Faith is not the beginning of salvation. Neither is justification. Grace is the beginning of salvation. So, now, after we have had our helpful detour in the realm of faith, we will go back to the beginning, to grace. Specifically, we will begin with prevenient grace.
Those of you who are not of the Wesleyan persuasion may not be familiar with the term “prevenient grace” (other traditions have similar or virtually identical analogs). This is literally a “grace that goes before.” This term encompasses the first graces offered by God to humanity. This is grace offered to people before they even know who God is. This is a grace that is offered to ALL of humanity. Every person from birth (before birth really) has some part in God’s grace through prevenience. This means that while all people have a part in sin (all are sinners) no one is completely depraved. Total depravity, while a pious concept touted by some Protestants, is ultimately a misleading term. No one is totally depraved. To be TOTALLY depraved one would have to be TOTALLY without God’s grace; but the reality of prevenient grace means that no one is completely separated from God’s grace. No one is COMPLETELY depraved, all have a measure of grace.
This doctrine is at once incredibly hopeful and incredibly humbling. It is hopeful, because this means that no one anywhere on earth, at anytime in history, has been completely separated from God. All are given grace sufficient for salvation. All are given grace sufficient to come to God in a saving way (even if only through implicit faith in this life (See my former posts on faith for more about this). This extremely hopeful truth also has incredibly humbling implications. Since all are recipients of God’s grace, no one can claim any independent moral merit. All good actions, even before one is aware of God’s existence, flow from God’s grace. Any ability to make a decision for the good and the right comes from the empowering prevenient grace of God. Indeed, the very existence of a human conscience (a universal reality, even if expressed in various ways in different cultures) is a chief expression of God’s prevenient grace. Think of how much unrestrained evil would prevail if not for this powerful human reality!
What does all this mean for salvation? First, it means that the beginning of the process of salvation, at least in the lives of humans (the ultimate beginning is in the infinite love of the Trinity, which I wrote about several months ago), is in God’s grace. Salvation does not begin with a work of faith, not even the relatively passive faith-act of accepting God’s grace. No, salvation begins with a generous showering of God’s grace. This grace is forced upon us whether we like it or not. God unilaterally decides to give all of humanity grace. We have no choice in the matter; we are helpless to avoid his graciousness. Later, we have the opportunity to reject or accept this grace; but at first, God works alone.
This is the ultimate beginning of salvation. Salvation is a lifelong process that begins with this first of graces. Next week we will look into how this prevenience plays out as life goes on, how it might lead to further graces, and how this all matches up with sanctification. Until then . . . peace.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The False Protestant Dichotomy of Faith and Works
If you have been following my posts on faith (or if you go and read them now) you have an important key to unlocking the mysteries of salvation theology. The motor that drives the order of salvation, or ordo salutis, is certainly grace; but the power from this motor is put into action through the instrumentation of faith. Thus far, I have concluded that faith, beyond merely inspiring good works, actually includes them. As we continue to discuss salvation theology a governing assumption will be that “works do in fact play a part in salvation.” I will clarify the place of works further as we move forward, but first I would like to round out our initial discussion of faith by addressing one of the greatest theological tragedies in the history of the Church: the false dichotomy of faith and works.
Martin Luther was not just some crazy beer swilling monk, as certain Roman Catholic officials made him out to be. He was a devout Roman Catholic with a keen spiritual sensibility. And Luther was not simply nit-picking when he called on the Roman church to reform. There were real substantive abuses that had grown up through the Middle Ages in the Roman church. Among the worst of these abuses was the state of Roman worship and some distinctive practices that had arisen in the medieval church. Luther’s problem was not that he was over-reacting (these abuses were real and substantive) or that he simply wanted to form his own church (Luther was excommunicated and almost burned at the stake as a heretic); he desired reform and was forcibly removed from the Roman church. Where Luther went wrong was in his salvation theology.
