# John Robbins Denounces Experiential Calvinism



## JOwen

I guess this is not a big shocker to anyone who has followed the Trinity Foundation over the years. In this link, Robbins castigates Douglas Kelly's assertion that the WCF taught an Experimental Calvinism. Rubbish! The WCF taught the trichotomatic view of Faith in WLC Question 72: What is justifying faith?

Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, 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, *not only assents to the truth* of the promise of the gospel, *but receives* and *rests* upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. 

Belief, assent, and trust, plain and simple. The WLC separates "receives" and "rests" for the express purpose of underlining the need for the truth to pass into personal persuasion. It is the separating of assent and trust that Clark and Ribbins take issue with. Here, they believe is where we enter the "navel gazing" element that leads to improper introspection. Belief and assent is all that is needed according to Clark.
Robbins claims that the WCF does not teach a Reformed form of mysticism we call experiential. Has he ever read the codifiers of the WCF? Even the supra Rutherford, who is clearly objective in his approach of apprehension makes ample room for the head/heart distinction Robbins takes issue with. As one reads the codifiers of the Standards, the more infra the more experimental. Ribbins needs to get his head out of objective rationalism for a moment and take a heartfelt look at the testing and proving of genuine faith as is so clearly explained in the Word.

Robbins also takes a potshot at Beeke and any of our Churches which teach the Puritan ideal of faith.


----------



## Pilgrim

See this thread, starting with post 17.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

So Joel Beeke and Richard Sibbes are on Robbin's short list. Since Beeke is one of my FAVORITE preachers, I subscribe to his podcast, and Sibbes' "The Bruised Reed" is a great book in my opinion, what does that make me?


----------



## JOwen

one of us. welcome to the dark side.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Blueridge Baptist said:


> So Joel Beeke and Richard Sibbes are on Robbin's short list. Since Beeke is one of my FAVORITE preachers, I subscribe to his podcast, and Sibbes' "The Bruised Reed" is a great book in my opinion, what does that make me?



I don't know, brother, but apparently I'm one too since the RPCUS is on the list with Dr. Beeke. 

We should get together and see if we can figure it out.


----------



## JM

I love both Robbins and Beeke, we're family.


----------



## AV1611

TF have been consistently growing closer and closer to Sandemenianism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JOwen,

You should have titled the thread: John Robbins Denounces _Calvinism_.


----------



## Pilgrim

AV1611 said:


> TF have been consistently growing closer and closer to Sandemenianism.



Indeed. I believe Dr. Robbins has had articles published in the Grace Evangelical Society's journal, which is dedicated to the "free grace" teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, et. al.


----------



## Staphlobob

JM said:


> I love both Robbins and Beeke, we're family.



That's where I stand also.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Staphlobob said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love both Robbins and Beeke, we're family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where I stand also.
Click to expand...

Me too.


----------



## Civbert

JOwen said:


> I guess this is not a big shocker to anyone who has followed the Trinity Foundation over the years. In this link, Robbins castigates Douglas Kelly's assertion that the WCF taught an Experimental Calvinism. Rubbish! The WCF taught the trichotomatic view of Faith in WLC Question 72: What is justifying faith?
> 
> Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, *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, *not only assents to the truth* of the promise of the gospel, *but receives* and *rests* upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.



I highlighted another key word - "whereby". You see the problem is a conflation of faith with the effects of faith. This is what FV has done, and this is what other "experimentalists" have done, and this is what the Church of Rome does. 

The only part of WCF Question 72: that you could call a definition of faith is the first part of the first sentence "Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God". After that you get the "whereby" which means that which follows is not the essence of "saving faith", but rather the effect. This includes "not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel..." 

I recommend you read the article "What is Saving Faith" by Gordon Clark to better understand the argument.


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> TF have been consistently growing closer and closer to Sandemenianism.


 Rubbish. 

Read the Banner of Truth article "Gordon Clark and Sandemanianism". John Robbins' rebuttal demolishes this ridiculous charge.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> JOwen,
> 
> You should have titled the thread: John Robbins Denounces _Calvinism_.



You know, I've heard this before. It came from defenders of FV.


----------



## Davidius

JOwen said:


> I guess this is not a big shocker to anyone who has followed the Trinity Foundation over the years. In this link, Robbins castigates Douglas Kelly's assertion that the WCF taught an Experimental Calvinism. Rubbish! The WCF taught the trichotomatic view of Faith in WLC Question 72: What is justifying faith?
> 
> Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, 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, *not only assents to the truth* of the promise of the gospel, *but receives* and *rests* upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
> 
> Belief, assent, and trust, plain and simple. The WLC separates "receives" and "rests" for the express purpose of underlining the need for the truth to pass into personal persuasion. It is the separating of assent and trust that Clark and Ribbins take issue with. Here, they believe is where we enter the "navel gazing" element that leads to improper introspection. Belief and assent is all that is needed according to Clark.



There have been other discussions on this board about the head/heart dichotomy and it appears that there are a reasonable amount here who believe that it's bunk. 



> Robbins claims that the WCF does not teach a Reformed form of mysticism we call experiential. Has he ever read the codifiers of the WCF? Even the supra Rutherford, who is clearly objective in his approach of apprehension makes ample room for the head/heart distinction Robbins takes issue with. As one reads the codifiers of the Standards, the more infra the more experimental. Ribbins needs to get his head out of objective rationalism for a moment and take a heartfelt look at the testing and proving of genuine faith as is so clearly explained in the Word.
> 
> Robbins also takes a potshot at Beeke and any of our Churches which teach the Puritan ideal of faith.



And you take potshots at John Robbins. What's your point? 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love both Robbins and Beeke, we're family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where I stand also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too.
Click to expand...




So here's a question: if the bible says that the "word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," how is it possible that an unbeliever could _truly_ assent to the teachings of scripture? If he seems to assent but is not regenerated, the problem seems to be not that he needs to add something else, but that he never assented to begin with and the Word is still foolish to him.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> I highlighted another key word - "whereby". You see the problem is a conflation of faith with the effects of faith. This is what FV has done, and this is what other "experimentalists" have done, and this is what the Church of Rome does.



The "whereby" is the "way in which" faith functions towards the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Reformed theology has always recognised that we are not saved by knowing facts (notitia), or by assenting to propositions (assensus), but by trusting in Jesus Christ -- whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM shall not perish -- (notitia, assensus, et fiducia). Romanism teaches faith is an assent. Reformed theology teaches it is also trust. This is not a subject which allows for discussion within the context of the reformed faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> JOwen,
> 
> You should have titled the thread: John Robbins Denounces _Calvinism_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've heard this before. It came from defenders of FV.
Click to expand...


First, even a broken clock is correct two times a day. There is a certain irony that, in this thread, you would point to the FV. They were the first I thought of in consideration of your reckless handling of Confessional documents.

I think this post pretty much summed up for me your approach to Reformed orthodoxy:



Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turretin on the eternal generation of the son {note: this took a LOT of work to format into bbcode so I hope you guys benefit from this}:
> 
> *TWENTY-NINTH QUESTION *- _Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm._
> 
> This question will demonstrate his personal distinction from him, his ineffable and eternal generation.
> The question is whether he was begotten of God from eternity, and whether he may be called Son on account of the secret and ineffable generation from the Father. This we affirm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's ineffable there's no point in speaking about it. Ineffable means incapable of being expressed in words.
> 
> Turretin is going to take a while to digest. So far he seems much more obsure than Scripture. Phrases like "a generation made without time" seem inherently self-contradictory. How can somthing be made without time? While we are supposed to affirm that Chirst was not made, Turretin is saying Christ's was generated with a generation that is made without time. Now we have the generation of the generation of an eternal being. This is supposed to clear things up??!?
Click to expand...




I told you before that your epistemology does not allow for some answers to be satisfactory to you. What was very telling in the previous thread is that you are ignorant of the issue of Eternal Generation but your approach to the thread was to _assume first_ that Reymond's approach was the orthodox view because, after all, he is a source you _trust_. You match in epistemology. In contrast, the whole Reformed faith leading up to Clark is under a cloud until it is re-worked according to a "proper" theology.

Reymond's statements for you, _a priori_, were trustworthy while the man (Turretin) whose Systematic Theology was used for centuries as _the_ textbook was _a priori_ something you did not trust until you researched it more. Even Princeton utilized Turretin as the textbook until Hodge wrote his in close correspondence to the great work of this man. Your attitude: Eh, seems kind of speculative to me. Frankly, your dismissive attitude spoke volumes.

I appreciate these threads because it allows me to underline where you stand on this as it will happen any time a Clarkian merely _asserts_ that their view is the Confessional view. Why, of course it must be Confessional, a Clarkian just said it was Confessional. 

You would never accept a secondary source that called Clark a rationalist to be proof enough for you. You would insist that Clark be able to speak for himself.

This is the strange irony of people who complain about others who twist things and then don't have the consistency in themselves when their sacred cow is being gored. I find it ironic, for instance, that Doug Wilson complains about liberals who treat the Constitution like a living document and insists that we read the Federalist Papers and the like but then gives quarter to a Wilkins who simply asserts that the WCF allows for his view or that the framers of the WCF were silent on it.

I simply haven't got the patience for this kind of duplicity. For somebody who gives such a seat to a reasonable approach to the Scriptures you don't have a very reasonable approach to men who are simply asserting that their view is the Confessional view. They don't appeal to any framers or any Puritans that agreed with them but, on the basis of language, they turn the WCF into a "living document", and you fall in line without critically examining their claims.

Now, you may conclude that the Reformers were wrong for having a non-Clarkian epistemology and definition of faith but, at that point, your are disagreeing with the Confession and you cannot appeal to the Confession for your view. You have to take an exception to it and say they are wrong. You can't simply equivocate on words and dishonestly assert the Confessions states what you believe. _This_, Anthony, is very much what the FV does so if you think I sounded like an FV man simply because I stated the obvious about the Calvinistic understanding of faith then I have a hard time accepting that as a critical assessment considering your facile treatment of the issue of faith vis a vis the Confessions.

If you want to make a case that Robbins' view of faith is Confessional then build your case on primary source material. I simply do not find an article that does not interact with Reformed history to be credible for the argument.


----------



## MW

*Robert Shaw's commentary*

Robert Shaw's clear and accurate assessment of saving faith:



> The principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ. Romanists make faith to be nothing more than "a bare naked assent to the truth revealed in the Word." This notion was strenuously opposed by our Reformers, and is renounced in the National Covenant of Scotland, under the name of a "general and doubtsome faith;" yet, many Protestants, in modern times, represent saving faith as nothing more than a simple assent to the doctrinal truths recorded in Scripture, and as exclusively an act of the understanding. But, although saving faith gives full credit to the whole Word of God, and particularly to the testimony of God concerning his Son Jesus Christ, as has been already stated, yet, its principal acts are "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ." True faith is the belief of a testimony; but it must correspond to the nature of the testimony believed. Were the gospel a mere statement of speculative truths, or a record of facts in which we have no personal interest, then, a simple assent of the mind to these truths–the mere crediting of these facts, would constitute the faith of the gospel. But the gospel is not a mere statement of historical facts, or of abstract doctrines respecting the Saviour; it contains in it a free offer of Christ, and of salvation through him, to sinners of every class, who hear it, for their acceptance. Saving faith, therefore, that it may correspond to the testimony believed, must include the cordial acceptance or reception of Christ, as tendered to us in the gospel.
> 
> As Christ is exhibited in Scripture under various characters and similitudes, so faith in him is variously denominated. It is expressed by coming to him–by looking unto him–by ,fleeing to him for refuge–by eating his flesh and drinking his blood–by receiving him, and by resting upon him. It is to be observed, that the terms employed in our Confession do not denote different acts of faith, but are only different expressions of the same act. Believing on Christ is called a receiving of him, in reference to his being presented to poor sinners, as the gift of God to them; and it is styled a resting on him, because he is revealed in the gospel as a sure foundation, on which a sinner may lay the weight of his eternal salvation with the firmest confidence. It is manifest, that all the figurative descriptions of saving faith in Scripture imply a particular application of Christ by the soul, or a trusting in Christ for salvation to one's self in particular; and this is what some have called the appropriation of faith. It is no less evident, that in the phraseology of Scripture, faith is not simply an assent of the understanding, but implies an act of volition, accepting the Saviour and relying on him for salvation. This does not proceed upon any previous knowledge which the sinner has of his election; nor upon any persuasion that Christ died intentionally for him more than for others, for it is impossible to come to the knowledge of these things prior to believing; nor does it proceed upon the persuasion that Christ died equally for all men, and therefore for him in particular; nor upon the perception of any good qualities in himself to distinguish him from others; but it proceeds solely upon the free, unlimited offer and promise of the gospel to the chief of sinners.


----------



## MW

The basic problem with the Clarkian definition lies in its minimalism. It is a bare definition of faith without respect to the object. If Clark's criticisms were in any way valid, we would also need to redefine justification, adoption, sanctification, and every major doctrine of the faith. Why? Because the reformed faith has not merely provided definitions of words, but has sought to show how those words function with respect to God's plan of salvation. If one carefully reads the Confession and Catechisms it will be seen that they often employ a "whereby" and "wherein" in order to fill out what the Bible has to say on the subject. By means of further clarification the reader is provided with a summary of the biblical teaching on these subjects and not a mere definition of words. Imagine for a moment if the Clarkian method were to prevail. Justification would be to declare one righteous; adoption would be transference into another family, and sanctification would be to make one holy. That is it. Nothing more. Any further explanation would be forbidden. Woe to the person who dared to say justification includes the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness; or that adoption confers all the privileges and promises which belong to the children of God; or that sanctification is a renewal in the image of God. Additional explanation of this kind would be confined to the realm of "mysticism" because it adds to the bare definition of the word being used. So a Clarkian, in order to consistently carry out his preferred method of systematisation, must reduce the reformed faith to nothing more than definitions of key words. This suits his "deductive" system of theology from basic axioms, but it is a mere skeleton of the faith once delivered to the saints, and is nothing like the whole body of truth as it has been faithfully handed down to us.


----------



## py3ak

Surely in the second paragraph it should read "various" instead of "venous"? To wit, in the line, "As Christ is exhibited in Scripture under venous characters and similitudes"....

