"Lordship Salvation"

[SoCalExile]

The "mere intellectual belief" is phrase LS adherents use to ridicule Biblical faith, see #14:
http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/baiting.pdf

Which is not what I was referring to. In fact, if you have been following my input, I have been very critical of the LS view. I was referring to the fact that demons well know WHO Jesus is, even calling Him "Son of God" (Matthew 8:29). So there IS a difference in belief of demons and those who are saved - as TRUST-placing does go beyond MERE (or no more than cognitive understanding of Who He is) belief. But LS would appear to say mere TRUST-placing belief is insufficient, that some validation of observed works is also necessary for proof. Which has nothing at all to do with what I was referring to - which if you had been paying attention to me, you would have realized.

Fair enough, but be careful of terms. Remember the story of how Ahab died, an that it was almost Jehoshaphat? It's like that.

[Jac3510]

SoCalExile, you seem to be kind of shaking sticks at anyone.
I'd be interested to hear your own answers to similar questions DBowling was kind enough to answer.

Curious in your own words as what you believe a Christian faith is?
How does one come to possess it? What does it look like?

As a side, you appear to believe "intellectual assent" is something coined by LS adherents. That's just bogus and irrelevant. I'm not LS, Philip ain't either and it was Jac who first introduced me to the term "intellectual assent" in discussions had years ago.

Just for the record, with exception to some development in my thought between 2007 and 2009 (which was due to my struggles over an issue in the FG camp that I wrote a very long paper on, available here), I've been pretty consistent on my use of the term "intellectual assent." I'm not as agaist it as SoCal is, but that's because we're approaching the question a bit differently. As you are more than painfully aware of, K, I really like a Thomistic approach to natural theology/philosophy/anthropology. So I tend to look at the whole idea of "assent" a bit differently than my fellow FG fans do. But I understand where they are coming from. For what it is worth, here's everything I can find that I've said on the subject:

----------------------------------

• Please note that the Great Commission is not to go out and simply evangelize the lost. It is to "make disciples." But in that, do not confuse discipleship with salvation. Faith IS "intellectual assent" if you want to insist on that terminology. "Faithfulness" is not, of course. Faithfulness does have the marriage idea you were talking about. But "faith" does not. . . . God saves by grace or He does not save at all. We are not saved through our faithfulness. We are saved through our belief. Do remember that in the NT, there is no difference in belief and faith. They are the exact same word. Faith (belief) is being persuaded. Look at what Paul says on the subject:
  
  • Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." (Rom. 4:2-22, KJV)

(Link)

----------------------------------

• For the sake of clarity, it is important that you see that I do NOT believe that faith is a one time commitment. It is no commitment at all. Faith is intellectual assent to an idea. It is believing that a proposition is true. It is NOT a decision. It is not willful. A person cannot decide to believe. They are either convinced that something is true or they are not.

(Link)

---------------------------------- (Note at this point the development in thought)

• Faith is not belief in absence of evidence. It is not intellectual assent. It is not moral commitment to a person or idea. It can best be termed "reliant trust." It is intellectual in that it assents to the truthfulness of a claim; it is volitional in that it relies upon that claim (which is not the same as to say it is obedient to one making the claim!). Thus, to have faith in Christ--to believe in Him--is to rely upon Him, and upon Him alone, for the thing in question, be it salvation, sanctification, etc.

(Link)

----------------------------------

• Finally, I'd point out that I agree with you that intellectual assent is not the same thing as faith. In fact, the Greek language had a word for intellectual assent (peitho--although, I should point out that, language being what it is, peitho also could refer to other concepts we identify by different English words, i.e., obedience). The biblical words for faith--pistis in the NT and aman in the OT--both have the idea of trusting or relying upon something deemed steadfast. So to place our faith in Christ is to deem Him steadfast or capable of doing what He promised He would do, and that because of who He is. And, again, I would point out that there is no reason to believe that humans cannot regard Christ as steadfast without some special grace of God anymore than to say that they cannot regard an airplane steadfast without some special grace of God. Calvinists who appeal to total depravity to make that argument err in that their view requires them to invent a category of faith ("spurious faith") that is completely foreign to, and in fact contradicted by, Scripture. Their appeal to Augustine (by looking to his notion of the bondage of the will) only compounds their error. For Augustine himself taught that the will cooperated with God's grace in placing faith in Christ. If the Calvinist interpretation of Augustine is right, then Augustine himself was not an Augustinian but instead a (semi)Pelagian--the very people he was writing to oppose!

