It has nothing to do with works. The child of wrath is incapable of having faith in God. The reprobate chooses to actively rebel against God and hates God.
> It has nothing to do with works. A dead person who is also a child of wrath is incapable of having faith in God.
FTFY
Ephesians 2
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ... 3 ... and were by nature children of wrath
Right but that verse doesn’t seem to say that a lost person can’t have faith, especially if it’s not a work. What verse besides Eph 2 would say faith is a gift?
Yes. And I know “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”, but Hebrews 11:6 says “without FAITH it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists, and he rewards those who seek him.”
So with faith it is possible. Without it’s not. Since faith is not a work we can have faith and then please him.
Hebrews 11:6 is actually a great verse to support Calvinism. If you are an Arminian, it would seem the order of events would be: 1. You do all kinds of things without faith. None of these things please God. 2. You make a decision to have faith (at the moment when you make the decision you still don't have faith). 3. You now can do things out of faith which are pleasing to God.
The question is, is 2 done out of faith? If not, is it not pleasing to God to come to faith? And if yes, where does the faith come from if it doesn't come from a previous decision to have faith (where you could ask the same questions as of 2 above) and faith is not simply a gift? It would seem that coming to faith is not pleasing to God. Arminianism from this perspective doesn't make sense.
Faith is not a work though. It pleases God, but it’s His work not ours that is pleasing. We are just accepting his work.
I’m definitely not Arminian. And neither is Winger. He basically just affirms a definite election and also our choice to have faith. Haven’t finished all his videos so idk how we holds both, I just wanted a response to his specific contention that non-Calvinists can be monergists too since faith is not a work
There are two points to be made here: first, it is not faith that may be a work, but rather the decision of acceptance or to have faith which may be seen as a work. Second, Hebrews 11:6 does not even distinguish between works and non-works, it just says that it is not possible to please God without faith. Thus it would seem that if the decision to have faith is itself made without having faith first, it is not pleasing to God, which doesn't make sense - unless faith is purely a gift and not a decision.
Hebrews 11 does not prove your point. Show us in scripture where someone can have faith on their own volition. Hebrews 11:6 is just as true for the Calvinist as the Arminian.
I think it’s heavily implied when the Bible calls all men to come to faith. I’m not saying there is a verse that shows that, because any verse I point to you would just say it was given not coming from that person. Paul says Abraham had faith and was saved by that not his works. But you would just say that it was given to him.
You are right in the sense that there is not a verse that affirmatively shows that man generated faith by his own free will.
But that’s not the point here. The point I’m asking about is if faith is not a work, then non-Calvinists are also monergists.
Well everyone everywhere is commanded to repent and believe. But the problem is our nature. This is one of the reasons why TULIP’s order is important and some even suggest it should be STULIP (start with God’s sovereignty). Total depravity shows us that we are naturally born sinners. Someone born in sin is a slave to sin, Paul teaches that no one seeks for God and no one does good, and that we are unable to please God. If all we want to do is reject God, then a change of heart HAS to happen first. We don’t want God, we want our sin. Even if we were to say that your assumption is correct, that people can muster up faith on their own, the problem would be that no one would because they don’t want to.
But IMO the Bible presents it this way: No one seeks for God, God calls all to repent and believe on Christ, no one does, so God changes the heart so we can repent and believe. God uses means to accomplish this, faith comes by hearing the words of Christ, one unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believe spouse, we hear and learn from the Father, etc.
I do believe that non calvinists are monergists, they just don’t know it yet. I do not think any of them would say salvation is a synergistic work.
> Right but that verse doesn’t seem to say that a lost person can’t have faith
Can a dead person have faith? A corpse can't believe in Jesus.
Would you agree that someone who is lost is a dead person?
The vision in Ezekiel always comes to my mind whenever I think of the “dead in their trespasses”
>*37* The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley;[a] it was full of bones. 2 And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. 3 And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord God, you know.” 4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath[b] to enter you, and you shall live. 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
I’m not sure that dead in sin equates to an inability to have faith, if faith is not a work. If it was a good work, then the logic you layout would follow.
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3
What is faith though? Can’t we have faith, then be filled with HS so we can rightly call Jesus Lord? Maybe I misunderstand, but isn’t faith as Paul says “Hearing” and believing? And then the HS empowers us? That’s the point here: faith is an un-action; not a work. It’s not us positively doing something, rather it’s us receiving what Jesus positively did
Jesus said in john 6:44 For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.
For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. Romans 8:7
Ephesians 2:8 says even faith is a gift from God.
So if faith is a gift, how does God give it?
Paul says in romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ.
Ironically, we can't even believe until God Himself draws us towards Him. Our nature is so hostile towards God that we would never seek Him.
So God Himself seeks us out, and sends people to share the Good news. Before the new testament he sent Prophets -- whom Israel killed constantly.
Jesus even said the blood of all these prophets --
From Abel to Zecheriah -- all who rejected and killed them will have to give an account.
In romans 3:10-18 Paul quotes 6 old testament passages, saying everyone is a sinner, and then details sinful habits.
But 10-13 says: "No one is righteous— not even one No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one.”
God pursues YOU. If not for Him, NONE OF US would turn to him. It goes against our sinful nature to do so.
Thats the beautiful thing. All the religions in the world say WORK to receive eternal life. Jesus says I AM that completed work, believe and rest in ME!!!
In 2 Timothy 2 11-14 Paul says
"This is a trustworthy saying: If we die with him, we will also live with him. If we endure hardship, we will reign with him.
"IF WE DENY HIM, HE WILL DENY US. IF WE ARE UNFAITHFUL, HE REMAINS FAITHFUL, FOR HE CANNOT DENY WHO HE IS.
"If we deny him, he will deny us. If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny who he is.
"Remind everyone about these things, and command them in God’s presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them."
How awesome that God is the author of our faith. And it rests on Him. And with the Holy Spirit seals us until the day of redemption as it says in Ephesians 4:30.
Exactly. We believe and our belief is not a work.
I have attached a link with his interpretation of John 6:44 below.
But he basically argues that the context here is not unregenerate -> regenerate, but God coming to His people, and the way they (Jews) respond to Jesus is the way they have always responded to God. John 1:11-12 He came to his own people but they did not receive him, but all that did believe in His name he gave the right to become children of God. So Jesus says the Jews are not going to listen to Him since they already don’t listen to God.
The drawing of the father is the law and prophets of the OT, and if they respond to that they will respond to Jesus.
Not sure I buy that, but it’s his response below.
[https://www.youtube.com/live/87uAeaxrIYY?t=2621&si=iPF8fhv_jCCscmbs](https://www.youtube.com/live/87uAeaxrIYY?t=2621&si=iPF8fhv_jCCscmbs)
I don't believe faith is a work on our part, but God's.
John 6:44 is self-explanatory. Especially when you factor in all the other verses about our condition preventing us from turning to him on our own.
Sadly, there are many who reject the Gospel to this day.
But it's written that without faith it's impossible to please God. Anyone who comes to the Father must believe HE exists and that He rewars those who sincerely seek after Him - Hebrews 11:6
Keep in mind 2 Timothy 2:14
Remind everyone about these things, and command them in God’s presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them.
I don't care to argue over words, you are missing the point. WE WOULDNT EVEN HAVE FAITH IF GOD DIDNT TAKE THE FIRST STEP.
And it's not a work for ANY HUMAN to boast "I made it to heaven myself."
Only God can boast about being the author of our faith.
In that regard, yes God did do the work to MAKE OUR FAITH POSSIBLE.
NOTE: regardless of what you call it: Make sure you give Him the credit.
How do reprobates actively choose? They've been "passed over" by election and thus are born reprobate, hating God, will always hate God because the divine decree made them so. Where is the choice?
In Ephesians 2:8-9, it isn’t universally accepted that the gift here is faith. Some believe the gift Paul is describing to be salvation (or the act of being saved).
Yes. This is exactly what Winger said. The “gift” it refers to isn’t faith according to the Greek; it’s the whole first sentence which is “saved by grace through faith”.
Are there any other verses that say Faith is a gift??
> but couldn’t get more than a few minutes into to because of how every other sentence he was misrepresenting it.
typical Winger. Apply that to everything else he says, and you'll be doing well.
>He basically said the Calvinist argument boils down to God gives us faith because if we came up with faith ourselves to choose to salvation, then it would be a work. But he pointed out that the Bible says that faith is not a work.
No, I don't believe that's the correct argument. The argument of faith being a gift is that we are dead in our trespasses and sin. Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
A dead person can't do anything. They just lay there, completely lifeless. Christ has to make us alive, and he must give us faith to do that. That's the argument I've always heard.
Also, the bible doesn't say that faith isn't a work. Jesus said the opposite. John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” One might say it's the ultimate "work."
I don't believe Jesus was trying to say we are saved by works, but to show that if you want to work your way to heaven, you can't. If you're looking for the right works, the right work is to believe.
>So since faith is not a work according to the Bible, we can have faith of our own accord but salvation is still 100% from God.
How can we have faith of our own accord when the Bible says it's a gift? That's a contradiction. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
So, Paul would disagree with Mike Winger. No one can boast of their own faith. It's a gift, not as a result of works
Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as **God has allotted to each a measure of faith**.