It reminded me of this section in John Brown's _Essay_


> Q. Whether doth saving faith lie in assent or consent?
> A. In both: for _with the_ whole _heart man believeth._
> (...)
> Q. Why is faith so variously represented in Scripture?
> A. To shew the extensive improvement which faith, as a habit, makes of Christ in his manifold relations to us.
> Q. Why is faith represented as a _persuasion?_
> A. Because it discerns and credits the absolute certainty and truth of God's word and promise, Heb xi. 13.
> Q. Why is faith called a _looking_ to Christ?
> A. Because it views him as a most glorious object, Isa. xlv. 22.
> Q. Why is faith called a _coming_ to Christ?
> A. Because by it we leave our natural state, and come to Christ as our glorious friend and home, Matth. xi. 28.
> Q. Why is faith called a _running_ to Christ?
> A. Because by it we come to him quickly, and with all our might, Prov. xviii. 10, Isa. xl. 31.
> Q. Why is faith called a _fleeing_ to Christ?
> A. Because by it we, as men pursued, escape for our life to Christ as our saviour and hiding place, Heb. vi. 19.
> (...)
> Q. Why is faith called a _flying_ to Christ?
> A. Because by it we, through supernatural influence, come swiftly to Christ as a Prince exalted, and rock higher than we, Isa. lx. 8.
> Q. Why is faith called an _entering_?
> A. Because it brings us to salvation through Christ as the door, John x.
> Q. Why is faith called a _receiving_ of Christ?
> A. Because it takes hold of him as God's great gift, John i.
> Q. Why is faith called a _buying_ of Christ?
> A. Because by it we deliberately receive him as our enriching portion, and glorious ornament.
> (...)
> Q. Why is faith called a _putting on_ Christ?
> A. Because by it we apply him as our glorious robe of righteousness and sanctifying head, Rom xiii. 14.
> Q. Why is faith called a _resting_ on Christ?
> A. Because it lays down our weary soul on Christ as a resting-place; and lays the whole burden of our salvation upon the sure foundation of his person and offices, as exhibited in the firm charter of his promise.
> (...)
> Q. Why is faith called a _leaning_ on Christ?
> A. Because thereby we, as weak in ourselves, depend on Christ as our staff, stay, and supporting friend, Song viii. 5.
> Q. Why is faith called a _believing_ IN Christ?
> A. Because it not only credits what he says, but receives himself upon his word, Heb. xi. 13. Gal. ii. 16.
> Q. Why is faith called a _trusting_ in Christ?
> A. Because it removes doubts of his ability and willingness to save, and fears of his not performing his promise, Eph. i. 12.
> (...)
> Q. Why is faith called a _living_ in or on Christ?
> A. Because it daily improves him as our spiritual food, and living and life-giving head, Gal. ii. 20.
> Q. Why is faith called a _dwelling_ in God or Christ?
> A. Because by it we abide in and with God in Christ as our sure habitation, Psalm xc. 1. and xci. 1.
> Q. Why is faith called _walking_ in and with Christ?
> A. Because it makes use of him as our way, guide, and sweet companion in bringing us to God and glory.
> Q. Why is faith called a _waiting_ on Christ?
> A. Because it always expects nearer access to, and greater blessing from Christ than we have yet received, Psalm lxii.
> Q. Why is faith called a _yielding_ to God, and _submitting_ to his righteousness?
> A. Because by it we humbly give up ourselves to God, that, through Christ's righteousness, he may give us his promised blessings.
> Q. Why is faith called a _hungering_ and _thirsting?_
> A. Because it begets in our soul a painful desire that nothing but Christ and his righteousness can satisfy.
> Q. Why is faith called an _eating_ the flesh, and _drinking_ the blood of Christ?
> A. Because with desire and delight it receives and lives on Christ in his person, natures, office, relations, and righteousness, John vi. 32-37.


----------



## MW

Thanks Ruben, the typo has been corrected.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

From _The Directory for the Publick Worship of God_
_Of the Preaching of the Word_ (Speaking of the Preacher)


> _He is not to rest in general doctrine_, although never so much cleared and confirmed, but to bring it home to special use, by _application to his hearers_: which albeit it prove a work of great difficulty to himself, requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation, and to the natural and corrupt man will be very unpleasant; yet _he is to endeavour to perform it in such a manner, that his auditors may feel the word of God to be quick and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart_; and that, if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he may have the secrets of his heart made manifest, and give glory to God.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I highlighted another key word - "whereby". You see the problem is a conflation of faith with the effects of faith. This is what FV has done, and this is what other "experimentalists" have done, and this is what the Church of Rome does.
> 
> 
> 
> The "whereby" is the "way in which" faith functions towards the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

 Exactly. It is not the essence - it is the effect of faith. At least we agree there. So don't confuse the "whereby" with the "is". 



armourbearer said:


> Reformed theology has always recognised that we are not saved by knowing facts (notitia), or by assenting to propositions (assensus), but by trusting in Jesus Christ -- whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM shall not perish -- (notitia, assensus, et fiducia).


So says tradition. But what does Scripture say. We are saved by "believing" facts - the very words of Christ and Scripture, that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, that he died for sin, that He is God. 

You can not believe these facts and not be saved. You can not believe these facts unless you are saved. Our creeds and confessions and "statements of faith" are propositions that we say are essential "facts" that must be, not simply known, but believed. You can know every line of the creeds, that does not mean you believe them. 

Notitia, assensus, et fiducia - three Latin terms used to define a single Greek word. But this is the point in question. Asserting BELIEVETH _means _"notitia, assensus, et fiducia" does not make it so. And it confuses the "whereby" with the "is". 



armourbearer said:


> Romanism teaches faith is an assent. Reformed theology teaches it is also trust. This is not a subject which allows for discussion within the context of the reformed faith.



Romanism teaches implicit (blind) faith, belief in what is not understood. Rome teaches we are not to discuss anything tradition has spoken on. The Reformation rejected blind faith. 

FV teaches belief in Christ is insufficient- we need faithfulness. 

What they have in common is a rejection of reason. Both posit Aquinas' dichotomy between faith and reason. They say Christian faith is something beyond "mere human reason" - therefore it doesn't have to make sense. Just trust in tradition. If you don't get it, that is because you are thinking to much about it. 

So "let us reason together". 

The "trichotomatic" defintion of faith is a traditional teaching. It isn't even a definition, more like a perspective on the nature of faith. It is a helpful tool for understanding the effects and consequences of faith. But some have been confused into thinking that the meaning of faith itself can be divided into three separate parts. And then too, one of these parts is the internal response to faith (a natural "whereby"). So they say faith _is_ itself also the emotional "heart felt" response - ah emotion that comes from the believer. This confuses the free gift that comes from God alone (external and in spite of anything within the believer), with the immediate response of the believer (the internal consequence of that gift). Don't confuse the "whereby" with the "is". 

Simply asserting the tri-part understanding of faith without really thinking it through can lead to confusion. Clark has done an excellent job of showing how some have been mislead into thinking that _believing in Christ alone _is insufficient. Piper recently claimed that "no one is saved by believing the Gospel". How can anyone believe the Gospel unless they are saved? The reason we call them "unbelievers" is because they don't believe the gospel - and are therefore not saved. If you believe in Christ, you are saved. It is very simple. We are not saved by our feelings. We are not saved by our experiences. Don't confuse the "whereby" with the "is".


----------



## Pilgrim

Civbert said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> TF have been consistently growing closer and closer to Sandemenianism.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish.
> 
> Read the Banner of Truth article "Gordon Clark and Sandemanianism". John Robbins' rebuttal demolishes this ridiculous charge.
Click to expand...


Why then have two Robbins articles been published in the strongly anti-Calvinistic Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, a publication that favorably reviewed Dave Hunt's _What Love is This_? I'll tell you why. It's because he is in essential agreement with them that saving faith is nothing more than bare mental assent to the facts of the gospel. In his articles like his review of _The Gospel According to Jesus_, Robbins wrote that he disagreed with Ryrie as well as MacArthur in the Lordship Salvation controversy, but I have never been able to find any meaningful distinction between Ryrie and Robbins on this issue, unless it's perhaps that Robbins may agree more with the more extreme Hodges than Ryrie since he has been twice published in a journal dedicated to Hodges' teaching. 

The historical origins of Sandemanianism (hyper-Calvinism) and the Hodges/Wilkin no lordship teaching (Scofield/Chafer dispensationalism) may be different, but the antinomian result is very similar. 

If you want to quibble and say the Clark/Robbins teaching on saving faith isn't exactly the same as Sandemanianism, fine. But it sure isn't Calvinism either.


----------



## Pilgrim

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> JOwen,
> 
> You should have titled the thread: John Robbins Denounces _Calvinism_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've heard this before. It came from defenders of FV.
Click to expand...


The bare mental assent view is just as deadly as FV and can no more lay claim to being authentic Calvinism than the FV can.


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The historical origins of Sandemanianism (hyper-Calvinism) and the Hodges/Wilkin no lordship teaching (Scofield/Chafer dispensationalism) may be different, but the antinomian result is very similar.
> 
> 
> 
> So does this explain why Robbins (and Gerety, I suppose, by extension) uses terms like _Neolegalism_ to describe men like John Murray, _et al_. in his new book _Not Reformed at All_?
Click to expand...


Yes. In some cases the term may be accurate, in some cases not. John Murray was probably even more forceful against Clark in the "Clark-Van Til controversy" in the OPC than CVT was, and if I recall correctly his criticism centered on this issue, as well as the incomprehensibility of God.


----------



## JOwen

Civbert said:


> You can not believe these facts and not be saved. You can not believe these facts unless you are saved.



Not true. Believing, and trusting are separate yet united. Two texts come to mind that demonstrate the knowability of truth, and belief in that truth, yet it lacks trust. This separates saving faith from what has come to be known as demons faith. 

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 

Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, *What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? *art thou come hither to torment us before *the time?* 

They knew Christ's messiahship, and even of the truth of the last judgment, yet it was void of the last element. Thus, knowledge, assent, but no trust. 

I give you John Gill on James 2:19 as a sample of what this text means:



> [T]hey believe the* same truth*; they *know and believe* there is but one God, and not many; and they *know* that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one God; *they know* and *believe* him to be the most high God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and *they know* and *believe* that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the Messiah, Act_16:17...wherefore it follows, that a *bare historical faith* will not profit, and cannot save any; a man may have* all faith of this kind*, and be damned; and therefore it is not to be boasted of, nor trusted to.


----------



## Civbert

The majority of your responce is an abuse ad hominem. You are attacking my reasoning, my "Clarkianism" and my attidude. But you have failed to address the issue of "saving faith", or show how you have a better understanding than Clark does. You have also failed to demonstrate any point where my arguments are wrong. Perhaps you could moderate your tone and keep on topic. But non-the-less, since you have attacked me, I will defend.



SemperFideles said:


> First, even a broken clock is correct two times a day. There is a certain irony that, in this thread, you would point to the FV. They were the first I thought of in consideration of your reckless handling of Confessional documents.
> ...
> 
> I told you before that your epistemology does not allow for some answers to be satisfactory to you.


You mean that I not satisfied with answers that I can not reasonably understand? That is correct. If it appears unreasonable, I will not simply buy in to it on blind faith. That is not my epistemology, it's plain reason. 

Now if you can present to me an "epistemology" that makes sense of some of those answers, then I'm all ears. 

In the mean time, I will question those who say things that do not make sense - and reject implicit faith, just as the reformed fathers have. 



SemperFideles said:


> What was very telling in the previous thread is that you are ignorant of the issue of Eternal Generation but your approach to the thread was to _assume first_ that Reymond's approach was the orthodox view because, after all, he is a source you _trust_.


 You assume that I assume - that's too funny!

Sorry Rich. I never assumed Reymond was "the orthodox view". I just did not assume (contrary to others) that questioning a "tradition" made one unorthodox. I merely gave Reymond the benefit of the doubt. 



SemperFideles said:


> You match in epistemology. In contrast, the whole Reformed faith leading up to Clark is under a cloud until it is re-worked according to a "proper" theology.
> 
> Reymond's statements for you, _a priori_, were trustworthy while the man (Turretin) whose Systematic Theology was used for centuries as _the_ textbook was _a priori_ something you did not trust until you researched it more.


 It's not a question of trust. I find Turretin's statements hard to understand. I bet you do too. 

I also don't trust anyting I don't understand. Where I don't understand Clark, I don't not take his word for it. Where I do not understand Reymond, I do not take his word for it. And especially where I do not understand Turretin, I do not take his word for it. I don't care who said what about whom, if what I am reading is confusing, I'm not going to blindly trust it. I _will _research it and read it and reread it until I understand it. If I can not understand it, then so-be-it. But I haven't found most things too difficult to understand if I try hard enough. So I will not give up on Turretin yet. 



SemperFideles said:


> Even Princeton utilized Turretin as the textbook until Hodge wrote his in close correspondence to the great work of this man. Your attitude: Eh, seems kind of speculative to me. Frankly, your dismissive attitude spoke volumes.


 You are not in a position to judge my _attitude_. What you see as my "attitude" appears to be coming from you. Abuse ad hominems do sound persuasive, despite the fact that they are fallacies. So I recommend you should keep such character judgments to yourself. 



SemperFideles said:


> I appreciate these threads because it allows me to underline where you stand on this as it will happen any time a Clarkian merely _asserts_ that their view is the Confessional view. Why, of course it must be Confessional, a Clarkian just said it was Confessional.


 Your understanding is doubtful. Your judgments I find ironic - you are asserting that I am asserting. This does not do much to demonstrate you understand my view at all. You do like to bird-dog me though. 



SemperFideles said:


> You would never accept a secondary source that called Clark a rationalist to be proof enough for you. You would insist that Clark be able to speak for himself.


 Sorry. I don't follow you. Why should I? And why shouldn't he?



SemperFideles said:


> This is the strange irony of people who complain about others who twist things and then don't have the consistency in themselves when their sacred cow is being gored.


 More ad hominem. Who's sacred cow is being gored? I'm merely taking a side on an issue and discussing it. Just because I don't agree with you "epistemology" then this becomes a character flaw with me? I happen to agree with Clark on most issues. You happen to agree with anyone who disagrees with Clark.  Rather than debating the issue, you attack me for being a Clarkian. What kind of discussion is this?



SemperFideles said:


> I find it ironic, for instance, that Doug Wilson complains about liberals who treat the Constitution like a living document and insists that we read the Federalist Papers and the like but then gives quarter to a Wilkins who simply asserts that the WCF allows for his view or that the framers of the WCF were silent on it.
> 
> I simply haven't got the patience for this kind of duplicity. For somebody who gives such a seat to a reasonable approach to the Scriptures you don't have a very reasonable approach to men who are simply asserting that their view is the Confessional view.


 Yes, don't find mere assertions reasonable. I find clear reasoning much better. 



SemperFideles said:


> They don't appeal to any framers or any Puritans that agreed with them but, on the basis of language, they turn the WCF into a "living document", and you fall in line without critically examining their claims.


 Appealing to the language of the WCF is all I am doing. Don't insult me with this "living document" red herring. If you can't read the WCF and understand it on your own, then pasting the arguments of men who are less clear than the WCF is hardly helpful. 

So you don't agree with my understanding. Show me where my fault is. See if you can reason it out. It's fine to support your views with other Reformers. But don't assume any one speaks for them all. And don't assume any is Scripture. Again, let's avoid blind faith in the words of men. See if you understand how their arguments are Scriptural. And try to understand the words of the WCF as they are written. They are very concise and clear. At least you can try to convince me of what they mean simply by appealing to them directly. And if they are not clear, then appeal to Scripture, which is the final arbiter of it all. 



SemperFideles said:


> Now, you may conclude that the Reformers were wrong for having a non-Clarkian epistemology and definition of faith but, at that point, your are disagreeing with the Confession and you cannot appeal to the Confession for your view.


 That's nonsense. I could simply counter your assertion that the many reformers did have a Clarkian epistemology. Certainly the authors of the WCF did make logic paramount to their understanding Scripture. You won't find circular reasoning or irrational contradictions in the WCF. It is very straight forward, clear, and precise. I appeal to them all the time. I believe they better support my understanding of faith. If you disagree, do more than assert it. Show me. At least point me to a better explanation that what has been given so far. 




SemperFideles said:


> You have to take an exception to it and say they are wrong. You can't simply equivocate on words and dishonestly assert the Confessions states what you believe. _This_, Anthony, is very much what the FV does so if you think I sounded like an FV man simply because I stated the obvious about the Calvinistic understanding of faith then I have a hard time accepting that as a critical assessment considering your facile treatment of the issue of faith vis a vis the Confessions.



Very nice. 

I don't equivocate on words Rich. You assertions are simply false. If you understood my "epistemology", you would understand that I try to avoid equivocation at all cost. It is this demand for logical precision that seems to bother you. I don't simply assert "the obvious about the Calvinistic understanding of faith" when it simply is not the case. Rather, I have discussed this and posted where I think some have misunderstood "traditional" views because they have not really given it enough thought. "It" is not obvious. 



SemperFideles said:


> If you want to make a case that Robbins' view of faith is Confessional then build your case on primary source material. I simply do not find an article that does not interact with Reformed history to be credible for the argument.