(Link)

----------------------------------

• Anyway, I'm not sure where I stood exactly during our last conversation about this. There is a lot of debate within FG circles on whether or not we are believing a proposition or trusting a person. I've come down pretty hard in favor of the latter, though there was a time that I wasn't sure. Anyway, people who hold to the former tend to put things just in terms of intellectual assent, whereas the side I'm on sees it more in terms of trust. All of this really just gets into a proper definition of pisteuo, and I think any really honest evaluation of that word leaves us concluding pretty strongly that it really and truly just means "to trust" or "entrust." So maybe what you are perceiving isn't so much a change in my position as it is a clarification of the language I'm using to describe my views.
  
  Lastly, I would absolutely agree with you about the trusting thing being more passive in the main. I don't know where you are on this, but I don't believe that we can choose what we believe. I've argued elsewhere that beliefs are just really just sort of what they are . . . we just have to be honest with ourselves about what we do believe. Now, I think that the will can reject a proposition that the intellect puts forward and direct the intellect to continue deliberating, but the will cannot force the intellect to give assent to an idea that it doesn't find persuasive. In practical terms, this means that we can choose to keep studying something, but we can't just choose to believe this one day and that another. I do, though, think we have more freedom in terms of what we trust, because unlike assent, trust is an act of the will. We can choose, after deliberation, to say, "Okay, well you know what . . . that's good enough. I don't have it all figured out, but while I'm working on that, I'm going to take you at your word." And that, I think, gets to the heart of the meaning of pisteuo.
  
  So an unbeliever can't force himself to believe. But if he has been given sufficient evidence where he's at a place where he is capable of choosing to trust or not (and not everyone is--if people just find the whole thing absurd, I don't think they can just trust in absolute blind faith), then they can honestly say, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief." That is, they can say, "Lord, I'm trusting you. And I'm trusting you to teach me to better rely on you in those places that I still have too many questions." The beauty of looking at it that way, in my opinion, is that it lets God do everything. We are just getting ourselves out of the way and taking God at His Word. We don't have to "get" everything. We just have to "get" enough that we can trust Him the best we know how. So when Jesus says that everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life, and He says that because He paid the price for my sins by dying and raising from the dead, then I can just trust Him. I can take Him at His Word. I may not have all the answers, but I can say, "You know what . . . Jesus knows this better than I do, so Dude--you said it. Let's see if you were telling the truth. Because if you were, I have eternal life!"

(Link)

----------------------------------

• Lastly,I don't make as strong a distinction as you seem to between intellectual assent and trust. We aren't saved by being persuaded that something is true. We are saved by TRUSTING Jesus, or if it helps, by ENTRUSTING our souls to Him. Now, it's quite natural to be grateful and want to continue to follow the Savior of your soul, but it's not a logical necessity. Now, the big point here is that trusting Jesus doesn't necessitate a change in a person. It's just a passive reception of God's grace. If there is a change, it happens when we abide in that trust--when we keep trusting Him to live through us.

(Link)

----------------------------------

• Anyway, I think there's an invalid distinction being made here between intellectual assent and "real faith" or "heart faith." I don't say that to reduce the latter to the former. I'm saying that the phrase "intellectual assent" is probably pretty close to an oxymoron if taken technically and just redundant if taken liberally. To assent is a matter of the will. The mind gives assent to an idea by way of metaphor to what the will does. Strictly, the mind has no choice in anything. The mind doesn't have a free will. The mind is one faculty of man, the will another. The role of the mind is to perceive truth. It is the choice of the will to give assent to that truth. And there's no distinction between "head consent" and "heart consent."
  