More specifically, Luther linked certain deplorable practices of the Roman church with certain Roman doctrines that were actually quite orthodox and unproblematic. To use an admittedly broad statement, it was as if Luther looked at the abuses of the Roman church and said, “all this exists because we have allowed works to seep into our conception of faith.” Luther strengthened this view with a selective reading of Paul and an almost total discounting of James (He was quite close to dropping this book from the Canon altogether). This resulted in a deceptively simple and seemingly pious mantra, sola fides, or faith alone. Actually, Luther would have agreed that salvation is by grace alone through the instrumentation of faith.
Of course, on one level, Luther is right. Salvation is by grace through faith. The problem is that Luther’s definition of faith appears to be anemic. He falsely separated faith and works and opposed the former to the latter. Luther, and Calvin after him, identified works as that which follow from faith. Calvin’s famous quip, “saving faith is never alone” sounds catchy, but it is less than helpful. Although this view seems neat and tidy, upon closer inspection, it is deeply flawed and incoherent. And, if you have read my last few posts, you know why. Faith is a choice. Yes, it is empowered by grace, but it is a free decision nonetheless. As we have seen, beliefs, even beliefs as lofty as “trust” are, for the most part, completely involuntary. The only thing that can be truly voluntary is a work or an action. The decision of faith is not a decision to believe, it is a decision to do something based on a belief one already has. Where Luther and Calvin’s anemic view of faith forces a showdown between Paul and James, a view of faith that includes works produces an easy synthesis. Yes Paul, salvation is by faith alone. Yes James, faith is not mere belief, but includes works. Salvation is by a faith of “grace empowered works” or “works of faith.” If only Luther and Calvin could have separated the harmful practices of the Roman church from their harmless theology.
As it stands, Luther, Calvin and their Protestant progeny, have to varying extents adopted a false dichotomy between faith and works. As a Protestant I do recognize abuses of the medieval Roman church and I still disagree with some facets of the contemporary Roman church. However, unlike most of my Protestant brethren, salvation theology (at least the general bulk of it) is not an area where I lodge significant protest. Unfortunately most Protestants see this as the main battle ground between them and high church traditions. This perception rests on an incoherent view of faith and the piety that flows from it. And, after all, the Lutheran concept sounds good and pious, “Far be it from me to do anything to affect my salvation. I am merely a helpless sinner, I can do nothing. Salvation is completely a work of God. No work of mine contributes one iota.” This sounds good, but ultimately it is bad theology.
That a “faith of works” takes part in salvation is undeniable (unless you wish to go the way of determinists, in which case you have bigger problems). This does not mean that one earns salvation. It simply means that God will not save us against our wills. He wants His love to be freely accepted and returned in works of love. Works of faith are simply the instrumentation of Gods grace. We could do nothing without grace and God has decided not to save without works. Who are we to question God’s wisdom and demand that we have no part in our salvation, that we do nothing that contributes to it in any way? God saves by grace through faith and this faith includes works (which are empowered, but not completely determined by grace).
This is one area where Protestants need to recognize that our high church brethren actually had it right. We need to relinquish the false faith-works dichotomy (as pious as it sounds) and adopt a more robust and coherent work-of-faith dialectic. Our high church brethren still have flaws worthy of protest, but salvation theology (at least this part) is not one of them.
Until next week, when we dip into grace and the beginnings of sanctification . . . peace.
Martin Luther was not just some crazy beer swilling monk, as certain Roman Catholic officials made him out to be. He was a devout Roman Catholic with a keen spiritual sensibility. And Luther was not simply nit-picking when he called on the Roman church to reform. There were real substantive abuses that had grown up through the Middle Ages in the Roman church. Among the worst of these abuses was the state of Roman worship and some distinctive practices that had arisen in the medieval church. Luther’s problem was not that he was over-reacting (these abuses were real and substantive) or that he simply wanted to form his own church (Luther was excommunicated and almost burned at the stake as a heretic); he desired reform and was forcibly removed from the Roman church. Where Luther went wrong was in his salvation theology.
