Chapter 6.23

The Commitment of Biblical Faith

Overall Objective

Explain and illustrate what is really necessary to possess biblical faith

Table of Topics

A) The Requirements of Biblical Faith: Understanding, evaluation, & commitment of reason

B) The Human Result of Biblical Faith: Knowledge, desires, actions, hope

C) Biblical Faith Illustrated: Matt 13:18-23

D) Biblical Faith Demonstrated in Love & Obedience

E) The Error of Easy Believism

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• We define biblical faith as: an absolutely certain commitment of reason to a correct understanding of a divine revelation, based on divine evidence, producing divine pleasure.
• The vital component of biblical faith is a conviction of reason, therefore it is wholly dependent on reason, and can be summarized with the equation: understanding a divine revelation + evaluating the trustworthiness and meaning of the revelation + committing to believing and obeying the revelation.
• We know we have biblical faith in a divine revelation when it changes our knowledge, desires, attitudes, and actions.
• Because trust is a necessary ingredient of empowering faith, worry reveals we do not possess it.
• Contrary to easy believism, when Jesus said “believe in Me,” He always also meant “love me,” which He defined as, “obey Me.”

A) The Requirements of Biblical Faith: Understanding, evaluation, & commitment of reason

As we noted in the first chapter, the concept of faith is rather complex. ^[1] This is not only because of its great variety of meaning in both philosophy and Scripture, but because of the complexity of its elements. Accordingly, we have defined biblical faith as: an absolutely certain commitment of human reason to a correct understanding of a divine revelation, based on divine evidence, producing divine pleasure. Such a definition includes not only necessary elements of biblical faith, but a progression as well.

First, we demonstrated in chapters 6.17 and 6.21 that biblical faith requires an intelligent understanding of a divine revelation. Biblical faith is in response to something God has certainly said. Secondly, we demonstrated in chapters 6.18-6.19 that biblical faith is built upon our evaluation of the evidence for the trustworthiness of a divine revelation we are to believe in. In other words, the certainty of biblical faith is derived from the sufficient evidence that God always provides with His revelation.

These two ingredients (understanding & evaluation) are necessary in biblical faith because eventually it requires the last ingredient: commitment of our reason. This we will not do unless our reason understands the revelation and believes it is worthy of trust. To summarize then, we would say biblical faith = understanding + evaluation + commitment.

Accordingly, we see that biblical faith, at least as humans experience it, is completely dependent on our reason, for it is what processes all of these ingredients of biblical faith. It is fideists who claim that faith is opposed to or apart from reason. Biblical faith always has its reasons and a faith concerning God that does not have sufficient reasons is foolishness, not biblical faith.

As discussed in Book 4: Biblical Psychology, it has been historically taught that this last ingredient of biblical faith, commitment, does not involve the faculty of our reason, but rather another faculty of the mind called the “will.” We disagree with such “faculty psychology” because whatever volition, desires, or decisions are attributed to a “will,” are obviously ultimately processed by our reasoning. ^[2]

Accordingly, the fact that there is no human faculty or function of “will” apart from reason significantly affects how the concept of “faith” is generally perceived. The traditional understanding of faith is described by R. C. Sproul who writes:

Building upon Augustine’s understanding of the multi-faceted character of faith, the Reformers isolated three key elements in authentic faith: notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Notitia refers to the data (notae) or content of the Christian faith. New Testament faith is not empty of content . . .

The second aspect of faith which follows upon notitia is assensus. As the Latin suggests, assensus refers to the element of faith which involves the assent of the intellect to the truth of the data. . . .

The third aspect of faith is most crucial. . . . Fiducia refers to the personal trust dimension of faith. The English derivative is the word fiduciary which places the emphasis on trust. . . . This aspect involves the mind but goes beyond the intellect to the heart, the will, the affections– to one’s personal inclination toward Christ. ^[3]

Again, there is an implication that faith is produced somewhere apart from our “intellect” or “mind” (i.e. reason) and actually in our “heart” or “the will.” This can again lead to the disparagement of the place of reason in God-pleasing biblical faith. The extreme of this is fideism in which faith becomes an act against or apart from reason. ^[4]

Nonetheless, it is common to hear claims that faith is something more than reasoning. Accordingly, theologian Murray Rae writes, “Christian faith cannot be reduced to a work of the intellect.” ^[5] Likewise, Geoffrey Bromiley writes in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

[W]hile faith must include an intellectual element, i.e., the reception of the words and works fulfilled in Christ, recorded in Holy Scripture, and proclaimed in genuine preaching, a mere assent to the body of facts and truths herein contained is very much less than faith. ^[6]

Likewise, in a discussion of the ingredients of faith, J. P. Moreland has written:

Fiducia . . . involves personal commitment to its object, whether to a truth or a person. Fiducia is essentially a matter of the will, because Christianity is a relationship with a Person and not just commitment to a set of truths (though this is, of course, essential). ^[7]

On the contrary, faith is simply a decision, and all decisions are made by our reason. And the fact that Christian faith involves believing in a Person does not change this, as beliefs in people, God, or things are all processed and decided upon in the same way by reason. Along the same lines, we reject elsewhere the neo-orthodox idea that believing in a Person like God is different than believing in things. ^[8]

Along these lines, Reformed theologian Robert Reymond writes:

Gordon H. Clark in Religion, Reason and Revelation, basing his conclusion on the fact that the Bible’s “heart” is semantically equivalent not to one’s emotions but to one’s deepest self with a preponderant emphasis even here upon the intellect of the self, argues that even fiducia [trust], as well as notitia [understanding] and assensus [rational conviction], is essentially intellectual. With this I concur, but I would urge that this intellectual fiducia includes affective and volitional dimensions [not faculties], since the Apostle insists that the saved must not simply know about and believe in but also love the Lord Jesus Christ (I Cor. 16:22). ^[9]

And with both Drs. Clark and Reymond we would concur as well.

Therefore, it is wrong to imply, as many do, that the desires of our “will” can conflict with the decisions of our reason. For example, many will explain the choice to smoke dangerous cigarettes in this way. The suggestion is that the desires of the “will” override the beliefs of reason, leading to the decision to smoke. On the contrary, beliefs, desires, and decisions are all produced by reason. Also, as described above, a decision to smoke in the face of warnings simply reflects conflicting beliefs of reason, not a “will” against our reason.

Accordingly, we might disagree with at least the wording of Calvin who writes of faith:

It now remains to pour into the heart what the mind has absorbed. For the Word of God is not received by faith if it flits about in the top of the brain, but when it takes root in the depth of the heart that it may be an invincible defense to withstand and drive off all the stratagems of temptation. ^[10]

On the contrary, faith happens as a result of logic in the mind, not as an emotion in the heart. Depending upon the importance our reason places on the particular object of our faith, we will have various degrees of desire and emotion attached to it. But faith happens in the “head” not the “heart” because in reality our “heart” is in our “head.”

B) The Result of Biblical Faith: Knowledge, desires, actions, hope

How do we know when we have biblical faith in a divine revelation? What is the result in our lives of a commitment of our reason to a divine revelation? The revelation changes our knowledge, desires, and actions. If a divine revelation does not forever change what we believe to be true, or what we want, or how we live, we really do not have biblical faith in it.

For example, we wrote elsewhere:

[E]mpowering faith enables us to trust a divine promise such as, “God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19). And we know we truly possess such faith when we have accepted it and submitted to it and such a promise effects the way we think and live. We cannot claim to have empowering faith in such a promise of God if we are anxious about our needs, and trusting other sources to meet them. ^[11]

In other words, if we experience anxiety about our needs it is because we really do not believe this divine revelation. Explaining why we experience conflicting desires and beliefs is important. For example, while it seems we strongly believe in God’s love and could give a sincere and strong teaching about it, we still worry as if God does not love us. Why is this?

It is common to explain it as Calvin did above and simply suggest that in this case the belief of God’s love is just in our head (intellect, reason) and not in our heart (will). Not so. What is being ignored is that our intellect and mind is in parts and not a cohesive whole. For example, there are very distinct conscious and subconscious parts of our mind that can actually be believing different things.

This is where such conflict occurs. Not because our “heart” believes something different than our “head” but because two different parts of our head believe different things. Therefore, transformation and a fuller, “deeper” belief comes from renewing another part of our mind, not “getting truth from our head into our heart.” ^[12]

But there can be simpler reasons that we do not fully believe what God says. Perhaps we do not correctly understand what Scripture says when we read: “God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19). You may be defining something as one of “your needs,” that is actually a desire. The promise here is that “God will meet all your needs” and if you misinterpret what He views as your needs, this promise will not seem true to you.

Perhaps our problem is that even if we believe that ultimately this is a promise from God, He is not trustworthy. In this case, we must evaluate the evidence and experience we have with God’s trustworthiness in order to gain greater faith in it, as discussed elsewhere. ^[13]

However, if we correctly understand this promise, truly believe God made it, that He is able to keep it, and worthy of our trust to do so, we will commit our reason to such a promise and have peace about our needs. That is when we know we have biblical faith.

Obviously, based on the type of divine revelation, a biblical faith in it will affect us differently. We believe the historical revelation that, “At that time [c. 1500 B. C.], Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah” (Gen 38:1). This really happened. And while it serves to increase our knowledge of events in early Jewish history, it will probably do nothing to change our desires or the way we live.