Did you read the article I referred to? I'm sorry _you _ did not find it credible. You never said why, so I really don't care. I do not find assertions persuasive. 

As far as I am concerned, appealing to the WCF and Scripture usually sufficent. You can always quote some additional "primary source material" and find someone who appears to agree with you. You can also find someone who will counter that argument. But that is far from proving the point. Especially when you don't understand what that person is saying in the first place. 

So quote all the "primary source material" you want. But try to show you understand what they are saying. If they are clear and understandable, then you have merely boosted your arugment. If they are as conveluted and obtuse as many "theologians" are, then you have not really done yourself a favor. You should try to reason these things out yourself with Scipture. That is the real point anyway. Not what Turretin says, but is Turretin saying what Scripture says. 

And to save time, I agree that the WCF is the most Scriptural. So if you can demonstrate it with the WCF, then I'll conceed. 

But don't accuse me of twisting words without giving real strong proof. Your word for it is insufficient for making such strong accusations. Be careful by what standard you judge me. Your assault on me (and those who you disagree with) has not shown that you don't have a plank in your own eye. Quit the opposite.


----------



## Archlute

Try reading Francis Turretin on the subject. You know, that old, dead, scholastic "orthodusty" type who should theoretically agree with Anthony - but he doesn't. Volume 2, topic 15, questions 7, 8, and 10 go over "kinds of faith", "the six acts of faith", and the question "is faith trust" (which he affirms against Rome's theologians). He even uses Scripture!

However, after skimming Robbins' article, I wonder if what is being argued against in this thread is even his point. He doesn't make it too clear, but it seems that Robbins may be attacking a certain view of assurance of faith, rather than the issue of trust. He seems to be laying our a brief broad against "experiential" Calvinism, but the language used in the article is typically found in complaints against a certain view of assurance, and the issues of trust/assurance are two different debates.


----------



## CDM

Archlute said:


> Try reading Francis Turretin on the subject. You know, that old, dead, scholastic "orthodusty" type who should theoretically agree with Anthony - but he doesn't. Volume 2, topic 15, questions 7, 8, and 10 go over "kinds of faith", "the six acts of faith", and the question "is faith trust" (which he affirms against Rome's theologians). He even uses Scripture!
> 
> *However, after skimming Robbins' article, I wonder if what is being argued against in this thread is even his point. He doesn't make it too clear, but it seems that Robbins may be attacking a certain view of assurance of faith, rather than the issue of trust. He seems to be laying our a brief broad against "experiential" Calvinism, but the language used in the article is typically found in complaints against a certain view of assurance, and the issues of trust/assurance are two different debates.*


----------



## Civbert

JOwen said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not believe these facts and not be saved. You can not believe these facts unless you are saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Believing, and trusting are separate yet united. Two texts come to mind that demonstrate the knowability of truth, and belief in that truth, yet it lacks trust. This separates saving faith from what has come to be known as demons faith.
> 
> Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
> 
> Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, *What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? *art thou come hither to torment us before *the time?*
> 
> They knew Christ's messiahship, and even of the truth of the last judgment, yet it was void of the last element. Thus, knowledge, assent, but no trust.
> 
> I give you John Gill on James 2:19 as a sample of what this text means:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [T]hey believe the* same truth*; they *know and believe* there is but one God, and not many; and they *know* that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one God; *they know* and *believe* him to be the most high God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and *they know* and *believe* that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the Messiah, Act_16:17...wherefore it follows, that a *bare historical faith* will not profit, and cannot save any; a man may have* all faith of this kind*, and be damned; and therefore it is not to be boasted of, nor trusted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you for posting a Scriptural argument. This gives us something more substantial to work with. 

Let me ask you this - if a demon had more than a "bare historical faith", would he be saved? Are there any elect demons? Even if we grant that the demons believe in the whole of the gospel, isn't it also the case that this belief was heart-felt? The demons believed it to the point that they trembled. But can a demon believe the promises to those who believe applies to him? 

But the verse in question does not speak of the whole Gospel. It speaks of the belief "there is one God". Certainly demons believe this with all their hearts. They literally trust this is true - and it makes them tremble. This does not support the idea it is possible to believe the gospel, and yet not trust it. They trusted it completely. Why else to they tremble. Hardly a case of "mere intellectual belief".

A point I would make is the "mere intellectual belief" is not really possible. It is impossible to believe the Gospel, and not trust the Gospel. This is a contradiction. If you do not trust Jesus, you do not believe in him. That's one of Clark's main points. 

The danger of asserting that faith is a heart-felt response is it makes faith a product of man. You can work yourself into an emotional response. You see this with charismatics all the time. They work themselves up into speaking in tongues. I remember reading this book about an Arminian guy, I think it was "Run Baby Run". There are pages of this poor guy begging and begging God make him "born again". Days and weeks of this poor guy down on his knees begging and crying to God to fill him with the Spirit. He had not had the experience of being "born again" - so he thought he was not saved! This is an extreme case of "experiential" thinking. But it's the same danger. 

The problem is not so much the tri-part understanding of faith. It's when one misunderstands the tri-part view of faith so that they believe that more than belief in the Gospel is needed to be saved. It's the mistaken idea that someone can really believe the Gospel, really believe in Jesus, and not be saved, because they have not experienced a "heart-felt" trusting in the promises of Christ. 

Rather, I say that if one has not had a "heart-felt" response, if one has does not trust the promises of Jesus, then one has not believed the Gospel. But make no mistake here, it is faith alone that saves, not our response to faith. 

Many writings on faith categorize different types of faith. But read them carefully. Some are saying that belief that Jesus was a real historical person is insufficient. Some are saying merely knowing the propositions of the Scriptures is insufficient. And you can know everything the Bible says, and not believe a word of it. That's all fine. It's those who start saying that it takes more than belief in the Gospel to be saved that things start going Arminian. 

There is no biblical support for the idea that faith is more than belief. There is no biblical support that says belief is more than assent to the truth. There is support for the fact that the response of true faith is going to be just as the WCF says. It's the "whereby". 

If you believe, then you will trust. 

Therefore, if you do not trust, you did not believe.

This is the separation and unity. They are separate in meaning, united in implication. Cause and effect.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Robert Shaw's clear and accurate assessment of saving faith:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principal _*acts*_ of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ... .
Click to expand...

 Not the _is_, the _acts_. No one has denied the "whereby", contrary to your assertions otherwise.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Civbert,

I honestly know people who understand and believe Jesus is God and that he paid a debt that no one can pay. But they want nothing to do with him because they like their sin and are willing to live with the consequences. It is like the cigarette smoker who knows he will die of cancer or emphysema. He knows it is coming but he wants his sin and doesn't want to depart from it. It is a matter of what one loves. John chapter 1. But men loved darkness.

I honestly believe Satan knows his end and believes the Gospel is for the Elect. He hates that.


----------



## Civbert

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Civbert,
> 
> I honestly know people who understand and believe Jesus is God and that he paid a debt that no one can pay. But they want nothing to do with him because they like their sin and are willing to live with the consequences. It is like the cigarette smoker who knows he will die of cancer or emphysema. He knows it is coming but he wants his sin and doesn't want to depart from it. It is a matter of what one loves. John chapter 1. But men loved darkness.
> 
> I honestly believe Satan knows his end and believes the Gospel is for the Elect. He hates that.



I know atheists who think they don't believe in God. I would say your friend is deceiving himself. He may think he believes Jesus is God, but since this does not effect him, I question if this is true. 

Again, how can you be sure an cigarette smoker really believes he will die of cancer. Isn't it true that they think it won't happen to them? If they really believed, wouldn't they stop. But you can see how difficult this is. I can not say who believes what, with the exception that all men believe in God. 

Scripture tells us if someone has true faith, it should be evident. And it says no one believes unless he is called to faith. No one. If you are not called, if you are not regenerated by the power of the Spirit, you can will not believe. But many will be fooled, and in the end they will come to Christ saying "didn't we prophesy in your name?" These are the ones who fooled themselves. But Jesus did not know them. They were never called.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Mat 13:20) But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;


John Gill....

Mat 13:20 - But he that receiveth the seed into stony places,.... Such a hearer, who is like to the stony ground on which the seed fell, is one that is not an accidental hearer of the word, as the former, but a settled constant hearer of it; and not one that is careless and negligent, but diligent and attentive, and has some understanding of what he hears; 

the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it: he is one that not only constantly attends upon it, but he receives it; *he gives an assent to it, he believes in it historically, makes a profession of his faith in it, and holds it for a while, being under some convictions of the truth of it: *and having some speculative notions of it, and light in his understanding and judgment in it,* he has some flashes of natural affection for it, and delivers some outward expressions of pleasure and delight in it,* like Herod, and the hearers of John the Baptist; *but has no heart work,* and so is like to the rock in stony ground; the natural hardness of his heart continues, it remains unbroken by the word, without any true sense of sin, and repentance for it, and destitute of spiritual life, and of true faith, love, and joy: hence, as his profession is taken up in haste, immediately, upon a flash of affection, and a little head knowledge, it does not last long, nor prove honourable.


----------



## JOwen

Civbert said:


> Thank you for posting a Scriptural argument. This gives us something more substantial to work with.


My pleasure. 



Civbert said:


> Let me ask you this - if a demon had more than a "bare historical faith", would he be saved? Are there any elect demons? Even if we grant that the demons believe in the whole of the gospel, isn't it also the case that this belief was heart-felt? The demons believed it to the point that they trembled. But can a demon believe the promises to those who believe applies to him?



The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine, as Gill has pointed out. "Heart felt" is not the same as saving faith, and this is the point; men, like Felix might tremble before the truth of the Word, and still not have the saving element. Felix's faith and demons faith is a truncated faith that produces a response, but not all responses are of the same genus. The fact that James points out that the demons trembled does not mean that their response was "heart felt" (whatever that might be for a demon) as it is in the case of the elect. James is demonstrating a nuance in faith as it pertains to sentient beings in the light of knowledge. 



> But the verse in question does not speak of the whole Gospel. It speaks of the belief "there is one God". Certainly demons believe this with all their hearts. They literally trust this is true - and it makes them tremble. This does not support the idea it is possible to believe the gospel, and yet not trust it. They trusted it completely. Why else to they tremble. Hardly a case of "mere intellectual belief".


No, not "trust" as per the historic definition of faith else they would be converted (impossible). It is proving that an emotional reaction to assent to knowledge is not enough, but there must be more for it to evidence itself as saving. This is the context of James 2.



> A point I would make is the "mere intellectual belief" is not really possible. It is impossible to believe the Gospel, and not trust the Gospel. This is a contradiction. If you do not trust Jesus, you do not believe in him. That's one of Clark's main points.



First brother, you are asserting where you should be arguing. I have given 2 texts and a third biblical example to the contrary. It *is possible* to have this kind of faith. Felix had it, Judas had it, demons have it as per the texts already mentioned. To disagree here is contrary to sound exegesis and the unity of the historic understanding of faith. Clark's objection that three Latin words should not explain one Greek word is negating the textual rendering of the passage in its context. Thus, the fathers (Early Church, Reformed, and Puritan) were correct in saving faith's definition. 
Secondly, you are presupposing Clark's understanding which is the point of debate and entirely outside the historical understanding. 



> The danger of asserting that faith is a heart-felt response is it makes faith a product of man. You can work yourself into an emotional response. You see this with charismatics all the time. They work themselves up into speaking in tongues. I remember reading this book about an Arminian guy, I think it was "Run Baby Run". There are pages of this poor guy begging and begging God make him "born again". Days and weeks of this poor guy down on his knees begging and crying to God to fill him with the Spirit. He had not had the experience of being "born again" - so he thought he was not saved! This is an extreme case of "experiential" thinking. But it's the same danger.



If this is your major problem with the threefold nature of saving faith, let me assure you that saving faith is a gift of God and has nothing to do with the volition of fallen man (Eph. 2:8). It is a result of regeneration, the changing of the nature making us willing who are by nature unwilling. It is in this context *only* that it is exercised. No Reformed Father would state otherwise. 



> The problem is not so much the tri-part understanding of faith. It's when one misunderstands the tri-part view of faith so that they believe that more than belief in the Gospel is needed to be saved. It's the mistaken idea that someone can really believe the Gospel, really believe in Jesus, and not be saved, because they have not experienced a "heart-felt" trusting in the promises of Christ.



I think we are getting closer to each other here. Not "more than the gospel" needs to be exercised, I will grant that, however "all of faith" need to be exercised by personal ratification (this is the trust aspect that missing from the examples mentioned above). 



> Rather, I say that if one has not had a "heart-felt" response, if one has does not trust the promises of Jesus, then one has not believed the Gospel. But make no mistake here, it is faith alone that saves, not our response to faith.



But the response (which is a gift) is *part* of saving faith. This is the point. Faith alone saves, amen, but this faith is comprised of knowledge, assent, _and trust_ which is missing from the examples provided. Again, the point of contention with Clark and Robbins. You seem to think that the mechanism of the last element of Saving Faith is, in our minds, human volition, when the mechanism is as much a factor of the Holy Spirit's work as knowledge and assent are. There is no difference in the mechanism. Understand this, and you understand our view. 



> There is no biblical support for the idea that faith is more than belief. There is no biblical support that says belief is more than assent to the truth. There is support for the fact that the response of true faith is going to be just as the WCF says. It's the "whereby".



This does not follow. Both belief (believe) and faith are the same Greek root in the Bible (pisteuō, pistis). Your statement here brother is saying, "There is no biblical support for the idea that faith is more than faith" if we use biblical definitions. It is asserting the point by the point itself. I have given several examples of propositional faith from the scriptures supported by the historic teachings of the Reformed Faith. What more can be done? As far as the WCF goes, the point in question is entirely supported by its language as has already been demonstrated. I would urge you to read Rutherford's The Covenant of Life Opened and Dickson's THERAPEUTICA SACRA for a proper understanding of what the Westminster divines believed about Saving Faith. If Robbins would have done his homework, he would never wrest the WCF from its organic context. Read the Divines and they explain perfectly the triple view of Saving Faith. Plain and simple. Disagree if you must, but it IS what the Divines taught.

I give you Westminster Divine David Dickson as one example of what the Divines taught. This from his commentary on the WCF.



> Quest. IV. "Are the principal acts of saving faith, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace?
> 
> Yes; John 1.12. Acts 14.31. Gal. 2.20. Acts 15.11
> 
> Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain, Faith to be nothing but a naked assent to the truth revealed in the word; it being placed by them in the understanding only?
> 
> Yes.



Further,



> "3d, Because we are justified before God by faith, Rom. 5.1. But we are not justified by *a bare and naked assent to the truth*, otherwise* the devils should be justified*, James 2.19. Neither are we justified by the Socinians faith, which is every where condemned in Scripture, Rom. 3.20,28. Gal. 2.16. Eph. 2.8,9. Phil. 3.9. Titus 3.4,5."



Notice his first proof text. James 2:19. 


Every blessing,


----------



## Amazing Grace

Civbert said:


> There is no biblical support for the idea that faith is more than belief. There is no biblical support that says belief is more than assent to the truth. There is support for the fact that the response of true faith is going to be just as the WCF says. It's the "whereby".



So would you classify your understanding as the same as Glas, Sandeman and McLean? And does the Clarkian view differ in any way to this heresey?

The problem with the belief of bare mental assent to bare facts, besides the fact it is not biblical, is this leads to the carnal christian theory of this day.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> originally posted by *Civbert*
> We are saved by "believing" facts - the very words of Christ and Scripture, that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, that he died for sin, that He is God.



No, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the (external to us) person and work of Jesus Christ alone, and all to the Glory of God, alone.

(Eph. 2 is the relevant passage.)

Furthermore, 'salvation' is spoken of in different respects. Sometimes just 'rejeneration,' other times just 'justification,' etc. For example, we are not *regenerated* by 'believing facts,' that's Arminianism.

