# Misuse of James 2:19



## Civbert (Mar 8, 2007)

[bible]James 2:19[/bible]

This seems to be the most abused verse of scripture when it comes to defining saving faith. Somehow we are expected to take this verse and extrapolate from it that one can both believe and understand the gospel and not be saved! - because one must have "heart belief" and not just "head belief". 


It amazes me that anyone can say with a straight face that one can understand and believe the gospel (that Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of the elect) and not be saved. _Only _someone who is regenerate can understand and believe the gospel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2007)

What is the definition of "demon belief"?

Seems as though the verse is saying that quantity of knowledge, even accurate understanding, is insufficient to save a person.


----------



## Chris (Mar 8, 2007)

Mental assent without submission/inward change?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 8, 2007)

Civbert said:


> [bible]James 2:19[/bible]
> 
> This seems to be the most abused verse of scripture when it comes to defining saving faith. Somehow we are expected to take this verse and extrapolate from it that one can both believe and understand the gospel and not be saved! - because one must have "heart belief" and not just "head belief".
> 
> ...




in my opinion brother it's not talking about head belief but a general statement about false professors. I do not believe it's talking about someone who understands the gospel. Case in point: I was talking to a young lady today about the gospel. She said the "believes in God", but it was clear from her language and her manner of life she has never ahd a saving experience of faith. She believes there is a God but she does not BELIEVE God and the record that he gave in His Son.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 8, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What is the definition of "demon belief"?
> 
> Seems as though the verse is saying that quantity of knowledge, even accurate understanding, is insufficient to save a person.



I believe there are only two things one can possible drawn from the verse. 

A: The it is not enough to simply believe in "God" - generic monotheism is not saving knowledge.

B: A profession of faith (even one given with trembles and tears) is insufficient evidence of genuine faith.

James is all about testing claims of faith by looking for evidence that support the claims. Tearful emotions and trembling are no evidence of genuine faith. The only solid evidence of true faith is by examples of the fruits of faith. (Emotional pleas apparently don't count.)

But the verse doesn't support that idea that one must faith that involves emotions. Or that unemotional faith is false. Or that one can believe and understand and at the same time, not trust. If anything, the demon had plenty of emotion. His belief certainly affected him. But the the "affection" displayed was insufficient evidence.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 8, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What is the definition of "demon belief"?
> 
> Seems as though the verse is saying that quantity of knowledge, even accurate understanding, is insufficient to save a person.



I should have asked: what do you mean by "quantity of knowledge".

Do you mean that belief in that "there is on God" is not sufficient quantity, more needs to be believed?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2007)

I agree that an "emotional" response is not a sine qua non of true faith. Edwards' _Thoughts on Religious Experience_ is a good treatment of the presence of emotion (and maybe his _Religious Affections_ as well). If such emotions are there, is no proof that revival (the Spirit) is present; and is they are absent is no proof that revival is not present.

Demons can't be saved from perdition. So, in theory his theology could be perfect but such knowledge wouldn't save him. No Savior was ever provided for even one of his kind. Thus James' statement is more than a declaration that the demon knows just one thing about theology. It implies that he knows a great deal, but such knowledge alone is not saving. There is no gospel for a demon.

James also makes a comparison between the human and the demon, and the point of comparison is at the level of bare knowledge. Simply comprehending truth about God is not enough. I have no trouble _at all_ accepting that there may be people out there who are so intellectually honest, so epistemologically self-conscious, that they know themselves to be reprobate. They perhaps do not grasp the full horror of ultimate separation from God. But many of them are cognizant of basic facts (or even advanced facts) about God, the interrelatedness of truth, the identity of Jesus and his Mediatorial office, his work--both its necessity for human salvation as well as its application, and the reliability of the Bible as divine revelation. And their attitude is: "I'd rather go to hell. I'd rather be with my friends. Doing what I want now is preferable to me at this moment than deferred gratfication in heaven."

A man must need (in the sense of "desire") salvation, for him to believe in the Savior provided. An accurate awareness of lostness isn't enough. Neither is knowing there is a remedy and who the Savior is. He may say "fine, but not for me." I'm also not equating desire with emotion.

Of course, James seems to be addressing people who do want a happy hereafter, but who apparently are content with a less-than-total commitment to the Lord, who think that sanctification is optional. They seem to have replaced confidence in cult with confidence in catechism (both which involve "knowing" the right things) instead of confidence in Christ. I think James wants to pop that bubble.