This is not true of all historical revelation, however. Statements such as “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth” (Gen 1:1), or “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures . . . He was buried . . . He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4), have a profound effect on our life and even eternity. The reason these biblical facts of history seem more powerful to us is not because we believe them more strongly than the information about Judah above, but rather because our reason discerns that they have a much greater application to our personal lives.

We know we have faith in a doctrinal truth of Scripture such as “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us” (1 John 3:1), when we can trust that love, and gain a sense of peace and joy because of it, no matter what our circumstances. Such a result implies we understand it, have sufficient evidence for it regardless of our circumstances, and our reason has committed to it as a belief.

If there are circumstances in which “the love the Father” does not give us peace and joy, then we really do not believe this doctrine, nor has our reason committed to it. Somewhere, somehow, our reason has committed to other beliefs which contradict a belief in God’s love. Perhaps we have experienced something in our life in which it did not seem the God loved us. Perhaps He allowed something hurtful to occur and honestly, because of our perception of the event, it seems to contradict the doctrinal statement that “great is the love the Father has lavished on us” (1 John 3:1).

We must go after such doubts in such doctrines, meditate on the biblical and experiential evidence of such love, until our whole “heart” is committed to it without any doubts anywhere in our mind.

In relation to directional revelation such as “A new command I give you: Love one another” (John 13:34), our first evidence that we really believe it as divine revelation is that we desire to do it. Biblical faith in such a command will practically, radically, and forever change what we want. However, it is not sufficient to have a biblical faith in such a command that only involves a desire to do it. Our faith must involve other things as well in order to consistently carry out that desire.

All true Christians want to consistently obey this command. Why then don’t they? As we noted above, this is because they have other beliefs that cancel out whatever desire they may have to love someone. For example, if they believe somewhere in their “heart” that the cost of loving someone will far outweigh the benefit, they will struggle to love them. More specifically, if we do not believe that loving this person will actually bring us the most happiness, we will struggle to love them, because as noted elsewhere, happiness is the God-given goal of our “heart.” ^[14] Of course, God knows that loving others sacrificially will bring us the greatest happiness in this life (cf. Matt 16:25; John 15:9-12), even loving our enemies. But if our whole “heart” does not believe that, our love will be inconsistent.

It is this very mental process involved in biblical faith that is being spoken of when the Apostle writes:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by [because of an understanding and faith in] the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice [an act of faith], holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable [logikēn ^[15]] service [based on a faith based on reasoning]. And do not be conformed to [the beliefs of] this world, but be transformed by the renewing [changing of the beliefs] of your mind [nous], that you may prove [dokimazein: analyze, accept] what is that good [to your reason] and acceptable [to your reason] and perfect will of God. (Rom 12:1-3 NKJV).

There is a whole lot of reasoning (i.e. understanding, evaluation, and commitment) going on here, all to arrive at biblical faith and the beliefs, desires, and actions that it produces. As we have written elsewhere concerning this passage:

First, the Apostle writes to motivate his readers to serve God. What does he appeal to? Reason and logic. The Apostle wants us to think and reason about what God has done for us (as explained in Romans 1-11), knowing that if we do so properly, we will decide to live for Him. Reasoning here supplies a major motivation for sanctification.

Secondly, Paul describes the process by which one becomes consecrated to God. Simply put, we must exchange the worldly lies we believe with the truth of God to form new beliefs, all of which is the domain of our reason. Our life is “transformed” when the beliefs that are processed, evaluated, accepted, and stored by reason are renewed to conform to Scripture, rather than the world.

Thirdly, the Apostle relates that one result of this renewing of our beliefs will be the improved ability of our reason to analyze, recognize, and accept as true, what God’s will is, as revealed in the divine revelation of Scripture. ^[16]

Accordingly, it is clear that a biblical faith will result in a change of our knowledge, desires, and actions.

Pastoral Practices

• When we teach, we need to keep in mind how God has made our minds to process beliefs. Because understanding God’s word is foundational, we must “Preach the Word . . . with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim 4:2), being as clear and simple as possible.

Because evaluation of evidence is necessary, give reasons to believe what God has said. And then appeal to their reason, as the Apostle did in Romans 12:1-2, to make a commitment to the belief. For if they believe it, it will effect their life, which is the goal of all teaching.

And notice that the Apostle did not appeal merely to people’s emotions. Mere emotional commitments will not last. The multitude who claim we must aim our teaching at the “heart” (i.e. emotions) instead of the mind (i.e. intellect), do not understand the biblical meaning of the “heart,” ^[17] how God has made us to process beliefs, ^[18] nor what is involved in biblical faith.