Now, we are indeed *justified* through the instrument of faith in someone (Jesus) outside us.

And, what of hypocrites? Some truly regenerate Christians can fall into such a state of sin, for a time, that they do not 'believe facts' (the ones you mentioned).

I think your definition creates more problems for you than you think are resolved by holding to the minimalist understanding.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

This will be the last post along this vein. I'm going to make myself plainer. I thought I did so in the previous post. I do not know if you are being obtuse but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever other approach to the language of Confessions you believe you are _personally_ entitled to is immaterial to what you will be permitted to have here. I didn't request that you provide primary source data to support your claim to the language of the WCF. This was not an option if you wish to argue it. This is demanded of honesty in any line of work. This is demanded by historians.

The several analogies I utilized regarding the FV and "living documents" produced the visceral response in you that I hoped for though I am amazed that you do not see in yourself the very thing that you cannot abide in others: an unwillingness to see how the men who wrote a document used their language when they wrote it.

When they want to learn what the Constitution's use of a phrase is, scholars go back and read the minutes of the Constitutional Congress to determine the "back-story" of why that language is there. We call this in exegesis of the Scriptures the grammatico-historical approach.

Now it may fly for the uneducated to simply assert that "...I'm just going by the definitions of the words..." but the educated know very well that the definition of a word depends upon who wrote the dictionary.

Thus, you may _not_ simply assume that your definition is normative here. That is irresponsible and illogical. There will be no debate on this. Period. If you don't like it, you're free to leave but these are the standards here: the Puritans will be allowed to speak for themselves and not simply have a 21st Century man put words into their mouth and then be offended when somebody demands that he prove his point by going to a primary source.

Second, in your concern regarding ad hominems you seem to have missed the point. Not all ad hominems are fallacious. A good example of an ad hominem that is fallacious would be your FV comment to my original post.

Of course I'm arguing to the man because I'm arguing about the approach that Anthony Colleti has demonstrated here. Of course, your hubris that you simply use Scripture and reason while the rest of the Reformed men here are stumbling around in the dark using divining rods and/or tradition reveals much. Nevertheless, it is instrumental to the point that you believe that the _only_ alternative to your epistemology is irrationality and that you believe any Puritans had a Clarkian approach before Clark was born.

I've been reading Horton's critique of the NPP right now. It's brilliant. One of the things that struck me as I read your reply is how it paralleled my reading of Horton's critique of Sanders, Wright, and Dunn. It's not as if they don't see Galatians 3, which ought to devastate their "Covenant markers" approach to the Covenant but they have each figured out a way to integrate that into their Covenantal Nomism.

I'm convinced that no matter what arguments are given that everything has to be integrated into a "Colleti grid". I can't quite tell you not to do so but the rest of us without the grid are able to tell what I'm referring to.

The last quote where I posted the Puritan approach to Preaching was posted for a reason. You see, the Puritans _were_ very logical and precise (called Precisians by their opponents and took pride in the term). Yet, the precision was not merely, _for them_, to create a list of propositional truths that they could agree upon. Pure doctrine was incredibly important to them but they were precise _especially_ because of their concern that they persuade the reason and affections of men with them. The important thing was to move from the ground of doctrine to the _affections_ of a man. What you desire to downplay and take apart and fold into the proposition they placed as a distinct and most important facet.

It's almost like, _a priori_, you've refused to listen to the Puritan way of thinking before you've even read them. I fear that if you read them that you would find all their logic very compelling and get lost in the profound beauty of it but then would complete miss them when they tried to move beyond the logic to the affections of men.

Your approach is the comparison between a cube and a square. If I look at the cube (Puritans) and the square (Scripturalism) from a certain angle then they look exactly the same. It is only after I start getting beneath the surface of the syllogism do I find that there is no longer anywhere to go with the square and I find that it is not like the cube at all. But the 2D man has no place in his universe for the concept of the 3D cube.

Now, you might conclude that this third dimension of fiducia is a fantasy since your 2D world can describe it and make the square look like the cube. The rest of us are living in a 3D world though and it's not that we lack syllogisms or that the Puritans lacked them either but that we believe, with the Scriptures, that truth and its aim are more than a collection of logical propositions. Truth aims at Wisdom which is both propositional _and_ relational.

Bottom line: If you wish to criticize a mis-reading of the Confessions on this board then you may do so utilizing bare assertions based on a 2D methodology anywhere else. I'm not your father and I never intended to be your Judge. I'm describing things as I saw them with less venom than you managed to levy at me for making what I believed to be an accurate observation regarding your modus operandi. But, no more will I allow you to misrepresent the Puritans unless you give us all the benefit of demonstrating that you have actually read them.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to something very important because you made a fallacious characterization of what the issue is. I did _not_ require that you _agree_ with the Puritans against your understanding of the Scriptures. I did not require that you _agree_ with the Confessions. I am simply requiring that you do not state that you agree with the Confessions when, in fact, you do not. You simply are not taking the time to determine whether your surface-level reading of the words of the Confession comports to what they actually teach. I would actually prefer you research the situation and be convinced that you disagree with them on the basis of what they say. It is more grievous to me that you actually disagree with them but continually insist the Puritans believed something they did not and wrote the Confessions that way.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed theology has always recognised that we are not saved by knowing facts (notitia), or by assenting to propositions (assensus), but by trusting in Jesus Christ -- whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM shall not perish -- (notitia, assensus, et fiducia).
> 
> 
> 
> So says tradition. But what does Scripture say. We are saved by "believing" facts - the very words of Christ and Scripture, that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, that he died for sin, that He is God.
Click to expand...


BELIEVETH IN HIM is holy Scripture, not tradition. The Scripture does not say, Whosoever believeth certain facts concerning Him, but, Believeth IN HIM. We are to believe in the Person, WHOM, and not merely the Proposition, WHAT. "I know WHOM I have believed," says the apostle. Sir, Do you believe in Jesus Christ? If you do not believe IN HIM, you shall surely perish in your sins, notwithstanding how much you know about Him.


----------



## Jim Johnston

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed theology has always recognised that we are not saved by knowing facts (notitia), or by assenting to propositions (assensus), but by trusting in Jesus Christ -- whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM shall not perish -- (notitia, assensus, et fiducia).
> 
> 
> 
> So says tradition. But what does Scripture say. We are saved by "believing" facts - the very words of Christ and Scripture, that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, that he died for sin, that He is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BELIEVETH IN HIM is holy Scripture, not tradition. The Scripture does not say, Whosoever believeth certain facts concerning Him, but, Believeth IN HIM. We are to believe in the Person, WHOM, and not merely the Proposition, WHAT. "I know WHOM I have believed," says the apostle. Sir, Do you believe in Jesus Christ? If you do not believe IN HIM, you shall surely perish in your sins, notwithstanding how much you know about Him.
Click to expand...



Hold on to your horses, get ready for some wildness, the above, according to Clarkians, simply draws false dichotomies. So, Matthew, by saying that we are to believe HIM and not (merely) PROPOSITIONS is a false dichtomy.



> "This common viewpoint is not in accord with Scripture, for it makes a fatal dichotomy between persons and propositions, and regards faith as trust in or commitment to a person, rather than belief of a proposition." *--John Robbins*





> "Clark astonished his readers by insisting that persons are indeed propositions." *--John Robbins*



Yes, they say this with a straight face.

So the problem with you, Matthew (of course I'm being sarcastic here) is that when you say we are to trust in a PERSON and *not* a PROPOSITION, you've simply uttered a non-starter since you've not, technically, disagreed with the Clarkian since persons ARE propositions!

[Insert "your a naughty empiricist and scientist if you disagree with us" emoticon]

(We should also not fail to point out that this Clarkian assumption cannot be 'deduced' from the Bible and som we wonder how they know it.)


----------



## MW

Tom Bombadil said:


> So the problem with you, Matthew (of course I'm being sarcastic here) is that when you say we are to trust in a PERSON and *not* a PROPOSITION, you've simply uttered a non-starter since you've not, technically, disagreed with the Clarkian since persons ARE propositions!



One must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man in order to have eternal life, John 6:53. Merely knowing the qualities of His flesh and blood is not sufficient. This issue cannot be regarded as one of mere speculative interest. It is a matter of serious consequence. This is no time to be addressing men as disputants in philosophy. As noted earlier, this subject does not allow room for discussion. Ministers of the gospel are called to press the plain teaching of the gospel upon men's consideration; and the plain teaching of the Word of God is that we must believe IN HIM or we shall die in our sins.


----------



## JOwen

This is precisely the thing that finally drew this former Clarkian to Dabney. Saved by the bell (of the South).


----------



## Davidius

How should certain phrases found throughout the Bible which differently express the idea of "believing" be understood (i.e. those which seem to imply the same meaning as "believing in Christ" yet do not use the preposition or list objects of belief other than "Christ the person" as that is being understood by most in this thread)? For example:

"And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness." Here Abraham is not said to believe "in" something in the way the term is being used here. He is believing the LORD, in other words, he believed in what the Lord said. He believed that God's promise was true. 

Mark 1:15 says: "'The time has come,' he said. 'The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!'"

The good news is not a "person in whom" one believes. It is a set of propositions describing reality.

Luke 1:45 says: "Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"

John 2:22 says: "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

Several verses talk about believing "in his name."

John 5:47 says: "But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

A verse similar to the one which Rev. Winzer has quoted, concerning dying in one's sins, says: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." Here Christ says that one will die in his sins for not believing propositions about Christ.

John 12:38, quoting from Isaiah equates believing the message with believing in a person: "This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: 'Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?'"

In John 14:10, Jesus questions the faith of His disciples by asking them whether they believe certain propositions: "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."

In the high priestly prayer (here John 17:8), Jesus talks about his people being characterized as having accepted His words and having believed certain things about Christ: "For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me."

In these verses there doesn't seem to be a difference between believing "in Christ" and believing the message, words, propositions, etc.


----------



## MW

Davidius said:


> In these verses there doesn't seem to be a difference between believing "in Christ" and believing the message, words, propositions, etc.



Well noted. It is for this reason that we do not accept the mystic idea that faith is void of propositional content. Faith is "notitia" and "assensus." But it is not bare "notitia" and "assensus." One must at least know and acknowledge WHAT Jesus Christ and salvation is; but one must also have trust (fiducia) in Jesus Christ for salvation. If we take the eating and drinking language of John 6:53, we see that faith is more than acknowledging the food of the soul, it is digesting and assimilating it also. Food does no good unless its nutritional qualities are broken down by the body and become part of the person's physical existence. Likewise Jesus Christ profits no person by mere knowledge of Him, but there must be a feeding upon Him and His benefits in order to receive eternal life. This feeding is an act of the whole soul, not merely the mind, but the will and affections also. It is a question in reformed theology whether the intellect or the will has primacy; but it is unquestioned that will and intellect are both involved in the act of faith. Hence the reformed faith allows no room for a bare intellectual faith.


----------



## Beoga

What does it mean to "trust in Jesus Christ for salvation?" I mean, I have used the phrase over and over, and I have heard it repeated over and over, but if I was asked to explain it, I don't know if I could? Does trusting Jesus mean that you rely on His sacrifice as sufficient? That you rely on His righteousness rather than your own? That you rely on Him to make intercession for you?


----------



## Arch2k

If you trust someone, you believe what they say is the truth, no?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Again, will anyone let me know if the clarkian/robbins thought is the same as Glas /Sandeman/McLean thoguht?


----------



## Davidius

Jeff_Bartel said:


> If you trust someone, you believe what they say is the truth, no?



That's what I would suppose it means. 



Amazing Grace said:


> Again, will anyone let me know if the clarkian/robbins thought is the same as Glas /Sandeman/McLean thoguht?



Who are those guys?

***EDIT***

Nevermind. All I found out about them was that Glas and Sandeman repudiated the idea of a national church (seems fine) and that Sandeman rejected imputed righteousness (something which, from my little knowledge of Clark, I know that he did not do). The article on Sandeman mentioned some kind of "intellectualist" doctrine shared between him and Glas, but the description it gives is very vague.



> In particular Sandeman disagreed with Hervey's idea of imputed righteousness but also put forward the intellectualist perception of religion he shared with Glas and his view that faith was the beginning of a correspondence, leading to full assurance of hope.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Originally Posted by *Jeff_Bartel *
> If you trust someone, you believe what they say is the truth, no?




Not _necessarily_. Do you trust your parents? What if they told you Santa Clause was real, and that he has a summer house in Miami, Florida?

Anyway, you can't fallaciously argue from affirming the consequent, so you'd have: "Christian trusts someone for their salvation." This is a rejection of the Clarkian position taken in this thread. 

Lastly, my brother is intelligent, and one of the nicest people any of you would meet (unlike me!). He believes that the Bible is God's word. He believes that he is a sinner. He believes that Jesus is God incarnate. He believes that God is a trinity. He believes that God's law represents the best way for him to live. He still rejects Christianity. He refuses to bow the knee. He loves his sin too much. And, he even admits that he's being irrational about it all!

He thus believes the truth, yet isn't saved.

I take it that's case closed...


----------



## Arch2k

Tom Bombadil said:


> Originally Posted by *Jeff_Bartel *
> If you trust someone, you believe what they say is the truth, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_. Do you trust your parents? What if they told you Santa Clause was real, and that he has a summer house in Miami, Florida?
Click to expand...

 
Well, as I see it, then you would trust your parents in some circumstances, but not in others. Trusting someone _wholly_ would be believing EVERYTHING they say. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, you can't fallaciously argue from affirming the consequent, so you'd have: "Christian trusts someone for their salvation." This is a rejection of the Clarkian position taken in this thread.
> 
> Lastly, my brother is intelligent, and one of the nicest people any of you would meet (unlike me!). He believes that the Bible is God's word. He believes that he is a sinner. He believes that Jesus is God incarnate. He believes that God is a trinity. He believes that God's law represents the best way for him to live. He still rejects Christianity. He refuses to bow the knee. He loves his sin too much. And, he even admits that he's being irrational about it all!
> 
> He thus believes the truth, yet isn't saved.
> 
> I take it that's case closed...


 
I agree that if one does not accept Christ as both Prophet Priest AND King, then he is not saved. However, my point is that I doubt that your brother truly believes what he says he does. 

The point I was trying to get at in the post above is that in my understanding, trust is not so different from assent. They are in my mind two ways of looking at the same thing. Belief, trust, assent, reliance, faith...all different ways of saying the same thing. I have no problem with including trust as a part of saving faith, but I don't believe that Clark does either. I think that he was essentially saying the above.


----------



## Davidius

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jeff_Bartel *
> If you trust someone, you believe what they say is the truth, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not _necessarily_. Do you trust your parents? What if they told you Santa Clause was real, and that he has a summer house in Miami, Florida?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as I see it, then you would trust your parents in some circumstances, but not in others. Trusting someone _wholly_ would be believing EVERYTHING they say.
Click to expand...





Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, you can't fallaciously argue from affirming the consequent, so you'd have: "Christian trusts someone for their salvation." This is a rejection of the Clarkian position taken in this thread.
> 
> Lastly, my brother is intelligent, and one of the nicest people any of you would meet (unlike me!). He believes that the Bible is God's word. He believes that he is a sinner. He believes that Jesus is God incarnate. He believes that God is a trinity. He believes that God's law represents the best way for him to live. He still rejects Christianity. He refuses to bow the knee. He loves his sin too much. And, he even admits that he's being irrational about it all!
> 
> He thus believes the truth, yet isn't saved.
> 
> I take it that's case closed...