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Mar 8, 2007)

Civbert said:


> I believe there are only two things one can possible drawn from the verse.
> 
> A: The it is not enough to simply believe in "God" - generic monotheism is not saving knowledge.


That may be true, but this verse isn't teaching that. The contrast here is in the KIND of belief that is present, not the quantity of propositional knowledge. "Dead" faith, or Christian/saving faith (evidenced by works). One sort of belief is intellectual knowledge and assent only, while the other is one that produces works ("faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected"). The latter, therefore, must include volition and trust added to mere knowledge or assent in order to produce the works.


> (Emotional pleas apparently don't count.)


You seem to be conflating the volitional/trust element of faith with emotion. The two may be connected (indeed, inseparably), but they are not the same. 

And what do you mean that an emotional plea "doesn't count"? If you just mean that expressions of emotion don't prove or constitute saving faith, we would agree. If you mean that a sinner's plea to God for a good conscience doesn't count for our justification, we disagree.


> But the verse doesn't support that idea that one must faith that involves emotions. Or that unemotional faith is false. Or that one can believe and understand and at the same time, not trust. If anything, the demon had plenty of emotion. His belief certainly affected him. But the the "affection" displayed was insufficient evidence.


But that is obviously the wrong sort of affection. It was the fear of one condemned, not the righteous fear of the penitent (no trusting/volitional element). 

One can believe and understand at the same time without trust. Saying "I believe Jesus died and rose again to justify sinners freely" as a historical fact is not the same thing as saying "I trust my eternal salvation and right standing before God based on the fact that Jesus died and rose again."


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2007)

DaveJes1979 said:


> One can believe and understand at the same time without trust. Saying "I believe Jesus died and rose again to justify sinners freely" as a historical fact is not the same thing as saying "I trust my eternal salvation and right standing before God based on the fact that Jesus died and rose again."



That just it! One can _not _"believe and understand" and at the same time fail to trust. That would be a contradiction. To say one believes a person, but then that person shows they don't trust him, shows a contradiction of thought. To believe entails trusting. 

The problem James was confronting was people who claimed to believe the gospel but gave no evidence that they believed. And we must be very clear - the only thing one needs in order to be saved is to believe the gospel. Nothing else. Faith alone. It's called saving knowledge, and it is a gift from God. The effect of this faith is always that, and effect, secondary. 

James is not implying that belief is insufficient salvation. James is saying that to test the genuineness of someones belief claims, we need to look for evidence - the fruits of the spirit. But when we start saying that we need something beyond belief in order to be saved, we are conflating faith with the effects of faith as being the cause of salvation. 

I'm saying that "intellectual knowledge and assent only" is all that one requires to be saved. We do not require anything beyond simple belief in the Gospel to be saved. 




Contra_Mundum said:


> James also makes a comparison between the human and the demon, and the point of comparison is at the level of bare knowledge. Simply comprehending truth about God is not enough.


Not enough to be saved???? Indeed, it is all that is needed to be saved. It is not enough however to demonstrate someone's faith claims are genuine. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> I have no trouble at all accepting that there may be people out there who are so intellectually honest, so epistemologically self-conscious, that they know themselves to be reprobate. They perhaps do not grasp the full horror of ultimate separation from God. But many of them are cognizant of basic facts (or even advanced facts) about God, the interrelatedness of truth, the identity of Jesus and his Mediatorial office, his work--both its necessity for human salvation as well as its application, and the reliability of the Bible as divine revelation. And their attitude is: "I'd rather go to hell. I'd rather be with my friends. Doing what I want now is preferable to me at this moment than deferred gratification in heaven."



An unregenerate person can not believe the Gospel is true? No way! Someone who believes the Gospel is true is by definition regenerate. Now there may be some confused soul who believes they believe the Gospel but who think they are lost, but either they do not really believe the Gospel. If they really believed, James tells us we should see evidence of that faith. 

If one understands and believes "the identity of Jesus and his Mediatorial office, his work--both its necessity for human salvation as well as its application, and the reliability of the Bible as divine revelation" then he must be regenerate, for only by the power of the Holy Spirit can one understand and believe the Gospel.

An unregenerate person can understand the Gospel fully and simply not believe it is true - but that is a lack of "intellectual assent" to the Gospel. He does not know he is "reprobate" because to believe one can be reprobate implies one believes the Gospel is true.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2007)

Consider the following scenario. 