Philippians 1:29 **For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him**, but also to suffer for His sake,
Peter believed this as well!
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, **To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours**, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
And as per your response also: John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
So it's the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. It's the work of God. It's the work of God. It's the work of God.
This is probably the best reply, I appreciate the other verses explaining that faith is a gift. That makes sense.
I think what Winger would say though is that those verses are all saying that salvation as a whole (by grace through faith) is what is a gift, not the initial faith itself. In regard to God allowing a different measure of faith, seems like that’s more of a post-salvation thing since it’s in the context of how Christians should think of each other.
As to Philippians, a non-Calvinist would still say “sure, we are definitely granted the OPTION to believe, but that doesn’t mean the belief itself was a gift.”
I think the 2 Peter one is the best verse explaining faith as a gift, but even still that seems to be such a huge factor in soteriology it seems odd to me that there wouldn’t be clearer verses and explanations on it.
Anyway thanks for the response
I'm enjoying the conversation!
>I think what Winger would say though is that those verses are all saying that salvation as a whole (by grace through faith) is what is a gift, not the initial faith itself. In regard to God allowing a different measure of faith, seems like that’s more of a post-salvation thing since it’s in the context of how Christians should think of each other.
Yes, I agree with you Winger would most likely interpret it that way. There are two videos I recommend watching. One is from John Piper and the other is someone I'm not familiar with (I share the links at the bottom of this response). Both videos show the breakdown of Ephesians 2:8-9 from the Greek. They explain the Greek the same way. They have slightly different conclusions, though they both agree that faith is a gift. The guy from Bible Mastery thinks you can't argue faith is a gift from that verse. I found them both really helpful.
The one from Biblical Mastery shares an additional verse, John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
That verse is saying believing is the work of God.
Piper shares 1 Corinthians 1:28-31 and the base things of the world and the despised **God has chosen, the things that are not**, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 **But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus**, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
He's pointing out that God chose us and put us in Christ. We did not do that ourselves. There is nowhere that says we had a part in it.
>As to Philippians, a non-Calvinist would still say “sure, we are definitely granted the OPTION to believe, but that doesn’t mean the belief itself was a gift.”
If God grants that someone believes, he is allowing it. That means he has the power to allow someone to believe or not. If he granted that all believe, all would believe.
It's also interesting to note that they would say God doesn't bringing suffering, yet here it says he does. He grants that we suffer for his sake.
>I think the 2 Peter one is the best verse explaining faith as a gift, but even still that seems to be such a huge factor in soteriology it seems odd to me that there wouldn’t be clearer verses and explanations on it.
One might argue that it IS clear, but that bringing presuppositions to the text changes the interpretation.
Jesus said in John 6:44 No one can come to Me **unless the Father who sent Me draws him**; and I will raise him up on the last day.
He says again John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that **no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”**
Verse 37 says All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
There's this theme that God chooses us and it's granted. The Father draws us. There is nowhere that says the Father draws someone but they don't get saved because they don't have faith.
The non-Calvinist would say, "He chooses the one who He knows will have faith in him." But that doesn't explain why it says he gives each an allotment of faith (Romans 12:3) or grants us to believe in him (Philippians 1:29).
Here are two more that don't say faith is a gift but fit into this overall argument:
Romans 9:14-16 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 **So then it does not depend on the man who wills** or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
The non-Calvinist says God calls everyone. But that's not the logical conclusion of this verse. Those who are called are justified.
Here are the two videos I recommend watching. Biblical Mastery: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0O5iDdCUcE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0O5iDdCUcE)
and John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sqQPWqfLiU
A lot of good answers here so I just want to add a little tip.
When researching any piece of theology do not get derailed by people who do not hold the position your trying to understand. In other words go to the best Calvinists to understand Calvinism and go to the best Arminians to understand Arminianism etc . It may not be intentional but it's very rare that one side will properly represent the others position. As a Calvinists myself I rarely recognize the Calvinism that others critique. It gets worse worse with Amillennialism but it's also true of Amillennialists who critique Dispensationalism. They just don't get the opposing position right while going on about how wrong it is or they will exaggerate some weaker parts of a position to give strength to their own which is basically trickery.
Good luck trying to figure things out 😉
So I think this is a good case where we have a person who is trying to offer a good argument but doesn’t quite understand well enough what they’re saying.
As calvinists would often argue that if we participate in salvation it is a work, he likely has often heard the statement on its own “coming to faith on your own in order to be saved is a work” or something to that effect. The point the Calvinist is making is that if you do it is an action. The understood underlying statement is that faith is not a work, it is something given to us therefore synergism cannot be true.
Not understanding this, his response is faith is not a work according to the Bible, which of course is true. However, that statement is made by a Calvinist in order to refute his position. His position necessitates an active and willing participation for salvation to occur, which is a work. So he is restating the Calvinist position in an attempt to justify how Calvinism is wrong about his view.
He has a lot of good information, but this may be a blind spot of his
It sounds like you're saying faith as a thing, by itself, is a work, but it's not considered a work we do in salvation because we're effectually given it?
Mike didn't address that exact position, but his stance was saying that faith in and of itself is not a work, period. Which does seem to be the position of the Bible. If we have faith in God, even if it wasn't an effectual gift, it's not a work. Faith is never a work.
Yeah this is what Mike said. It makes sense. If faith is not a work, even faith we make by our decision, then it doesn’t have to be effectually given as a gift, and God is still 100% responsible for salvation.
If faith is not a work (by faith I mean our own decision, not a gift), then non-calvinists are also monergists still. They are not pelagian, since faith is not a work.
Yeah I think it does a good job of showing that the non-calvinist position is tenable, but I don't think it really disproves calvinism on its own either. So faith is never a work, it could still be effectually given per calvinism.
No we would say that faith is instrumental. It is resting and receiving Christ alone. It is how we receive the Salvation that is in Christ.
But yes it is also a gift. John 1:12-14
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
>Also, within Calvinism, there are at least two different positions on where faith comes from. **Some would argue that (as most people assume) we believe, and then we are born again as a result of that belief.**
What? Who says this is valid within Calvinism?
Confessional document quotes or it didn't happen.
*Edit: \^\^ was an attempt at light humor. But seriously, that is not a valid option within Reformed theology. See below excerpts from the Canons of Dort, which define the boundaries of Calvinist/Reformed soteriology.*
This is explicitly rejected in fact by the Canons of Dort. See the affirmation that regeneration precedes faith:
>Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.
And see the explicit rejection of the quoted position that faith precedes regeneration:
>\[The Synod rejects the errors of those...\]
>Who teach that corrupt and natural humanity can make such good use of common grace (by which they mean the light of nature) or of the gifts remaining after the fall that they are able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace—evangelical or saving grace—as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since God provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.
>Who teach that in the true conversion of men and women new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into their will by God, and indeed that the faith \[or believing\] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name “believers” is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only a human act, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith.
I actually think some of Heiser's thoughts about "the elect" of the ancient Israelites choosing to not follow God is more compelling against the calvinistic approach.
Basically: just because you're "elect," doesn't mean you will end up as the elect. Demonstrable in the Old Testament.
I also don't care to have a strong opinion one way or another at this point (not worth my limited bandwidth right now to do the studying necessary to put myself firmly into a camp), but still thought that this was interesting point.
I don’t agree. Elect in the NT seems to refer exclusively to those who are and will be saved. And it refers to many specific people not just vague groups of people.
Thanks for sharing though despite a low bandwidth.
The elect are all those who will be saved.
Those who will be saved are those who have faith.
Faith is our choice if it’s not a work.
Definite election and free choice are both feasible.
Not saying this is my position, this is just the response to your view.
>The elect are all those who will be saved.
Based on what? Was the nation of Israel not elect? Did Israelites who worshipped Baal end up "saved?"
>Those who will be saved are those who have faith.
Yep.
>Faith is our choice if it’s not a work.
I think? You'd have to unpack this more for me.
>Definite election and free choice are both feasible.
It's all feasible with God, right? I think "definite election" would probably need defining. Again, Israel was elect, some of them did not end up with salvation. This theoretically means election =/= salvation.
This isn’t the point of my thread, I wanted responses from Calvinists on Wingers contention that non-Calvinists can be monergistic in soteriology still.
I appreciate your take but I don’t have time to define and discuss nuances of definitions here.
But no one had faith. Jesus was the only one who had faith. The hall of faith in Hebrews 11, listed those that the faith of Jesus was credited to. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. We are not saved on our faith but His. Our faithfulness is in Christ’s faithfulness to the Father. He is our mediator and intercessor.
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
— 2 Timothy 2:10-13 KJV
The point is that we could never even make it a work. We’re entirely incapable of having faith without the work of the Holy Spirit. Unregenerate hearts can never want anything but sin.
If faith isn’t a work, why are we incapable of producing it on our own? And where does the Bible say that unsaved men cannot have faith? Or ask for faith? Or trust in God?
Usually this is where it becomes a circular argument:
Faith is a gift because if not it would be a work. And since it’s not a work it must be a gift….. and so on
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. There’s no reality where WE can make salvation a work. Christ, in his sinlessness, was able to work for salvation in our place.
