# Unsaving Faith



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2007)

Now posted on my PB blog:
James Durham on Unsaving Faith. [blogs are now defunct after upgrades, see my Facebook page.]
...​[FONT=&quot][1] The first is _historical faith;_ which may be called true, being it whereby we assent to the truth of a thing, because of his supposed fidelity that tells it; as when an author writes a history, we give it credit upon report that he was an honest man that wrote it. So historical faith is when people hearing the Word preached or read, they assent to the truth of it all. [/FONT]​​[FONT=&quot]...[/FONT]​​


----------



## turmeric (Sep 28, 2007)

Much to ponder there.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 28, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Now posted on my PB blog:
> James Durham on Unsaving Faith.
> ...
> [FONT=&quot][1] The first is _historical faith;_ which may be called true, being it whereby we assent to the truth of a thing, because of his supposed fidelity that tells it; as when an author writes a history, we give it credit upon report that he was an honest man that wrote it. So historical faith is when people hearing the Word preached or read, they assent to the truth of it all. [/FONT]​[FONT=&quot]...[/FONT]​



Would this unsaving faith be akin to a dead orthodoxy?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2007)

Maybe; that term is subject to definition, and I know some don't like the phrase at all. It wasn't used in Durham's time far as I know.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 28, 2007)

Gill:

There is what is called an historical faith, not because it is only giving credit to the historical part of the scripture, which is to be believed as well as other parts; nor because the scripture is read, and attention paid to it only as a common history or human testimony; for men, with this faith, believe it to be a divine testimony, and regard it as such; it may rather be called a theoretic faith, a speculative one, receiving all things in the theory but reducing nothing to practice; or a bare naked assent to the truth of what is contained in the word concerning God and Christ, and divine things; it is a faith common to good men and bad men; it must be and is where true faith is, and there can be no true faith without it; but if a man stops here and goes no further, it falls short of spiritual, special faith, or the faith of God’s elect, and is no other than the faith of devils, and of bad men.

6. Of Faith in god.

For me it has been the cause of a lot of self-examination looking for the marks of grace.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 28, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Now posted on my PB blog:
> James Durham on Unsaving Faith.
> ...
> [FONT=&quot][1] The first is _historical faith;_ which may be called true, being it whereby we assent to the truth of a thing, because of his supposed fidelity that tells it; as when an author writes a history, we give it credit upon report that he was an honest man that wrote it. So historical faith is when people hearing the Word preached or read, they assent to the truth of it all. [/FONT]​[FONT=&quot]...[/FONT]​



His "historical faith" _is_ saving faith - assent to the truth of it all. It is impossible to believe it all and not be saved, for only the regenerate elect can believe the Gospel, much more "the truth of it all".


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2007)

No its not; its the devils' faith, just as he says.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 28, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> No its not; its the devils' faith, just as he says.





1) Could a demon even _have_ saving faith? Doesn't being a demon disqualify it from salvation?
2) Did the demon believe the gospel? Wasn't the demon's belief limited to believing there is only one God - even as the Muslims believe.
3) Can anyone (human) believe the gospel if they are not regenerate?


----------



## turmeric (Sep 28, 2007)

Depends on what you mean by "believes" the Gospel. The devils believe and tremble.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 28, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Depends on what you mean by "believes" the Gospel. The devils believe and tremble.


 See question 2) above.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

Civbert said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Now posted on my PB blog:
> ...



Clarkian? Yes.
Confessional? No.
Reformed? No.
Biblical? No.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

More specifically:



> Heidelberg Catechism
> 
> Question 21. What is true faith?
> 
> ...





> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XIV
> Of Saving Faith
> 
> ...





> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
> A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,297 wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit298 and Word of God,299 whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,300 not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,301 but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,302 and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.303
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

For a simple introduction to this line of thinking, I recommend Sherman Isbell's article, "Temporary Faith," available online here:

http://www.masterstrumpet.org/issue2.pdf


----------



## Herald (Sep 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Gill:
> 
> There is what is called an historical faith, not because it is only giving credit to the historical part of the scripture, which is to be believed as well as other parts; nor because the scripture is read, and attention paid to it only as a common history or human testimony; for men, with this faith, believe it to be a divine testimony, and regard it as such; it may rather be called a theoretic faith, a speculative one, receiving all things in the theory but reducing nothing to practice; or a bare naked assent to the truth of what is contained in the word concerning God and Christ, and divine things; it is a faith common to good men and bad men; it must be and is where true faith is, and there can be no true faith without it; but if a man stops here and goes no further, it falls short of spiritual, special faith, or the faith of God’s elect, and is no other than the faith of devils, and of bad men.
> 
> ...