C) Biblical Faith Illustrated: Matt 13:18-23

While we explore below in more detail the rational commitment required in biblical faith, we will begin here by illustrating the necessary elements in Christ’s parable of the “sower and the seed.” The context of this parable is the preaching of the divine revelation of the Gospel. The parable concerns four different responses to this divine revelation, with only the last one being biblical faith. The other responses reveal an absence of the understanding, acceptance, or commitment of reason.

This is what the King said:

Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:  ¹⁹When anyone hears the message about the Kingdom [a divine revelation] and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

²⁰The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy [an emotional response].  ²¹But since he has no root [“in himself” NASB] [a conviction in his reason], he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

²²The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life [exposing his real beliefs] and the deceitfulness [apate: “delight”] of wealth [exposing his real desires] choke it, making it unfruitful.

²³But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. (Matt 13:18-23)

First, we notice that biblical faith requires an understanding (vs. 19, 23) of a divine revelation. It is the first person’s lack of rational understanding of “the message about the Kingdom” that makes its truths particularly susceptible to satan’s counter-deceptions.

While the second person in the parable above evidently understood the “message about the Kingdom” (v. 19), they did not actually believe it, which would have led to a commitment to it as well. When the King says they had “no root” (v. 21) we suggest He is speaking of a lack of mental conviction which is a foundation of all biblical faith.

This lack of conviction occurs because when they hear “the word” the person “at once [enthuse: “immediately”] receives it with joy” (v. 20). D. A. Carson aptly describes this person as someone “who receives ‘the word’ in a thoughtless way.” ^[19] Both the lack of rational thought implied by the hasty acceptance of “the word” (cf. Luke 14:28-33), and the presence of merely an emotional “joy,” ^[20] are attributes of false faith. While impulses and feelings are an adequate basis for faith in both fideistic theology ^[21] and charismaticism, ^[22] they are not adequate for biblical faith.

This is exposed by the fact that when reasons like “trouble or persecution comes because of the word,” (v. 21) such reasons outweigh whatever other reasons they had for initially accepting the revelation. True conviction is tested, but not destroyed by difficult circumstances. Even here though, in the second person, we see the importance of a commitment of reason. The desire for comfort (i.e. absence of “trouble or persecution”) overwhelms whatever desires there were to commit to “the message about the Kingdom.”

The importance of our desires developed by our reason is especially revealed in the false faith of the third person. Their lack of commitment is no match for their “desires for other things” (cf. Mark 4:19), including wealth. ^[23] Accordingly, Dr. Carson comments, “This person . . . simply never permits the message about the kingdom to control him: life has too many other commitments that slowly choke the struggling plant, which never matures and bears fruit.” ^[24] The world, the flesh, and the devil are quite capable of stimulating desires that will overpower a less than full desire to commit to “the message about the Kingdom.”

Accordingly, it is only the fourth person described in the parable who possesses biblical and saving faith in the passage. ^[25] Luke renders Christ’s description of this person when he writes: “But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word [understand it], retain it [commit to it], and by persevering [living it] produce a crop” (Luke 8:15). Those with biblical faith have been given “a noble and good heart,” (we could never take credit for such a thing), giving the person an understanding of the message (cf. Matt 13:23), a favorable judgment on its evidence, and a resulting commitment to “retain it,” demonstrated in persevering virtue.

This kind of “wholehearted” faith is the only kind that will suffice for biblical faith. Its commitment of our whole mind is reflected when David says, “you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind” (1 Chr 28:9 NASB; cf. 2 Chr 16:9). In the end then, real faith in God is no different than real love for God, and therefore we can read “the first and greatest commandment” as follows: Have faith in “the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt 22:37-8).

Accordingly, J. I. Packer explains that even the Greek words used in the NT for faith and believe include more than just the understanding of reason, but a commitment by it as well:

Both words [pistis and pisteuō] are used virtually as technical terms [in the NT] to express the complex thought of unqualified acceptance of, and exclusive dependence on, the mediation of the Son as alone securing the mercy of the Father. Both normally bear this whole weight of meaning, whether their grammatical object is God, Christ, the gospel, a truth, a promise, or is not expressed at all. Both signify commitment as following from conviction. ^[26]

D) Biblical Faith Demonstrated in Love & Obedience

What will this commitment of our reason in biblical faith look like? Love. As we have discussed at length elsewhere, particularly in 1 John, to believe in Christ as Savior is to love Him as Lord. ^[27] Along these lines, we are reminded in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology that, “If Paul’s word for describing the way men turn to God is pistis, John’s is agapē.^[28]

Likewise, the Apostle Peter beautifully describes biblical faith when he writes:

Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:8-9).

Both the absence of direct knowledge and the presence of love were necessary in what the Apostle considered saving “faith.”