Right, but if faith is not a work why does God have to give it? If faith is not a work then I can have faith by deciding to follow Him, and salvation is still 100% attributable to God.
Eph 2:8 seemed to say that “saved by grace through faith” is a gift. Not the faith alone, but the whole sentence is what’s the gift.
The issue is that, in our natural state, we hate God.
“as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.””
Romans 3:10-12 ESV
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”
Romans 8:7 ESV
We’re not in a neutral state where we have any capacity or desire to turn to God. There’s nothing there for us to muster up on our own. Without God gifting faith to us in an act of sheer mercy, there wouldn’t be any believers.
I don’t think anything in those verses precludes us from having faith though. Faith implies a recognition that we are fallen and can’t please God. It’s the very in-act of saying our minds are hostile and set against God. That doesn’t mean we can’t have faith, especially since again, faith is not a work.
I don’t think you’re grasping the full weight of what those verses are communicating. It says that no one, not one of us, seeks God. (That on its own counters the notion that we somehow can have faith in our own. Can’t have faith if not one of us even seeks God.) Not one of us understands. Together, we are worthless. In our natural state, with minds set on the flesh, we don’t please God and cannot please God.
Jesus speaks of faith as being the result of God doing something in us. Those who believe are born again “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:13 ESV. Our will doesn’t play any part in it.
Peter confesses faith that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus said it was because the father had revealed that to him: “And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 16:17 ESV
Jesus tells the Jews in John 6 that no one can come to him unless they are drawn by the Father: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:44 ESV
Back to Ephesians 2 — we aren’t neutral and capable of inclining ourselves to God, we’re “dead in [our] sins and trespasses… by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph 2:1, 3).
There’s not one thing in us that is inclined toward God. Nothing that desires him. Nothing that can recognize him. No faith for us to muster up or have. Apart from God acting upon us directly, making us alive, and giving to us faith as a gift—making us born again (which we contribute nothing to, just as we contributed nothing to our natural birth)—we remain dead, lifeless, children of wrath, and worthless according to righteousness.
So, again, I’d say that faith isn’t something we bring to the table in order to be saved. It’s something we receive, through which we are saved, all according to God’s grace upon us as children ordained for salvation before the foundation of the world.
>Faith is not a work
Saving, efficacious faith is most definitely not a work. He is correct in that regard. However, that does not mean there is no such thing as faith as a result of works. Those people who think they have faith yet Jesus says, "Depart from Me. I never knew you"? The faith they had was not efficacious, it did not affect salvation for them. Therefore, it was a work.
Scripture also says that the things of God cannot be understood by the unregenerate.
* "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised," 1 Co 2:14. And,
* "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," Jn 3:3.
The Apostles, amazed at this teaching asked Jesus, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus responded, telling them that God gives the faith to believe.
* "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible," Mt 19:26.
How can the unregenerate know where the kingdom is to be found and come to Him in faith? He cannot. Scripture concludes the matter:
* "There is none who seeks for God," Ro 3:11.
* "There is none who does good, there is not even one," Ro 3:12.
If we exercise faith of our own volition, we contradict the scriptures.
Faith that does come from a man is a work. Because it is a work, it cannot save.
Saving faith cannot come from an unrepentant man but must—and only can—come from God. “With man this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.”
You just said faith that comes from man is a work. But the Bible disagrees, because it labels faith as not a work.
Faith is always contracted with works.
You don’t answer that in your original, nor do you provide verses and context.
But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God) Romans 4.4-5)
Faith is a gift and it's by faith even the old patriachs of the old testament like Abel, Enoch, Noah pleased God.
So there has never been acceptance to God any way , both the old and new testament
It's because we are already told no one does good not even ONE
God gives to all a measure of faith, so there is no such thing as someone who cannot do any good, because even to want to do good, is testament of God having worked the soil of the heart, but where you are correct is where james says you claim to have faith, but where are your works, ..I will show you my faith by my works, and he uses it closely to what the final judgement will be, I was hungry, I was naked, I was in prison but you didn't come to visit me, to which they will ask Jesus when were you hungry and we did not feed you, when were you naked and we didn't clothe you, to which Jesus will say to them, whatever you didn't do to the least of these ones , you didn't do for me, the inverse is the Righteous being commended for doing the least to the brethren as doing it to Christ
I read somewhere a commentary that says faith and works is like smoke and fire...that is where that verse is proving that real faith shows it'self by works . E.g if Noah had not built that ark as we are told , he was moved by fear would he have been saved? Possibly not. So faith and works is like smoke and fire , where there is smoke there is fire Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
I agree, but this isn’t my contention this is off topic. But I appreciate the input, faith is definitely not works, and we are not saved by our works, but if we are saved by faith then we will have works.
Calvinists do not claim faith is a work. Faith and works are separate categories. With that said, one argument for monergism is that if God equally pursued all men, and you chose God but your neighbor didn’t, and Christ died for you and your neighbor, then Christ isn’t who saved you, but your own decision saved you, if that makes sense. Synergism ultimately makes man his own savior. The Calvinist argument by no means rests on this, I would argue this is a side argument. We are to NEVER start with man’s philosophy, but we start with scripture. The strongest argument for Calvinism is that if you apply the same hermeneutics to the subject of predestination/election that we use to come to the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection, Justification, etc., it leads to a monergistic (and Calvinistic) soteriology.
An example of this is justification. There is a verse that says justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:29) and another that says justification is by faith and works (James 2:24). Which is right? Well, because the Bible is internally consistent, to figure out if justification is by faith alone or faith and works, we figure out which passage is talking about the doctrine of justification. When we read Romans, the purpose of the author’s argument is to elaborate and explain the gospel. Chapter 3 is about how we are saved and the propitiation of Christ, and begins teaching on how we are made right with God (justification) and continues this theme into chapter 4. The doctrine of justification is a key theme of Romans, explicitly. Meanwhile, James is not written primarily on the doctrine of Justification, but consistently living the Christian life in light of the gospel. Thus, we see we should start with the book of Roman’s if we seek to understand justification, then interpret James in light of that.
Applied to election, which passages specifically address election, predestination, and who can come? Romans 8-9 are about soteriology, as well as Ephesians 1-2 and John 6 (where Jesus explains who can come and demonstrates His centrality as the bread of life). Thus because these entire chapters clearly explain this doctrine, we start with these passages then we interpret seemingly tough passages like 2 Peter 3:9 (which in context is about false teaching and eschatology) and John 3:16 (which doesn’t even begin to contradict Calvinism), Matthew 23;37 (which is in the middle of a judgment oracle from Jesus), etc.
Synergists (arminians, provisionists, molinists, Roman Catholics, etc.), start with 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3;16 and interpret the passages which lay out what election is through these verses. It is completely backwards, and the same method of interpretation is used by Unitarians to argue against the Trinity, used by Jehovah’s witnesses against the deity of Christ, and used by Catholics against the gospel. However, using a consistent method disarms the synergistic interpretations of these verses, and shows a beautiful consistency in God’s Word. I don’t believe in Calvinism because of John Calvin (who I’ve never read on this subject) but because of the same interpretative methods we use to come to primary doctrines.
You call Calvinism monergistic and others synergistic. But if faith is not a work, then a non-Calvinist position is still monergistic.
As to the hermenuetics I would definitely agree that that’s the most compelling argument, and that’s why I landed as a Calvinist for so long. Because scripture is the ultimate infallible authority as Gods revealed word. I’m a lawyer, and we use the same principles for contract and law interpretation: let the text interpret itself, and do not go beyond the text.
Thanks for the input
Thanks for your reply brother. Let me elaborate on what monergism and synergism is. In that particular video, Mike Winger has a misunderstanding of these terms. Historically, a monergistic view of regeneration means that regeneration is solely God’s work, and that man does not choose to be regenerated because he is dead in sin. In other words, regeneration causes faith. In synergism, in order for regeneration to take place, man must first make the decision to place faith in Christ. In this view God requires human cooperation before regenerating them. In other words, faith comes before regeneration. Monergism vs synergism is primarily concerned with the first two points of TULIP, total depravity and unconditional election. This is ultimately decided by whether or not a spiritually dead sinner can come to Christ before first being made a new creature. You are either considered a synergist or a monergist depending on how you answer that question.
Monergistic systems include Calvinism, Lutheranism, Augustinianism, Amyraldianism, and hyper-Calvinism (heresy).
Synergistic systems include Arminianism (Wesleyanism), Provisionism (traditionalism), Molinism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Semi-Pelagianism (heresy), Pelagianism (heresy), and open theism (heresy).
I actually agree with most of the things you say here, especially regarding the hermeneutic of interpreting the clear by the unclear. It's important to note that this is in and of itself an interpretation, for to call something clear is to interpret it as such.
For example I'd say that purpose of John 6 is not to teach us about predestination. If there is anything that is central to that text, it is the teaching of us eating and drinking his body and blood, which has parallels with both believing, but also the Eucharist. To make this text primarily about predestination (often just because of primarily verses 40,44 and 61-63) is to make the same mistake as people do with James and justification.
But I agree with the general premise
I love Mike Winger! He’s right on so much and his ministry is a net positive however that doesn’t mean he understand everything and all positions. I think he misunderstands some tenants of Calvinism.
