Response to "More on Saving Faith"

11/1/2000

I guess the reason why “simple faith is insufficient to save a soul” does not sound like a radical statement to me is because it has always been my contention that the Word for “faith” that God says can justify and save us MEANS more than mental assent BY DEFINITION. In other words, REPENTANCE is the natural product of TRUE “simple faith”—or it is not faith at all. I believe this is what James was getting at. Defined correctly, “faith” is an abandoned trust that yields the fruit of all that abandoned trust implies. I have given up the ground of my heart to Who He is and all that He desires. Could you call that “repentance”? I believe you could. Does that mean that we must “ADD” something to “simple faith” in order to be saved? NO! It simply means that it is NOT “simple faith” if it is not abandoned into God’s arms in trust that He is Right and He is Life. It is not necessary to ADD anything to “simple faith” in order to be delivered, because “simple Faith” is a far richer Call than the English language and popular religion have ever made clear! There is no NEED to add “repentance” to faith. It is CONTAINED in the very DEFINTION of TRUE Faith!

When you lean back in a chair, and balance on the back two legs, you have not exhibited a Biblical DEFINITION of Faith... until you have been willing to lean an inch further, PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN. That alone is Biblical FAITH. If you are still in control, it is NOT Faith at all! So, repentance and many other things are all CONTAINED within the BIBLICAL teaching and example of FAITH. There is no NEED of adding “repentance” to any “requirements of salvation” ... IF we define Faith BIBLICALLY, rather than popularly. Make sense?