More specifically, Luther linked certain deplorable practices of the Roman church with certain Roman doctrines that were actually quite orthodox and unproblematic. To use an admittedly broad statement, it was as if Luther looked at the abuses of the Roman church and said, “all this exists because we have allowed works to seep into our conception of faith.” Luther strengthened this view with a selective reading of Paul and an almost total discounting of James (He was quite close to dropping this book from the Canon altogether). This resulted in a deceptively simple and seemingly pious mantra, sola fides, or faith alone. Actually, Luther would have agreed that salvation is by grace alone through the instrumentation of faith.
Of course, on one level, Luther is right. Salvation is by grace through faith. The problem is that Luther’s definition of faith appears to be anemic. He falsely separated faith and works and opposed the former to the latter. Luther, and Calvin after him, identified works as that which follow from faith. Calvin’s famous quip, “saving faith is never alone” sounds catchy, but it is less than helpful. Although this view seems neat and tidy, upon closer inspection, it is deeply flawed and incoherent. And, if you have read my last few posts, you know why. Faith is a choice. Yes, it is empowered by grace, but it is a free decision nonetheless. As we have seen, beliefs, even beliefs as lofty as “trust” are, for the most part, completely involuntary. The only thing that can be truly voluntary is a work or an action. The decision of faith is not a decision to believe, it is a decision to do something based on a belief one already has. Where Luther and Calvin’s anemic view of faith forces a showdown between Paul and James, a view of faith that includes works produces an easy synthesis. Yes Paul, salvation is by faith alone. Yes James, faith is not mere belief, but includes works. Salvation is by a faith of “grace empowered works” or “works of faith.” If only Luther and Calvin could have separated the harmful practices of the Roman church from their harmless theology.
As it stands, Luther, Calvin and their Protestant progeny, have to varying extents adopted a false dichotomy between faith and works. As a Protestant I do recognize abuses of the medieval Roman church and I still disagree with some facets of the contemporary Roman church. However, unlike most of my Protestant brethren, salvation theology (at least the general bulk of it) is not an area where I lodge significant protest. Unfortunately most Protestants see this as the main battle ground between them and high church traditions. This perception rests on an incoherent view of faith and the piety that flows from it. And, after all, the Lutheran concept sounds good and pious, “Far be it from me to do anything to affect my salvation. I am merely a helpless sinner, I can do nothing. Salvation is completely a work of God. No work of mine contributes one iota.” This sounds good, but ultimately it is bad theology.
That a “faith of works” takes part in salvation is undeniable (unless you wish to go the way of determinists, in which case you have bigger problems). This does not mean that one earns salvation. It simply means that God will not save us against our wills. He wants His love to be freely accepted and returned in works of love. Works of faith are simply the instrumentation of Gods grace. We could do nothing without grace and God has decided not to save without works. Who are we to question God’s wisdom and demand that we have no part in our salvation, that we do nothing that contributes to it in any way? God saves by grace through faith and this faith includes works (which are empowered, but not completely determined by grace).
This is one area where Protestants need to recognize that our high church brethren actually had it right. We need to relinquish the false faith-works dichotomy (as pious as it sounds) and adopt a more robust and coherent work-of-faith dialectic. Our high church brethren still have flaws worthy of protest, but salvation theology (at least this part) is not one of them.
Until next week, when we dip into grace and the beginnings of sanctification . . . peace.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Faith Part V: The Works Righteousness Objection to “Faith as Existential Trust”
This week I will conclude my presentation of ‘faith as existential trust’ by answering a common, and quite serious objection concerning works righteosness. Please let me know what you think of this conception of faith, especially if you see any other strong objections.