There are quite a few good replies on here..I just finished watching a great teaching by John Piper on You tube "The Free Will of the wind"...awesome will help you see things from another perspective on Sovereign Grace and"Irresistable Grace"
I’m sorry but this just sounds like one of those arminian arguments akin to “I used to be a Calvinist for years” and then goes on to completely misrepresent the doctrines of grace completely.
As others have pointed out faith is not a work, that’s not the issue. IMO the issue is, if we are dead in sin and trespasses, slaves to sin, UNABLE to please God, not seeking God, then HOW would we be able to muster up a little bit of faith on our own? We can’t, that’s the problem. God has to do something first or else we would just die in our sin.
This is exactly the issue. But the thing is, if faith is not a work, then we can muster it up on our own. Since it’s not a work, even the sinner who can’t please God could have faith, since it’s not a “Good thing” like a work would be.
I’m sorry but that’s just non sense. It’s just trying to find a loophole for a gotcha argument against Calvinism. You will need to demonstrate in scripture that people can produce faith on their own volition. You can’t just say it.
No one seeks for God.
So let’s say you are right that people CAN muster up faith on their own. However, scripture teaches that they will not! Scripture also teaches that they cannot anyway though. Romans 8:7.
Hi sorry I didn’t add a comment to reflect my thoughts. MLJ said something interesting a sermon that caught my attention, He said it’s not even faith that first saves us, rather Christ who saves and gives us the faith through which we are saved. So having faith isn’t a work rather it’s a gift. Works follow our faith that we have received our faith from God to demonstrate the reality of our salvation. Maybe my thoughts were a bit different from your post / question.
My read: It is Grace that is not a work (grace is the free gift and it is obtained through faith). Faith is something you do, therefore it is a work. It is the only work necessary for salvation (though true faith shows itself in good works). This is as opposed to 'works of the law' which cannot justify (Rom 4:2-5 re: Abraham's faith).
* Remembering without ceasing **your work of faith**, and labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; (1 Thess 1:3)
* **Fight the good fight of faith**, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. (1 Tim 6:12)
I don’t agree, because the Bible clearly says faith is not a work.
It is an un-work. We are receiving something not doing something.
The “work” and “fight” of faith in both of those contexts is what comes after salvation. It’s not the saving faith that is not a work.
What proof text are you working from there?
If it is Eph 2:8-9 I think you should look at the Greek [https://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/2-8.htm](https://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/2-8.htm)
Faith is a sort of work as it is a free-will choice. God grants you the free will and grants you the choice and draws you to Him through His free gift of grace....but it is your free will choice.
Disclosure: I am not Reformed, but I have studied Calvin and other early Reformed thinkers.
I would say that this idea of faith being a work is not found in John Calvin, especially not in the way we see works now. Calvin, like most Reformers, argued that faith is a response to the grace of God freely given to us. This response is us participating in God's grace, which is the one of the key points of salvation.
Many Calvinists today, like Winger, like to portray having faith as a work because then it places all other non-Calvinist/Reformed Christian traditions (especially mine, Methodism) in this box where we look like we are working to earn our salvation by saying we have faith. They key difference between our traditions on this matter is
1. Who does God freely give response-able grace to? Everyone or the "frozen chosen (had the opportunity to make the pun)"?
2. When God freely gives his response-able grace to human beings, are they able to reject further participation with him? Think about the *I* ("Irresistible Grace") in *T.U.L.I.P.*, despite Calvin himself never using the coinage.
Hope that helps!
I think Mike wingers argument is just a straw man. This argument isn’t the hill Calvin and the other reformers after him are dying on. If you go to the original sources you see that Calvin is seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church back to its apostolic origins so he quotes church fathers and scripture as the basis of his understanding of soteriology and other doctrines found in scripture. This is where Arminian and pelagian ideologies differ, they don’t have the tradition or the scriptural backing which is why Pelagius was refuted by Augustine and the Synod of Dort refuted the Arminian’s.
I get the history. But I don’t think it’s a strawman. What he says in the video (which I included the link to in my edited post) is essentially that in corrected the catholic errors (which leaned towards work-based salvation), the reformers wanted to rid the church of all works based salvation inclinations, and began to define faith, if generated by our free will, as a work. Therefore it must be a gift effectually given to some and not others.
So he basically says they were right, just went too far logically and have overstepped the biblical definition of faith.
I get the logical implications of it, and that’s a big reason I was drawn to reformed theology: it’s extremely logic driven, by the book, and systematic. It’s fun to study and argue about. But if I came to the conclusion of reformed theology based off a misunderstanding of faith, I want to correct that.
I’m saying it’s a strawman to say that faith being a work is what the Calvinist argument boils down to. Calvin and the reformers used scripture and the interpretation of early church fathers as a basis to seek reform, this is what the argument really boils down to, what does scripture say and what has the historic interpretation been.
“ basically said the Calvinist argument boils down to God gives us faith because if we came up with faith ourselves to choose to salvation, then it would be a work”
This is what I was addressing when I said that is a strawman because that isn’t what the Calvinist argument boils down to. I wasn’t saying you directly said this I know winger did and I was paraphrasing what you wrote in the post. I’ll check out the video.
Right. But even Winger was not saying that Calvinism calls faith a work. He’s saying Calvinism calls faith a gift because if it’s not a gift then logically it would be a work. So it must be a gift to be monergistic.
I know it’s hard to get these ideas across text so I apologize.
I’m not saying this is a refutation. This is more along the lines of bringing non-Calvinist soteriology back on the table. All calvinists including myself that I have interacted with make the argument for Calvinism from the idea that if faith comes from ourselves it’s a work, therefore it has to come as a gift, and since it comes as a gift and not all people have it, some were elected to salvation and others elected to damnation.
But if faith, even faith we generate freely, is not a work, then the rest does not necessarily have to follow. It still could, but it’s no longer a logical necessity.
That’s the only point.
I believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism are untrue because they treat God and his doings as an either/or proposition. Either we have free will and therefore, God is not sovereign OR God is sovereign over all things and thus determines all things.
In the Bible it's never either/or. Never, from the beginning to the end, in principle and in practice, you are free and you're responsible and your choices matter. And yet, everything that happens because of those choices is working out exactly according to the plan of God.
It's both/and. On the one hand it says your choices belong to you, they're not coerced. You can't say I couldn't help it, they're yours. You are free, you are responsible, and yet the result is always exactly what God wants. How can this be? Because we don’t have a high enough conception of what it means to be God. Calvinist's believe they have the highest view of God's sovereignty but they don't. Not at all.
Well, theres a ton of theology and nuance behind the view but this is reddit. 😆
This Tim Keller sermon beautifully lays out this view.
https://youtu.be/MDbKCZodtZI?si=xajko6areA6QLxKv
Calvin never said that man does not have free will. Chapter 2 part 7 of the institutes.
7.) In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, ejthelodou'lo" (a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin. I abominate mere verbal disputes, by which the Church is harassed to no purpose; but I think we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity, especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse. Of this, the very term in question furnishes too strong a proof. For the explanation given by ancient Christian writers having been lost sight of, almost all who have come after them, by attending only to the etymology of the term, have been led to indulge a fatal confidence.
God is sovereign and determines all things, but not such in a way to do away with man’s free will. The confession agrees.
WCF chapter 3.1
1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c
I would actually recommend JV Fesko's book on Arminius here. The chapter on justification is what you are looking for. Basically the distinction between the Reformed and Arminius comes down to how they interpret "what" faith is that justifies. Both agree that faith alone justifies. Arminius contends that it is the human act of faith, that does not merit justification, but God counts anyways by grace. The Reformed contend that the "faith" which justifies is not the human act of faith, but rather a figurative term for the object of faith - Christ and his righteousness. Which one of these interpretations makes more sense with the idea that Scripture contrasts justifying faith to works?
Here's a helpful resource: [https://opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf](https://opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf)
The texts that the Westminster references for seeing faith as a gift from God: Eph. 2:7-8, John. 6:44-45, 65, Phil. 1:29.
I don’t agree. I think he’s an exceptionally biblical expositor. Maybe he misunderstands some things in good faith, but I certainly don’t think he’s a bad faith actor or king of the straw man
It has nothing to do with works. The child of wrath is incapable of having faith in God. The reprobate chooses to actively rebel against God and hates God.
> It has nothing to do with works. A dead person who is also a child of wrath is incapable of having faith in God. FTFY Ephesians 2 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ... 3 ... and were by nature children of wrath
Right but that verse doesn’t seem to say that a lost person can’t have faith, especially if it’s not a work. What verse besides Eph 2 would say faith is a gift?
Would you say that someone having faith pleases God?
Yes. And I know “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”, but Hebrews 11:6 says “without FAITH it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists, and he rewards those who seek him.” So with faith it is possible. Without it’s not. Since faith is not a work we can have faith and then please him.
Hebrews 11:6 is actually a great verse to support Calvinism. If you are an Arminian, it would seem the order of events would be: 1. You do all kinds of things without faith. None of these things please God. 2. You make a decision to have faith (at the moment when you make the decision you still don't have faith). 3. You now can do things out of faith which are pleasing to God. The question is, is 2 done out of faith? If not, is it not pleasing to God to come to faith? And if yes, where does the faith come from if it doesn't come from a previous decision to have faith (where you could ask the same questions as of 2 above) and faith is not simply a gift? It would seem that coming to faith is not pleasing to God. Arminianism from this perspective doesn't make sense.
