, we do not honor God by being needlessly vague and underdetermined in our theology if God has been specific and clear on a certain matter. I think God delights in specificity and clarity for many reasons, not the least of which is that such lucid revelation illumines God's one path of salvation, the path that every aspirant of grace must traverse. Therefore, to make determinations that flow clearly from Scripture (or logical entailments from Scriptural truth) in order to build a systematic theology greatly glorifies and expounds God's truth. The proponent of a more open theology who claims that we are making explicit and certain judgments where mystery and openness are more appropriate owes it to us to show that God has not spoken clearly on that particular matter in Scripture.

3) Reason is subject to the frailties of the Fall. I think it's safe to say that before the Fall, we were much better at reasoning. We were probably faster and not capable of error as we now are. As such, we need to reecognize that reason is fallible. It makes mistakes. I think we can recognize these mistakes when they are pointed out to us, however. Therefore, I think our reason is still fundamentally reliable, even if it fails us at times and needs the correction of better minds. However, I think the truths of God are sufficiently clear such that no matter how intelligent or unintelligent you are, nothing will turn up that serves to render Christianity absurd or irrational to believe. If so, we would be rationally obligated to commit apostasy, which to me seems unconscionable. God's goodness necessitates that our reason remains fundamentally reliable, and it also necessitates that we wouldn't be led by our minds away from God. God never calls us to commit intellectual suicide, which is what is entailed by the notion that Christian truth appears absurd to us and yet demands our assent. This is the kind of fideism that is unbiblical and dangerous. Nor does it help to say that it is subjectively absurd but objectively rational, for the only way to know truth is subjectively, even for the Tri-Personal God. But now I'm back to denouncing fideism! Perhaps this is because I find this error far more prevalent among evangelical Christians than rationalism.

4) Christianity is not a rationalistic religion, though it is rational. You don't need to be brilliant to know the most profound truths of the Gospel and to know them with complete, rational warrant. The image of God is far more than reason; it is the whole person, the mind and the heart. It is relational. Rationalism keeps the "me" at the center and does not look out in faith to an evoking God who invites us into participatory ways of knowing and living. Christianity is an other-directed faith, and personal holy love is at its heart - not human reason. So let us be careful not to give reason more power and deference than it deserves.

Stay tuned for a post on Polemical Theology and its vital role in the church.

"Well I'm no theologian, but..."

My doctrine professor made a very astute point in class the other day. How often do we hear from our pulpits comments that are prefaced by, "Well I'm no theologian, but..." followed by what typically amounts to their own pop theology? Is this really an appropriate posture for a minister of God's Word? Our professor drove this point home by inviting us to reflect upon a doctor who prefaces his treatment by saying, "Well, I'm no physician, but..." Would we submit ourselves to the care of someone who has not spent years of training to become an expert in the subject of medicine? As Paul likes to say, may it never be! So why would we think it is appropriate to be so foolish with respect to our eternal health?

We need our ministers to be experts of God to the degree that human beings are able. We need to master as much as we can so the truth of God can get out to people as clearly and accurately as possible.

Invigorating

WOW what a freaking gorgeous day outside! These past two days have been incredible: sunny and in the 70's. There is nothing like a radical change of weather from cold to warm. It makes me feel alive, invigorated, joyful. I love driving around with the windows rolled down blasting hard rock. It reminds me of Manchester, where I grew up. It reminds me of the best times of my life, the glimmers of eternal joy shining through the spiritual darkness that was my life for so long. It reminds me of jamming with my high school buddies in my dad's old granite garage. It reminds me of jamming with my college bandmates to some Zeppelin for battle of the bands. It reminds me of the first time I held a girl's hand. It reminds me of the many concerts I have been to. It reminds me of incredible times of fun in the college dorms. It reminds me of the undeniable joy I felt when I would go down to the basement alone in my senior dorms to utter cries of thanksgiving to the God who finally saved my soul days before.

And I have discovered that if hard rock gets into your veins, it will never come out. As much as I like other types of music, at the end of the day it always comes back to face-melting, gut-busting, fist-pumping, shoe-stomping, head-banging rock. The power, glory, and authenticity in such music is just unmatched in my opinion. A rock concert is like a piece of eternal glory borrowed from God.

Days like this just emanate with goodness. They satisfy the soul. They point to the eternal satiation of heaven while giving us enough to sustain our happiness here on earth. Nostalgia, new love, new life, and pulsating joy - the stuff of Spring a month early!

Roman Catholicism, Merit, and Works

Roman Catholic apologists often deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a works-righteousness approach to salvation. Notwithstanding any Roman Catholics who might themselves deny the official teaching of Rome - and there are many, something about which all Christians committed to Scriptural Christianity should rejoice - the fact is that in her official documentation, Rome continues to employ the concept of merit in very troubling ways. For example:

"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions" (Catechism, 2010, Emphasis in the original).

