I asked this question recently at another forum.
Is belief a condition of salvation, or is it an evidence of salvation?
Can you explain your answer with scripture?
I have not read the majority of the posts, so I apologize if my post redundantly overlaps with others.
Technical Usage Fallacy
Several topics and issues come to mind when considering this opening post.
First, I'll take a moment to define and explain D. A. Carson's 8th word study fallacy. He calls it "False assumptions about technical meaning." (p. 45) He defines it in the following way. "In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning . . ." (p.45) Usually, when I interact with people on forums, I'll call this fallacy the
technical usage fallacy. As Carson points out, the main problem of this fallacy is the failure to recognize that the semantic range of the word is larger than one aspect of the range. In case I just did a flyover, I'll restate the core problem of the fallacy. It is when one illegitimately restricts a word's meaning down to only one aspect of its range of meaning. I'll give a few illustrations to demonstrate this in English.
Consider the word "trunk." We English speakers know very easily that this word has a range of meaning. I can speak of opening the "trunk" of the car. We can visit the zoo and notice the "trunk" of an elephant. One can climb the stairs up to the attic and observe the "trunk" that holds various different things. Also, when mowing the yard one has to dodge the "trunk" of the tree. The point here is that the word, "trunk," has a range of meaning (semantic range). Now we can better understand the basic point of the technical usage fallacy. The fallacy consists of assuming that only one aspect of the range is always or nearly always the meaning. If I restricted the usage of "trunk" to the trunk of an elephant, and I spoke of opening the elephant's trunk with your key at the back of the car . . . well, you get the idea. This is an example of the problem of the technical usage fallacy.
I've seen this fallacy used quite often when non-Calvinists assume that "in Christ" or "in Him" in Ephesians 1:4 means the believer's union with Christ. However, this illegitimately restricts the semantic range, and it also fails to realize that the context itself fights against this interpretation. Carson points to "sanctification" and how it is sometimes used as a one time event, and at other times it is used in the NT to point to a progressive sanctification. Again, the fallacy is to assume a technical usage, that only one aspect of the semantic range is always in play.
This finally brings me to the opening post. I don't see the term "salvation" as a monlithic entity. The term sometimes is all-encompasing of the various aspects of salvation. The term sometimes refers to a part. Sometimes it is focused upon God's action. Sometimes it is focused upon human action. The opening post asks, "
Is belief a condition of salvation, or is it an evidence of salvation?
This largely depends upon how one is understanding the term "salvation." Someone could point to texts that are more focused upon human activity in light of salvation: "
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you
will be saved."
One could also point to God's unconditional election as the ultimate ground for the holiness found in those chosen (Eph 1:4). One can also see the various aspects of "salvation" detailed as the passage continues to unfold (Eph 1: 5-11).
I think that often people think in terms of
salvation being justificaiton, whereby God now sees one judicially innocent and righteous.
Romans 8 is often called the golden chain of
salvation/redemption. Again, this is God-centered text on the topic of
salvation, and it includes glorification.
My point here is that we need to consider how the multi-faceted NT use of the term "salvation" impacts answering your question.
Worldview Considerations
Often times, words are invested with extra meanings depending on one's worldview. The word "condition" or "conditional" is one such word. If all that one is saying is that belief comes before a future salvation (as Romans 10 states), then one does not have a problem. However, if by "conditional" or "condition" one means that God's choice of who to save is ultimately conditioned by human action, then I have a severe problem. I don't hold to conditional election because (1) it violates God's self-sufficient nature, (2) libertarian freedom violates man's dependent nature, (3) God can and does cause human beings to fulfill His conditions, especially as a demonstration of God's sufficiency in light of human inability, (4) Romans 9 removes human endeavor/willing as a reason for God's choice.
In short, I disagree with a worldview that holds to libertarian freedom, and that is probably the single most determinative factor for those who hold to conditional election. If we remove the libertarian freedom notion of ultimate human causation, then we can hold to the bilblical view of compatibilism where we can often see God and man both acting (the both/and approach), but God is ultimate (e.g. work out your salvation . . . for it is God who works in you to will and do of His good pleasure).
The point, we must take into account worldview considerations when answering the question posed in the opening post.
Summary
In summary, semantic and worldview issues are critical to understand when seeking to answer the opening post's question. I hope that these thoughts have proven to be helpful. Please, others share your thoughts on what I have written. Is it understandable? Do you agree/disagree? Why? Thanks.
. Belief that is merely intellectual assent is not salvific. Neither is belief that is merely that of sinful flesh. Only that which is of the Spirit pleases God and those born anew from above with the Spirit are those who are saved. I am one who reads the opening close of Ephesians 2:8 contiguously, not separately. It is the "by grace through faith" that is the gift of God, not just the "by grace" alone.