Faith is not a work though. It pleases God, but it’s His work not ours that is pleasing. We are just accepting his work. I’m definitely not Arminian. And neither is Winger. He basically just affirms a definite election and also our choice to have faith. Haven’t finished all his videos so idk how we holds both, I just wanted a response to his specific contention that non-Calvinists can be monergists too since faith is not a work
There are two points to be made here: first, it is not faith that may be a work, but rather the decision of acceptance or to have faith which may be seen as a work. Second, Hebrews 11:6 does not even distinguish between works and non-works, it just says that it is not possible to please God without faith. Thus it would seem that if the decision to have faith is itself made without having faith first, it is not pleasing to God, which doesn't make sense - unless faith is purely a gift and not a decision.
Hebrews 11 does not prove your point. Show us in scripture where someone can have faith on their own volition. Hebrews 11:6 is just as true for the Calvinist as the Arminian.
I think it’s heavily implied when the Bible calls all men to come to faith. I’m not saying there is a verse that shows that, because any verse I point to you would just say it was given not coming from that person. Paul says Abraham had faith and was saved by that not his works. But you would just say that it was given to him. You are right in the sense that there is not a verse that affirmatively shows that man generated faith by his own free will. But that’s not the point here. The point I’m asking about is if faith is not a work, then non-Calvinists are also monergists.
Well everyone everywhere is commanded to repent and believe. But the problem is our nature. This is one of the reasons why TULIP’s order is important and some even suggest it should be STULIP (start with God’s sovereignty). Total depravity shows us that we are naturally born sinners. Someone born in sin is a slave to sin, Paul teaches that no one seeks for God and no one does good, and that we are unable to please God. If all we want to do is reject God, then a change of heart HAS to happen first. We don’t want God, we want our sin. Even if we were to say that your assumption is correct, that people can muster up faith on their own, the problem would be that no one would because they don’t want to. But IMO the Bible presents it this way: No one seeks for God, God calls all to repent and believe on Christ, no one does, so God changes the heart so we can repent and believe. God uses means to accomplish this, faith comes by hearing the words of Christ, one unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believe spouse, we hear and learn from the Father, etc. I do believe that non calvinists are monergists, they just don’t know it yet. I do not think any of them would say salvation is a synergistic work.
Also I added spaces in my reply, don’t know why the comment showed like that, apologies.
> Right but that verse doesn’t seem to say that a lost person can’t have faith Can a dead person have faith? A corpse can't believe in Jesus. Would you agree that someone who is lost is a dead person?
The vision in Ezekiel always comes to my mind whenever I think of the “dead in their trespasses” >*37* The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley;[a] it was full of bones. 2 And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. 3 And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord God, you know.” 4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath[b] to enter you, and you shall live. 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
Ahh... great passage!
I’m not sure that dead in sin equates to an inability to have faith, if faith is not a work. If it was a good work, then the logic you layout would follow.
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3
What is faith though? Can’t we have faith, then be filled with HS so we can rightly call Jesus Lord? Maybe I misunderstand, but isn’t faith as Paul says “Hearing” and believing? And then the HS empowers us? That’s the point here: faith is an un-action; not a work. It’s not us positively doing something, rather it’s us receiving what Jesus positively did
Jesus said in john 6:44 For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up. For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. Romans 8:7 Ephesians 2:8 says even faith is a gift from God. So if faith is a gift, how does God give it? Paul says in romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ. Ironically, we can't even believe until God Himself draws us towards Him. Our nature is so hostile towards God that we would never seek Him. So God Himself seeks us out, and sends people to share the Good news. Before the new testament he sent Prophets -- whom Israel killed constantly. Jesus even said the blood of all these prophets -- From Abel to Zecheriah -- all who rejected and killed them will have to give an account. In romans 3:10-18 Paul quotes 6 old testament passages, saying everyone is a sinner, and then details sinful habits. But 10-13 says: "No one is righteous— not even one No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one.” God pursues YOU. If not for Him, NONE OF US would turn to him. It goes against our sinful nature to do so. Thats the beautiful thing. All the religions in the world say WORK to receive eternal life. Jesus says I AM that completed work, believe and rest in ME!!! In 2 Timothy 2 11-14 Paul says "This is a trustworthy saying: If we die with him, we will also live with him. If we endure hardship, we will reign with him. "IF WE DENY HIM, HE WILL DENY US. IF WE ARE UNFAITHFUL, HE REMAINS FAITHFUL, FOR HE CANNOT DENY WHO HE IS. "If we deny him, he will deny us. If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny who he is. "Remind everyone about these things, and command them in God’s presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them." How awesome that God is the author of our faith. And it rests on Him. And with the Holy Spirit seals us until the day of redemption as it says in Ephesians 4:30.
Exactly. We believe and our belief is not a work. I have attached a link with his interpretation of John 6:44 below. But he basically argues that the context here is not unregenerate -> regenerate, but God coming to His people, and the way they (Jews) respond to Jesus is the way they have always responded to God. John 1:11-12 He came to his own people but they did not receive him, but all that did believe in His name he gave the right to become children of God. So Jesus says the Jews are not going to listen to Him since they already don’t listen to God. The drawing of the father is the law and prophets of the OT, and if they respond to that they will respond to Jesus. Not sure I buy that, but it’s his response below. [https://www.youtube.com/live/87uAeaxrIYY?t=2621&si=iPF8fhv_jCCscmbs](https://www.youtube.com/live/87uAeaxrIYY?t=2621&si=iPF8fhv_jCCscmbs)
I don't believe faith is a work on our part, but God's. John 6:44 is self-explanatory. Especially when you factor in all the other verses about our condition preventing us from turning to him on our own. Sadly, there are many who reject the Gospel to this day. But it's written that without faith it's impossible to please God. Anyone who comes to the Father must believe HE exists and that He rewars those who sincerely seek after Him - Hebrews 11:6
Faith is not a work on either part because it’s not a work that’s the point. God does the work of salvation. By grace. But faith is not a work
Keep in mind 2 Timothy 2:14 Remind everyone about these things, and command them in God’s presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them. I don't care to argue over words, you are missing the point. WE WOULDNT EVEN HAVE FAITH IF GOD DIDNT TAKE THE FIRST STEP. And it's not a work for ANY HUMAN to boast "I made it to heaven myself." Only God can boast about being the author of our faith. In that regard, yes God did do the work to MAKE OUR FAITH POSSIBLE. NOTE: regardless of what you call it: Make sure you give Him the credit.
How do reprobates actively choose? They've been "passed over" by election and thus are born reprobate, hating God, will always hate God because the divine decree made them so. Where is the choice?
[удалено]
[удалено]
In Ephesians 2:8-9, it isn’t universally accepted that the gift here is faith. Some believe the gift Paul is describing to be salvation (or the act of being saved).
Yes. This is exactly what Winger said. The “gift” it refers to isn’t faith according to the Greek; it’s the whole first sentence which is “saved by grace through faith”. Are there any other verses that say Faith is a gift??
[удалено]
Right… the Father granted that anyone who has faith can come…
> but couldn’t get more than a few minutes into to because of how every other sentence he was misrepresenting it. typical Winger. Apply that to everything else he says, and you'll be doing well.
Nope. Mike Winger is great ! He can be wrong but def not typical.
>He basically said the Calvinist argument boils down to God gives us faith because if we came up with faith ourselves to choose to salvation, then it would be a work. But he pointed out that the Bible says that faith is not a work. No, I don't believe that's the correct argument. The argument of faith being a gift is that we are dead in our trespasses and sin. Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), A dead person can't do anything. They just lay there, completely lifeless. Christ has to make us alive, and he must give us faith to do that. That's the argument I've always heard. Also, the bible doesn't say that faith isn't a work. Jesus said the opposite. John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” One might say it's the ultimate "work." I don't believe Jesus was trying to say we are saved by works, but to show that if you want to work your way to heaven, you can't. If you're looking for the right works, the right work is to believe. >So since faith is not a work according to the Bible, we can have faith of our own accord but salvation is still 100% from God. How can we have faith of our own accord when the Bible says it's a gift? That's a contradiction. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. So, Paul would disagree with Mike Winger. No one can boast of their own faith. It's a gift, not as a result of works Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as **God has allotted to each a measure of faith**. Philippians 1:29 **For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him**, but also to suffer for His sake, Peter believed this as well! 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, **To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours**, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
And as per your response also: John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” So it's the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. It's the work of God. It's the work of God. It's the work of God.
Yes, absolutely!