> I agree that if one does not accept Christ as both Prophet Priest AND King, then he is not saved. However, my point is that I doubt that your brother truly believes what he says he does.
> 
> The point I was trying to get at in the post above is that in my understanding, trust is not so different from assent. They are in my mind two ways of looking at the same thing. Belief, trust, assent, reliance, faith...all different ways of saying the same thing. I have no problem with including trust as a part of saving faith, but I don't believe that Clark does either. I think that he was essentially saying the above.



It is for this reason that I brought up the passage from Paul's epistle to the Corinthians in which he states that the Word of the cross is foolishness to unbelievers. Does this mean that unbelievers can't assent to God's truth or that they can assent to it yet still not "believe"? I don't see how a person who thinks that God's Word is foolish can assent to it.


----------



## VictorBravo

Amazing Grace said:


> Again, will anyone let me know if the clarkian/robbins thought is the same as Glas /Sandeman/McLean thoguht?



No, they are not the same thing at all:

Sandeman: "That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God." 

Clark: "salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeff,

I think the main problem, as I see it, is that variations of Clark's thought end up being presented as if what is in view in Gospel preaching is getting the hearers to become convinced of the facts of the matter as in a logical set of propositions. I would not be surprised to see someone using logical notation to express what faith looks like according to some of the conceptions about it.

I really think it would be beneficial for folks to download Packer's _History and Theology of the Puritans_ at RTS on iTunes U to get an idea about how the Puritans viewed especially the Preaching enterprise (just listen to the last two if you don't have time to listen to them all). The contrast in thinking and speaking becomes readily apparent. The Puritans can hardly be accused of depreciating logical formulation or precision but their idea that preachers were "Physicians of the Soul" and ought to even know how to appeal to the broad category of weak and strong, immature and seasoned, members of the congregation is incredibly rich.

Rev. Winzer's observation was spot on regarding definitions of words. The Puritans would have no patience for the man who failed to be precise in his words but also would have no patience with any that believed that the enterprise ended simply with a flawless presentation of the facts. A man who was unable to understand his flock and could not "rip up" the consciences of his hearers with the application of the Word was not considered a good preacher.


----------



## DMcFadden

SemperFideles said:


> I really think it would be beneficial for folks to download Packer's _History and Theology of the Puritans_ at RTS on iTunes U to get an idea about how the Puritans viewed especially the Preaching enterprise (just listen to the last two if you don't have time to listen to them all). The contrast in thinking and speaking becomes readily apparent. The Puritans can hardly be accused of depreciating logical formulation or precision but their idea that preachers were "Physicians of the Soul" and ought to even know how to appeal to the broad category of weak and strong, immature and seasoned, members of the congregation is incredibly rich.



I second Rich's commendation for Packer. It was a great overview of the Puritans. He taught the course nearly two decades ago, but it is spot on in terms of whetting one's appetite for these spiritual doctors.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Well, as I see it, then you would trust your parents in some circumstances, but not in others. Trusting someone _wholly_ would be believing EVERYTHING they say.



But you didn't put THOSE QUALIFIERS in your ORIGINAL statement. I can only go on what you tell me.



> I agree that if one does not accept Christ as both Prophet Priest AND King, then he is not saved. However, my point is that I doubt that your brother truly believes what he says he does.



Then nothing can falsify your theory. It's simply an a priori assumption (that you haven't exegeted from the Bible, btw). It should be relegated to those other unfalsifiable psychological theories. 

You know, like psychological egoists. They say that every one always does everything from selfish reasons. So, the story told is one with Abraham Lincoln:

Lincoln and a man were traveling by train discussing the ethics of egoism. Lincoln was arguing for it. Arguing that the reason we do any action is for egoistical reasons, that it we are always motivated by rational self-interest. Just then, they see some baby pigs stuck in the mud. Lincoln stops the train, runs down into the mud, and saves the pigs. When he got back on the man asked him how he could support his egoism in light of what he just did. Lincoln responded, "If I hadn't helped those pigs I would not have slept a wink all night!."

The gist of the critiques of psychological egoism in the ethical literature, is that no matter how altruistic the action, the egoist always says, 'But they really did it for themselves."

Frankly, I have your bare assertions, minus any exegesis, feuled by devotion to Clark, and my first hand, involved experience with the situation. I know my brother better than you do, sorry. And, yes, he really does believe those things. 

We might not want to admit it because he shows how powerful the grip of sin on a man is and how much salvation is truly by grace alone, through faith alone. Not, as Anthony said above: "Salvation is by believing the right sorts of facts."



> The point I was trying to get at in the post above is that in my understanding, trust is not so different from assent. They are in my mind two ways of looking at the same thing. Belief, trust, assent, reliance, faith...all different ways of saying the same thing. I have no problem with including trust as a part of saving faith, but I don't believe that Clark does either. I think that he was essentially saying the above.



Trust is different that assent.

Not only do people like my brother disprove it, but everyone has admitted that demons assent to the proposition "God is one." So, do they 'trust' God?

And, it is also different because we can apply open ended arguments to it:

1) I trust Frank.

2) I believe what Frank says.

If those where essentially the same, then why would it make sense to say:

3) You trust Frank, but do you believe him?

and not make sense to say,

4) You trust Frank, but do you trust Frank?

(4) is silly, but that is the effect of teating the two words as the same.


----------



## Amazing Grace

victorbravo said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, will anyone let me know if the clarkian/robbins thought is the same as Glas /Sandeman/McLean thoguht?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not the same thing at all:
> 
> Sandeman: "That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God."
> 
> Clark: "salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it."
Click to expand...




Vic: May I ask what is wrong with both of these statements then? I am not trying to argue here, but Sandemans quote is very biblical in my estimation. And Clark's staement could have been said by many who we believe are orthodox. 

Now I am more confused.


----------



## greenbaggins

My father (J.C. Keister) was Gordon Clark's best friend in life. As a result, I have a unique window of understanding the mind of Gordon Clark. I can verify that Clark would be appalled at any suggestion that the heart was uninvolved in trusting God, and in having saving faith. Yes, Clark believed firmly in propositional truth, and he also did say that saving faith did not include fiducia. However, even here, the picture is not so simple. See Faith and Saving Faith, pg. 99, where trust is not excluded from faith. Really, Clark wants to say that faith is belief. If you want a summary of what he believed about faith, that is it. And, of course, Clark did not believe a bare rationalism. In other words, faith included more than believing that Jesus is God. It also meant that one had to believe this proposition: Jesus died for my sin. That is not something a demon could say. Clark would certainly agree that the heart is not uninvolved, even if the heart's emotions are the result of belief, and not so much a part of it.


----------



## Arch2k

SemperFideles said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I think the main problem, as I see it, is that variations of Clark's thought end up being presented as if what is in view in Gospel preaching is getting the hearers to become convinced of the facts of the matter as in a logical set of propositions. I would not be surprised to see someone using logical notation to express what faith looks like according to some of the conceptions about it.
> 
> I really think it would be beneficial for folks to download Packer's _History and Theology of the Puritans_ at RTS on iTunes U to get an idea about how the Puritans viewed especially the Preaching enterprise (just listen to the last two if you don't have time to listen to them all). The contrast in thinking and speaking becomes readily apparent. The Puritans can hardly be accused of depreciating logical formulation or precision but their idea that preachers were "Physicians of the Soul" and ought to even know how to appeal to the broad category of weak and strong, immature and seasoned, members of the congregation is incredibly rich.
> 
> Rev. Winzer's observation was spot on regarding definitions of words. The Puritans would have no patience for the man who failed to be precise in his words but also would have no patience with any that believed that the enterprise ended simply with a flawless presentation of the facts. A man who was unable to understand his flock and could not "rip up" the consciences of his hearers with the application of the Word was not considered a good preacher.


 
Rich,

Thanks for the recommendation on Packer's _History and Theology of the Puritans._ I'll have to check it out.

I have a deep respect for the puritans, and for Clark as well. I guess I don't see a conflict of necessity between the two, but I am not an expert on either.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Tom Bombadil said:


> Not only do people like my brother disprove it, but everyone has admitted that demons assent to the proposition "God is one." So, do they 'trust' God?



Paul: I have always seen this ONE scripture in James be used to cement this exact thought. Is there more becasue the one thing about James is the majority of people who do use his letter to prove a point, end up in a works salvation. 

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is One. You do well; even the demons believe and shudder. 

I hope there is more than this one scripture that has been exploited and perverted to add Faith + something else many and many times. Looking at it, it only says the demons believe God is one. Now any regenerated person does not put monotheism in the top 10 fruits of regeneration., in fact, if I asked myself what does regeneration mean, I do not even know if I would mention believing God is one.


----------



## VictorBravo

Amazing Grace said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, will anyone let me know if the clarkian/robbins thought is the same as Glas /Sandeman/McLean thoguht?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not the same thing at all:
> 
> Sandeman: "That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God."
> 
> Clark: "salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vic: May I ask what is wrong with both of these statements then? I am not trying to argue here, but Sandemans quote is very biblical in my estimation. And Clark's staement could have been said by many who we believe are orthodox.
> 
> Now I am more confused.
Click to expand...


I was committed to staying out of this thread, but I blew it.  

The short answer, I think, is that Sandeman's view is contrary to scripture because it does not even require "belief." He thought that even belief was an act of will that man was not required to do. But we see clearly from Scripture that belief is necessary--even though we depraved men cannot do it left to ourselves, it is still something that must be done.


----------



## Arch2k

Tom Bombadil said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I see it, then you would trust your parents in some circumstances, but not in others. Trusting someone _wholly_ would be believing EVERYTHING they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you didn't put THOSE QUALIFIERS in your ORIGINAL statement. I can only go on what you tell me.
Click to expand...

 
Very true!



Tom Bombadil said:


> I agree that if one does not accept Christ as both Prophet Priest AND King, then he is not saved. However, my point is that I doubt that your brother truly believes what he says he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then nothing can falsify your theory. It's simply an a priori assumption (that you haven't exegeted from the Bible, btw). It should be relegated to those other unfalsifiable psychological theories.
> 
> You know, like psychological egoists. They say that every one always does everything from selfish reasons. So, the story told is one with Abraham Lincoln:
> 
> Lincoln and a man were traveling by train discussing the ethics of egoism. Lincoln was arguing for it. Arguing that the reason we do any action is for egoistical reasons, that it we are always motivated by rational self-interest. Just then, they see some baby pigs stuck in the mud. Lincoln stops the train, runs down into the mud, and saves the pigs. When he got back on the man asked him how he could support his egoism in light of what he just did. Lincoln responded, "If I hadn't helped those pigs I would not have slept a wink all night!."
> 
> The gist of the critiques of psychological egoism in the ethical literature, is that no matter how altruistic the action, the egoist always says, 'But they really did it for themselves."
> 
> Frankly, I have your bare assertions, minus any exegesis, feuled by devotion to Clark, and my first hand, involved experience with the situation. I know my brother better than you do, sorry. And, yes, he really does believe those things.
Click to expand...

 
Well, I don't know your brother, and all I have to go off of is what YOU say! 

However, I hope that you mean that "as far as you know" your brother REALLY believes those things. You surely don't mean to say that you too can know the heart! 

The reason I say that I doubt your brother's belief (based on your information) is that if he did believe that he was a miserable sinner, and that Christ was who he said he was, he would follow him out of gratitude by necessity. One cannot believe that Christ is Lord (as he says he is) AND that you are Lord. By your statement, your brother believes both. If you don't accept this principle, then we obviously disagree.

It's your assumption that I have any devotion to Clark. Are you saying that you now know my heart? Do I not know myself better than you? I have given you my reasoning above, and I don't ever recall that principle being a distinctive of Clark.



Tom Bombadil said:


> The point I was trying to get at in the post above is that in my understanding, trust is not so different from assent. They are in my mind two ways of looking at the same thing. Belief, trust, assent, reliance, faith...all different ways of saying the same thing. I have no problem with including trust as a part of saving faith, but I don't believe that Clark does either. I think that he was essentially saying the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust is different that assent.
> 
> Not only do people like my brother disprove it, but everyone has admitted that demons assent to the proposition "God is one." So, do they 'trust' God?
> 
> And, it is also different because we can apply open ended arguments to it:
> 
> 1) I trust Frank.
> 
> 2) I believe what Frank says.
> 
> If those where essentially the same, then why would it make sense to say:
> 
> 3) You trust Frank, but do you believe him?
> 
> and not make sense to say,
> 
> 4) You trust Frank, but do you trust Frank?
> 
> (4) is silly, but that is the effect of teating the two words as the same.
Click to expand...

 
I don't know HOW the demons know that God is one. Do they believe it because they "see" it somehow? or because God told them so? or because Satan told them so? Either way, I do not deny that one can have a sort of historical faith and yet not have saving faith.

Actually, (4) does not sound so silly if one implies the terms:

"You trust Frand (generally), but do you trust Frank (in this specific situation)?"


----------



## Amazing Grace

victorbravo said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not the same thing at all:
> 
> Sandeman: "That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God."
> 
> Clark: "salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vic: May I ask what is wrong with both of these statements then? I am not trying to argue here, but Sandemans quote is very biblical in my estimation. And Clark's staement could have been said by many who we believe are orthodox.
> 
> Now I am more confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was committed to staying out of this thread, but I blew it.
> 
> The short answer, I think, is that Sandeman's view is contrary to scripture because it does not even require "belief." He thought that even belief was an act of will that man was not required to do. But we see clearly from Scripture that belief is necessary--even though we depraved men cannot do it left to ourselves, it is still something that must be done.
Click to expand...


Oh OK Vic, SOrry I missed that. I assumed there was to be "A belief of" prior to the statement. 

Reading: *The belief that* the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God."


----------



## Amazing Grace

What about these 2 scriptures:

28When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" "Yes, Lord," they replied. 29Then he touched their eyes and said, *"According to your faith will it be done to you";*

And Proverbs 23:7

"As a man believeth (or thinketh) in his heart, so is he;"


----------



## Jim Johnston

Hi Jeff,



Jeff_Bartel said:


> Well, I don't know your brother, and all I have to go off of is what YOU say!



So do you trust me? 



> However, I hope that you mean that "as far as you know" your brother REALLY believes those things. You surely don't mean to say that you too can know the heart!



I would say that I do know. I'm not saying that I know *with certainty.* But, as it stands, given all we do know, my brothers situation serves as a defeater for your claims.



> The reason I say that I doubt your brother's belief (based on your information) is that if he did believe that he was a miserable sinner, and that Christ was who he said he was, he would follow him out of gratitude by necessity. One cannot believe that Christ is Lord (as he says he is) AND that you are Lord. By your statement, your brother believes both. If you don't accept this principle, then we obviously disagree.



This is odd. I feel like we're hearing Arminianism in this thread. The only way my brother would 'follow Christ out of gratitude' is if God does the monergistic work of regeneration. One can believe that Jesus is Lord, but refuse to submit to him. Likewise, a citizen in a kingdom can admit that the king is, say, king John the III, and refuse to obey him. A few history books of early England will supply plenty of stories. My brother admits Jesus is Lord, and admits that his living will end him up in hell. 



> It's your assumption that I have any devotion to Clark. Are you saying that you now know my heart? Do I not know myself better than you? I have given you my reasoning above, and I don't ever recall that principle being a distinctive of Clark.



An assumption absed on years of discussions in the apologetics threads where you defended Clark and his teachings. Maybe you're like my brother. You believe the things Clark teaches, but your not a Clarkian! 




> I don't know HOW the demons know that God is one. Do they believe it because they "see" it somehow? or because God told them so? or because Satan told them so? Either way, I do not deny that one can have a sort of historical faith and yet not have saving faith.
> 
> Actually, (4) does not sound so silly if one implies the terms:
> 
> "You trust Frand (generally), but do you trust Frank (in this specific situation)?"



i) How else would they know if it were not by God's revelation. And, weren't they around when Satan was. And, knowledge by testimony is transitive, so if God told Satan, and Satan told them, they ultimately get their warrant from God's revelation. And, I would ask if all I had to go on was a liars testimony. I think the demons don't trust satan as much as we don't. That's why we have the saying: 'There's no honor among theives.' And, how would they 'see it?' So, why don't they 'trust God?'