Objection: Faith as Existential Trust = Works Righteousness
An orthodox Christian, especially a Protestant one, is likely to object, “Your description of faith is a degradation of divine grace. ‘Existential trust’ appears to be a euphemism for ‘works righteousness’.” This is a worthy objection and deserves careful consideration. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed that salvation is not something humanity can earn, even with great effort. The grace of salvation is freely given; it is a debt ordinary humans could never pay. It is a debt that only the God-man, Jesus the Christ, can pay on behalf of humanity. Christians have traditionally affirmed that this gift of salvific grace is accepted in faith. Yet faith as existential trust sounds like a work one performs to earn this grace. I must admit that works are inherent to this conception of faith. On this model faith does not merely inspire good works, it includes them. Faith as existential trust is actually not genuine faith unless some type of work is present. To fully answer the charge of works righteousness, it is necessary to place faith as existential trust within the context of salvation theology.
D. Response: The Nature of Salvation
The “works righteousness” objection, while well intended, rests on a fallacious understanding of salvation. Many Christians (mostly Protestant) view salvation as a punctiform event that occurs when someone decides to relinquish their life to Christ. A person makes the decision of faith, accepts God’s gift of grace in repentance, believes that Jesus is the Son of God and accepts him as both Lord and savior. There are several Protestant variations, but they all make the same error: they claim that a person is saved in that one decisive moment. This, however, is a misleadingly narrow picture of salvation.
Let me suggest a description of salvation that is more in line with the tenor of Christian Scripture and tradition. Simply put, salvation is the transformation of a sinner into a holy Christ-like saint. It is a transformation of a sinner into someone capable of inhabiting heaven. This is indeed a miracle of grace, but it is most often a gradual miracle. Salvation is a processive rather than a punctiform reality. God gives grace (in the form of some mixture of beliefs and desires) sufficient for every single person to respond to Him in faith, whether implicit or explicit. As a person responds to God this person is provided with further grace. By receiving and responding in faith to each addition of grace a sinner is brought further along the path of Christ-likeness. This is the process of sanctification; it is the process of becoming holy, like Christ, through various works of faith, which are preceded and followed by divine grace. Is this works righteousness? I do not think so. Faith as existential trust is a process wherein divine grace is appropriated in works. Without grace a sinner would have nothing to appropriate and would also lack the ability to respond. God uses imperfect works of faith as the occasion for salvation; it does not follow that people earn salvific grace. This is simply the process God has chosen to bring people into His coming kingdom.
God is love. God desires a love relationship with every person. This means that He desires each sinner to be transformed into a saint capable of inhabiting heaven. He could unilaterally ‘zap’ them into this Christ-like state, but relationships are inherently bi-lateral. So God provides grace in various measures and seeks faith responses, which are works (often works of mercy or piety) that form an ever-strengthening relationship. Essentially, the process of sanctification is the process whereby God forms and perfects a God-human relationship. Salvation is complete when this relationship is perfected. In a real sense the process of salvation (building this relationship) is the prize of salvation (a perfected relationship with God).
Conclusion: Salvation by Works of Faith
If the preceding description of salvation is accurate, then the Christian simply cannot avoid the fact that works are inherent to faith. This is because I am assuming the Christian will want to maintain that salvation is by faith; yet as we have seen, salvation in its fullest sense is achieved through good works. Ultimately the ‘works righteousness’ objection rests on a fallacious faith-works dichotomy. Let me suggest that this dichotomy can be overcome in a ‘work of faith’ synthesis. I am not merely claiming that faith inspires good works; rather, I am making the stronger assertion that good works are the content of faith. With this distinction the apparent contradiction between Paul and James is mitigated. Salvation is by grace through faith alone and salvation is also by grace through works. This is because salvation is a passionate process of appropriation, whereby the sinner appropriates divine grace in works of faith. Without works there can be no appropriation and therefore no sanctification of the sinner into a holy saint. By demanding a salvation without works the misguided Protestant demands a salvation without content. This is because salvation simply is the sanctification process, which includes works.