  There is, though, a difference in being persuaded to accept a concept and having faith in something or someone. The latter includes the former but is not limited to it. For the former is strictly a matter of declaring something true, while the second is that, but more, entrusting one's self to that truth. It is to declare the person/thing reliable in light of the truth/testimony considered. To believe "with the heart" is just to say that you've entrusted yourself to Jesus, which is to say, you know what He did on the Cross and by raising from the dead and that is what you are relying on for your salvation. We make that complicated, but it isn't. When I promise my daughter I'll take her to get a treat, she relies on that truth. Yes, she gives "intellectual assent," but she's doing more than that. She is trusting that I'm telling the truth. She may or may not act in light of that trust, but the trust is there all the same.
  
  Unless, of course, she doesn't think that I'm telling the truth. She could either reject the idea itself--daddy can't do that because he doesn't have the money or he is too sick. Or perhaps she accepts that I really do intend to do it, indeed that I can do it, but she doesn't trust me that I will. Maybe she hopes so, but she says, "He's promised me he would do that before and he didn't. I don't believe him." The latter is calling me a liar.
  
  So here we see she either believes in me or calls me a liar. But that's not a general idea. It is with respect to a proposition. And just so with faith in Christ. We don't just put our faith in Him in the abstract. We are putting our faith in Him by believing God's testimony about Him, about who He is and what He has done. We are believing tha God tolthe truth when He said that Jesus is the Christ and therefore our Savior and that we have eternal life. That's no mere intellectual assent. But it also isn't some mysterious "heart faith." It's just relying upon that truth because God is trustworthy (or, to use the language of my article, it's to declare God faithful, to say our aman to Him).
  
  As an aside, I don't put too much stock in the Rom 10:9-10 bit anyway here. I would encourage people to notice that "believe with your heart" is parallel to "confess with your mouth." Paul's point is that the mouth confesses (nothing else does) and the heart believes (nothing else does). Again, there is no distinction between intellectual faith and heart faith. Only the heart believes. Only the heart has faith. And, of course, the heart is a metaphor for the man himself, anyway. The human being believes/puts faith in. The mouth confesses.

(Link)

----------------------------------

So, again, I think I've been consistent in the main with how it's used. I don't particularly like the term. It can be used on a popular level, but it's not very good for technical discussion. It is different from faith in some respect as it is an ontological constituent but not fully definitive of "faith," but we should make a huge distinction out of it such that it can be radically divorced from and held up against "faith."

But as I said in another post, so says I, and that plus a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. Just not one at Starbucks.

[Philip]

Reading Jac is funny, sometimes, because his posts are sometimes lengthy enough that I blanch at something he mentions, and then it is ironed out more satisfactorily as he continues.

I believe the WILL is the gatekeeper to what we are willing to honestly consider, as to what we can and do know, but instead have a filter set to only consider something we already have a pre-conceived or self-determined notion of. I do know that God will give all NECESSARY for someone to believe (which is different, from person to person), if they want to know enough to do so. If they want to know the truth of something asserted by God, necessary to our salvation, then He will provide it, IF He knows it will be profitable. He certainly allows enough knowledge for a person to be aware of his rejection of God, and of His existence (however much they later repress that knowledge). But with some, God fully knows that NO evidence will be enough, because some will willfully either refuse, ignore, or pretend that it is insufficient. Resisting the Holy Spirit is a matter of the will more than the intellect.

Again, if the INTELLECT were more problematic than the will, then children could not be saved - as if it takes some great complex knowledge base of theology, science, or whatever to do so. The will/the heart can decide what to do with what is intellectually known, or what they might consider differently about what they already know, or to be more open about what they MIGHT otherwise know. When very sharp people refuse to believe, despite obviously having all of the information to reasonably, at least, ask God to reveal Himself, if He exists, and they refuse to do even that, decide instead to continue buying into lies - is that a matter of the intellect or will? The will can filter how a person decided to react to what the intellect knows - it can even deny it. Clearly, throughout Scripture, God, Jesus, the prophets all rail against people, not for what they can't KNOW, if they WANTED to know, but for how they refuse to respond to what they DO know/ARE shown. The will restricts and controls what and how it will accept what the intellect reveals. The path to denying God doesn't start with rejecting the Gospel, it starts with rejecting what God shows them way before they get that far. Obviously, some will never even be given the Gospel.