Well at least Rome gets part of it right here by asserting that justification and forgiveness are not merited, but then she goes way off track from a biblical perspective when she begins to speak about meriting further graces. Much of this is an echo of Trent, a crucial council in which Rome declared:

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

Now to be fair, Rome does say that we need the grace of Christ to merit eternal life and further grace. She also says we cannot merit anything until we receive the initial graces of justification and forgiveness. Finally, she says that all of this is based on the merits of Christ. Nevertheless, there remains a very troubling and self-contradictory (since grace is, by definition, unmerited favor) element of meriting grace and eternal life by our own good works in Rome's teaching (Although she is quick to add that these works are themselves empowered by grace). But whether or not these meritorious works are empowered by God's grace (I suppose God graciously gives us the tools to merit grace?), this strange piece of theology allows for us to merit the grace of God by our own good works for part of our salvation (increase of grace, sanctification, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life). This is patently unbiblical. Merit has absolutely no place in a biblical theology of salvation whatsoever. The works we do through the grace of Christ may be rewardable, but that's another matter.

Our works do not merit, nor do they achieve, salvation, which texts like Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 4, and many others plainly teach. Good works are the inevitable fruit of justifying faith, for as one lives in God by faith, they become a conduit of the love of God to others. If our works merited or achieved our salvation in any way, we would have a reason to boast before God, and such prideful boasting is ruled out by Scripture. Salvation is the work of God. Human beings do not help God save, sanctify, and justify them - they allow God to do His work (a critical distinction that keeps human working out of the saving work of God), and this produces good works which are judged as holy evidence of a redeemed life on the Last Day (the Biblical concept of "Final Justification"). The work of man is to appropriate God's continual work by a living faith that trust and relies on Jesus, the Vine (John 15:1-5). Faith does take effort to maintain, just as a child must hold on to the hand of his father, and this is where the means of grace come in. We receive God's work of salvation and then respond to it. We do not sanctify ourselves (even granting God's help cooperatively), but rather we open up more and more and put ourselves in the means of grace so God can sanctify and save us. Works do not establish a right relationship with God; rather, they flow out of a right relationship with Him that is rooted and grounded in faith. And they certainly do not merit any part our salvation, at all. Salvation is not even partly a human achievement, but is rather received for the gift that it is, almost passively by faith.

Much more Biblical are Walls and Dongell when they state:

"The Bible itself does not describe faith as a work that accomplishes a task, or as a deed that establishes merit, or as a lever that forces God to act. Instead, we find that genuine faith is something quite different. As Paul's treatment of Abraham shows, the patriarch's faith had no power over God, earned no merit before God and stood as the polar opposite to honorific deeds. Abraham believed God, and righteousness was 'credited' to him, not paid to him. God alone justified Abraham freely on the basis of Abraham's faith (Rom 4:1-6). Since by its very nature faith confesses the complete lack of human merit and human power, it subtracts nothing from the Savior's grace or glory. By its very nature, faith points away from all human status and looks to God alone for rescue and restoration" (Walls and Dongell, "Why I Am Not a Calvinist").

Rome still needs to reform her theology, for her misleading practices, teachings, and structure (penance, sacerdotalism, and so forth) flow out of them. Let me be clear: there are plenty of Catholics who know Christ. But Roman Catholicism as an organization obscures the gospel with layer upon layer of unbiblical traditions. Contemporary Catholics can twist and contort these passages in light of "new understandings" or to accord with their own (biblical) personal beliefs, but as they stand they are misleading and contradictory at best, and completely unbiblical at worst.

Faith

I once heard someone describe faith as a sail, and God's grace and Spirit as a force that moves us. I think this is a very apt description. Faith does take effort. To let go of ourselves and let God do the saving and the transforming is difficult indeed, and may require a lot of pain and movement of the will. Faith is active. But faith is not a work that accomplishes a task (as if we save ourselves), merits payment (as if God gives us anything on that basis), or contributes to the work of God in salvation (as if God needs our help to save us). God does need our receptivity and willingness, which requires repentance and faith, but that is really little more than opening up for God to grab the reigns. Faith is the condition through which God saves and continues to save through ongoing empowerment. Faith is when we turn our sails toward the wind so that God can blow in and through us. It's when we lean into God. The sinner who does this without any good works or sanctification (yet) nevertheless has a very deep faith in God (a faith through which God grabs us and sanctifies us). No doubt, we need to keep this posture of reliance and trust, which involves daily dipping into the means of grace (work). Good works help habituate the work of God in our souls and keep us leaning on God. Faith leads to works, which in turn increases our faith, which allows God to do more work in us, and so on until a final act of faith through which we are entirely pure (since, biblically, faith and works are distinct but inseparable).

There is the work of man: to have faith in God and to do all that is necessary to keep that trust and reliance alive (not much more of a "work" than stretching out our hands). There is the work of God: to save, to justify, to sanctify, to continually empower, and to judge our works on the last day (finally justify). When we have saving faith in Christ and nothing else, on the basis of Christ's work we are brought into God's family by an act of sheer grace. There is a relative and an actual change at that moment. Our job is to continue to hold out our hands to God in faith. The more faith we have, the more love will flow in and through us as God gets control of us. The more we turn our sails, the more we move forward in love of God and neighbor. Bible + (interpreted by) Wesley = truth.

Gods regenerates, God saves, God justifies. These are works of grace, not something our works contribute to. God works where we cannot work. We do not achieve nor merit any of these qualitatively distinct graces. God gives them, we receive them through faith (not through works, lest we be able to boast). Sanctification is not something we "work up" in our hearts, it's something we receive and continue to receive and walk in. It may take a lot of "effort" or "work" to keep this faith by which we are saved alive, but that's another matter.

Ephesians 2:8: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."