Joe is driving a car up to a high narrow bridge over a deep rocky gorge. The bridge looks very thin and narrow for the car. But Joe says to himself, "See that sign, it says the bridge can carry 15 tons, I believe it will safely carry my car". 

Now does Joe believe it is safe to cross that bridge? If yes, then he "trusts" it will not fail you when he crosses it. So to believe that the bridge is safe means to trust it will hold up. Belief = faith = trust. This is simply intellectual assent. 

Now if I see that Joe is claiming to trust the bridge, but he will not cross it, I can say that I don't believe Joe really believes the bridge is safe. I can take his word for it, that he trusts the bridge, but Joe has not "proven" his faith by his works. This is what James is taking about. How to test the validity of faith _claims_. 

If Joe will not cross the bridge, then it's not that Joe has mere "intellectual assent" but lacks trust. If he had intellectual assent, he would be able to cross the bridge. No, I have reason to believe Joe is lying to himself and to me. There is a lack of assent to trust that the bridge will hold the weight of the car.

Ironically, intellectual assent does not imply that Joe is not going to wet his pants when he crosses the bridge. If he believes and trusts the bridge will hold, he will be able to cross the bridge no matter how scary the process. His faith may be "weak", but if he crosses and has to dry out his pants after, then his faith seems real enough. So belief does not imply perfect confidence and lack of any fear or doubt. Faith just means believing it's true. Saving faith is saving knowledge of the Gospel. The "knowledge that saves".


....

Similar analogies can be made with bungee jumping. Wheee!


----------



## DTK (Mar 9, 2007)

> That just it! One can not "believe and understand" and at the same time fail to trust. That would be a contradiction. To say one believes a person, but then that person shows they don't trust him, shows a contradiction of thought. To believe entails trusting.


To believe does not necessarily include the element of trust. The verb for believe here is the same verb (_pisteúo_) used elsewhere in the NT for belief unto salvation. James 2:19 states explicitly that the demons *believe*, but it is clear that they did so without the element of trust. As for their understanding, they had a very orthodox confession of the identity of Christ - Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34 _“I know who You are -- the Holy One of God!”_ - and they had a very orthodox eschatology - Matt 8:29 _“What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”_ Hence the demons believe the revealed truth about God, but the presence of Christ was repulsive to them. They confessed Christ’s deity and they confessed him as their judge in the last day. They possessed the intellectual capacity to believe these things. But no demon ever trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think you are approaching this passage with a certain interpretive grid that is controlled by your definition of faith, and that this is the reason for your difficulty in understanding this passage. According to v. 14, the contrast is between two kinds of faith, the faith of demons (which is dead faith, v. 17, 26) and true saving faith, which is a living faith, or faith unto life. I don't think you can be consistent exegetically with the passage and come to the conclusion that faith always includes the element of trust, because the passage states explicitly that the demons believe, and yet yield no semblance of trust. This is why the WCF devotes a chapter to "Saving Faith" or "justifying faith" (as it is distinguished in the Westminster Larger Catechism). Moreover, the WLC also distinguishes "true believers" (79-81) from those who fall away, as per Luke 8:13, _who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away._ 

DTK


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 9, 2007)

Anthony,
It seems what you are saying reduces to: "knowledge=belief." Simple. With the addition of "assent" (as I see in your response to Dave) implying that said knowledge goes beyond bare datum to reliability.

So, put the same adjective in front of them:
trueK=trueB
fullK=fullB
falseK=falseB
incompleteK=incompleteB
insufficientK=incompleteB

I don't think these definitions can stand up. I don't see the biblical writers equating the terms. I don't think its possible to substitute the term "knowledge" wherever we find belief/faith, as in the following examples:

"The just shall be saved by knowledge."
"Know the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Without knowledge it is impossible to please God."
"By knowledge you have been saved."
"Abraham knew God and it was credited to him for righteousness."
"Man is justified by knowledge apart from works."

I think all those statements are unbiblical and misleading (but they must be true _and_ say the same thing as the actual "faith/believe" on a principle of 1-1 correspondence). It is not enough to say that the statements above may even be partly accurate, just because knowledge is necessary, if the statments do not say everything that the words "faith/believe" entail. If we saw the interchange of the terms in the biblical writers themselves, saying the same thing in different places, using the terms "knowledge" and "belief" interchangably, then I might agree.