Of course, analogies break down, with the whole "mind/heart/will" thing. But at some point, no unbeliever can blame their unbelief on not knowing or understanding what at least DO know, and what they COULD further know, if only they didn't continue to resist it.

[Kurieuo]

Gosh Jac, that's pretty cool. Some exchanges I'd forgotten happened. I'd obviously read that paper you wrote, but forgot and remembered your original belief as faith being intellectual assent. I do believe we're much closer today in our beliefs than in the past.

That part I criticised in your paper, I'd be hard pressed to define what faith is in any conclusion.
It's like what is this "faith" that I have, we just have? We know it, know it's so simple even a child can have it, we feel it, it's part of us, but to describe it... to try and explain how people come by it, Christians and even theologians often come unstuck.

You know I think it is quite hard to explain what "faith in Christ" actually entails, especially if we remove it from believing in certain propositions. Sometimes I think it makes us look so foolish as Christians that something so foundational is hard to explain.

I'm leaning towards the difficulty being because faith is not something we do to ourselves.
Faith in a person necessarily requires the other party (in this case, Christ Himself).
Faith is actually something God helps to build within us until finally we see and possess it.

Many Christians are use to thinking of faith as something they need to do.
We're all familiar with a Christianity which says you must believe. This turns "faith" into something we've got to do.
After all, isn't it important if someone asks us how can they be saved, that we can instruct them what they need to do?
So we say, you've got to believe! Believe what? Oh, believe you're a sinner, that Jesus came and died for your sins and through Him we are forgiven and made righteous before God.

When "faith" becomes something we must do which results in our being saved, then I see this as the direct opposite of what Paul teaches of faith in his epistles. Faith for Paul is the blank opposite of anything we can do, such that no one can boast.

Further, I don't see in my experiences with non-Christians (nor do I see in Scripture) that faith boils down to belief, though that does form part of it, perhaps the final touches if you will as we see the world with new eyes. Take the common complaint even my wife had, "but I can't force myself to believe something that makes no sense whatsoever!" And they (non-believers) are right! They can't force themselves to have faith.

And now because they're not doing, not having "faith" (whatever we mean by that), many Christians will chastise non-believers as being dishonest, willfully blind and the like. Such is just our nature however, without any work done by God in us, working in our lives. None of us seek God in our natural state of sin. (Romans 3:10-11; Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20)

So then, faith is something inspired in us by God which eventually flourishes I'd say in our response to Him.
I recently put it like this to a friend. Let me know your thoughts of the analogy?

• God I believe pings us in life. Like active sonar of
  a submarine in the water, God pings us. He pings our
  hearts and waits for an echo. Some hearts respond back,
  and then God moves closer to us as we move closer
  to Him and God pings them again. The heart echos back
  louder and stronger and this keeps happening until a
  collision happens. The person experiences and sees God...

[Jac3510]

I think that's a wonderful illustration of faith, K. And I'm in very broad agreement with your post. I do want to press two things, not out of disagreement, but out of a hope to further clarify and ground how I would agree. Both relate to faith being hard to describe.

In the first place, I agree that faith is hard to describe because it isn't something we do. I've argued elsewhere that faith is really nothing other than us not doing something. Faith is the cessation of work. In this way, it is (to use a terrible analogy) a privation (again, only an analogy!). It's not so much a thing in and of itself as it is a word to describe a process whereby we cease to do something. The only active part of faith I see--the volitional part I discuss in some of my quoted snippets above--is the intentionality provided by the will. I trust--I place faith in, I stop working--when I intentionally allow another to act for my benefit or on my behalf. For instance, suppose I ask my wife to pay a bill and she does. I can say that I had faith she would pay it. Contrary to DB, there's no submission or commitment to her in that. I just stop trying to pay it and allow her to do so. That's faith. It's not something I do, but something I stop doing, with a specific intentionality. But on the other hand, suppose that I forget to pay the bill, and she remembers and pays it for me. Now, can we say I put my faith in her in this instance? No, I don't think we can. And what is different? In both cases, she paid the bill for me. But in the latter case, the salient difference is that I intentionally stepped back from paying it and allowed her to do so on my behalf. So, again, faith is to work what dark is to light, with the added nuance of intentionality.