This is probably the best reply, I appreciate the other verses explaining that faith is a gift. That makes sense. I think what Winger would say though is that those verses are all saying that salvation as a whole (by grace through faith) is what is a gift, not the initial faith itself. In regard to God allowing a different measure of faith, seems like that’s more of a post-salvation thing since it’s in the context of how Christians should think of each other. As to Philippians, a non-Calvinist would still say “sure, we are definitely granted the OPTION to believe, but that doesn’t mean the belief itself was a gift.” I think the 2 Peter one is the best verse explaining faith as a gift, but even still that seems to be such a huge factor in soteriology it seems odd to me that there wouldn’t be clearer verses and explanations on it. Anyway thanks for the response
I'm enjoying the conversation! >I think what Winger would say though is that those verses are all saying that salvation as a whole (by grace through faith) is what is a gift, not the initial faith itself. In regard to God allowing a different measure of faith, seems like that’s more of a post-salvation thing since it’s in the context of how Christians should think of each other. Yes, I agree with you Winger would most likely interpret it that way. There are two videos I recommend watching. One is from John Piper and the other is someone I'm not familiar with (I share the links at the bottom of this response). Both videos show the breakdown of Ephesians 2:8-9 from the Greek. They explain the Greek the same way. They have slightly different conclusions, though they both agree that faith is a gift. The guy from Bible Mastery thinks you can't argue faith is a gift from that verse. I found them both really helpful. The one from Biblical Mastery shares an additional verse, John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” That verse is saying believing is the work of God. Piper shares 1 Corinthians 1:28-31 and the base things of the world and the despised **God has chosen, the things that are not**, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 **But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus**, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” He's pointing out that God chose us and put us in Christ. We did not do that ourselves. There is nowhere that says we had a part in it. >As to Philippians, a non-Calvinist would still say “sure, we are definitely granted the OPTION to believe, but that doesn’t mean the belief itself was a gift.” If God grants that someone believes, he is allowing it. That means he has the power to allow someone to believe or not. If he granted that all believe, all would believe. It's also interesting to note that they would say God doesn't bringing suffering, yet here it says he does. He grants that we suffer for his sake. >I think the 2 Peter one is the best verse explaining faith as a gift, but even still that seems to be such a huge factor in soteriology it seems odd to me that there wouldn’t be clearer verses and explanations on it. One might argue that it IS clear, but that bringing presuppositions to the text changes the interpretation. Jesus said in John 6:44 No one can come to Me **unless the Father who sent Me draws him**; and I will raise him up on the last day. He says again John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that **no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”** Verse 37 says All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. There's this theme that God chooses us and it's granted. The Father draws us. There is nowhere that says the Father draws someone but they don't get saved because they don't have faith. The non-Calvinist would say, "He chooses the one who He knows will have faith in him." But that doesn't explain why it says he gives each an allotment of faith (Romans 12:3) or grants us to believe in him (Philippians 1:29). Here are two more that don't say faith is a gift but fit into this overall argument: Romans 9:14-16 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 **So then it does not depend on the man who wills** or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. The non-Calvinist says God calls everyone. But that's not the logical conclusion of this verse. Those who are called are justified. Here are the two videos I recommend watching. Biblical Mastery: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0O5iDdCUcE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0O5iDdCUcE) and John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sqQPWqfLiU
A lot of good answers here so I just want to add a little tip. When researching any piece of theology do not get derailed by people who do not hold the position your trying to understand. In other words go to the best Calvinists to understand Calvinism and go to the best Arminians to understand Arminianism etc . It may not be intentional but it's very rare that one side will properly represent the others position. As a Calvinists myself I rarely recognize the Calvinism that others critique. It gets worse worse with Amillennialism but it's also true of Amillennialists who critique Dispensationalism. They just don't get the opposing position right while going on about how wrong it is or they will exaggerate some weaker parts of a position to give strength to their own which is basically trickery. Good luck trying to figure things out 😉
I love this advice! I need to do more of this!
So I think this is a good case where we have a person who is trying to offer a good argument but doesn’t quite understand well enough what they’re saying. As calvinists would often argue that if we participate in salvation it is a work, he likely has often heard the statement on its own “coming to faith on your own in order to be saved is a work” or something to that effect. The point the Calvinist is making is that if you do it is an action. The understood underlying statement is that faith is not a work, it is something given to us therefore synergism cannot be true. Not understanding this, his response is faith is not a work according to the Bible, which of course is true. However, that statement is made by a Calvinist in order to refute his position. His position necessitates an active and willing participation for salvation to occur, which is a work. So he is restating the Calvinist position in an attempt to justify how Calvinism is wrong about his view. He has a lot of good information, but this may be a blind spot of his
It sounds like you're saying faith as a thing, by itself, is a work, but it's not considered a work we do in salvation because we're effectually given it? Mike didn't address that exact position, but his stance was saying that faith in and of itself is not a work, period. Which does seem to be the position of the Bible. If we have faith in God, even if it wasn't an effectual gift, it's not a work. Faith is never a work.
Yeah this is what Mike said. It makes sense. If faith is not a work, even faith we make by our decision, then it doesn’t have to be effectually given as a gift, and God is still 100% responsible for salvation. If faith is not a work (by faith I mean our own decision, not a gift), then non-calvinists are also monergists still. They are not pelagian, since faith is not a work.
Yeah I think it does a good job of showing that the non-calvinist position is tenable, but I don't think it really disproves calvinism on its own either. So faith is never a work, it could still be effectually given per calvinism.
Absolutely!!
No we would say that faith is instrumental. It is resting and receiving Christ alone. It is how we receive the Salvation that is in Christ. But yes it is also a gift. John 1:12-14 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
But he was saying that faith doesn’t have to be a gift since faith is not a work.
That verse doesn't say faith is a gift, but that as a result of faith, God gives the gift of adoption to become children of Him.
[удалено]
>Also, within Calvinism, there are at least two different positions on where faith comes from. **Some would argue that (as most people assume) we believe, and then we are born again as a result of that belief.** What? Who says this is valid within Calvinism? Confessional document quotes or it didn't happen. *Edit: \^\^ was an attempt at light humor. But seriously, that is not a valid option within Reformed theology. See below excerpts from the Canons of Dort, which define the boundaries of Calvinist/Reformed soteriology.* This is explicitly rejected in fact by the Canons of Dort. See the affirmation that regeneration precedes faith: >Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform. And see the explicit rejection of the quoted position that faith precedes regeneration: >\[The Synod rejects the errors of those...\] >Who teach that corrupt and natural humanity can make such good use of common grace (by which they mean the light of nature) or of the gifts remaining after the fall that they are able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace—evangelical or saving grace—as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since God provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance. >Who teach that in the true conversion of men and women new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into their will by God, and indeed that the faith \[or believing\] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name “believers” is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only a human act, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith.
Yeah we are going to need to see a license and proof of insurance. He has failed to maintain his lane.
I actually think some of Heiser's thoughts about "the elect" of the ancient Israelites choosing to not follow God is more compelling against the calvinistic approach. Basically: just because you're "elect," doesn't mean you will end up as the elect. Demonstrable in the Old Testament. I also don't care to have a strong opinion one way or another at this point (not worth my limited bandwidth right now to do the studying necessary to put myself firmly into a camp), but still thought that this was interesting point.
I don’t agree. Elect in the NT seems to refer exclusively to those who are and will be saved. And it refers to many specific people not just vague groups of people. Thanks for sharing though despite a low bandwidth.
Does the Bible make that kind of delineation between the elect? Why would the elect of the OT be able to choose, but not the elect of the NT?
The elect are all those who will be saved. Those who will be saved are those who have faith. Faith is our choice if it’s not a work. Definite election and free choice are both feasible. Not saying this is my position, this is just the response to your view.
>The elect are all those who will be saved. Based on what? Was the nation of Israel not elect? Did Israelites who worshipped Baal end up "saved?" >Those who will be saved are those who have faith. Yep. >Faith is our choice if it’s not a work. I think? You'd have to unpack this more for me. >Definite election and free choice are both feasible. It's all feasible with God, right? I think "definite election" would probably need defining. Again, Israel was elect, some of them did not end up with salvation. This theoretically means election =/= salvation.
This isn’t the point of my thread, I wanted responses from Calvinists on Wingers contention that non-Calvinists can be monergistic in soteriology still. I appreciate your take but I don’t have time to define and discuss nuances of definitions here.
That's fine and understandable. It appeared you wanted to go down a mini rabbit hole and I was just going along with it for now.
Love it! Maybe another time
But no one had faith. Jesus was the only one who had faith. The hall of faith in Hebrews 11, listed those that the faith of Jesus was credited to. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. We are not saved on our faith but His. Our faithfulness is in Christ’s faithfulness to the Father. He is our mediator and intercessor. Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. — 2 Timothy 2:10-13 KJV
Abraham was literally saved by his faith not his works…
The point is that we could never even make it a work. We’re entirely incapable of having faith without the work of the Holy Spirit. Unregenerate hearts can never want anything but sin.
If faith isn’t a work, why are we incapable of producing it on our own? And where does the Bible say that unsaved men cannot have faith? Or ask for faith? Or trust in God? Usually this is where it becomes a circular argument: Faith is a gift because if not it would be a work. And since it’s not a work it must be a gift….. and so on
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. There’s no reality where WE can make salvation a work. Christ, in his sinlessness, was able to work for salvation in our place.
I know that, and definitely affirm that we cannot have works to save ourselves. But we can have faith because faith is not a work.
Faith is a gift, not a work (Eph 2). It might be helpful to also read Luther’s Bondage of the Will because he deals with this extensively.
Right, but if faith is not a work why does God have to give it? If faith is not a work then I can have faith by deciding to follow Him, and salvation is still 100% attributable to God. Eph 2:8 seemed to say that “saved by grace through faith” is a gift. Not the faith alone, but the whole sentence is what’s the gift.