Paul says that "though they [ungodly/unrighteous men] KNEW God {does that mean that they _*believed*_ God?), they did not honor him" (Rom. 1:21). That one verse shows that the terms cannot be equated. What did those people do with the true knowledge they possessed?

I think (since I think belief is "more than" knowledge) that one could take a verse like 2 Pet. 3:18 and make it say "grow in the grace and faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," because growth in _knowledge_ would necessarily increase the the fullness of the more encompassing term "faith." So likewise Paul, 2 Tim. 2:4, "[God] who desires all men to be saved and come to the {belief} of the truth," because salvation is a matter of what one does with the knowledge he gets (believe it or suppress it).

So, I don't agree with your final conclusions. Did Agrippa know the literal events of the gospel? Acts 26:26 says "yes," unequivocally. Did he "believe" the prophets? Yes, unequivocally, v. 27. And Paul had just preached the gospel to him, bringing facts and interpretation together for him. Was he saved? No, vv. 28f. Knowing what he knew, about revelation and Jesus Christ, even as he followed Paul's reasoning (and gospel presentation), he nevertheless did not believe. He (like Herod, and countless others) were _resistant_ to the claims of Jesus *on their persons*.

A person can KNOW God has a claim on them, and resist that claim. It's just that simple.

Peace, brother.


----------



## Theogenes (Mar 9, 2007)

Anthony,
I agree with you that faith=trust=belief. They are just synonyms. People who say there is a difference between faith and belief are just making a choice between a Latin root word and a Greek root word. For example, go through Hebrews 11 and substitute belief (which is what the Greek word means) for faith and you'll see the mysterious "faith" which is more than belief disappears.
Also, in regards to James 2:19, I believe (have faith, trust) that James is using a superlative example when he cites the demons. He says, "You believe that there is one God (notice he doesn't say, "You believe the Gospel", he says "you believe in monotheism) You do well. Even the demons believe (Again, what is James saying they believe?? Certainly not the Gospel since it doesn't apply to them, but rather monotheism)...Even the demons believe - and tremble!!! I think those last two words are the crux of his argument. He is saying that the belief which the demons have results in a certain behavior change...they TREMBLE!! Their belief bears fruit. This is a sharp rebuke against people who make a profession of faith and bear no fruit. That's the whole context isn't it??? So, James slams them with the idea that even the belief which demons have produces something.
And, again, nowhere is James saying that demons have saving faith or that more specificly, that they believe the Gospel. Doing that is practicing eisigesis
in my opinion.
 
Jim


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Mar 9, 2007)

> That just it! One can not "believe and understand" and at the same time fail to trust. That would be a contradiction. To say one believes a person, but then that person shows they don't trust him, shows a contradiction of thought. To believe entails trusting.


Not necessarily. Someone may say that they believe that Jesus saves sinners, but that they don't want to be saved. Because they hate God, as the demons do. They believe that the bridge will hold them, but don't particularly want to cross over the river at all. 

That point aside, your model of man's constitution must imply that our volition is in lock-step with our knowledge, which is patently false. Your view does not take seriously the effects of sin on this account. Sin makes our decisions irrational, so we don't always do or trust what we know to be true or right.
.


> James is not implying that belief is insufficient salvation. James is saying that to test the genuineness of someones belief claims, we need to look for evidence - the fruits of the spirit.


Civbert, you and Jim Snyder didn't interact with my exegetical point. 

Yes, it is true that James is talking about works being the fruit of saving faith. But those works point to a qualitative difference in belief present in the Christian than the "dead" faith of demons or those who have no works (non-saving faith). You cannot account for this distinction.

And while it is true that being a monotheist isn't enough to constitute saving faith, James does not make the point that the distinction lies in the quantity of knowledge present, but rather the quality. The difference is qualitative - one is the sort that produces works, the other is not, and is "dead." He doesn't say or imply something like "if only that demon believed a few more things...he was so close."


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2007)

DTK said:


> To believe does not necessarily include the element of trust. The verb for believe here is the same verb (_pisteúo_) used elsewhere in the NT for belief unto salvation. James 2:19 states explicitly that the demons *believe*, but it is clear that they did so without the element of trust.



It is clear?? How so? If the demons did not trust that there was "one God", then why do they tremble? They have full trust in God, which is what scares them.