The second piece has to do with how we define words in the first place. Any time we do philosophy, we must recognize that all terms are eventually defined in terms that cannot be defined. That's just a fact of philosophy. To say otherwise is to require an infinite regression of definitions. But then what becomes the undefinable terms by which we define other things? I argue it is those things most directly known. It is not that which is known by comparison, but that which is known directly. And it could very well be that faith is one of these terms. We can't define it because it is one of the terms by which we define other things. And really, is anything more foundational than faith? When a newborn baby allows herself to be picked up, is not her trust that she will not be dropped implicit? When she cries for food, is she not saying that she expects someone to meet her need? When she smiles at the sight of her mother, is she not recognizing that this person will bring her happiness? But what is all that but faith? In fact, faith is just the very process by which she does these things. So perhaps faith is just a basic part of human nature. We can describe it, much as we can describe sight, but we can't define it any more than we can define sight. Some may object and say we can define sight, but define it to a blind man and see if he suddenly "gets" it. He only gets it once he can see and experience it, and we only get the definition because we can see.

All that is to say, we may be chasing our tails in trying to define faith. All we can do is look at what we already know it is and try to describe our experience, to come to more precise language about what we have and trim away that language that fails to describe it after all.

And that gets to one of the reasons I like your analogy. In one of my own comments above, I talked about faith being essentially relational (while it cannot avoid being propositional). Your pinging image catches that plus highlights in the case of Christian faith the theological importance of all things beginning with God. He makes Himself known, not vice versa. And we are invited by His invitation to know Him. That's faith. That's the ONLY way to know Him. And, to be honest, that's where I find theologies like Lordship Salvation so heart-breaking (rather than just heretical). We can't know God by our works or obedience or commitment or submission. We can't even know Him by our love! We love Him when we know Him. We don't know Him by loving Him! So how do we know Him? By faith. By trust. By taking Him at His word and watching and learning how He reveals Himself. That is, by receiving His grace. It is such a beautiful thing to me.

[DBowling]

The model I am inclined to embrace is the illumination model.
In order for a person to understand and accept the Gospel message, the Holy Spirit must first open his eyes to the truth that he is a sinner, and that he must trust in Jesus Christ to be delivered from their sin. If the person responds to this work of the Holy Spirit and trusts in Jesus then they are Born Again.

What I'll say here is meant to be an encouragement to unpack your words, not necessarily an attack on your response.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this feels like a rather scripted and learnt response.

I asked how one trusts in Jesus, how the come to possess faith.
You responded by responding to the work of the Holy Spirit and trusting in Christ then they are Born Again.

Ok, doesn't that seem tautologous? Christians often talk in terms that I find inauthentic which leave many unanswered questions and it all just sounding like they've been hypnotised with a certain response.

My goal was not to be inauthentic in any way.

My repetition of certain principles is an effort to ground my position in the basic Gospel message...
Trusting in the person of Jesus Christ to save me from my sins.

If I understand your post correctly I think the illumination of the Holy Spirit model does resemble your pinging model in some aspects, where the Holy Spirit is the initiator of faith and our heart then responds to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Such a response doesn't really broken away from religious terms to unpack them in a practical way. For example, what does "the work of the Holy Spirit" look like would help understand how some comes to faith. And trusting in Christ, non-Christians would still be left wondering what is this trusting in Christ? Especially given it's not like we can trust in Christ in the same manner we might a close friend we see.

Actually I think that the concept of trusting in a close friend is a very practical and understandable example of what the word trust means within the context of the Gospel message.

Interestingly, it seems in your response that accepting the Gospel message as the final defining point for faith.
Perhaps for you an authentic faith is really intellectual after all? Perhaps you are closer to Jac's and SoCal's beliefs (as I understand them) at least in this respect more than initially thought:

Oh... theological truths are definitely important. Before you trust in Jesus to save you from your sins, you need to accept the theological truth that you are a sinner and that Jesus is the person can deliver you from your sin.
I would say that theological truths are important to authentic faith but they are not an adequate object for authentic faith.

