Fralick on Consistent or Alternating Faith in Ephesians 1-2 on 03-06-12

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/03/consistent-or-alternating-faith-in.html

Brother Fralick stated:

"In our last article we examined the “kind” of faith coupled with regeneration in Ephesians 2:8. We saw that, based on the analogy of faith and the context of the Ephesian letter, the faith under consideration is a gift from God (v.19) mediated through the proclamation of the gospel (v.13). Unless we approach the text with anti-means prejudices (eisegesis), this is what the context suggests. Essentially, there are two possibilities as to how the concept of faith progresses in the first two chapters of this letter. Faith is mentioned in chapter 1, verses 12-13, then in v. 19, and lastly in verse 8 of the second chapter."

Brother Fralick is not incorrect. The faith in context is evangelical faith - there is no question about that from verses 13 and 17-20. There is no contextual reason to make the faith of Ephesians 2:8 a different faith. It certainly is not justified by the context. However, neither is there any reason from the context to limit the extent of the concept of "faith" here to the N.T. gospel; otherwise, the O.T. saints and the mentally incompetent would be quite precluded from the salvation as defined in this chapter. (Note my exposition of Abraham's faith, which was not explicitly in Jesus Christ a couple of blogs ago.)

The context does limit claims of eternal salvation among those under the sound of the gospel to evangelical faith. I can agree that Primitive Baptists who approach Ephesians 2:8 and argue that Paul is actually excluding evangelical faith are in error. It is completely erroneous from these passages and from the New Testament to view evangelical faith as inconsistent with the principle of grace infused at regeneration. Evangelical faith manifests those that have had a principle of grace infused, and belief in the gospel is God's means of conforming the elect under the sound of it to the image of his son.  

However, did Apollos reject the gospel delivered by Priscilla? Of course not. Was Apollos spiritually resurrected by belief in Jesus only at that point? This seems unlikely as he was faithfully preaching the revelation of God available to him up to the baptism of John. So how can this be if belief in Jesus is the necessary and sufficient condition for regeneration? Now, certainly, belief in Jesus in the gospel era is a necessary and the only sufficient condition for claiming to have been one for whom Christ died, but we should be careful to distinguish the workings of God, which are beyond and not limited to man and means of men, and epistemic considerations of personal salvation.

There is only one way given in the Bible for man to know they have been redeemed by Christ, and that is through trust in his name. Unbelief removes all Biblical support for a man's assurance of eternal salvation.

Notice in Ephesians 1:13 how Paul refers to the gospel. The gospel is the good news of your salvation. Paul does not depict the gospel here as "unto your salvation", it is not depicted here as an instrumental cause of salvation, but a revelation of salvation. This is consistent with many other passages that emphasize this aspect of the function of the gospel, as in 2 Timothy 1:7-9 or Romans 1:17 that refer to the gospel bringing life and immortality to light or revealing the elect's righteous standing before God.

This is an important point because if the gospel is understood by Paul to serve in an instrumental function to apply or bring life and immortality that would be otherwise absent, why would he phrase it as indirect revelation as he does in Romans 1:17 as well. It would be more precise and accurate of Paul to say that the gospel brings life and immortality and that the word of truth is unto salvation, period.

It is not the content of Paul's words on which I am focusing so much as his emphasis. Surely it cannot be objected, then, as an emphasis, to depict the gospel, as Paul did, as an instrument of revelation of the actual salvation secured by Christ Jesus rather than an instrument of salvation itself. This point of emphasis of Paul is fundamentally inaccurate, if the gospel is God's means to apply His righteousness to the elect, as this application, and the necessary belief on which it is contingent, would be as essential to salvation as the death and resurrection of Christ.

Brother Garrett is wont to argue for no separation, not even a logical separation, between gospel belief and a state of grace, and in terms of epistemic awareness, I would agree with him. But these texts plainly emphasize the epistemic function of the gospel over against the gospel being the instrument by which salvation is applied. This is an inconsistent emphasis, if his view of soteriology is correct.