DTK said:


> As for their understanding, they had a very orthodox confession of the identity of Christ - Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34 _“I know who You are -- the Holy One of God!”_ - and they had a very orthodox eschatology - Matt 8:29 _“What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”_ Hence the demons believe the revealed truth about God, but the presence of Christ was repulsive to them. They confessed Christ’s deity and they confessed him as their judge in the last day. They possessed the intellectual capacity to believe these things. But no demon ever trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ.



This makes my point. If the demons understood and believed in the deity of Christ, then they know that Jesus did not die to save them. They trust the Gospel and tremble because they know what that means for them.



DTK said:


> I think you are approaching this passage with a certain interpretive grid that is controlled by your definition of faith, and that this is the reason for your difficulty in understanding this passage. According to v. 14, the contrast is between two kinds of faith, the faith of demons (which is dead faith, v. 17, 26) and true saving faith, which is a living faith, or faith unto life.



You have put in your grid in advance of your exegeses - that a dead faith is a faith that believes. But James is speaking of faith _claims_. Vs 14 is talking about a _claim _of faith, not a kind of faith.
[bible] James 2:14[/bible]

And again in vs 17 and 18, we have people making claims of faith but not having and works to back up the claim.

[bible] James 2:17-18[/bible]

And in verse 26, taken in context is speaking of a claim of faith but a lack of works. A dead faith is not faith at all. 

[bible] James 2:26[/bible]



DTK said:


> I don't think you can be consistent exegetically with the passage and come to the conclusion that faith always includes the element of trust, because the passage states explicitly that the demons believe, and yet yield no semblance of trust.



There is a clear semblance of trust in their reaction to their faith. It makes no sense to think that a demon's trust could result in the same reaction as a _person's_. A demon could not be saved no matter that he "trusted" because what he is trusting is the truth of the deity of Christ and the meaning of his death and resurrection. The demons faith is very much alive. The demons faith is not dead.

Dead faith is no faith. But the demons faith was very much alive and fully trusting in the truth of God.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Anthony,
> It seems what you are saying reduces to: "knowledge=belief." Simple. With the addition of "assent" (as I see in your response to Dave) implying that said knowledge goes beyond bare datum to reliability.


That was not my intention. Faith and knowledge are not the same thing. But saving knowledge is simply to know the gospel. To know means to believe something with an accounting for that belief. If you believe and understand the gospel, then you have saving knowledge. 




Contra_Mundum said:


> Paul says that "though they [ungodly/unrighteous men] KNEW God {does that mean that they _*believed*_ God?), they did not honor him" (Rom. 1:21). That one verse shows that the terms cannot be equated. What did those people do with the true knowledge they possessed?



And he is making it clear the mere belief in God (a belief which all men possess) does not save, but in fact it condemns. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> I think (since I think belief is "more than" knowledge) that one could take a verse like 2 Pet. 3:18 and make it say "grow in the grace and faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," because growth in _knowledge_ would necessarily increase the the fullness of the more encompassing term "faith." So likewise Paul, 2 Tim. 2:4, "[God] who desires all men to be saved and come to the {belief} of the truth," because salvation is a matter of what one does with the knowledge he gets (believe it or suppress it).
> 
> So, I don't agree with your final conclusions. Did Agrippa know the literal events of the gospel? Acts 26:26 says "yes," unequivocally. Did he "believe" the prophets? Yes, unequivocally, v. 27. And Paul had just preached the gospel to him, bringing facts and interpretation together for him. Was he saved? No, vv. 28f.



[bible]act 26:28[/bible]

Ergo he did not believe the Gospel! He believed the prophets, but did not believe that Jesus what the Messiah the prophets spoke of. Otherwise he would say he was a Christian. 

As you said:


Contra_Mundum said:


> Knowing what he knew, about revelation and Jesus Christ, even as he followed Paul's reasoning (and gospel presentation), he nevertheless did not believe. He (like Herod, and countless others) were _resistant_ to the claims of Jesus *on their persons*.



But it does not follow:


Contra_Mundum said:


> A person can KNOW God has a claim on them, and resist that claim. It's just that simple.
> 
> Peace, brother.



Do you really believe that one can be given saving faith and then reject it? How can one "know" God has a claim on him? A person can know they are among the elect??? You know the names written on the Book of Life? 

A person who "feels" some attraction to the gospel does not "know" anything at all regarding God's claim. And it is flat out impossible for an unregenerate person to believe the Gospel of Christ. It's that simple.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2007)

DaveJes1979 said:


> Not necessarily. Someone may say that they believe that Jesus saves sinners, but that they don't want to be saved. Because they hate God, as the demons do. They believe that the bridge will hold them, but don't particularly want to cross over the river at all.



