Can a Christian believer's faith be flawed in itself?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Protestant tradition teaches that good works do not merit salvation, yet faith itself is considered a non-work.  GotQuestions illustrates the point nicely: because salvation is something God gives rather than something one earns, considering faith to truly be a form of "work" would destroy grace.  It is, they argue, akin to cashing a check that someone gifted to you; the money is yours if you want it, but you still must endorse and "acknowledge" what is being given to you.  You cannot boast about becoming a millionaire if you did nothing on your own part to earn that money.  (This obviously opens up a whole new can of worms, but I think the point is well taken.)

This is, however, where I contest the notion of faith not being a "work" in and of itself.  Indeed, even the analogy itself has its own set of conditions attached since not all check endorsements may be considered valid.  There is also, quite evidently, a whole host of beliefs on who Christ is and the very foundation of Christianity itself has come into dispute.  This inevitably leaves the possibility of one having "the wrong faith" even if Christ is the focal point of that faith.  Following that logic, it would appear that faith is not entirely different from any other "work," given that there is, generally speaking, both a 'right' and 'wrong' way to do something.

With that being said, how can Christians, being themselves ungodly and thus infinitely limited in terms of perspective, feel assured that even their faith is enough to attain salvation?

[Never]

First off, this calls for a great quote by Madeline L'Engle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the fact that we are considering this question in itself is beneficial to the Christian.

Can Christians feel assured in their faith despite the presence of sin in their lives? Yes, considering Jesus points out in John 6:39-40 (NIV) that he would never lose any of those who he was given, because it is God's will that everyone who believed in him would have eternal life. It appears that a Christian can only have solid assurance of their salvation when he or she possesses trust in Christ to do what he has promised. Another viable argument is that the a role of the Holy Spirit is being our internal assurance as Christians. Since the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead, it should be argued that the Spirit would naturally play a significant role in the Christian's life, especially with regard to assurance of faith.

Christians, like all people, are imperfect. The difference is that the Christian has accepted salvation in the perfect Christ, who is by nature actively involved in the faith of every Christian.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

First off, this calls for a great quote by Madeline L'Engle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the fact that we are considering this question in itself is beneficial to the Christian.

Can Christians feel assured in their faith despite the presence of sin in their lives? Yes, considering Jesus points out in John 6:39-40 (NIV) that he would never lose any of those who he was given, because it is God's will that everyone who believed in him would have eternal life. It appears that a Christian can only have solid assurance of their salvation when he or she possesses trust in Christ to do what he has promised. Another viable argument is that the a role of the Holy Spirit is being our internal assurance as Christians. Since the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead, it should be argued that the Spirit would naturally play a significant role in the Christian's life, especially with regard to assurance of faith.

Christians, like all people, are imperfect. The difference is that the Christian has accepted salvation in the perfect Christ, who is by nature actively involved in the faith of every Christian.

That still leaves many unanswered questions.  For example, what would God make of the John Shelby Spong-type Christians who have spent all their lives preaching, yet interpret Scripture to be purely symbolic and deny the miracles or literal Resurrection?  What about the Harry-types who don't even hold the Holy Spirit to be authentic or are otherwise anti-Trinitarian for one reason or another?  Or, what about Christians such as myself who don't believe in the literal Genesis account and thus do not support the concept of Original Sin, or at the very least, don't understand it the same way most Christians do?

You can feel either way about any of those things - and yes, most of the examples I gave pertain to very liberal Christians - but absent that, does even the most spiritually active Christian no longer be such for not hitting all the right notes?

(For disclosure purposes, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here.  The issue I've raised mostly connects to some universalist essays I'd been reading the past week.)

[Never]

First off, this calls for a great quote by Madeline L'Engle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the fact that we are considering this question in itself is beneficial to the Christian.

Can Christians feel assured in their faith despite the presence of sin in their lives? Yes, considering Jesus points out in John 6:39-40 (NIV) that he would never lose any of those who he was given, because it is God's will that everyone who believed in him would have eternal life. It appears that a Christian can only have solid assurance of their salvation when he or she possesses trust in Christ to do what he has promised. Another viable argument is that the a role of the Holy Spirit is being our internal assurance as Christians. Since the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead, it should be argued that the Spirit would naturally play a significant role in the Christian's life, especially with regard to assurance of faith.

Christians, like all people, are imperfect. The difference is that the Christian has accepted salvation in the perfect Christ, who is by nature actively involved in the faith of every Christian.

That still leaves many unanswered questions.  For example, what would God make of the John Shelby Spong-type Christians who have spent all their lives preaching, yet interpret Scripture to be purely symbolic and deny the miracles or literal Resurrection?  What about the Harry-types who don't even hold the Holy Spirit to be authentic or are otherwise anti-Trinitarian for one reason or another?  Or, what about Christians such as myself who don't believe in the literal Genesis account and thus do not support the concept of Original Sin, or at the very least, don't understand it the same way most Christians do?

You can feel either way about any of those things - and yes, most of the examples I gave pertain to very liberal Christians - but absent that, does even the most spiritually active Christian no longer be such for not hitting all the right notes?

(For disclosure purposes, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here.  The issue I've raised mostly connects to some universalist essays I'd been reading the past week.)

For one, Hebrews 6 apparently points out that resurrection of the dead is an elementary teaching about Christ. When Christians are called to preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians 5:1-4, we are told to spread the word of Jesus' literal resurrection on the third day. Based on these teachings from the Bible, if we are questioning the resurrection, then we cast Christianity itself into doubt.