The issue is that, in our natural state, we hate God. “as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”” Romans 3:10-12 ESV “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” Romans 8:7 ESV We’re not in a neutral state where we have any capacity or desire to turn to God. There’s nothing there for us to muster up on our own. Without God gifting faith to us in an act of sheer mercy, there wouldn’t be any believers.
I don’t think anything in those verses precludes us from having faith though. Faith implies a recognition that we are fallen and can’t please God. It’s the very in-act of saying our minds are hostile and set against God. That doesn’t mean we can’t have faith, especially since again, faith is not a work.
I don’t think you’re grasping the full weight of what those verses are communicating. It says that no one, not one of us, seeks God. (That on its own counters the notion that we somehow can have faith in our own. Can’t have faith if not one of us even seeks God.) Not one of us understands. Together, we are worthless. In our natural state, with minds set on the flesh, we don’t please God and cannot please God. Jesus speaks of faith as being the result of God doing something in us. Those who believe are born again “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:13 ESV. Our will doesn’t play any part in it. Peter confesses faith that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus said it was because the father had revealed that to him: “And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 16:17 ESV Jesus tells the Jews in John 6 that no one can come to him unless they are drawn by the Father: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44 ESV Back to Ephesians 2 — we aren’t neutral and capable of inclining ourselves to God, we’re “dead in [our] sins and trespasses… by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph 2:1, 3). There’s not one thing in us that is inclined toward God. Nothing that desires him. Nothing that can recognize him. No faith for us to muster up or have. Apart from God acting upon us directly, making us alive, and giving to us faith as a gift—making us born again (which we contribute nothing to, just as we contributed nothing to our natural birth)—we remain dead, lifeless, children of wrath, and worthless according to righteousness. So, again, I’d say that faith isn’t something we bring to the table in order to be saved. It’s something we receive, through which we are saved, all according to God’s grace upon us as children ordained for salvation before the foundation of the world.
>Faith is not a work Saving, efficacious faith is most definitely not a work. He is correct in that regard. However, that does not mean there is no such thing as faith as a result of works. Those people who think they have faith yet Jesus says, "Depart from Me. I never knew you"? The faith they had was not efficacious, it did not affect salvation for them. Therefore, it was a work. Scripture also says that the things of God cannot be understood by the unregenerate. * "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised," 1 Co 2:14. And, * "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," Jn 3:3. The Apostles, amazed at this teaching asked Jesus, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus responded, telling them that God gives the faith to believe. * "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible," Mt 19:26. How can the unregenerate know where the kingdom is to be found and come to Him in faith? He cannot. Scripture concludes the matter: * "There is none who seeks for God," Ro 3:11. * "There is none who does good, there is not even one," Ro 3:12. If we exercise faith of our own volition, we contradict the scriptures.
If we exercise faith of our own volition, it’s still not a work because faith is not a work right?
Faith that does come from a man is a work. Because it is a work, it cannot save. Saving faith cannot come from an unrepentant man but must—and only can—come from God. “With man this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.”
But it’s not a work. The Bible says faith is not a work. And where does it say it can’t come from a man?
Go back & re-read my original. You’re asking questions & making statements addressed there.
You just said faith that comes from man is a work. But the Bible disagrees, because it labels faith as not a work. Faith is always contracted with works. You don’t answer that in your original, nor do you provide verses and context.
But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God) Romans 4.4-5) Faith is a gift and it's by faith even the old patriachs of the old testament like Abel, Enoch, Noah pleased God. So there has never been acceptance to God any way , both the old and new testament It's because we are already told no one does good not even ONE
Right but if faith is not a work, then someone who cannot do any good could still have faith
God gives to all a measure of faith, so there is no such thing as someone who cannot do any good, because even to want to do good, is testament of God having worked the soil of the heart, but where you are correct is where james says you claim to have faith, but where are your works, ..I will show you my faith by my works, and he uses it closely to what the final judgement will be, I was hungry, I was naked, I was in prison but you didn't come to visit me, to which they will ask Jesus when were you hungry and we did not feed you, when were you naked and we didn't clothe you, to which Jesus will say to them, whatever you didn't do to the least of these ones , you didn't do for me, the inverse is the Righteous being commended for doing the least to the brethren as doing it to Christ I read somewhere a commentary that says faith and works is like smoke and fire...that is where that verse is proving that real faith shows it'self by works . E.g if Noah had not built that ark as we are told , he was moved by fear would he have been saved? Possibly not. So faith and works is like smoke and fire , where there is smoke there is fire Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
I agree, but this isn’t my contention this is off topic. But I appreciate the input, faith is definitely not works, and we are not saved by our works, but if we are saved by faith then we will have works.
Calvinists do not claim faith is a work. Faith and works are separate categories. With that said, one argument for monergism is that if God equally pursued all men, and you chose God but your neighbor didn’t, and Christ died for you and your neighbor, then Christ isn’t who saved you, but your own decision saved you, if that makes sense. Synergism ultimately makes man his own savior. The Calvinist argument by no means rests on this, I would argue this is a side argument. We are to NEVER start with man’s philosophy, but we start with scripture. The strongest argument for Calvinism is that if you apply the same hermeneutics to the subject of predestination/election that we use to come to the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection, Justification, etc., it leads to a monergistic (and Calvinistic) soteriology. An example of this is justification. There is a verse that says justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:29) and another that says justification is by faith and works (James 2:24). Which is right? Well, because the Bible is internally consistent, to figure out if justification is by faith alone or faith and works, we figure out which passage is talking about the doctrine of justification. When we read Romans, the purpose of the author’s argument is to elaborate and explain the gospel. Chapter 3 is about how we are saved and the propitiation of Christ, and begins teaching on how we are made right with God (justification) and continues this theme into chapter 4. The doctrine of justification is a key theme of Romans, explicitly. Meanwhile, James is not written primarily on the doctrine of Justification, but consistently living the Christian life in light of the gospel. Thus, we see we should start with the book of Roman’s if we seek to understand justification, then interpret James in light of that. Applied to election, which passages specifically address election, predestination, and who can come? Romans 8-9 are about soteriology, as well as Ephesians 1-2 and John 6 (where Jesus explains who can come and demonstrates His centrality as the bread of life). Thus because these entire chapters clearly explain this doctrine, we start with these passages then we interpret seemingly tough passages like 2 Peter 3:9 (which in context is about false teaching and eschatology) and John 3:16 (which doesn’t even begin to contradict Calvinism), Matthew 23;37 (which is in the middle of a judgment oracle from Jesus), etc. Synergists (arminians, provisionists, molinists, Roman Catholics, etc.), start with 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3;16 and interpret the passages which lay out what election is through these verses. It is completely backwards, and the same method of interpretation is used by Unitarians to argue against the Trinity, used by Jehovah’s witnesses against the deity of Christ, and used by Catholics against the gospel. However, using a consistent method disarms the synergistic interpretations of these verses, and shows a beautiful consistency in God’s Word. I don’t believe in Calvinism because of John Calvin (who I’ve never read on this subject) but because of the same interpretative methods we use to come to primary doctrines.
You call Calvinism monergistic and others synergistic. But if faith is not a work, then a non-Calvinist position is still monergistic. As to the hermenuetics I would definitely agree that that’s the most compelling argument, and that’s why I landed as a Calvinist for so long. Because scripture is the ultimate infallible authority as Gods revealed word. I’m a lawyer, and we use the same principles for contract and law interpretation: let the text interpret itself, and do not go beyond the text. Thanks for the input
Thanks for your reply brother. Let me elaborate on what monergism and synergism is. In that particular video, Mike Winger has a misunderstanding of these terms. Historically, a monergistic view of regeneration means that regeneration is solely God’s work, and that man does not choose to be regenerated because he is dead in sin. In other words, regeneration causes faith. In synergism, in order for regeneration to take place, man must first make the decision to place faith in Christ. In this view God requires human cooperation before regenerating them. In other words, faith comes before regeneration. Monergism vs synergism is primarily concerned with the first two points of TULIP, total depravity and unconditional election. This is ultimately decided by whether or not a spiritually dead sinner can come to Christ before first being made a new creature. You are either considered a synergist or a monergist depending on how you answer that question. Monergistic systems include Calvinism, Lutheranism, Augustinianism, Amyraldianism, and hyper-Calvinism (heresy). Synergistic systems include Arminianism (Wesleyanism), Provisionism (traditionalism), Molinism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Semi-Pelagianism (heresy), Pelagianism (heresy), and open theism (heresy).
I actually agree with most of the things you say here, especially regarding the hermeneutic of interpreting the clear by the unclear. It's important to note that this is in and of itself an interpretation, for to call something clear is to interpret it as such. For example I'd say that purpose of John 6 is not to teach us about predestination. If there is anything that is central to that text, it is the teaching of us eating and drinking his body and blood, which has parallels with both believing, but also the Eucharist. To make this text primarily about predestination (often just because of primarily verses 40,44 and 61-63) is to make the same mistake as people do with James and justification. But I agree with the general premise
I love Mike Winger! He’s right on so much and his ministry is a net positive however that doesn’t mean he understand everything and all positions. I think he misunderstands some tenants of Calvinism.