No, a person can not believe that Jesus died for sinners and he is a sinner, unless he is regenerate and has been given faith. The faith is a gift from God, and not something we can have apart from being saved.



DaveJes1979 said:


> That point aside, your model of man's constitution must imply that our volition is in lock-step with our knowledge, which is patently false. Your view does not take seriously the effects of sin on this account. Sin makes our decisions irrational, so we don't always do or trust what we know to be true or right.



Faith is not volitional. We don't will to have faith, but when we do have saving faith, it is also God works in us the will to do good works. (Phi 2:13)

[bible]Phi 2:13[/bible]



DaveJes1979 said:


> Civbert, you and Jim Snyder didn't interact with my exegetical point.
> 
> Yes, it is true that James is talking about works being the fruit of saving faith. But those works point to a qualitative difference in belief present in the Christian than the "dead" faith of demons or those who have no works (non-saving faith). You cannot account for this distinction.



Again, James is dealing with faith claims made by members of the church. Those who come in and "claim" to have faith, but lack and evidence to prove their faith. It is not a matter of quality, but simply of a lack of evidence. Either you have saving faith, or you have no faith. You can not be somewhat pregnant. With you are regenerate or you are unregenerate. Either you are reprobate, or you are elect. It's impossible to believe the Gospel and not believe the Gospel. 



DaveJes1979 said:


> And while it is true that being a monotheist isn't enough to constitute saving faith, James does not make the point that the distinction lies in the quantity of knowledge present, but rather the quality. The difference is qualitative - one is the sort that produces works, the other is not, and is "dead." He doesn't say or imply something like "if only that demon believed a few more things...he was so close."



If you go that route, qualitative faith, then you say it is your degree of faith that matters, rather than what you believe. As long as you believe strongly "enough" to do good deeds, then you are saved. But since the issue is validating faith claims, we are not talking about the quality of the faith, but the evidence that the claim is reliable. All that one needs to be saved is faith. Just simple faith. No works required. Works do not save.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 9, 2007)

I can't argue too much with this statement: "If you believe and understand the gospel, then you have saving knowledge." But I think that the word "understand" is superfluous, because real belief implies prior understanding.

I think we must be in agreement that "knowing" and "knowing savingly" are distinct. So what separates those two? Can two people know essentially the same information, accept that informantion as true, and one be saved and the other lost? I think so. Thieves on the crosses? When you say "saving knowledge is simply to know the gospel," it sounds like you are back to equating knowledge and belief.

I think you disagree with me, but I think you also haven't appreciated the force of the Agrippa argument. You say, "He believed the prophets, but did not believe that Jesus what [sic] the Messiah the prophets spoke of," but I don't think we are entitled to restrict his awareness simply because he did not believe. The Word says that he knew the present day facts, and they were correlated quite convincingly with the prophetic Word by Paul. It seems clear to me that what he would not do was "cross that bridge" (as in your example). _*Not because he didn't know it was a solid bridge.*_ I think he was undeniably convinced. Paul, Agrippa correctly says, was not able to "persuade him" to cross it, to become a Christian. That, after all, takes the Holy Spirit's irresistible provocation. And I don't doubt but there were some in that courtroom that day who heard the same, understood less (being less astute, less eduacted, etc.), but came away saved.



Civbert said:


> Do you really believe that one can be given saving faith and then reject it? How can one "know" God has a claim on him? A person can know they are among the elect??? You know the names written on the Book of Life?
> 
> A person who "feels" some attraction to the gospel does not "know" anything at all regarding God's claim. And it is flat out impossible for an unregenerate person to believe the Gospel of Christ. It's that simple.



A man knows God owns him as his creature. That's the "claim" I was speaking of, not a special elective claim. He already knows he is under God's wrath and curse for being a rebel.

I don't think a person can have saving faith and reject the knowledge of the gospel that necessarily accompanies it. Faith ordinarily comes by hearing--intelligible hearing that receives data, consents to its truthfulness, and reposes in it. I think a person can receive the data of the gospel, understand the claims of the gospel very well, with about perfect clarity in fact, and reject it. And I think that's so because I don't equate perfection of knowledge with believing what one knows. Is that irrational? Sure it is. But the unbeliever/unregenerate is irrational. He acts contrary to his knowledge all the time, regardless of how much knowledge he has or the accuracy of it.