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul writes, “If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him” (1 Cor 16:22) because there is no such thing as believing in Him and not loving Him. Likewise, because to truly believe in the Gospel is to love the Gospel, the Apostle wrote of unbelievers, “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess 2:10). You cannot separate real faith from real love as the one will produce the other. This is why love may be a better synonym for faith than even trust.

Accordingly, Professor of Philosophy Scott MacDonald writes:

The volitional component of Christian faith is a response to these truths which consists in a kind of love for the person of God. Many accounts of faith, especially within the Protestant tradition, have taken trust to be the primary non-cognitive component in faith, but I think that love not only includes what these accounts have taken to be important about trust but is also more basic than trust to Christian faith.

Love for God encompasses or grounds many distinguishable emotional and volitional attitudes, including reverence toward God for the sort of being he is, gratitude to him for his attitudes and actions toward us, desire for intimate communion with God, and desire for and commitment to the actualization of God’s purposes and goals. ^[29]

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) would seem to have come to a similar conclusion. In his notebook on “Faith” he writes in entry 108:

That saving faith implies in its nature divine love is manifest, by I John 5:1, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him also that is begotten of him.” . . . “For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

This is explaining what he had said before, that our love to God enables us to overcome the difficulties that attend keeping God’s commands; which shows that love is the main thing in saving faith, the life and power of it, by which it produces its great effects, agreeable to what the apostle Paul [says], when he calls saving faith, faith effectual by love. [Gal 5:6] ^[30]

While the love of biblical faith certainly and eventually will include actions, its most immediate expression will be in attitudes. This is because “the fruit of the Spirit” is “love, joy, [and] peace” (Gal 5:22). These will be the immediate effects of particularly saving faith and they will be evident to both the individual person, and those who know them.

This is an important point in the debates surrounding what demonstrates such saving faith. Obedience is a fruit of faith that may take longer to determine, and is more difficult to do so. But if the Spirit of God truly has regenerated and inhabited us (as He has every real Christian), then changes in our attitudes and desires will be immediate and obvious.

None of this is to say that real faith will not eventually result in action. ^[31] In fact, while apparent attitudes such as superficial love, temporary joy, and a momentary freedom from guilt may accompany a profession of faith in Christ (cf. Matt 13:20-23), only sincere and enduring (although not perfect!) obedience to Christ most assuredly demonstrate such faith.

Once again, the grammar of the biblical languages supports this. Baptist theologian Millard Erickson comments concerning the OT idea of faith that:

In a very real sense, Old Testament Hebrew does not have a noun for faith. . . . Instead, Hebrew conveys the idea of faith with verb forms. Perhaps that is because the Hebrews regarded faith as something one does rather than has, an activity rather than a possession. ^[32]

Regarding the Greek NT, W. E. Vine notes:

Peithō [“to persuade”] and pisteuō, ‘to trust,’ are closely related etymologically; the difference in meaning is that the former implies the obedience that is produced by the latter, cf. Heb. 3:18-19, where the disobedience of the Israelites is said to be the evidence of their unbelief. Faith is of the heart, invisible to men; obedience is of the conduct and may be observed.

When a man obeys God he gives the only possible evidence that in his heart he believes God. Of course it is persuasion of the truth that results in faith (we believe because we are persuaded that the thing is true, a thing does not become true because it is believed), but peithō, in the NT suggests an actual and outward result of the inward persuasion and consequent faith. ^[33]

As we have said, to believe in Christ is to love Him. But we must add: to love Him is to obey Him. The King said so Himself: “If you love Me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15; cf. vs. 23-24). Accordingly, the Scriptures consistently and repeatedly illustrate and teach the fact that obedience demonstrates biblical faith, and without practicing the former, one is in a very precarious position to claim they possess the latter.

For example, Moses reminds the Israelites:

When the LORD sent you out from Kadesh Barnea, He said, “Go up and take possession of the land I have given you.” But you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. You did not trust Him or obey Him (Deut 9:23).

It is because faith in God is often thought of as merely a superficial acceptance of God’s word, that Christ’s view of saving faith, in particular, is misunderstood. We read in Matthew 19 that, “a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”” and that “Jesus replied . . . If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”” (vs. 16-17)

Likewise, in His Sermon on the Mount, the King said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven” (Matt 7:21).

Finally, the King said, “a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29).

Was Christ teaching that we are saved by works? Obviously not, as He states elsewhere, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing” (John 6:63), clearly referring to the need to be supernaturally born again (cf. John 3:5-6). The King had a Jewish understanding of faith which was a “whole-hearted” belief resulting in action. When Jesus said “believe in Me,” He always also meant “love me,” and He did not divide the two as so many desire to do today in an understanding of saving faith.