Also, I can say, "I trust the soldier will deliever the message" but I might not *assend* to that. I'm not a doxastic voluntarist. I take it that the above is sufficient to render a distinction.


----------



## Arch2k

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Jeff,


 
Hello!



Tom Bombadil said:


> So do you trust me?


 
Well for the sake of argument at least. But then again, maybe I'm a pretender as you hint at below! 



Tom Bombadil said:


> I would say that I do know. I'm not saying that I know *with certainty.* But, as it stands, given all we do know, my brothers situation serves as a defeater for your claims.


 
Well, I'd hope you would be a little more certain before you suggest that the example defeats my claims!



Tom Bombadil said:


> This is odd. I feel like we're hearing Arminianism in this thread. The only way my brother would 'follow Christ out of gratitude' is if God does the monergistic work of regeneration. One can believe that Jesus is Lord, but refuse to submit to him. Likewise, a citizen in a kingdom can admit that the king is, say, king John the III, and refuse to obey him. A few history books of early England will supply plenty of stories. My brother admits Jesus is Lord, and admits that his living will end him up in hell.


 
Arminianism? Where!  Run away!....



Tom Bombadil said:


> An assumption absed on years of discussions in the apologetics threads where you defended Clark and his teachings. Maybe you're like my brother. You believe the things Clark teaches, but your not a Clarkian!


 
Defending certain views does not devotion to Clark make! The fact that I have done certain things does not imply WHY.



Tom Bombadil said:


> i) How else would they know if it were not by God's revelation. And, weren't they around when Satan was. And, knowledge by testimony is transitive, so if God told Satan, and Satan told them, they ultimately get their warrant from God's revelation. And, I would ask if all I had to go on was a liars testimony. I think the demons don't trust satan as much as we don't. That's why we have the saying: 'There's no honor among theives.' And, how would they 'see it?' So, why don't they 'trust God?'
> 
> Also, I can say, "I trust the soldier will deliever the message" but I might not *assend* to that. I'm not a doxastic voluntarist. I take it that the above is sufficient to render a distinction.


 
My point is that there is a difference between faith and sight. The angels/demons/saints are privy to certain things that we are not, would you agree? The question of the demons was dealing with "WHY" do they believe? Do they believe because they trust God? Maybe so! Maybe they trust God in one area but not in another.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Well, I'd hope you would be a little more certain before you suggest that the example defeats my claims!



Well, since I'm not a Clarkian,  I don't think that one must have certainty to have knowledge. And, I definitely don't think one must be certain in order to defeat propositions. I may believe that my car is on the street, right in front of my window. I look out the window. It's not there any more! I take that as a defeater for my previous belief. But, I'm not *certain* that it's not there any more. Perhaps G-men were out testing their invisible paint invention.




> My point is that there is a difference between faith and sight. The angels/demons/saints are privy to certain things that we are not, would you agree? The question of the demons was dealing with "WHY" do they believe? Do they believe because they trust God? Maybe so! Maybe they trust God in one area but not in another.



Well, reductio ad absurdums only work if one doesn't want to hold to the absurdity. I've got you to admit that demons trust God, that's sufficient for me to reject your claims.


----------



## Theogenes

Brethren,
It seems to me that a lot of this debate, at least regarding the earlier part of the thread has to do with the difference between figurative and literal language. Clark/Robbins (C/R), from their philosphical point of view attempted to pin down the literal essence of faith, when their opponents say that that is not enough but add layers of figurative terms to try to capture the essence of faith. For example all the terms cited to John Brown earlier: "lookiong to", "running to", "flying to", "eating and drinking", or to add one from R. C. Sproul, "sitting in the lap of Jesus". Turretin has his list of close to a dozen terms, as do many of the others in the Reformed stream. Now, there's nothing wrong with using figurative language, especially while preaching but one must know the literal meaning of a word if he is to understand the figurative phrases used. Otherwise, while it might sound very pious, people may not know what you're talking about. C/R's concern was that by adding these layers of figurative terms one may lose the simplicity of belief. Clark, in his book on What is Saving Faith looks at John's Gospel and shows how the word Believe/belief is used. It's interesting that the Holy Spirit would breathe out John's gospel using a word which most people understand. We know when we believe something. We understand what is being said and we either agree with it or not. Assent is that volitional aspect of belief which is usually embellished with figurative language (surrender, running to, embracing, whatever.) Someone had mentioned that Clark eliminates the voltional aspect of believing which simple is not true. In fact, he calls saving faith a "voltional assent to an intellectual proposition". He denies that all you have to do is undertand the propositions.
I think another issue is confusing the effects of faith with the essence of faith. Mistaking the fruit for the root. We don't make that mistake when talking botany, but we do it here. 
One other issue is the idea of saying one believes and really believing. I think our churches have a lot of people who say they believe the gospel but who really don't. Also, it's possible for people to believe many things in the bible and yet don't have saving faith because they don't believe the gospel. One could point to Rome as an example. Demons believe many things correctly. They knew who Jesus was..."You are the Holy One of God", but they certainly didn't, nor can they have saving faith because the gospel is NOT for them. I also think that the point that James was making since he was addressing fruitless faith, was that even the demons faith bore some fruit: They TREMBLED!
Well, I've put in way more than my two cents worth


----------



## MW

Jeff,

If you trust someone you believe what they say to the extent you can trust them. We can trust Jesus completely, and therefore we trust all He says. But this is really beside the point. The fact is you trust THE PERSON. There is a personal element involved which goes beyond knowing propositions about them. There is an experiential factor which cannot be denied. In our biblical, reformed, system that experiential factor is said to come through the work of the Holy Spirit revealing, showing, and bearing witness to Jesus (please refer to the Paraclete sayings of John 14-16). Such is this unction of the Holy Spirit that believers are said to know all things, and to need not for any to teach them. Obviously this is but one part of the truth, and there is also the need to grow in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and to sit under the ministry of Word and sacraments. Nevertheless, however qualified, it is still a truth of which the Scriptures testify. Believers, by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit, know Christ experientially. On this basis they trust HIM.

Nicholas,

Yes, there is more involved than the fact the devils know there is one God. Consider the parable of the sower, where the person receives the word with joy but eventually falls away. Consider Judas Iscariot, who preached the kingdom of God to others, but himself was lost. Consider Simon the sorcerer, who is said to have believed Philip's preaching and was baptised, and yet his heart was not right with God, but was still in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. Consider the warning in Hebrews 10 concerning persons who have come to the knowledge of the truth but who continue to sin wilfully, leaving them only a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. Consider also the case of false teachers, whom 2nd Peter describes as having known the way of righteousness, and after they have known it, have turned from the holy commandment delivered unto them. All these, in one form or another, have exercised a temporary, non-saving faith -- a faith which was nothing more than assent to revealed truth.

Blessings!


----------



## Amazing Grace

Theogenes said:


> Brethren,
> It seems to me that a lot of this debate, at least regarding the earlier part of the thread has to do with the difference between figurative and literal language. Clark/Robbins (C/R), from their philosphical point of view attempted to pin down the literal essence of faith, when their opponents say that that is not enough but add layers of figurative terms to try to capture the essence of faith. For example all the terms cited to John Brown earlier: "lookiong to", "running to", "flying to", "eating and drinking", or to add one from R. C. Sproul, "sitting in the lap of Jesus". Turretin has his list of close to a dozen terms, as do many of the others in the Reformed stream. Now, there's nothing wrong with using figurative language, especially while preaching but one must know the literal meaning of a word if he is to understand the figurative phrases used. Otherwise, while it might sound very pious, people may not know what you're talking about. C/R's concern was that by adding these layers of figurative terms one may lose the simplicity of belief. Clark, in his book on What is Saving Faith looks at John's Gospel and shows how the word Believe/belief is used. It's interesting that the Holy Spirit would breathe out John's gospel using a word which most people understand. We know when we believe something. We understand what is being said and we either agree with it or not. Assent is that volitional aspect of belief which is usually embellished with figurative language (surrender, running to, embracing, whatever.) Someone had mentioned that Clark eliminates the voltional aspect of believing which simple is not true. In fact, he calls saving faith a "voltional assent to an intellectual proposition". He denies that all you have to do is undertand the propositions.
> I think another issue is confusing the effects of faith with the essence of faith. Mistaking the fruit for the root. We don't make that mistake when talking botany, but we do it here.
> One other issue is the idea of saying one believes and really believing. I think our churches have a lot of people who say they believe the gospel but who really don't. Also, it's possible for people to believe many things in the bible and yet don't have saving faith because they don't believe the gospel. One could point to Rome as an example. Demons believe many things correctly. They knew who Jesus was..."You are the Holy One of God", but they certainly didn't, nor can they have saving faith because the gospel is NOT for them. I also think that the point that James was making since he was addressing fruitless faith, was that even the demons faith bore some fruit: They TREMBLED!
> Well, I've put in way more than my two cents worth





Jim you touched on a point hat is very significant. Leaving Clark or anyone else of out the matter, which can only muddy the waters, I have never been answered when I have asked what these metaphors actually mean. They sound nice to say, they are pithy and catchy, but is there a valid concrete definition of trust? (AS an aside, lets stick with the english here, this idea we must use the 3 latin words makes me laugh). Also I am struggling with the fact that one may understand, assent/believe something as true, aseent with it with an Amen, but then not trust in it? How does that happen? I can find no evidence of someone actually believe the Gospel, assenting to it with an Amen, and not trusting. The problem i see with these sayings is it appears to add something extra than an Amen. 

(2Cor 1:20) For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

(Rev 3:14) These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

We see that Jesus often used Amen to introduce a statement (Matt 31 times; Mk 14 times; Lk 9 times; John 25 times). "Truly, truly ... Verily, verily ... For I tell you the truth ... Amen I say to you."

Amen here is Christ's assurance that what He says and promises is true and utterly reliable.

When I say Amen, I indicate my assent, mysubmission, to the words and deeds of God. 

Q. 129.

What does the word "Amen" signify?

*A.

"Amen" signifies, it shall truly and certainly be: for my prayer is more assuredly heard of God, than I feel in my heart that I desire these things of him*. (a)

(a) 2 Cor.1:20; 2 Tim.2:13.

I thank God that He is true and remains faithful, even when my heart does not desire or feel anything.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Theogenes said:


> Brethren,
> It seems to me that a lot of this debate, at least regarding the earlier part of the thread has to do with the difference between figurative and literal language. Clark/Robbins (C/R), from their philosphical point of view attempted to pin down the literal essence of faith, when their opponents say that that is not enough but add layers of figurative terms to try to capture the essence of faith. For example all the terms cited to John Brown earlier: "lookiong to", "running to", "flying to", "eating and drinking", or to add one from R. C. Sproul, "sitting in the lap of Jesus". Turretin has his list of close to a dozen terms, as do many of the others in the Reformed stream. Now, there's nothing wrong with using figurative language, especially while preaching but one must know the literal meaning of a word if he is to understand the figurative phrases used. Otherwise, while it might sound very pious, people may not know what you're talking about. C/R's concern was that by adding these layers of figurative terms one may lose the simplicity of belief. Clark, in his book on What is Saving Faith looks at John's Gospel and shows how the word Believe/belief is used. It's interesting that the Holy Spirit would breathe out John's gospel using a word which most people understand. We know when we believe something. We understand what is being said and we either agree with it or not. Assent is that volitional aspect of belief which is usually embellished with figurative language (surrender, running to, embracing, whatever.) Someone had mentioned that Clark eliminates the voltional aspect of believing which simple is not true. In fact, he calls saving faith a "voltional assent to an intellectual proposition". He denies that all you have to do is undertand the propositions.
> I think another issue is confusing the effects of faith with the essence of faith. Mistaking the fruit for the root. We don't make that mistake when talking botany, but we do it here.
> One other issue is the idea of saying one believes and really believing. I think our churches have a lot of people who say they believe the gospel but who really don't. Also, it's possible for people to believe many things in the bible and yet don't have saving faith because they don't believe the gospel. One could point to Rome as an example. Demons believe many things correctly. They knew who Jesus was..."You are the Holy One of God", but they certainly didn't, nor can they have saving faith because the gospel is NOT for them. I also think that the point that James was making since he was addressing fruitless faith, was that even the demons faith bore some fruit: They TREMBLED!
> Well, I've put in way more than my two cents worth



I don't want you to think I do not appreaciate the observation but your post assumes, of course, that, by simplifying, we actually make things clearer or truer. This is not always the case depending upon the kind of reduction that is accomplished. In this case, I don't believe the definition of belief can be reduced to an idealistic philosophical point of view. If figurative language obscures our understanding of things then we might as well blame the Scriptures that use such language frequently. I don't believe we gain greater insight to things by "peeling off the husks" of figurative language in the Scriptures to get to the kernel of what it is. If the Scriptures are not reductionistic then why must we be to gain clarity?

This, of course, does not mean that the Gospel cannot be expressed simply to a man or a woman but it may be necessary to explain the nature of faith, trust, and assurance to Pastors who need to have a richer understanding of what faith is/isn't. 

Hence, I'm not unaware of what is being attempted. I simply don't believe wisdom can be packaged so neatly to say "Ah! I have the essence of the thing."

If the essence of it was served by the so-called simple definition then it has failed here as it has left Church men unconvinced that they have, indeed, captured the literal essence of faith with their few philosophical terms. In order to "defend" themselves against the charge they have had to add other words as descriptive elements to capture the same notions that the Puritans and others have utilized to flesh it out.


----------



## Davidius

Some of the figurative language smacks of the same sentimentalism that I used to be fed in my old charismatic church. Someone earlier mentioned that R.C. Sproul added "sitting in the lap of Jesus" to his definition. Are you kidding me?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This is the false dichotomy that people tend to make David. Yes sentimental_ism_ is wrong.

Be careful of your reactions to the over-use of things. There is sometimes a good reason that even those in error have latched on to something in Scripture. The solution isn't to look at error and say that truth must be its polar opposite. Sometimes the error is not in the inclusion of something but its inclusion at the exclusion of everything else.

Scripturalism isn't wrong, in my view, because it wants to be logical and rational but because it tries to be too reductionistic with certain ideas that God has not reduced in the manner they have. They complain of people falling off the narrow path into sentamentalism but then fall off the path in deprecating all affections.

It is extremely important, CRITICAL, that you don't believe that wisdom is an easy thing to grasp. It is a lifelong pursuit and we don't end that pursuit when we have the collection of syllogisms that describe a thing to our satisfaction that "Ah, now we understand it." We understand in part always and try to improve our understanding as we study and become more sanctified.


----------



## Davidius

Rich,

I totally agree. I was just making a note particularly because of that one statement. But I'm not going to use that as an excuse to just disregard the arguments which have been presented.


----------



## Theogenes

Amazing Grace,
I say AMEN to your post! In other words, I agree with you, I believe what you say is true, I assent to your propositions as I have understood them. AND, it's ALL that simple. If I didn't understand what you said I couldn't agree or disagree, believe or not believe. But once I understood what you are saying, then I'm at a crossroads. I willingly submit, assent, believe what you said or not. Now, I can use figurative langauge and say that "we're on the same sheet of music", or "I know where you're coming from", and you'd know what I was talking about because you understand what the figurative language means literally. But if I said, "that's an eggplant in stew". You'd go, HUH?!?. Why?, because you don't know what I literally mean by my figurative phrase. 