If we are to accept a robust salvation, then an equally robust faith is requisite. Furthermore, if we are to avoid the problem of volition stated in prior posts then faith will need more than merely notional content. I have offered a plausible account of what that extra-notional content might be and just how little notional content might be required for genuine faith (whether explicit or implicit). Faith as existential trust and implicit faith fit nicely into a fully orbed and orthodox salvation theology.
Objection: Faith as Existential Trust = Works Righteousness
An orthodox Christian, especially a Protestant one, is likely to object, “Your description of faith is a degradation of divine grace. ‘Existential trust’ appears to be a euphemism for ‘works righteousness’.” This is a worthy objection and deserves careful consideration. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed that salvation is not something humanity can earn, even with great effort. The grace of salvation is freely given; it is a debt ordinary humans could never pay. It is a debt that only the God-man, Jesus the Christ, can pay on behalf of humanity. Christians have traditionally affirmed that this gift of salvific grace is accepted in faith. Yet faith as existential trust sounds like a work one performs to earn this grace. I must admit that works are inherent to this conception of faith. On this model faith does not merely inspire good works, it includes them. Faith as existential trust is actually not genuine faith unless some type of work is present. To fully answer the charge of works righteousness, it is necessary to place faith as existential trust within the context of salvation theology.
D. Response: The Nature of Salvation
The “works righteousness” objection, while well intended, rests on a fallacious understanding of salvation. Many Christians (mostly Protestant) view salvation as a punctiform event that occurs when someone decides to relinquish their life to Christ. A person makes the decision of faith, accepts God’s gift of grace in repentance, believes that Jesus is the Son of God and accepts him as both Lord and savior. There are several Protestant variations, but they all make the same error: they claim that a person is saved in that one decisive moment. This, however, is a misleadingly narrow picture of salvation.
Let me suggest a description of salvation that is more in line with the tenor of Christian Scripture and tradition. Simply put, salvation is the transformation of a sinner into a holy Christ-like saint. It is a transformation of a sinner into someone capable of inhabiting heaven. This is indeed a miracle of grace, but it is most often a gradual miracle. Salvation is a processive rather than a punctiform reality. God gives grace (in the form of some mixture of beliefs and desires) sufficient for every single person to respond to Him in faith, whether implicit or explicit. As a person responds to God this person is provided with further grace. By receiving and responding in faith to each addition of grace a sinner is brought further along the path of Christ-likeness. This is the process of sanctification; it is the process of becoming holy, like Christ, through various works of faith, which are preceded and followed by divine grace. Is this works righteousness? I do not think so. Faith as existential trust is a process wherein divine grace is appropriated in works. Without grace a sinner would have nothing to appropriate and would also lack the ability to respond. God uses imperfect works of faith as the occasion for salvation; it does not follow that people earn salvific grace. This is simply the process God has chosen to bring people into His coming kingdom.
God is love. God desires a love relationship with every person. This means that He desires each sinner to be transformed into a saint capable of inhabiting heaven. He could unilaterally ‘zap’ them into this Christ-like state, but relationships are inherently bi-lateral. So God provides grace in various measures and seeks faith responses, which are works (often works of mercy or piety) that form an ever-strengthening relationship. Essentially, the process of sanctification is the process whereby God forms and perfects a God-human relationship. Salvation is complete when this relationship is perfected. In a real sense the process of salvation (building this relationship) is the prize of salvation (a perfected relationship with God).
