The Nature of Faith

Reformed theology holds to sola fide; we are saved by faith alone. The idea is that faith apart from works is what saves, not faith plus. Many Christians nod and say, "Yep, that's what I believe." But it begs the question: What is faith? More specifically, what is saving faith?

There are some who would argue that the faith required for salvation is simple mental agreement. They are purporting that modern Christianity has made faith too complicated. It's just "believe", nothing more. I don't think it takes any great mental gymnastics to see the problem with that. Believe ... what? According to James, the demons believe (James 2:19). A lot of good that does them. And in that same passage, James refers to a concept that ought to alert us that saving faith is not merely "believe". He refers to a faith that is dead. So it is possible to have faith, but it is not saving faith.

So what is saving faith? The Reformers outlined three components of saving faith. I won't try to use their Latin terms. I'm not scholar. But I want to get across their three components because I think it's important in today's morass of confusion of terms. So, the first component is the truth. That is, it is the pieces that are believed. Faith can be placed in all sorts of things, but if they aren't true, the faith is useless. So for faith to be saving faith, it must be placed in truth points. The second component is assent. That one is easy. Everyone knows about that one. Assent is simply agreeing with the truth points. The third component is what I will call trust. This component is used heavily in John's gospel in the repeated use of the phrase "believe in". John uses a phrase that suggests "believe into", a leaning on, a placing of complete reliance on. Trust means that I have placed my weight on what I believe. You may have heard the example of the chair. There's a chair over there. It has the ability to hold your weight (truth). Do you believe that (assent)? Is it holding your weight (trust)? You see, until you actually place your weight on that chair, you aren't at the point of saving faith. In this way a person can know the truth about Jesus, and even believe that He lived and died for their sins, but until they place their entire weight of hope on that "chair", it isn't saving faith. Mental assent to the facts is insufficient. We have to "believe into" Christ.

Perhaps you've heard this explanation before. I'm afraid, though, that even this brief explanation of the nature of saving faith will fall short. You see, as we focus on the "trust" aspect, assuring people that they have to "put their weight" on Christ, we often miss the "truth" aspect. What is it that they have to trust in? What truth is required? Let me illustrate the problem with that chair. I'm tired. My back aches. I don't know if I can stand any longer. There is only one chair in the room. You tell me that the chair will hold my weight. Okay, fine. If I don't sit down, I'll fall down, so I assent to the claim that the chair can hold my weight and, to avoid further injury, I sit in the chair. Is that "saving faith"? Is it saving faith when someone latches onto Christ as their "fire escape". "Well, I don't want to go to Hell, and you say this is my only way of escape, so I'll take it. It's awful and lumpy and I don't like it at all, but I'll do it because the alternative is too terrible." Is that saving faith? Is it possible to place one's faith in a Christ whom they despise?

I'm not so sure. I suspect that the "truth" that needs to be believed goes farther than simply "Jesus saves". I think that it also requires embracing the truth of who He is. Paul calls the Gospel "the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4). I think that we must, in the language of John 1:12, receive Christ for who He is, not merely for what He might do for us. And by "embrace" I mean "to receive gladly and willingly." Look, for instance, at the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-20). There is more than just two types of soil in this parable. There is the hard soil where the seed never penetrates. That's not embracing anything. There is the rocky ground and the weedy ground. These two actually accept the seed. In Jesus's explanation, He even says that the rocky ground represents those who "when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy" (Mark 4:16). That's embracing, isn't it? But it's a rootless embrace that is lost as soon as difficulty arises. That's not the embrace of which I speak. The weedy soil is similar, where the seed sprouts but is choked out because of their love of the world. That's not the embrace of which I speak either. No, this embrace is found in the good soil. It is a hear and accept (Mark 4:20). It is a love for the person of Christ that endures hardships and despises the world. (Note: "Despise" in this context means "to consider of no value".) This embrace not only takes Christ as their "fire escape" but as their friend. It sees the sweetness of Christ and revels in it.

I fear that many people live in rocky or thorny soil. While the hard soil types are easy to spot, and we're fairly confident about those good soil types that are bearing fruit all over the place, these other two are much more difficult. They will claim to believe in Jesus. They may even appear to be joyful over it. They will likely know the terms and appear to be functioning plants. Their shallowness or love of the world is hard to spot. But our willingness to accept whatever faith might be found might just make it difficult to correct this error. You see, not all faith is saving faith, and we need to beware of dead faith. Saving faith, ultimately, produces changed lives (Mark 4:20; James 2:18). Each of us needs to be careful to make our calling and election sure by verifying that we are "in the faith" (2 Peter 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4). It's not a trivial question.