E) The Error of Easy Believism: The lordship salvation debate

This unbiblical separation of saving faith in the Savior from sincere love for the Savior is particularly and unfortunately descriptive of several current and past professors at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). John MacArthur writes:

Prior to this century [twentieth], no serious theologian would have entertained the notion that it is possible to be saved yet see nothing of the outworking of regeneration in one’s lifestyle or behavior. In 1918 Lewis Sperry Chafer [1871-1952; founder of DTS] published He That Is Spiritual, articulating the concept that 1 Corinthians 2:15-3:3 speaks of two classes of Christians: carnal and spiritual. Chafer wrote, “The ‘carnal’ Christian is . . . characterized by a ‘walk’ that is on the same plane as that of the ‘natural’ [unsaved] man.”

That was a foreign concept to most Christians in Dr. Chafer’s generation, but it has become a central premise for a large segment of the church today. . . . Those schooled in dispensationalist theology may be surprised to learn that Chafer’s book was extremely controversial when first released. In a scathing review, B. B. Warfield took issue with Chafer’s basic premise. ^[34]

Chafer’s suggestion that there need be no demonstrable or significant difference in the lifestyle and attitudes of those who believe in Christ, would seem to be the root of subsequent teachings from DTS claiming the same. For example, Zane Hodges, former Professor of NT at DTS has written that saving faith involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever.” ^[35] Likewise, Charles C. Ryrie, another DTS professor, suggests that in saving faith there “need be no turning from sin, no resulting change in lifestyle, no commitment—not even a willingness to yield to Christ’s lordship.” ^[36]

Again, we suggest that, “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt 19:6) and proponents of such easy believism have illegitimately divided two things. First, they have divided Jesus by suggesting that we can accept Him as Savior but reject Him as Lord. To the contrary, if someone does that, they do not have Jesus, nor the Father, at all. As discussed elsewhere, one need only read 1 John to discover that. ^[37] Secondly, as demonstrated above, real faith in the Savior will result in real love for Him as well. God never intended to separate Christ’s lordship from His saviorhood, nor faith in God from love for God.

Obviously, one of the dangers that proponents of easy believism are trying to guard against is the idea that salvation is based on good works. However, this potential error is rather easily avoided by understanding that saving faith is always accompanied by a supernatural regeneration which transforms the person. This is why the Scriptures always speak of supernatural virtue as accompanying saving faith. Saving faith always and immediately results in “a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17) which will always and automatically result in virtuous attitudes and actions that will be obvious.

This is the connection that the Apostle illustrates in Ephesians 2:8-10:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast.  ¹⁰For [because] we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:8-10)

It is easy to read this passage, stop at verse 9, and separate the salvation by grace from the resulting works. However, the Apostle’s use of “for” reflects his desire to tie the whole passage together. Notice that the reason “no one can boast” about any good works is that in the process of saving us by grace God recreated us “to do good works.” The supernatural regeneration that is required to enable us to receive “the gift” of saving faith also transforms us into a new kind of person whose New Nature is to love God and people, therefore doing “good works.” But again, the “good works” are the result of saving faith, not its cause, otherwise the salvation by grace that the Apostle speaks of is meaningless.

Likewise, in what was probably the first Scripture the Apostle Paul wrote, he said in the context of saving faith, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6). It was not simply a faith that involved cognitive understanding or superficial mental acceptance that he preached. In fact, in his most detailed exposition of saving faith (i.e. Romans), he introduces it and ends it with a declaration of the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26 NASB).

The Apostle knew very well how to tell if someone possessed such faith and instructed Titus regarding those who “do not believe” that “They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him” (Tit 1:15-16; cf. Jude 1:4).

Likewise, the Apostle Peter makes obedience practically synonymous with believing when he writes: “Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth [not just believing it] so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart” (1 Pet 1:22). Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) summed up the NT teaching on saving faith well when he memorably wrote: “Although faith alone justifies, it is never alone.” ^[38]

Here we are reminded of an analogy we often use while sharing the Gospel with someone in order to help them understand what biblical believing really means. Imagine a tightrope walker performing at a hazardous height above the floor with no safety net. In the course of his act he does backward flips, carries things on his shoulders, and demonstrates that he can walk on the tightrope as if it were the ground itself.

After an admiring crowd has watched him for some time, he calls out to ask them if they believe he can walk across the wire while carrying a person on his shoulders. The crowd enthusiastically and confidently cheers “Yes!” Then the performer asks, “Which one of you will it be?”

The crowd is immediately silenced, and undoubtedly discovers whether or not they really believe. The tightrope walker is asking for a “whole-hearted” believing, the kind of trust that Jesus Christ demands we place in Him if we are to be saved. It is the kind of faith that Luther described when he wrote that biblical faith is: “a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times.”