Conclusion: Salvation by Works of Faith
If the preceding description of salvation is accurate, then the Christian simply cannot avoid the fact that works are inherent to faith. This is because I am assuming the Christian will want to maintain that salvation is by faith; yet as we have seen, salvation in its fullest sense is achieved through good works. Ultimately the ‘works righteousness’ objection rests on a fallacious faith-works dichotomy. Let me suggest that this dichotomy can be overcome in a ‘work of faith’ synthesis. I am not merely claiming that faith inspires good works; rather, I am making the stronger assertion that good works are the content of faith. With this distinction the apparent contradiction between Paul and James is mitigated. Salvation is by grace through faith alone and salvation is also by grace through works. This is because salvation is a passionate process of appropriation, whereby the sinner appropriates divine grace in works of faith. Without works there can be no appropriation and therefore no sanctification of the sinner into a holy saint. By demanding a salvation without works the misguided Protestant demands a salvation without content. This is because salvation simply is the sanctification process, which includes works.
If we are to accept a robust salvation, then an equally robust faith is requisite. Furthermore, if we are to avoid the problem of volition stated in prior posts then faith will need more than merely notional content. I have offered a plausible account of what that extra-notional content might be and just how little notional content might be required for genuine faith (whether explicit or implicit). Faith as existential trust and implicit faith fit nicely into a fully orbed and orthodox salvation theology.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Faith Part IV: First Objection to Faith as Existential Trust
Last week I finished discussing alternatives to “faith as belief” by presenting the strongest (and I believe correct) notion of faith: faith as existential trust. This is a faith with stress upon action and not upon notional belief. This conception of faith goes a long way in solving our original problem (concerning salvation via involuntary beliefs) but two formidable objections remain. This week I will raise and answer one. Next week I will raise and answer a final objection and thus conclude our foray into the world of faith.
A. Objection: Belief Snuck in the Back Door-
A major strength of faith as existential trust is that it does not require people to will themselves to believe that God exists, or that Jesus is God incarnate or that God is trustworthy. It requires much more modest notional content, namely: if God exists and Jesus is God incarnate then I should follow the teachings and example of Jesus and; acting as if Jesus is God incarnate is my best shot at achieving my ultimate purposes. However modest this notional content may be, one may object that faith as existential trust still requires involuntary notional content. People are still going to be held accountable for involuntary beliefs (albeit modest ones). So while the problem has been lessened with this more inclusive concept of faith, it has not been solved completely.
Existential faith still requires beliefs [A’] and [S], and both can be plausibly rejected by a large number of people. This is because, to believe that if [J], then I should follow Jesus’ teachings and example, or that acting as if [J] is true is my best shot at achieving my ultimate desires, one must first have at least a vague notion of [J] . There are millions, if not billions of people on earth who have never heard of Jesus or his teachings. Furthermore, there are many people who have heard of [J], accept [A’] but reject [S] . Often [S] is rejected because of the many faith options in our modern world. It is likely that people who have heard of Jesus and his teachings have also heard of at least one other plausible world religion. Given someone’s noetic structure, Christianity may not strike them as their “best shot”. One could respond that a modern person should perform faith experiments, sampling each viable option. But how long would these experiments take to be valid and how many people would perpetually experiment until death because of the many options offered? Ultimately the experimental option will only be viable for some of the modern people who have encountered Christianity. This leaves the rest of those who have encountered Christianity, and the few billion humans who have never had such an encounter, without any volitional recourse. How should we address these people, for whom explicit faith, even in the form of existential trust, is not an option?
B. Response: Implicit Faith
So far as I can see the only adequate answer to this objection is that there must exist a form of implicit faith that is sufficient for salvation. Ultimately this concept of implicit faith is best worked out in a fuller account of salvation theology; here a brief initial description will suffice. Someone who exercises implicit faith will be the type of person who will respond explicitly (in existential trust) when confronted with the teachings and example of Jesus given that they believe [S]. Such a person would hold belief [M’] which follows: if there is a legitimate higher moral power or authority, then I should obey it. This is an uncontroversial claim that even a staunch moral skeptic would accept. This minimal belief guides the person of implicit faith. They act according to their best approximation of what the moral law might be if a moral authority exists. This type of implicit faith could apply to someone who has never encountered Christianity, but it can also apply to the skeptic who has encountered the teachings of Jesus, accepts [A’] but rejects [S]. Given belief [S] they would exercise explicit faith, but since they cannot bring themselves to believe [S] they may exercise implicit faith by holding to belief [M’]. It is important to note that the driving force behind any faith (explicit or implicit) is desire. One must act on a desire to do what one should do, given your beliefs. Genuine faith and salvation status is not determined by belief, but by action. One is held accountable for what one decides to do given one’s beliefs. The decision of faith is a choice, not between beliefs, but between various actions aimed at satisfying competing desires.