Richard - quite correct. Saving faith will display the evidences of grace in the life of the one who exercises said faith. The faith that does not save (temporal faith) is devoid of these evidences.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> More specifically:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you notice some the the contradictions between the Heidelberg and WCF?
Have you really worked out the implications? If the WCF and the Heidelberg are biblical, does this mean the Bible contains contradictions? 

Just something to think about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Perhaps you could point out the contradiction(s). I see none.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Ironically:

Clarkian? Yes.
Confessional? Yes.
Reformed? You bet.
Biblical? Absolutely!

And even:


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XIV
> Of Saving Faith
> 
> ...





> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
> A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,297 wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit298 and Word of God,299 whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,300 not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,301 but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,302 and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.303
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Civbert said:
> ...


Only when words cease to have meaning will that be the case. It is well known that the Reformed formulation, clearly articulated in the Confessions includes *three* and not *two* aspects of saving faith. That the Clarkians conflate fiducia with assensus is *un-Confessional* and not Reformed. Full stop.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Perhaps you could point out the contradiction(s). I see none.



I withdraw that point. Reading them over a few times, I resolved it (using my mere human capacity for reasoning  ). More relevant is that there is no contradiction between what I said and the what the WCF says.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you could point out the contradiction(s). I see none.
> ...



There is Anthony. You are claiming that saving faith consists merely in notitia assensus. It is fanciful to claim that the WCF agrees with you. You know very well that Clark disagrees with the Reformed understanding that Justifying (or True) Faith includes a _personal_ component of trust.

Fascinating, is it not, that you are disagreeing with _Durham_ on the nature of faith when his view is reflective of the formulation? You disagree with Durham -> you disagree with the WCF.

Now, you may actually believe, because Dr. Clark asserted the case, that yours is what the WCF really says and that, by disagreeing with Durham you are agreeing with the WCF but that would only demonstrate that you are ignorant of the facts on this case.

You will have to do more that assert that your view is Confessional in this case, you will have to demonstrate that the WCF Divines or any Magesterial Reformer defined faith in the manner of the Clarkian. Have at that, but _not on this thread_. If you would like, we can open up another thread in the Confessions so you can have those that understand the Puritans post some quotatations from the Divines and the Reformers. The last time this exercise was played out concerning what "light of nature" meant, it was demonstrated that the Clarkian view was not the Confessional view.

Hereafter, however, unless you are willing to back up your assertion that Durham is un-Confessional in his view of faith then you will need to cease the bare assertion in this thread and take that subject up in another.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



Ha! Nice try. 

Yes, some reformers held the artificial division of faith into three elements. But this was also used to help people understand faith, not to give a necessary definition. Unless you want to label several other reformers as un-biblical too. 

Clark did not conflate fiducia and assensus. He showed that assensus implies fiducia. Basically, the tri-part division of faith is unnecessarily redundant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Ha! Nice try.
> 
> Yes, some reformers held the artificial division of faith into three elements. But this was also used to help people understand faith, not to give a necessary definition. Unless you want to label several other reformers as un-biblical too.
> 
> Clark did not conflate fiducia and assensus. He showed that assensus implies fiducia. Basically, the tri-part division of faith is unnecessarily redundant.



No attempts here Anthony. Clark did no such thing. Clark is not the Church. He is not a council. He does not settle matters of controversy.

As I stated, this conflation is un-Confessional. You may take this up on the Confessions forum and try to build the case that the Confessions taught Clark's view but the discussion that Durham is un-Confessional and Clark is Confessional on this point ends here in this thread.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2007)

What Durham expresses is standard Reformed theology. Calvin notes:

“For though only those predestined to salvation receive the light of faith and truly feel the power of the gospel, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected by almost the same feeling as the elect, so that even in their own judgment they do not in any way differ from the elect [cf. Acts 13:48]. Therefore it is not at all absurd that the apostle should attribute to them a taste of the heavenly gifts [Hebrews 6:4-6] — and Christ, faith for a time [Luke 8:13]; not because they firmly grasp the force of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith, but because the Lord, to render them more convicted and inexcusable, steals into their minds to the extent that his goodness may be tasted without the Spirit of adoption… But this does not at all hinder that lower working of the Spirit from taking its course even in the reprobate. In the meantime, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest the confidence of the flesh creep in and replace assurance of faith. Besides this, the reprobate never receive anything but a confused awareness of grace, so that they grasp a shadow rather than the firm body of it. For the Spirit, strictly speaking, seals forgiveness of sins in the elect alone, so that they apply it by special faith to their own use. Yet the reprobate are justly said to believe that God is merciful toward them, for they receive the gift of reconciliation, although confusedly and not distinctly enough. Not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God, but because they seem, under a cloak of hypocrisy, to have a beginning of faith in common with the latter. And I do not deny that God illumines their minds enough for them to recognize his grace; but he so distinguishes that awareness from the exclusive testimony he gives to his elect that they do not attain the full effect and fruition thereof. He does not show himself merciful to them, to the extent of truly snatching them from death and receiving them into his keeping, but only manifests to them his mercy for the time being. Only his elect does he account worthy of receiving the living root of faith so that they may endure to the end [Matthew 24:13]. Thus is that objection answered: if God truly shows his grace, this fact is forever established. For nothing prevents God from illumining some with a momentary awareness of his grace, which afterward vanishes.”

-Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 2.11 (“Faith” even among the reprobate)

Anthony you never answered the biblical evidence compiled here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/249547-post8.html


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> You will have to do more that assert that your view is Confessional in this case, you will have to demonstrate that the WCF Divines or any Magesterial Reformer defined faith in the manner of the Clarkian. Have at that, but _not on this thread_. If you would like, we can open up another thread in the Confessions so you can have those that understand the Puritans post some quotatations from the Divines and the Reformers. The last time this exercise was played out concerning what "light of nature" meant, it was demonstrated that the Clarkian view was not the Confessional view.
> 
> Hereafter, however, unless you are willing to back up your assertion that Durham is un-Confessional in his view of faith then you will need to cease the bare assertion in this thread and take that subject up in another.




I suggest then you go back to your bare assertions that my post was un-biblical and un-cofessional that started this exchange and delete it and the exchange that followed. You can then address specifically what I wrote, and the questions I asked, instead of taking shots. 

Fair enough?


----------



## Civbert (Sep 29, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Anthony you never answered the biblical evidence compiled here:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/249547-post8.html



Thanks, I missed that. I'll take a look at it.

P.S. Oops. You meant the other Anthony.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > You will have to do more that assert that your view is Confessional in this case, you will have to demonstrate that the WCF Divines or any Magesterial Reformer defined faith in the manner of the Clarkian. Have at that, but _not on this thread_. If you would like, we can open up another thread in the Confessions so you can have those that understand the Puritans post some quotatations from the Divines and the Reformers. The last time this exercise was played out concerning what "light of nature" meant, it was demonstrated that the Clarkian view was not the Confessional view.
> ...



1. This was a thread about Durham.
2. Durham was a Puritan.
3. Expressing the Puritan view of faith.
4. Which the WCF reflects.
5. Which the Reformed Confessions reflect.
6. You say: "No, Durham is wrong about faith."

I made no "bare assertions". I followed my charge directly with the Confessional data and the prooftexts to demonstrate precisely what I was stating. I also did not assert "in a vacuum" and knew, the moment that Chris posted the thread, that a Clarkian would likely come in a "correct" a Puritan luminary on his understanding of faith.

As I stated, if you want to continue in your assertion that Durham is wrong concerning the nature of faith then it's on the basis of the Confession and you will need to establish that in another thread. You claim that there are Reformers and that this tri-partite definition of faith was merely a helpful way that "some" Reformed used. Let's see it - in _another_ thread.


----------



## Iconoclast (Sep 29, 2007)

Civbert said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > No its not; its the devils' faith, just as he says.
> ...



In reference to the faith of demons,devils,fallen angels;

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 

The atonement was only for the seed of Abraham, there is no redemption for angels who sinned.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 29, 2007)

Isn't the Clarkian view Sandemanianism?


----------



## cih1355 (Sep 29, 2007)

A person can affirm that all of the propositions in the Bible are true without depending or relying upon Jesus for salvation.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 30, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Maybe; that term is subject to definition, and I know some don't like the phrase at all. It wasn't used in Durham's time far as I know.



You are referring to "unsaving faith"? It doesn't seem to have caught on does it. But I can see why. It appears to me that he is saying that one can truly believe all that is necessary for salvation - and yet be lost. Yet we are told that all that is necessary for salvation is faith. Unsaving faith seems to imply that faith is insufficient for salvation.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 30, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> A person can affirm that all of the propositions in the Bible are true without depending or relying upon Jesus for salvation.



I would say that is impossible. If one does not depend or rely on Jesus for salvation, then one does not believe all the propositions of the Bible - for the Bible says that salvations is by faith in Christ alone. There are consequences in what we claim to believe.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 30, 2007)

Civbert said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe; that term is subject to definition, and I know some don't like the phrase at all. It wasn't used in Durham's time far as I know.
> ...


No; dead orthodoxy. Historical faith is common Puritan terminology. Rich has told you the parameters for this line of discussion. Follow it or drop it.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 30, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



I stand corrected.


----------