Pastoral Practices

• While our teaching must provide our people with a correct understanding of God’s word in order for God-pleasing faith to occur, it must go further than that. We must strive to lead them to commitment and an actual change in action. And this is how we must evaluate the quality of our teaching. Is it changing lives? Accordingly, if our people are not loving one another, than they simply do not believe in love and we must teach all the more to change that.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we take this opportunity to thank you again for what we believe. Beliefs that have taken us eternally from darkness to light, and from the power of satan to God. Beliefs that give us peace and strength and integrity even in the challenges of this life. We thank you for our saving faith, endeavor to do our part in growing in empowering faith, and pray for wisdom in decisions of practical faith. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. How do we define biblical faith?
2. What is the vital component in biblical faith and why?
3. How do we know when we have biblical faith?
4. What is wrong with easy believism?
5. Why do we say that knowing and believing are two different things?
6. How would you answer the question of whether or not faith is certain?
7. What are two reasons that biblical faith involves absolute certainty?
8. What are some biblical passages that can be used to suggest that saving faith possesses absolute certainty?
9. How do we explain the fact that saving faith requires absolute certainty but our assurance of salvation may waver?
10. Why do we suggest that empowering faith requires certainty as well?
11. How do we define practical faith? What are the many ways it differs from biblical faith?
12. Why do we suggest that practical faith cannot and need not possess absolute certainty?
13. Why is the context of a forced decision not applicable to a discussion regarding biblical faith?
14. Why do we equate love with biblical faith?

Publications & Particulars

1. For further discussion on the complexity of faith see section 6.1.A. ↑

2. For further on what we perceive as a faulty distinction between the “will” and reason see chapter 4.2. ↑

3. R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsey, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Academie Books, 1984), 22. ↑

4. For further discussion of fideism see chapters 2.10 and 6.20. ↑

5. Murray Rae, “The Status of Doctrine: Kierkegaardian Explorations” in The Task of Theology Today: Doctrines and Dogmas, Victor Pfitzner and Hilary Regan eds. (Eerdmans, 1999), 219. ↑

6. Geoffrey Bromiley, “Faith,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), II:271. ↑

7. J. P. Moreland and Klaus Issler, In Search of a Confident Faith (Intervarsity, 2008), 22 ↑

8. For further discussion of the neo-orthodox claim that believing in Christ as a Person, instead of through Scripture is to be different see section 7.7.C. ↑

9. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nelson, 1998), 728. ↑

10. John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster Press, 1960), I:583. ↑

11. Quoted from section 6.7.A.2. ↑

12. For further on the biblical view of the “head” and “heart” see chapters 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and especially 4.7. ↑

13. For practical, biblical steps in strengthening our empowering faith in God see section 6.7.C. ↑

14. For further discussion of our claim that happiness is the God-given goal of our “heart” see section 4.1.C. ↑

15. Regarding Rom 12:1, Douglas Moo admits that, “The meaning of logikēn is notoriously difficult to pin down” (The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, 1996], 751). Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, NASB) have chosen to translate it “spiritual.” However, the KJV renders it “reasonable” and we think this is the best meaning.

    First of all, in ancient Greek logikos meant intellectual, rational, reasonable. Thomas Schreiner points out that at times pneumatikos (“spiritual”) was placed alongside logikos, but the meaning of the latter was not to be confused with the former (Romans [Baker, 1998], 645). Dr. Schreiner notes as well that if the Apostle had meant “spiritual” he certainly would have used pneumatikos as he had many times elsewhere. Dr. Schreiner suggests one reason why some have shied away from the Greek usage:

    Some scholars hesitate to endorse the meaning “rational” since the term was common in Greek philosophy, fearing (I think) that they would impose foreign categories on Paul. Using the term with the meaning “rational,” however, does not yield the conclusion that Paul was Aristotelian or Stoic. All that needs to be said is that Paul used the term with the meaning “rational” or “reasonable,” as was common in the Greek language. (Ibid.)

    This being the case, Philo’s (20 B. C.–50) use of this term in his Special Laws becomes significant where we read:

    That which is precious in the sight of God is not the number of the [sacrificial animal] victims immolated but the true purity of a rational spirit [pneuma logikon] in him who makes the sacrifice. (Moo, 752)

    The Apostle seems to be saying practically the same thing as this influential Jewish philosopher of his day. They are at least using the same language.

