# Gordon Clark's Definition of Saving Faith



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2008)

I am not sure if I have picked this up wrong, but it would appear from what I have come across that Clarkians define saving faith as merely assent. Is this correct?


----------



## Hippo (May 25, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I am not sure if I have picked this up wrong, but it would appear from what I have come across that Clarkians define saving faith as merely assent. Is this correct?



I doubt that they would use the word "merely", they would (in my undersatanding) say that assent to such a proposition is in some ways earth shattering, but it is an understanding that with God's help man is capable of.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2008)

So they do define faith as assent then?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 25, 2008)

This has been discussed before. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/john-robbins-denounces-experiential-calvinism-29884/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wha...ing-saving-justifying-faith-25377/#post311026
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/unsaving-faith-25301/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This has been discussed before.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/john-robbins-denounces-experiential-calvinism-29884/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wha...ing-saving-justifying-faith-25377/#post311026
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/unsaving-faith-25301/



Thanks Chris; but I am just looking for a straight answer. I found those posts confusing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 25, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > This has been discussed before.
> ...


Then you know this is not uncontroversial. The moderators will be all over this thread like a duck on a June bug if things get out of hand. Word to the wise.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Okay, I see what you mean. In a word is faith defined as assent in a Clarkian view?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2008)

Actually, I just read that thread on "unsaving faith" which pretty much answers the question.

The reason I asked is pastoral. My late grandfather (on my dad's side) was a man who had historical faith (believed the gospel was true intellectually), but who preferred the pleasures of sin to Christ and holiness. If Clarkian views were to be accepted, then I would have to conclude that such a man was saved just because he gave mental assent to the truth.


----------



## Hippo (May 25, 2008)

The Clarkians would say that assent to saving faith would be evidenced by works, just because soemone says that they assent to saving faith does not mean that they do. If peopel contine in unrepentant sin who can they truly have assented to the gospel?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2008)

Hippo said:


> The Clarkians would say that assent to saving faith would be evidenced by works, just because soemone says that they assent to saving faith does not mean that they do. If peopel contine in unrepentant sin who can they truly have assented to the gospel?



But if he gives assent, then, on that view surely, he must be saved?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 25, 2008)

Daniel, I don't think so. Check out Lane's post: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/john-robbins-denounces-experiential-calvinism-29884/index2.html#post364206

Clark's formulation had its problems because it can be easily misunderstood (and therefore can be misleading). Other people don't use language the way he did. I think it causes problems, but I don't think he stands for mere assent to the facts as leading to salvation. The assent has to extend to believing the facts apply to _me_.

I know the feeling well. For more than 40 years I believed that the facts in the Bible were true. But I didn't think they applied to me. The facts were true things that were good for other people, but I could go my way quite happily.

It's madness, really. I knew I wasn't saved and I was comfortable with it. 

Praise God he turned my mind to understand the last link, that I had to believe the facts of the Gospel applied to me. At that point I can say I actually trusted them. It's not a term Clark would use because he doesn't want to make it look like effort on our part. But the end result is just that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2008)

Incidentally, I've had some milder Clarkians note that Clark's definition of faith is different than some of the more modern expressions of Clarkian thought are.

They typically subsume fiducia within assensus, arguing that fiducia is a redundant term and that real assent includes trust. It's when you combine the notions that the only kind of true knowledge is propositional (i.e. the identity of my mother or that the sky is blue is only an opinion) and this "two-part" faith schema that the real problems emerge.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Daniel, I don't think so. Check out Lane's post: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/john-robbins-denounces-experiential-calvinism-29884/index2.html#post364206
> 
> Clark's formulation had its problems because it can be easily misunderstood (and therefore can be misleading). Other people don't use language the way he did. I think it causes problems, but I don't think he stands for mere assent to the facts as leading to salvation. The assent has to extend to believing the facts apply to _me_.
> 
> ...



Cross-posting. Thanks for weighing in with this.


----------