I would say that the final defining point for faith is trusting in Jesus, which (using your example) involves the heart as well as the intellect.

I have received some pretty vicious incoming fire for my conviction that repentance, submission, and commitment are all integral components of what it means to trust in the person of Jesus Christ within the context of the Gospel message.
So I disagree strongly with the notion that trusting in Jesus only involves the intellect.

In Christ

[Jac3510]

So I disagree strongly with the notion that trusting in Jesus only involves the intellect.

Do you not get tired of attacking straw men? Read my collection of snippets above. We don't hold that trusting in Jesus involves the intellect only. Sheesh. I mean, I have statements going back seven years repudiating that position, and you're going to call it the reason you're being attacked anyway? My God, pay attention, man!

[SoCalExile]

Faith isn't the Gift of God: https://redeemingmoments.com/2016/04/03 ... ft-of-god/

[Philip]

SoCal: Faith isn't the Gift of God: https://redeemingmoments.com/2016/04/03 ... ft-of-god/

Faith is impossible without being made available through the GRACE of God. But the FAITH must be OURS - WE must have it to receive the gift of salvation. Even John Calvin, commenting upon Ephesians 2:8-9, did not believe it means that FAITH is the gift of God, but that SALVATION is given to us by God, preceded by His grace, and received through OUR faith.

[SoCalExile]

SoCal: Faith isn't the Gift of God: https://redeemingmoments.com/2016/04/03 ... ft-of-god/

Faith is impossible without being made available through the GRACE of God. But the FAITH must be OURS - WE must have it to receive the gift of salvation. Even John Calvin, commenting upon Ephesians 2:8-9, did not believe it means that FAITH is the gift of God, but that SALVATION is given to us by God, preceded by His grace, and received through OUR faith.

Modern Calvinists teach that faith is the gift in Ephesians 2:8-9. That is wrong. No where in the Bible does it say faith is a gift, it says that eternal life (salvation) is the gift, by grace, through faith in Jesus. Read the link.

Lost men have faith in all sorts of things. One might say that they have to, because their idols only exist in their faith.

[B. W.]

On the subject of intellectual faith.

Young children have their own brand of intellectual faith based upon being persuaded that Santa Clause will visit their homes.

Therefore there is a rift that exist in the definition of word intellectual.

We are saved by a revelation of God's grace which proves how real he is. We awaken to to Him. I do not know how to say it any other way other than, Eph 2:8,9

Being intellectually persuaded does not, for me, have such revelation of God's grace shown.

In fact, being intellectually persuaded is the same as being persuaded intellectually by a salesman to purchase a product they promote. I personally do not see much difference in this other than other than giving militant atheist the chance to use the Santa Clause argument as they too believe faith also means mere mental assent.

Jac, you maybe using the word intellectual in another way than another person would, have you considered that?

Please look at Eph 2:1,2,3,4,5,6,7...

Yes we need the intellect to reason thru this however there are three basic dynamics involved in these verses. One, Human lost-ness; two, God made us alive to his grace; and the three - alive to his love. In other words, he does the work to engage the intellect to experience something outside ones own self and intellect. Do you see this too? I think you do.

Next, DB and others read the use of intellectual faith like this:

For by Grace you have been saved, through intellect... Eph 2:8 paraphrased

For others, that is how they read you as promoting a human work...over God's revelation of grace... like this:

...Through mere intellectual activity alone that is based on mere human persuasion involves the work of human intellectual persuasion in order to be saved...

This is where I see such discussion as this go. People not reading each other right.