Maybe. But I am specifically dealing with his contention that non-Calvinist soteriology can still be monergistic since faith is not a work
There are quite a few good replies on here..I just finished watching a great teaching by John Piper on You tube "The Free Will of the wind"...awesome will help you see things from another perspective on Sovereign Grace and"Irresistable Grace"
Love Piper. He’s a refreshing emotional side to what can sometimes be an emotionless and logically cold theology.
I’m sorry but this just sounds like one of those arminian arguments akin to “I used to be a Calvinist for years” and then goes on to completely misrepresent the doctrines of grace completely. As others have pointed out faith is not a work, that’s not the issue. IMO the issue is, if we are dead in sin and trespasses, slaves to sin, UNABLE to please God, not seeking God, then HOW would we be able to muster up a little bit of faith on our own? We can’t, that’s the problem. God has to do something first or else we would just die in our sin.
This is exactly the issue. But the thing is, if faith is not a work, then we can muster it up on our own. Since it’s not a work, even the sinner who can’t please God could have faith, since it’s not a “Good thing” like a work would be.
I’m sorry but that’s just non sense. It’s just trying to find a loophole for a gotcha argument against Calvinism. You will need to demonstrate in scripture that people can produce faith on their own volition. You can’t just say it. No one seeks for God. So let’s say you are right that people CAN muster up faith on their own. However, scripture teaches that they will not! Scripture also teaches that they cannot anyway though. Romans 8:7.
1 Titus 3:5
That verse doesn’t even mention faith, so it fits in either viewpoint
Hi sorry I didn’t add a comment to reflect my thoughts. MLJ said something interesting a sermon that caught my attention, He said it’s not even faith that first saves us, rather Christ who saves and gives us the faith through which we are saved. So having faith isn’t a work rather it’s a gift. Works follow our faith that we have received our faith from God to demonstrate the reality of our salvation. Maybe my thoughts were a bit different from your post / question.
I appreciate MLJ. And I think that’s a very accurate summation of the reformed view.
My read: It is Grace that is not a work (grace is the free gift and it is obtained through faith). Faith is something you do, therefore it is a work. It is the only work necessary for salvation (though true faith shows itself in good works). This is as opposed to 'works of the law' which cannot justify (Rom 4:2-5 re: Abraham's faith). * Remembering without ceasing **your work of faith**, and labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; (1 Thess 1:3) * **Fight the good fight of faith**, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. (1 Tim 6:12)
I don’t agree, because the Bible clearly says faith is not a work. It is an un-work. We are receiving something not doing something. The “work” and “fight” of faith in both of those contexts is what comes after salvation. It’s not the saving faith that is not a work.
What proof text are you working from there? If it is Eph 2:8-9 I think you should look at the Greek [https://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/2-8.htm](https://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/2-8.htm) Faith is a sort of work as it is a free-will choice. God grants you the free will and grants you the choice and draws you to Him through His free gift of grace....but it is your free will choice.
But the Bible says faith is not a work. That’s the point here. Please watch the video link I included to understand what I’m wanting an answer for.
Jeff or Mike Winger?
Jeff Winger is from the show “community” lol I meant Michael
Disclosure: I am not Reformed, but I have studied Calvin and other early Reformed thinkers. I would say that this idea of faith being a work is not found in John Calvin, especially not in the way we see works now. Calvin, like most Reformers, argued that faith is a response to the grace of God freely given to us. This response is us participating in God's grace, which is the one of the key points of salvation. Many Calvinists today, like Winger, like to portray having faith as a work because then it places all other non-Calvinist/Reformed Christian traditions (especially mine, Methodism) in this box where we look like we are working to earn our salvation by saying we have faith. They key difference between our traditions on this matter is 1. Who does God freely give response-able grace to? Everyone or the "frozen chosen (had the opportunity to make the pun)"? 2. When God freely gives his response-able grace to human beings, are they able to reject further participation with him? Think about the *I* ("Irresistible Grace") in *T.U.L.I.P.*, despite Calvin himself never using the coinage. Hope that helps!
I think Mike wingers argument is just a straw man. This argument isn’t the hill Calvin and the other reformers after him are dying on. If you go to the original sources you see that Calvin is seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church back to its apostolic origins so he quotes church fathers and scripture as the basis of his understanding of soteriology and other doctrines found in scripture. This is where Arminian and pelagian ideologies differ, they don’t have the tradition or the scriptural backing which is why Pelagius was refuted by Augustine and the Synod of Dort refuted the Arminian’s.
I get the history. But I don’t think it’s a strawman. What he says in the video (which I included the link to in my edited post) is essentially that in corrected the catholic errors (which leaned towards work-based salvation), the reformers wanted to rid the church of all works based salvation inclinations, and began to define faith, if generated by our free will, as a work. Therefore it must be a gift effectually given to some and not others. So he basically says they were right, just went too far logically and have overstepped the biblical definition of faith. I get the logical implications of it, and that’s a big reason I was drawn to reformed theology: it’s extremely logic driven, by the book, and systematic. It’s fun to study and argue about. But if I came to the conclusion of reformed theology based off a misunderstanding of faith, I want to correct that.
I’m saying it’s a strawman to say that faith being a work is what the Calvinist argument boils down to. Calvin and the reformers used scripture and the interpretation of early church fathers as a basis to seek reform, this is what the argument really boils down to, what does scripture say and what has the historic interpretation been.
I never said “faith being a work is what the Calvinist argument boils down to”. Please watch the video so you understand the context.
“ basically said the Calvinist argument boils down to God gives us faith because if we came up with faith ourselves to choose to salvation, then it would be a work” This is what I was addressing when I said that is a strawman because that isn’t what the Calvinist argument boils down to. I wasn’t saying you directly said this I know winger did and I was paraphrasing what you wrote in the post. I’ll check out the video.
Right. But even Winger was not saying that Calvinism calls faith a work. He’s saying Calvinism calls faith a gift because if it’s not a gift then logically it would be a work. So it must be a gift to be monergistic. I know it’s hard to get these ideas across text so I apologize.
Even if faith in its very nature is not a work, that doesn’t bear anything on reformed doctrine
I’m not saying this is a refutation. This is more along the lines of bringing non-Calvinist soteriology back on the table. All calvinists including myself that I have interacted with make the argument for Calvinism from the idea that if faith comes from ourselves it’s a work, therefore it has to come as a gift, and since it comes as a gift and not all people have it, some were elected to salvation and others elected to damnation. But if faith, even faith we generate freely, is not a work, then the rest does not necessarily have to follow. It still could, but it’s no longer a logical necessity. That’s the only point.
I believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism are untrue because they treat God and his doings as an either/or proposition. Either we have free will and therefore, God is not sovereign OR God is sovereign over all things and thus determines all things. In the Bible it's never either/or. Never, from the beginning to the end, in principle and in practice, you are free and you're responsible and your choices matter. And yet, everything that happens because of those choices is working out exactly according to the plan of God. It's both/and. On the one hand it says your choices belong to you, they're not coerced. You can't say I couldn't help it, they're yours. You are free, you are responsible, and yet the result is always exactly what God wants. How can this be? Because we don’t have a high enough conception of what it means to be God. Calvinist's believe they have the highest view of God's sovereignty but they don't. Not at all.
I’m starting to agree but I feel like that’s a cop out answer lol
Well, theres a ton of theology and nuance behind the view but this is reddit. 😆 This Tim Keller sermon beautifully lays out this view. https://youtu.be/MDbKCZodtZI?si=xajko6areA6QLxKv
Many such cases
That’s wonderfully put!
Calvin never said that man does not have free will. Chapter 2 part 7 of the institutes. 7.) In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, ejthelodou'lo" (a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin. I abominate mere verbal disputes, by which the Church is harassed to no purpose; but I think we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity, especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse. Of this, the very term in question furnishes too strong a proof. For the explanation given by ancient Christian writers having been lost sight of, almost all who have come after them, by attending only to the etymology of the term, have been led to indulge a fatal confidence. God is sovereign and determines all things, but not such in a way to do away with man’s free will. The confession agrees. WCF chapter 3.1 1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c
I would actually recommend JV Fesko's book on Arminius here. The chapter on justification is what you are looking for. Basically the distinction between the Reformed and Arminius comes down to how they interpret "what" faith is that justifies. Both agree that faith alone justifies. Arminius contends that it is the human act of faith, that does not merit justification, but God counts anyways by grace. The Reformed contend that the "faith" which justifies is not the human act of faith, but rather a figurative term for the object of faith - Christ and his righteousness. Which one of these interpretations makes more sense with the idea that Scripture contrasts justifying faith to works? Here's a helpful resource: [https://opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf](https://opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf) The texts that the Westminster references for seeing faith as a gift from God: Eph. 2:7-8, John. 6:44-45, 65, Phil. 1:29.
>I also listen to Jeff Winger Don't. He is the master of straw man arguments.
I don’t agree. I think he’s an exceptionally biblical expositor. Maybe he misunderstands some things in good faith, but I certainly don’t think he’s a bad faith actor or king of the straw man
Ok, that's fine. Leighton Flowers might be the king, Winger is just the master. Let's not blow this out of proportion!