Jesus used a lot of figurative language and many, including his disciples went HUH?!? Jesus even said He used parables, which are elaborate figures of speech, NOT to clarify things for those who were listening but so that "Hearing they would not here, seeing, they would not see". And Jesus says in John 16:25, "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father" and then in verse 29 "His disciples said to Him, "See, now you are speaking plainly, and using no figures of speech!" Now my impression of this conversation is that plain speech is better. Why? Because we can understand more quickly what is being said. Clarity of language leads to clarity of understanding. I believe that that has been Clark/Robbins intent which is to cut through the fog of figurative language to the crystal clarity of literal language for the reason of clarity of understanding so there is less confusion. 

Figurative language can cause misunderstanding...look at the example of the disciples.. Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the scribes and the Pharisees" and the disciples think he's talking about their forgetting to bring lunch!  (That's what I love about the bible! It doesn't cover up the shortcomings of people we put on very high pedestals.) And let me say, I'm NOT against the use of figurative language. It has it's place, for example in hymns or poetry. And it can be used to illustrate, as it were, a literal idea, but only when the literal idea has been explained. Then the figurative language is helpful and not a "muddying of the waters" (And I'm sure you all know what I meant by that figure of speech.) The point is, with literal and figurative language we are not in an either/or situation where we have to choose one or the other. But I believe for the sake of understanding, for knowing the meaning of what is being said, that literal language is primary and figurative language is subordinate to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Theogenes said:


> Amazing Grace,
> I say AMEN to your post! In other words, I agree with you, I believe what you say is true, I assent to your propositions as I have understood them. AND, it's ALL that simple. If I didn't understand what you said I couldn't agree or disagree, believe or not believe. But once I understood what you are saying, then I'm at a crossroads. I willingly submit, assent, believe what you said or not. Now, I can use figurative langauge and say that "we're on the same sheet of music", or "I know where you're coming from", and you'd know what I was talking about because you understand what the figurative language means literally. But if I said, "that's an eggplant in stew". You'd go, HUH?!?. Why?, because you don't know what I literally mean by my figurative phrase.
> 
> Jesus used a lot of figurative language and many, including his disciples went HUH?!? Jesus even said He used parables, which are elaborate figures of speech, NOT to clarify things for those who were listening but so that "Hearing they would not here, seeing, they would not see". And Jesus says in John 16:25, "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father" and then in verse 29 "His disciples said to Him, "See, now you are speaking plainly, and using no figures of speech!" Now my impression of this conversation is that plain speech is better. Why? Because we can understand more quickly what is being said. Clarity of language leads to clarity of understanding. I believe that that has been Clark/Robbins intent which is to cut through the fog of figurative language to the crystal clarity of literal language for the reason of clarity of understanding so there is less confusion.
> 
> Figurative language can cause misunderstanding...look at the example of the disciples.. Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the scribes and the Pharisees" and the disciples think he's talking about their forgetting to bring lunch!  That's what I love about the bible! It doesn't cover up the shortcomings of people we put on very high pedestals. And let me say, I'm NOT against the use of figurative language. It has it's place, for example in hymns or poetry. And it can be used to illustrate, as it were, a literal idea, but only when the literal idea has been explained. Then the figurative language is helpful and not a "muddying of the waters" (And I'm sure you all know what I meant by that figure of speech.) The point is, with literal and figurative language we are not in an either/or situation where we have to choose one or the other. But I believe for the sake of understanding, for knowing the meaning of what is being said, that literal language is primary and figurative language is subordinate to it.



Yes, Christ hid things in His Parables from the hard of heart but _explained_ them to His Disciples. The figurative language and the explanation both aided in understanding. Nobody is arguing for the use of figurative language at the exclusion of logical propositions but it does not follow, _logically_, that the use of logical propositions at the exclusion of figurative and other kinds of language (i.e. Proverbial wisdom) is the preferred solution.


----------



## Davidius

He's just saying that each has its place, not that one or the other is generally (i.e. in every case) preferable, to the exclusion of the other. The substance of the thing described figuratively is the same as the substance of the thing described plainly. One could say that he is fickle, that his emotional state tends to change frequently, or that his personality is characterized as a "rollercoaster of emotion." That one description is more plain and simple does not make it wrong, and a more embellished description isn't wrong either - they describe the same thing. The Clarkians are saying that some have confused the figurative language as its own component instead of seeing how it is included in the component of assent.


----------



## py3ak

I think a lot of times a preference for "literal" language is really nothing more than a preference for one kind of figures over another. See here for more detail, or Owen Barfield, _History, Guilt and Habit_ has some material on this point.


----------



## Davidius

py3ak said:


> I think a lot of times a preference for "literal" language is really nothing more than a preference for one kind of figures over another. See here for more detail, or Owen Barfield, _History, Guilt and Habit_ has some material on this point.



This is helpful but not totally relevant to our context. The men quoted in the article are in favor of doing away with one kind of language in order to use another kind of language, saying that one is comprehensively better, or "objective." No one is saying that we need to get rid of figurative language. It is being argued that "assenting to the truths of Scripture" is the same thing as "running to Christ/resting in Christ/sitting in the lap of Christ/et al.," not that one is right or the other wrong, or one objective and the other subjective. No one has said that "trust" is wrong and that "assent" is right, rather that "freedom" and "indeterminism" are the same thing.


----------



## Arch2k

I have no problem with figurative language either. However, I do believe that if one cannot translate figurative language into literal language, then you do not understand what the figurative language means. Similarly, Christ's parables where explained clearly to the disciples in literal language because they could not understand the parables.


----------



## Civbert

Thanks again brother for you reasoned responce. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time.


JOwen said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting a Scriptural argument. This gives us something more substantial to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this - if a demon had more than a "bare historical faith", would he be saved? Are there any elect demons? Even if we grant that the demons believe in the whole of the gospel, isn't it also the case that this belief was heart-felt? The demons believed it to the point that they trembled. But can a demon believe the promises to those who believe applies to him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..
Click to expand...

This is the point in contention. It is not a given. 

James all along has been speaking of works as proof of true faith. And it appears as if he is saying we are saved by works. However, we know that James is speaking about how true faith is demonstrated by the evidence. We are careful to contend we are saved by faith _alone_, apart from the works which are the evidence of faith. We need to take that same care as we understand the meaning of faith. 

So we still need to determine if Jame's argument is directed at "knowledge and assent" that lacks trust. His point may be not more than a claim to have faith does not make your faith true. And we know that belief in "one God" is only sufficient to damn a person. 

But even if James argument was against "knowledge and assent" without "trust", this does not mean that "knowledge and assent" alone does not save - any more than we say that faith alone does not save us. My point, is that just as works are the evidence of faith, so too might trust be considered an evidence of faith. This fits better in the overall scheme of James. Knowledge and assent without trust is dead. Faith without works is dead.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Civbert said:


> Thanks again brother for you reasoned responce. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time.
> 
> 
> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting a Scriptural argument. This gives us something more substantial to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this - if a demon had more than a "bare historical faith", would he be saved? Are there any elect demons? Even if we grant that the demons believe in the whole of the gospel, isn't it also the case that this belief was heart-felt? The demons believed it to the point that they trembled. But can a demon believe the promises to those who believe applies to him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the point in contention. It is not a given.
> 
> James all along has been speaking of works as proof of true faith. And it appears as if he is saying we are saved by works. However, we know that James is speaking about how true faith is demonstrated by the evidence. We are careful to contend we are saved by faith _alone_, apart from the works which are the evidence of faith. We need to take that same care as we understand the meaning of faith.
> 
> So we still need to determine if Jame's argument is directed at "knowledge and assent" that lacks trust. His point may be not more than a claim to have faith does not make your faith true. And we know that belief in "one God" is only sufficient to damn a person.
> 
> But even if James argument was against "knowledge and assent" without "trust", this does not mean that "knowledge and assent" alone does not save - any more than we say that faith alone does not save us. My point, is that just as works are the evidence of faith, so too might trust be considered an evidence of faith. This fits better in the overall scheme of James. Knowledge and assent without trust is dead. Faith without works is dead.
Click to expand...




Anthony, the problem exists when we demonize trust and leave it out all together. At times when philosophy gets involved in the discussion too many words are used to explain a simple issue. I am comfortable believeing that belief and assent equals trusting. Therefore belief and assent equal faith. Trust is part of the gift, but I do not see the need to make it a 3rd leg when the 2 we have are strong enough to bolster the weight.


----------



## Davidius

Amazing Grace said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again brother for you reasoned responce. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time.
> 
> 
> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point in contention. It is not a given.
> 
> James all along has been speaking of works as proof of true faith. And it appears as if he is saying we are saved by works. However, we know that James is speaking about how true faith is demonstrated by the evidence. We are careful to contend we are saved by faith _alone_, apart from the works which are the evidence of faith. We need to take that same care as we understand the meaning of faith.
> 
> So we still need to determine if Jame's argument is directed at "knowledge and assent" that lacks trust. His point may be not more than a claim to have faith does not make your faith true. And we know that belief in "one God" is only sufficient to damn a person.
> 
> But even if James argument was against "knowledge and assent" without "trust", this does not mean that "knowledge and assent" alone does not save - any more than we say that faith alone does not save us. My point, is that just as works are the evidence of faith, so too might trust be considered an evidence of faith. This fits better in the overall scheme of James. Knowledge and assent without trust is dead. Faith without works is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony, the problem exists when we demonize trust and leave it out all together. At times when philosophy gets involved in the discussion too many words are used to explain a simple issue. I am comfortable believeing that belief and assent equals trusting. Therefore belief and assent equal faith. Trust is part of the gift, but I do not see the need to make it a 3rd leg when the 2 we have are strong enough to bolster the weight.
Click to expand...


I suppose it depends on which philosophy is getting in the way. Clark's philosophy is very easy for me to understand. The long lofty lists of figurative language used to describe faith, on the other hand, leave me quite confused, along with the attempts (or lack thereof?) to really define trust in a concrete way as something other than assent.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Davidius said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again brother for you reasoned responce. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time.
> 
> This is the point in contention. It is not a given.
> 
> James all along has been speaking of works as proof of true faith. And it appears as if he is saying we are saved by works. However, we know that James is speaking about how true faith is demonstrated by the evidence. We are careful to contend we are saved by faith _alone_, apart from the works which are the evidence of faith. We need to take that same care as we understand the meaning of faith.
> 
> So we still need to determine if Jame's argument is directed at "knowledge and assent" that lacks trust. His point may be not more than a claim to have faith does not make your faith true. And we know that belief in "one God" is only sufficient to damn a person.
> 
> But even if James argument was against "knowledge and assent" without "trust", this does not mean that "knowledge and assent" alone does not save - any more than we say that faith alone does not save us. My point, is that just as works are the evidence of faith, so too might trust be considered an evidence of faith. This fits better in the overall scheme of James. Knowledge and assent without trust is dead. Faith without works is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony, the problem exists when we demonize trust and leave it out all together. At times when philosophy gets involved in the discussion too many words are used to explain a simple issue. I am comfortable believeing that belief and assent equals trusting. Therefore belief and assent equal faith. Trust is part of the gift, but I do not see the need to make it a 3rd leg when the 2 we have are strong enough to bolster the weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose it depends on which philosophy is getting in the way. Clark's philosophy is very easy for me to understand. The long lofty lists of figurative language used to describe faith, on the other hand, leave me quite confused, along with the attempts (or lack thereof?) to really define trust in a concrete way as something other than assent.
Click to expand...




I meant long sophist words and phrases not contained in the writ. Why it takes this type of language to define the Gospel is beyond me. Different types of latin words created to define this type and that type of arguement. I do not need a discipline of logic to be my rudder David, the writ does just fine. But this is getting off topic.


----------



## Civbert

Amazing Grace said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again brother for you reasoned response. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time.
> 
> 
> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point in contention. It is not a given.
> 
> James all along has been speaking of works as proof of true faith. And it appears as if he is saying we are saved by works. However, we know that James is speaking about how true faith is demonstrated by the evidence. We are careful to contend we are saved by faith _alone_, apart from the works which are the evidence of faith. We need to take that same care as we understand the meaning of faith.
> 
> So we still need to determine if Jame's argument is directed at "knowledge and assent" that lacks trust. His point may be not more than a claim to have faith does not make your faith true. And we know that belief in "one God" is only sufficient to damn a person.
> 
> But even if James argument was against "knowledge and assent" without "trust", this does not mean that "knowledge and assent" alone does not save - any more than we say that faith alone does not save us. My point, is that just as works are the evidence of faith, so too might trust be considered an evidence of faith. This fits better in the overall scheme of James. Knowledge and assent without trust is dead. Faith without works is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony, the problem exists when we demonize trust and leave it out all together. At times when philosophy gets involved in the discussion too many words are used to explain a simple issue. I am comfortable believeing that belief and assent equals trusting. Therefore belief and assent equal faith. Trust is part of the gift, but I do not see the need to make it a 3rd leg when the 2 we have are strong enough to bolster the weight.
Click to expand...


I agree. We must not leave 'trust' out when we are speaking about faith. But philosophy is part of any discussion. Any time we are trying to understand truth and reality - we bring our philosophical presuppositions with us. And our philosophy should not hinder our understanding. As you point out, some philosophies lead to more confusion than clarity. 

I believe the biblical meaning of faith is not complicated - even if it's effects may be. This does not imply we can divorce meaning from effect - but I believe we must not conflate them either. The WCF is an example of this in many ways. For example, it clearly differentiates between sanctification and justification, faith and works, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. These are all related, but never identical. If we can not distinguish them, we can never understand how they are related.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvin's Institutes 3.20.1


> 1. From the previous part of the work we clearly see how completely destitute man is of all good, how devoid of every means of procuring his own salvation. Hence, if he would obtain succour in his necessity, he must go beyond himself, and procure it in some other quarter. It has farther been shown that the Lord kindly and spontaneously manifests himself in Christ, in whom he offers all happiness for our misery, all abundance for our want, opening up the treasures of heaven to us, so that we may turn with full faith to his beloved Son, depend upon him with full expectation, rest in him, and cleave to him with full hope. This, indeed, is that secret and hidden philosophy *which cannot be learned by syllogisms*: a philosophy thoroughly understood by those whose eyes God has so opened as to see light in his light (Ps. 36:9). But after we have learned by faith to know that whatever is necessary for us or defective in us is supplied in God and in our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell, that we may thence draw as from an inexhaustible fountain, it remains for us to seek and in prayer implore of him what we have learned to be in him.



I would also add there is some misunderstanding being manifest that all these things ought to be plain and easily understood. There are a number of places where the contrary is asserted by Scripture itself. Beware of the philosophy that states it can simplify things where the Scriptures themselves do not promise the same.

Again, the seed of our understanding of faith is enough that we understand that we are like empty vessels who receive Christ or like beggars who cling to Christ but the deeper understandings of these things do not lend themselves to simplistic understandings but are the pursuit of those interested in Wisdom.


----------



## py3ak

David and Jeff, maybe this is not directly relevant to the topic of the thread, but the point is that "literal" language isn't. And saying that something isn't understood unless it can be put in literal language is a remarkable illustration of that fact. What does "understand" mean? Is there not a figure contained in that word? And if we vary the word (say to "comprehend" or "apprehend") we have really varied the figure. We have no wholly abstract way of speaking: and this is why it is a dead-end to assume that concrete language gives greater clarity or precision. If it gives the illusion of greater perspicuity that is only because insufficient attention is given to the "literal" words. 

However, I don't want to detract from the topic of the thread, which is about the relation of Clark and Clarkians to experimental Calvinism. I do think, though, even a differing perspective on language could be part of the divergent paradigm if Clark or Clarkians are, in fact, not in the stream of experimental Calvinism.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> I think a lot of times a preference for "literal" language is really nothing more than a preference for one kind of figures over another. See here for more detail, or Owen Barfield, _History, Guilt and Habit_ has some material on this point.