Jac have you address that you do not mean the work of human intellect alone is what saves a person in an easy format others can simply understand?
-
-
-

[Philip]

The information and understanding comes through the intellect, but the will/heart is the gatekeeper - which is why, for many, no amount of information to consider, no matter how smart the receiver of that information, no matter how brilliantly presented, will it ever be enough. It is through our closed hearts and stubborn WILLs that we resist the Holy Spirit. God tells us people know and CAN know enough, and He will provide it, IF they want to know/need more/whatever they truly need, if only they won't continue to resist. He tells people to embrace Him - AS IF they COULD, IF they desire to. People don't have an intellectual problem, or some lack of information that they COULD have, if they were willing to accept it. But they won't. The will can even shut down what the intellect sifts through, and refuse to deal with it, refuse to use the intellect to TRY to understand - mostly because they want to be the little god that remains in disastrous control. If people could not understand what God requires of them, despite them wanting or at least being open to what they need to understand, then God could be said to have put them in a fatal situation, one with no escape/no salvation available. And yet we know that God wants ALL so willing, to come to Him.

[Kurieuo]

SoCalExile, I notice you just make statements.
Quote massive lines of text, like linking to videos.
Some is good, but you never dialogue.
I find that very rude and annoying.

I'd say faith is also a gift from God that we step out into.

If we're locked into a room that we can't get out of, then we need someone on the outside who has a key to unlock it.
A person on the outside mightn't care to unlock the door, might leave us to ourself and and leave us locked up. Especially if we deserve it. Or, a person on the outside could choose to unlock the door.

The thing is we lock ourselves up, we're trapped by ourselves in a self-imposed prison.
We don't want to leave the room and we've locked the door without having the key so we can't get out.
So not only does the door need unlocking, but the person (God) on the outside needs to try draw us out.

There's a story of a little bird someone one told me. It's not exact, I'm paraphrasing lots, but it makes for a great analogy.

• This little bird had a horrible owner who'd yell and
  curse at it every hour of the day. When he yelled,
  he would also bang on the little bird's cage and
  often ran a stick across the cage bars. The little
  bird was frightened and constantly anxious.
  
  One day a wealthy prince came. He saw the little
  bird and it cage and wanted it for himself.
  "How much for that bird?", the prince asked.
  The owner quoted an outrageous sum, but the
  prince really wanted the little bird so paid it.
  Then prince carried the little bird in its cage
  home to his palace.
  
  Once at the palace the prince took the bird in its
  cage into a large open garden. It was so big that it
  had it's own flowing streams, lush green grass,
  plants and tall trees. The Sun beamed through
  blissfully through what appeared to be glass ceilings
  that kept predators out.
  
  There were lots of other birds, different shapes,
  colours and sizes, just freely flying around. Some
  chased their own tail, others hopped from branch to
  branch, others flew down and dipped themselves
  into the streams of water flowing through the garden.
  Everything was so peaceful and all the birds were
  very happy.
  
  Then the prince hung the cage up on a high branch
  so the little bird could see all its surroundings and
  not be scared. The prince told the little bird how
  beautiful it was, that it was safe in his garden, and
  then opened the cage door and walked away.
  
  Well, that little bird remained in its cage. Each day
  the prince would come and visit the little bird,
  whispering softly to it as he replaced its food and
  water. But, day after day that little bird remained
  in its cage.
  
  Weeks eventually passed. Then another bird in the
  garden visited the little bird, bringing gifts of this
  berry and that berry. It told the little bird how the
  prince was so very kind and just wanted them all
  to live happily and peacefully together.
  
  The other bird tried to be playful and coax the
  little bird out of its cage. But the little bird
  remained.
  
  Months and years passed, and eventually that little
  bird died. Not once in its life did the little bird
  leave its cage.

This story of the little bird and the prince is similar to what I see between us and God.
If you have ever suffered depression, anxiety, moods, then you'll know very well sometimes we're trapped by ourselves. We need someone on the outside who won't just unlock the door, but will open that door and call to us. Evidently however, we need to respond. God can't respond for us.
God does a lot to enable us to freely come to Him, but we each need to respond to God's calls and step out.
Such is how I see faith.

[SoCalExile]

Sometimes I'm replying at work or simply busy for a full essay of a response, so I'll pass on something I've run into, usually very recently for some reason that seems to fit. o.O

[Kurieuo]

Sometimes I'm replying at work or simply busy for a full essay of a response, so I'll pass on something I've run into, usually very recently for some reason that seems to fit. o.O

No worries, I'll accept that as a valid reason.