Friday, February 17, 2012

The Faith of Ephesians 2:8

One place in which the Anti-Means Baptists assert their persuasion is Ephesians 2:8. Following the “system of two’s” that is conditional time salvation, the almost universal opinion among them is that the faith mentioned here is contrary to the “kind of faith” which comes through the gospel. As Elder S.T. Tolley writes:

"If, in fact, it should be(as some assume and wish it to be) that the faith mentioned here refers to gospel faith, which is brought about by the preaching of a preacher who must preach the gospel to a sinner who must hear, believe the message, and accept Christ (sic) as his Savior in order to be born again. But that simply cannot be allowed by the scriptural language where it says this is "...NOT of yourselves," but it is "...the gift of God...not of works..." The faith mentioned here is the faith that God GIVES to the ones chosen to salvation before the world began. It is that spiritual element which enables the born-again child of God to understand the gospel message and believe it. This is bestowed in the operation of the new birth---not by the preaching of the gospel." ("Must the Elect Family of God Hear and Believe the Gospel of Christ in Order to be Saved into Heaven's Glory?", The Christian Baptist, vol 35)

This is typical argumentation from those within the anti-means camp. It contains the faulty premise that appears over and over again when the ultraists approach the scriptures: If means are involved, then the transaction is not of God but of men, and any blessing resulting from it cannot properly be called a gift of God, but must be by the works of men. To anyone who knows the scriptures correctly, though, this premise is not biblical. Not only in salvation, but in the government of His creation, the God of Heaven has often used means for the accomplishment of His purposes. In not one of these cases can it be said of the event that it was not performed by the power of God. Would we say, for instance, that the feeding of Elijah by the brook was not of God because ravens were the means by which bread and flesh were conveyed? Or that I cannot render total praise unto God for anything I learn in a church service because the message was conveyed through a gospel preacher?

Take the faith of the Corinthian believers. Since wrought through Paul and Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5) was their faith in Christ therefore not a gift of God? If not a gift, then how did they receive it, seeing that God GIVES unto His people not some, but "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3)? Did they attain it by their own efforts maybe???

If the Hardshell premise regarding means is correct, then evangelical faith can never be claimed by anyone as being "of the Lord", but must be obtained by works. The terrible conclusion resulting from this is that every Christian who feels they've come to believe in Christ through some gospel influence must not render all the praise unto God, seeing that means were involved. God is either robbed of His glory, or must see it shared with men. The solution to much of what is wrong with the Hardshell doctrine lies therefore in coming to the understanding that the faith which comes through the gospel (Eph. 1:13) is still a gift (v.19).

The charge of Tolley that "Means Baptists" ASSUME or WISH the faith of Eph. 2:8 to be evangelical is therefore faulty. It is no wish on our part that such is the case. Rather, the matter is settled by subscribing to the analogy of faith. If the bible teaches that transactions involving means are yet "of the Lord" then there is no just cause in creating a premise which says otherwise. If we do, then all of God's instrumental workings amongst men must always be looked at as Arminian transactions, which is exactly the thing of which are moderns are guilty. If there are explicit passages which teach that faith is evangelical (e.g. Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:13; Romans 10:17; 1 Cor. 3:5; Gal. 3:2) then it is only being consistent with sound rules of interpretation to say that the SAME faith is recorded in Eph. 2:8. What evidence is there to the contrary, apart from the argument that God's gifts can't come through means, which is utterly refuted by the Bible itself? Where are all the passages in the Bible which speak of non-evangelical faith? It is so central to the defense of time salvation, there ought to be some biblical verses which speak of it in so many words.

Furthermore, the determination that Eph. 2:8 speaks of evangelical faith is not a WISH on the part of "Means Baptists" because that is what is suggested by the context. Here we borrow the popular expression of our moderns which they erroneously say describes their approach to scripture: rightly dividing the word of truth. Let us see who is actually following that rule.

The FIRST faith mentioned in the Ephesian letter is evangelical. As Paul writes in chapter 1, verse 13:

"In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..."

Absolutely clear are the Apostle's words. What is especially uncomfortable to our moderns is that the surrounding context is language descriptive of eternal salvation. Try putting a time salvation twist on this!

A few verses down in verse 19 the same writer informs us that faith is a gift:

"And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power"

Now is it an example of rightly dividing the word of truth to say that the faith of verse 13 is the same or different than the one mentioned in verse 19? The answer is obvious to anyone who does not operate from a pre-conceived mental grid. The two faith's are actually one faith. The faith coming through the gospel in verse 13 is spoken of as a gift in verse 19. When we thus come to Ephesians 2:8, it is the context which leads to the conclusion that the faith mentioned here is the same as that presented thus far in the epistle. To assert otherwise, as the teaching of extreme time salvation must claim, is to say that there is an implicit switch from unnecessary evangelical faith in Eph. 1:13 to necessary non-evangelical faith in verse 19, and that the faith of Eph. 2:8 is the same as that of the latter, but different than that of the former! This example of sudden alternation, a common "hermeneutic" in the conditional time salvation heresy, is one of the things which led me to see the anti-means position as an unfair, dishonest press upon the word of God. It divides the word of truth alright. Divides it against itself!

Thus it is no wish on the part of "Means Baptists" to see evangelical faith taught in Eph. 2:8. Rightly dividing the word of truth using the analogy of faith and the context of the Ephesian letter settle the matter.

It is rather a WISH on the part of others to not see it this way.

2 comments:

Chris Cole said...

The hardest part for me is understanding why anyone would NEED to be so dogmatic about disallowing means in the gracious work of God in converting His elect. I am a hardcore Calvinist myself, yet I see the use of means to be perfectly consistent with the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. I especially thing of another passage by Paul, Romans 10:14, "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" Does the Apostle here not teach that there are ordinary means of grace? I would say that conversions WITHOUT such means are the exception, not the rule, such as elect infants who die in infancy, or the severely mentally-handicapped.

Kevin Fralick said...

Well put Chris. Your thoughts are what the average Christian reader would conclude from reading the scripture. Unfortunately, those against means within the Hardshell church would respond that the tenth chapter of Romans does not speak of eternal salvation at all, but a temporal deliverance, or time salvation as they refer to it. Isn't that something?

I totally agree with you, but I just thought you would like to know how they would respond to you.