Similarly, in Mark 3:29, Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin. Arguing that the Holy Spirit is fraudulent should very well be considered degrading to God. I would not feel comfortable questioning Harry's salvation specifically, but it is disconcerting that he would not believe a significant attribute of God.

Now, on to the subject of literal creation. While I believe that a thorough exegesis of Genesis 1 would lead to the acceptance of the account at face value, it does appear that there is debate about the Hebrew word "yom" actually being a 24-hour day or an age in relation to its usage in Genesis. I agree with the former interpretation, but it seems reckless to attack those Christians who view "yom" as referring to an age. Furthermore, a crucial point is made in Romans 10:9, which says that all a person has to do is declare that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead to be saved:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While this verse could lead to the question "saved from what?", it seems that our understanding of sin doesn't have to be particularly rigid in order to believe in God. All we have to do is acknowledge the existence of sin (for the record, I do believe in original sin, but a debate on that didn't seem to be a salient point of our discussion). In other words, people holding viewpoints contradicting original sin (like Pelagianism, among others) are not necessarily excluded from the opportunity to accept salvation in Jesus Christ.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I had planned on writing a response for each of the points you raised, Never, but to avoid diverting from the topic itself, I'll just ask you this: is it fair to say, then, that 'faith' can be considered a 'work' in that it may be of a fallible nature even when held in the "proper" context or with the right intentions?

[Never]

I had planned on writing a response for each of the points you raised, Never, but to avoid diverting from the topic itself, I'll just ask you this: is it fair to say, then, that 'faith' can be considered a 'work' in that it may be of a fallible nature even when held in the "proper" context or with the right intentions?

Well, no, I don't believe we can say that faith is a work in the respect that salvation originates from our sinful selves. Jesus substituted the work aspect for us by doing it himself through his death on the cross, as explained in Hebrews 12:2. I don't think that faith can be fallible because it comes from God's perfect grace. The fulfillment of salvation comes through Christ. Since faith is attributed to God's perfection, we can be flawed and still accept it, since he will intercede on our behalf when we do.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I had planned on writing a response for each of the points you raised, Never, but to avoid diverting from the topic itself, I'll just ask you this: is it fair to say, then, that 'faith' can be considered a 'work' in that it may be of a fallible nature even when held in the "proper" context or with the right intentions?

Well, no, I don't believe we can say that faith is a work in the respect that salvation originates from our sinful selves. Jesus substituted the work aspect for us by doing it himself through his death on the cross, as explained in Hebrews 12:2. I don't think that faith can be fallible because it comes from God's perfect grace. The fulfillment of salvation comes through Christ. Since faith is attributed to God's perfection, we can be flawed and still accept it, since he will intercede on our behalf when we do.

I still think you're missing the point of the question.

I listed several examples of things that one can believe or disbelieve in and still call themselves a Christian.  You responded by saying that disbelief in the literal Resurrection and that denial in the Holy Spirit would cast Christianity itself into doubt.  Logically, it would follow that the faith itself would not grant a person salvation if we accept that Christianity relies on those two things, and therefore faith can be understood as work in that it has the attribute of being right or wrong, which undercuts traditional understanding of sola fide and Christian faith itself.

Let me reiterate that I'm not asking about these doctrines in particular, but rather if one must affirm certain things in order for their faith to qualify them as 'saved.'

[Never]

I had planned on writing a response for each of the points you raised, Never, but to avoid diverting from the topic itself, I'll just ask you this: is it fair to say, then, that 'faith' can be considered a 'work' in that it may be of a fallible nature even when held in the "proper" context or with the right intentions?

Well, no, I don't believe we can say that faith is a work in the respect that salvation originates from our sinful selves. Jesus substituted the work aspect for us by doing it himself through his death on the cross, as explained in Hebrews 12:2. I don't think that faith can be fallible because it comes from God's perfect grace. The fulfillment of salvation comes through Christ. Since faith is attributed to God's perfection, we can be flawed and still accept it, since he will intercede on our behalf when we do.

I still think you're missing the point of the question.

I listed several examples of things that one can believe or disbelieve in and still call themselves a Christian.  You responded by saying that disbelief in the literal Resurrection and that denial in the Holy Spirit would cast Christianity itself into doubt.  Logically, it would follow that the faith itself would not grant a person salvation if we accept that Christianity relies on those two things, and therefore faith can be understood as work in that it has the attribute of being right or wrong, which undercuts traditional understanding of sola fide and Christian faith itself.

Let me reiterate that I'm not asking about these doctrines in particular, but rather if one must affirm certain things in order for their faith to qualify them as 'saved.'

I apologize for not directly answering your questions in the way that you were hoping to get them answered. I didn't intend to do that. I will try to do better this time around.

No, I don't believe that someone who denies the literal Resurrection and Holy Spirit could be considered a Christian (I might be wrong on this, but I sincerely feel that I am not, with strong justification). My reason for this is because denying those two in particular is denying that Jesus was capable of carrying out the actions necessary to give us the gift of salvation. Generally, since God is essential to faith, I am of the understanding that writing off doctrines relating to Jesus' ministry and the Holy Spirit that was sent after his ascension also precludes the ability to accept salvation.

We can't deny actions or attributes of Jesus and the Trinity in general and still have Christian faith as we know it.

We do have to affirm Christ for who he is to be considered saved. By genuinely believing in Christ, we are accepting him for all of who he is.