    In conclusion, we would suggest that the modern translations miss the fact that the Apostle is intentionally focusing on human reason here as the place where such a decision will be made. Dr. Schreiner (in agreement with Barnes, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, MacArthur, Mounce, and Murray; and against Moo and Barclay) puts it well when he comments:

    Paul is not merely saying that sacrifices are spiritual in nature. His point is that it is eminently reasonable, given the mercies of God, for believers to dedicate themselves wholly to God. . . . Since God has been so merciful, failure to dedicate one’s life to him is the height of folly and irrationality. (645). ↑

16. Quoted from section 4.3.B.3. ↑

17. For further discussion of the biblical meaning of the metaphorical human “heart” see 4.1. ↑

18. For further discussion on how humans obtain beliefs see sections 2.3.C-D and chapter 2.5. ↑

19. D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), loc. cit. ↑

20. Concerning the difference between the merely emotional joy spoken of in Matthew 13:20 with the supernatural joy that accompanies salvation, we have written elsewhere:

    [I]t should not be missed that even those with false faith can receive the gospel “with joy,” a joy they no doubt feel themselves and which others are eager to accept as evidence of regeneration. However, we see that this “joy” is a mere emotion that dissipates with changing circumstances. This “joy” should not be confused with the supernatural virtue produced by the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22) which operates even in the midst of difficult circumstances. (6.6.B) ↑

21. Fideism is the perspective that faith is opposed and apart from reason. For further discussion see chapter 6.20. ↑

22. For a description of the essence of charismaticism see endnote in section 6.6.E. ↑

23. What the NIV translates as “the deceitfulness of wealth” (Matt 13:22) Dr. Carson suggests could be rendered “the delight of wealth.” He writes: “The latter category, he apate tou ploutou, may possibly be rendered “the delight in wealth,” since in late Greek apate, which earlier meant “deceitfulness,” came to mean “pleasure” or “delight,” usually involving sin (e.g., 2 Peter 2:13; cf. BAGD, s.v.). EBC, loc. cit. ↑

24. Ibid. ↑

25. For further discussion of the interpretation that only the fourth person in the parable of the “Sower and the Seed” possesses saving faith see section 6.6.B. ↑

26. J. I. Packer, “Faith,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell, ed., (Baker, 1984), 400. For a more detailed study of the biblical words and concepts referring to faith, see B. B. Warfield, in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield reprint, 10 Vols. (Baker, 2000), 467-83. ↑

27. For further discussion of the proof of saving faith see chapter 5.5 ↑

28. W. Günther and H. G. Link, “Love” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986);2:546. ↑

29. Scott MacDonald, “Christian Faith,” in Reasoned Faith, Eleonore Stump, ed. (Cornell University Press, 1993), 44. At the time of writing his article, Dr. MacDonald was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Iowa. ↑

30. Jonathan Edwards in Works of Jonathan Edwards, S. H. Lee, ed. (Yale University Press, 2003), 21:448. ↑

31. Christians have traditionally followed us in suggesting that mental acceptance (faith) leads to obedience of commands or trust in promises. However, Dr. John Frame devotes a considerable amount of discussion to suggesting that the reverse is biblical as well. He writes:

    Obedience to God leads to knowledge (John 7:17; Eph. 3:17-19; 2 Tim. 2:25; 1 John 3:16; Ps. 111: 10; Prov. 1:7; 15:33; Isa. 33:6). This is the converse of the previous point [that knowledge leads to obedience]; there is a “circular” relation between knowledge and obedience in Scripture. Neither is unilaterally prior to the other, either temporally or causally. They are inseparable and simultaneous. Each enriches the other (cf. 2 Peter 1:5f.).

    In our opinion, none of the verses that Dr. Frame cites supports his view. It would be more accurate to say that they are speaking of spiritual regeneration rather than obedience. As for the last one (2 Peter 1:5-8), the verses are saying that works increases our productivity, not our knowledge (cf. v. 8).

    Professor Frame continues:

    In my view, some Reformed “intellectualists” (Gordon Clark has applied this label to himself) have failed to do justice to this circularity. Even in the writings of J. Gresham Machen, one often finds the slogan “life is built upon doctrine” used in a way that distorts the fact that in some senses the opposite is also true. It is certainly true that if you want to obey God more completely, you must get to know Him; but it is also true that if you want to know God better, you must seek to obey Him more perfectly. (39-40)

    This last statement sounds nice, but we’re not sure what the Professor is trying to say. It might be more helpful to say that what we experience as a result of obedience (i.e. blessing, peace, fruit, etc.), provides additional evidence for a stronger faith in God’s character. We discuss this perspective as well elsewhere, particularly in the life of David (see section 6.13.D). And this would seem to be Dr. Frame’s point when later he writes that God, “uses our obedience [i.e. what we experience as a result of obedience?] as a means of giving us knowledge” (40). ↑

32. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 951. ↑

33. Vine, 438. ↑

34. John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, revised and expanded edition (Zondervan, 1988, 1994), 30. ↑

35. Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Redencion Viva, 1981), 14. ↑

36. See Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Moody, 1969), 169-70. ↑

37. For further discussion of the proof of salvation see chapter 5.5. ↑

38. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, (MacMillan, 1965), 122. ↑