This description of faith should lead into another, perhaps more common, objection concerning works righteousness. Next week I will state and address that objection and conclude our musings on the nature of faith.
Until next week . . . peace.
A. Objection: Belief Snuck in the Back Door-
A major strength of faith as existential trust is that it does not require people to will themselves to believe that God exists, or that Jesus is God incarnate or that God is trustworthy. It requires much more modest notional content, namely: if God exists and Jesus is God incarnate then I should follow the teachings and example of Jesus and; acting as if Jesus is God incarnate is my best shot at achieving my ultimate purposes. However modest this notional content may be, one may object that faith as existential trust still requires involuntary notional content. People are still going to be held accountable for involuntary beliefs (albeit modest ones). So while the problem has been lessened with this more inclusive concept of faith, it has not been solved completely.
Existential faith still requires beliefs [A’] and [S], and both can be plausibly rejected by a large number of people. This is because, to believe that if [J], then I should follow Jesus’ teachings and example, or that acting as if [J] is true is my best shot at achieving my ultimate desires, one must first have at least a vague notion of [J] . There are millions, if not billions of people on earth who have never heard of Jesus or his teachings. Furthermore, there are many people who have heard of [J], accept [A’] but reject [S] . Often [S] is rejected because of the many faith options in our modern world. It is likely that people who have heard of Jesus and his teachings have also heard of at least one other plausible world religion. Given someone’s noetic structure, Christianity may not strike them as their “best shot”. One could respond that a modern person should perform faith experiments, sampling each viable option. But how long would these experiments take to be valid and how many people would perpetually experiment until death because of the many options offered? Ultimately the experimental option will only be viable for some of the modern people who have encountered Christianity. This leaves the rest of those who have encountered Christianity, and the few billion humans who have never had such an encounter, without any volitional recourse. How should we address these people, for whom explicit faith, even in the form of existential trust, is not an option?
B. Response: Implicit Faith
So far as I can see the only adequate answer to this objection is that there must exist a form of implicit faith that is sufficient for salvation. Ultimately this concept of implicit faith is best worked out in a fuller account of salvation theology; here a brief initial description will suffice. Someone who exercises implicit faith will be the type of person who will respond explicitly (in existential trust) when confronted with the teachings and example of Jesus given that they believe [S]. Such a person would hold belief [M’] which follows: if there is a legitimate higher moral power or authority, then I should obey it. This is an uncontroversial claim that even a staunch moral skeptic would accept. This minimal belief guides the person of implicit faith. They act according to their best approximation of what the moral law might be if a moral authority exists. This type of implicit faith could apply to someone who has never encountered Christianity, but it can also apply to the skeptic who has encountered the teachings of Jesus, accepts [A’] but rejects [S]. Given belief [S] they would exercise explicit faith, but since they cannot bring themselves to believe [S] they may exercise implicit faith by holding to belief [M’]. It is important to note that the driving force behind any faith (explicit or implicit) is desire. One must act on a desire to do what one should do, given your beliefs. Genuine faith and salvation status is not determined by belief, but by action. One is held accountable for what one decides to do given one’s beliefs. The decision of faith is a choice, not between beliefs, but between various actions aimed at satisfying competing desires.
This description of faith should lead into another, perhaps more common, objection concerning works righteousness. Next week I will state and address that objection and conclude our musings on the nature of faith.
Until next week . . . peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