Here's another example: the person in hell, one who definitely heard the gospel in life. He has the data, he understands it quite well as true (better than he did on earth) and he still doesn't rest in it, indeed cannot ever (and never could, but that's beside the point). There is that "unbridgeble gulf" that Jesus spoke of in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. His destiny, so far as he participated in it outside God's decree, was settled during his lifetime.



As I close, and reflect on this conversation, I wonder if the difference (such as it is) is over the issue of "appreciation." Between the saved man and the lost is not whether one of them knows the buoyancy quotient of the life-ring, but which one of them grabs it. Don't we agree that for the worst fool of all, he knows that ring will save him, but he won't take it? He drowns, knowing he'll drown by not taking hold. That's irrational on one level, because he doesn't _appreciate_ the awfulness of hell, despite his willingness to go there. Did he not know life was preferable? But the life that was offered was not preferable to him. And for the reprobate, no amount of clarity will ever change his choice. The more he knows of the truth, the less he appreciates it.

Peace.


----------



## etexas (Mar 9, 2007)

Gasp! Gasp! Anglican drowning! You presbyterian brothers get DEEP! I could not think of any useful comments since this got WAY over my head.


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Mar 10, 2007)

Civbert said:


> No, a person can not believe that Jesus died for sinners and he is a sinner, unless he is regenerate and has been given faith. The faith is a gift from God, and not something we can have apart from being saved.


This is assertion, not argument. SAVING faith is spoken of in the Bible as being a gift from God, but mere intellectual belief in the facts of salvation is not saving faith.



> Faith is not volitional. We don't will to have faith, but when we do have saving faith, it is also God works in us the will to do good works. (Phi 2:13)


It is true that we don't "will to have faith", but faith does will to rest on Christ, so it does not follow that "faith is not volitional." 


> Again, James is dealing with faith claims made by members of the church. Those who come in and "claim" to have faith, but lack and evidence to prove their faith. It is not a matter of quality, but simply of a lack of evidence.


But what does the lack of evidence indicate? It indicates that there is a "faith" present that prompts James to A. ask "can that faith save him?" and B. he concludes that the faith is "dead" and C. that demons have this sort of faith. Your view simply cannot account for all of the data here. You aren't answering how the faith claims tie into the NATURE of faith as James ties the two together here.



> If you go that route, qualitative faith, then you say it is your degree of faith that matters, rather than what you believe. As long as you believe strongly "enough" to do good deeds, then you are saved.


It is true that distinguishing faith qualitatively precludes "what you believe", but that does not mean it is about the "degree of faith." It is about the KIND of faith. Is it the KIND of faith that not only KNOWS but also TRUSTS.



> But since the issue is validating faith claims, we are not talking about the quality of the faith, but the evidence that the claim is reliable. All that one needs to be saved is faith. Just simple faith. No works required. Works do not save.


We agree that the main issue in James 2 is about validating faith claims, but you are making it the ONLY issue despite the fact that James ties this in with the nature of faith in his exposition. That is a fallacious flattening of this passage. So simply repeating "James is talking about faith claims" can't get you where you need to go. Again, you cannot account for all of the exegetical data here.

You are also seeming to assume that if faith has a volitional/trust element in it that somehow faith becomes a "work." That is an unjustified assumption.


----------



## DTK (Mar 10, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Faith is not volitional. We don't will to have faith, but when we do have saving faith, it is also God works in us the will to do good works. (Phi 2:13)



This is a clear misunderstanding of the nature of saving faith as understood historically by the Reformed. No Reformed argues that we "will" to have faith, but once imparted to the regenerate, faith is nonetheless volitional.

*L. Berkhof:* A volitional element (_fiducia_). This is the crowning element of faith. Faith is not merely a matter of the intellect, nor of the intellect and the emotions combined; it is also a matter of the will, determining the direction of the soul, an act of the soul going out towards its object and appropriating this. Without this activity the object of faith, which the sinner recognizes as true and real and entirely applicable to his present needs, remains outside of him. And in saving faith it is a matter of life and death that the object be appropriated. This third element consists in a personal trust in Christ as Savior and Lord, including a surrender of the soul as guilty and defiled to Christ, and a reception and appropriation of Christ as the source and pardon and of spiritual life. L. Berkhof, _Systematic Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1941), p 505.

DTK


----------