If we take Phil 4:8 as a pattern of believing thought, we see there are different qualities to knowledge. We're not only to reflect on the "true," which might be best expressed in propositional terms, but also the "honest," "just," "pure," "lovely," etc, which all have a language of their own. Expressions which are reverent, moralistic, quaint, paradoxical, picturesque, etc., do not only show the truth of what is known, but bring out other qualities which are just as important. The Proverbs teach us that wisdom operates on a number of different levels. There is more to human life than meets the eye, and it requires reverential and reflective study to understand the height and depth and length and breadth of a knowledge which passes knowledge.


----------



## JOwen

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of times a preference for "literal" language is really nothing more than a preference for one kind of figures over another. See here for more detail, or Owen Barfield, _History, Guilt and Habit_ has some material on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we take Phil 4:8 as a pattern of believing thought, we see there are different qualities to knowledge. We're not only to reflect on the "true," which might be best expressed in propositional terms, but also the "honest," "just," "pure," "lovely," etc, which all have a language of their own. Expressions which are reverent, moralistic, quaint, paradoxical, picturesque, etc., do not only show the truth of what is known, but bring out other qualities which are just as important. The Proverbs teach us that wisdom operates on a number of different levels. There is more to human life than meets the eye, and it requires reverential and reflective study to understand the height and depth and length and breadth of a knowledge which passes knowledge.
Click to expand...


Well said! I do have a deep and abiding respect for Clark in many ways, however I think he and Robbins miss the mark completely on faith. Their view is novel at this point and a reaction to the abuse of a thing (over introspection), removing proper "self inspection". Not all subjectivity must be abandoned here, nor trusted.


----------



## Davidius

py3ak said:


> David and Jeff, maybe this is not directly relevant to the topic of the thread, but the point is that "literal" language isn't. And saying that something isn't understood unless it can be put in literal language is a remarkable illustration of that fact. What does "understand" mean? Is there not a figure contained in that word? And if we vary the word (say to "comprehend" or "apprehend") we have really varied the figure. We have no wholly abstract way of speaking: and this is why it is a dead-end to assume that concrete language gives greater clarity or precision. If it gives the illusion of greater perspicuity that is only because insufficient attention is given to the "literal" words.



Again, you're missing the point. No one said that figurative language can't be understood (I didn't, at least). This is the exact opposite of what I said on my last post, when I made the point that literal and figurative language describe the same thing. I understand the phrase "he is green with envy" as well as I understand the phrase "he is jealous." 

Would you would explain what you meant when you said that concrete language only gives the illusion of perspicuity? The Confession itself says that some parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. Why do you think that is? Are you saying that it has nothing to do with language? The book of Revelation uses a lot of figurative language and I'm sure that this is partially why it's so hard to understand.


----------



## Theogenes

Jerrold,
Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence. 
Jim


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Theogenes said:


> Jerrold,
> Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
> Jim



None of the men arguing that they are novel contra the Puritans have, once, referred to CVT on this issue. I find Van Til to be useful in some areas but the issue, as it has been developed here especially by Rev. Winzer, was that the conception of faith is novel with respect to the WCF and the Puritans. I know Rev. Winzer would find it amusing that any would claim his objections have to do with a particular attachment to Van Til. Not every criticism of Clark has to be framed in that context.

Also, I recognize that Clark and Robbins would state that the moment men move to what they consider "inexact" language that they believe no useful information is being added at that point. This, to me, is rather like arguing that God's inclusion of the Proverbs has the same "defect" as didactic clarity is hardly present. As Rev. Winzer just mentioned and I keep re-iterating:


Rev. Winzer said:


> There is more to human life than meets the eye, and it requires reverential and reflective study to understand the height and depth and length and breadth of a knowledge which passes knowledge.


This "hard path of wisdom" is what we believe ought to be pursued but, in my estimation, Clarkians have decided _a priori_ that this notion simply leads to a "lack of clarity". Hence, it gives warrant to men to quit the pursuit of wisdom at the point they've decided is the terminus. The syllogism alone provides philsophical certainty - Proceed no Further.

Thus, I disagree that we're not taking this into account. We're simply roundly rejecting it as an un-Biblical approach to wisdom. I think the case can be (and has been argued) that this was the Puritan view reflected in the Westminster Standards and the Directory. I have seen several assertions that some men believed the contrary but I have not seen any material presented that convinces me this is anything but assertion.


----------



## JOwen

Theogenes said:


> Jerrold,
> Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
> Jim




Dear Jim,

First, I do not have a dog in the CVT/GHC hunt. Experiential Calvinism was around long before the 1950's. Second, I think if you will scroll back and read my responses to Anthony, you will find then quite reasonable. I dine on the Puritans morning and night. I'd say I'm a bit more than "functional" on Scottish Divines. I stand by my belief that Clark's view of saving faith is novel as per the Westminster Standards.

Blessings!


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's another article that touches on the same issue. 

The White Horse Inn: Nonsense on Tap


----------



## Theogenes

Jerrold,
I apologize for presuming to know your motivations. Please forgive me.
Jim


----------



## Civbert

JOwen said:


> Well said! I do have a deep and abiding respect for Clark in many ways, however I think he and Robbins miss the mark completely on faith. Their view is novel at this point and a reaction to the abuse of a thing (over introspection), removing proper "self inspection". Not all subjectivity must be abandoned here, nor trusted.



While it may be "novel" in the sense that Clark is countering "common knowledge" regarding the meaning of the term "faith", I don't think even _you_ think he has missed the mark completely. Certainly you disagree with some of Clark's criticism and conclusions, but in our discussion so far, we've agreed on more points than not. 

What Clark does, that I really appreciate, is make me truly think about theology. He doesn't simply present traditional doctrine without question. While Clark is a dogmatist, he is not a unreasoned dogmatist. He gets under the traditions, and looks at the reasoning behind them. He let's you see both weaknesses and strengths, so you don't develop a false assurance that everything that is "traditional" is unquestionable. And when he sees a point of traditional thinking that is weak, he points it out. More often than not, he strengthens the traditional position by showing where some arguments are weak, and presenting clearer and stronger arguments. 

I'll add if Clark is reacting to anything, it is the influence of irrationalism in Christian philosophy - a rejection of "human reason" and logical thinking, and an embracing of empiricism and mysticism (or really the postmodernism of today). And where I see it is when people finally get to a point where they can not logically defend their positions, and resort to saying things like "it's beyond human reason". They play the irrational/mystery trump card. 

While Clark has never claimed that we can fully know all the mind of God, for much is hidden from us, and God's mind is so much greater than ours, that does not mean we have any excuse to be less than vigorous in our thinking and reasoning, so that we can better understand those things that God has revealed to us in Scripture, and that God does intend us to know. 

We must think as clearly as possible, and test our doctrines, so that we can be like the Bereans, and like Paul by reasoning from Scripture. I hope no one would disagree with this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said! I do have a deep and abiding respect for Clark in many ways, however I think he and Robbins miss the mark completely on faith. Their view is novel at this point and a reaction to the abuse of a thing (over introspection), removing proper "self inspection". Not all subjectivity must be abandoned here, nor trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it may be "novel" in the sense that Clark is countering "common knowledge" regarding the meaning of the term "faith", I don't think even _you_ think he has missed the mark completely. Certainly you disagree with some of Clark's criticism and conclusions, but in our discussion so far, we've agreed on more points than not.
> 
> What Clark does, that I really appreciate, is make me truly think about theology. He doesn't simply present traditional doctrine without question. While Clark is a dogmatist, he is not a unreasoned dogmatist. He gets under the traditions, and looks at the reasoning behind them. He let's you see both weaknesses and strengths, so you don't develop a false assurance that everything that is "traditional" is unquestionable. And when he sees a point of traditional thinking that is weak, he points it out. More often than not, he strengthens the traditional position by showing where some arguments are weak, and presenting clearer and stronger arguments.
> 
> I'll add if Clark is reacting to anything, it is the influence of irrationalism in Christian philosophy - a rejection of "human reason" and logical thinking, and an embracing of empiricism and mysticism (or really the postmodernism of today). And where I see it is when people finally get to a point where they can not logically defend their positions, and resort to saying things like "it's beyond human reason". They play the irrational/mystery trump card.
> 
> While Clark has never claimed that we can fully know all the mind of God, for much is hidden from us, and God's mind is so much greater than ours, that does not mean we have any excuse to be less than vigorous in our thinking and reasoning, so that we can better understand those things that God has revealed to us in Scripture, and that God does intend us to know.
> 
> We must think as clearly as possible, and test our doctrines, so that we can be like the Bereans, and like Paul by reasoning from Scripture. I hope no one would disagree with this.
Click to expand...


I don't think any would reject the idea that we should be rigorous and logical in our thinking. Again, however, you seem to be bringing the discussion forward to 1950 where most of the detractors are dwelling around 1650.

The Puritans can hardly be accused of intellectual laziness. Their arguments were incredibly complex and their expositions incredibly detailed. They were deep, deep thinkers and there is absolutely no way a fair person could ever accuse them of being mystics or blindly accepting tradition. If you want to find men that will keep you from the error you're concerned about you can hardly do better than them.

Again, however, this comes down to an issue not of rigor but of method. It comes down to a debate on where to begin and where to end in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It cannot be simplified to a debate of the lazy mystics vs. the hard working systematicians.

Put simply, I believe the Puritan approach applied rigor to the whole man and the Clarkian approach denies that a certain part of man really even exists by re-defining it as an idea that is simply folded into another part. Thus, as I have stated, I'm trying to fairly acknowledge that I understand where you're coming from but believe that our differences are not a matter of opinion over the need for vigor but on our basic outlook on what man really is according to how the Word of God describes him.


----------



## py3ak

Davidius said:


> Again, you're missing the point. No one said that figurative language can't be understood (I didn't, at least). This is the exact opposite of what I said on my last post, when I made the point that literal and figurative language describe the same thing. I understand the phrase "he is green with envy" as well as I understand the phrase "he is jealous."
> 
> Would you would explain what you meant when you said that concrete language only gives the illusion of perspicuity? The Confession itself says that some parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. Why do you think that is? Are you saying that it has nothing to do with language? The book of Revelation uses a lot of figurative language and I'm sure that this is partially why it's so hard to understand.



David, if you think I've been responding to people who say that figurative language can't be understood, that could explain why we seem to be talking past one another. (Jeff did say that if you can't put a figurative statement into literal language then you don't understand it, but I think that was as close as anybody came.)

C.S. Lewis has an essay, _Bluspels and Flalansferes_ which can be found in _Rehabiitations and Other Essays_ and probably other places as well. Since it's Lewis it's naturally very readable and quite short, and explains well that metaphors are an inevitable, indeed a dominant, part of our thinking. He gives this interesting rule: "the meaning in any given composition is in inverse ratio to the author's belief in his own literalness." If you don't have access to it I can try to summarize it, but I am no substitute for Lewis. That should set out pretty fully my meaning of an "illusion of perspicuity". But we can take one quick example: I have heard more than one person say that Clark's work on saving faith cleared away the haze, or fog, or words to that effect. This is a metaphorical way of speaking. But try to pronounce that same _meaning_ without using another metaphor.

With regard to the fact that some parts of Scripture are harder to understand than others, I don't actually think that is primarily about the language (obviously barring points of translation, idioms, and manners of expression to which we are unaccustomed). Peter didn't say that Paul had said some things hard to be understood because Paul was an obscure writer with an excessive fondness for recondite phrases. Rather he said that because there are some things, some _concepts_ which are harder to grasp than others. The love of God passes knowledge; the judgments of God are unsearchable. Some things are hard to be understood because they lead us so far into the depths of the wisdom of God.


----------



## JOwen

Theogenes said:


> Jerrold,
> I apologize for presuming to know your motivations. Please forgive me.
> Jim



Granted gladly!


----------



## Civbert

JOwen said:


> To disagree here is contrary to sound exegesis and the unity of the historic understanding of faith. Clark's objection that three Latin words should not explain one Greek word is negating the textual rendering of the passage in its context. Thus, the fathers (Early Church, Reformed, and Puritan) were correct in saving faith's definition.


 I think I showed that a simple look at the passages you gave do not demonstrate that faith means exactly three Latin terms. And again, even if the demons trusted, they still would not be saved. The "trust" would not make their faith into saving faith. 



JOwen said:


> Secondly, you are presupposing Clark's understanding which is the point of debate and entirely outside the historical understanding.


 I'm not presupposing it, I am making to case for it. As for historical understanding, that too is open to debate. However, Clark's understanding fit's well with the WCF because it recognized the "whereby" in the confession. I would also point out that nothing in Clark's understanding discounts trust as part of the nature or "acts" or "wherebys" of saving faith. I denies nothing about the nature of saving faith, which I think is essentially what the tri-part expression of faith is trying to do. But he does avoid conflation of cause and effect. 




JOwen said:


> If this is your major problem with the threefold nature of saving faith, let me assure you that saving faith is a gift of God and has nothing to do with the volition of fallen man (Eph. 2:8). It is a result of regeneration, the changing of the nature making us willing who are by nature unwilling. It is in this context *only* that it is exercised. No Reformed Father would state otherwise.


 A point of agreement.




JOwen said:


> I think we are getting closer to each other here. Not "more than the gospel" needs to be exercised, I will grant that, however "all of faith" need to be exercised by personal ratification (this is the trust aspect that missing from the examples mentioned above).


I would take care about being clear when you say "exercised". If you mean faith needs to be faithful, this could be confused with the FV understanding of justification by faithfulness. I'm not sure what "personal ratification" means but it seems to imply that faith is not faith if one doesn't not respond to it. In a sense I can agree. If there is not evidence (personal ratification), then there is reason to doubt a faith is true. This does not mean that faith itself is more than belief. And it does not mean that saving faith is anything more than belief in the gospel. 



JOwen said:


> But the response (which is a gift) is *part* of saving faith. This is the point. Faith alone saves, amen, but this faith is comprised of knowledge, assent, _and trust_ which is missing from the examples provided. Again, the point of contention with Clark and Robbins. You seem to think that the mechanism of the last element of Saving Faith is, in our minds, human volition, when the mechanism is as much a factor of the Holy Spirit's work as knowledge and assent are. There is no difference in the mechanism. Understand this, and you understand our view.


 I think I understand, but I hope you can see how this can confuse cause and effect. If you want to see trust as something caused, that can work. However, this trust in the WCF is one of the "wherebys". It is a result of faith. Also, "trust" is understood as one of the internal responses to the Holy Spirit. Just as assurance is a response to sanctification. All these are things are "wherebys" which we can present as evidence of true belief in the gospel. 




JOwen said:


> This does not follow. Both belief (believe) and faith are the same Greek root in the Bible (pisteuō, pistis). Your statement here brother is saying, "There is no biblical support for the idea that faith is more than faith" if we use biblical definitions. It is asserting the point by the point itself.


This is a key point to Clark's position on the meaning of faith. It is the same word translated as belief. But we tend to think of faith as something beyond belief - even if Scripture strongly supports that belief is simply the accent to propositional truths. 



JOwen said:


> I have given several examples of propositional faith from the scriptures supported by the historic teachings of the Reformed Faith. What more can be done? As far as the WCF goes, the point in question is entirely supported by its language as has already been demonstrated. I would urge you to read Rutherford's The Covenant of Life Opened and Dickson's THERAPEUTICA SACRA for a proper understanding of what the Westminster divines believed about Saving Faith.


 And I urge you to read "What is Saving Faith" where Clark demonstrates directly from Scripture that faith is belief - and belief is assent to the truth and not necessarily more. Later I can give more specific examples where 'believe' refers to specific propositions. You probably know most yourself. 



JOwen said:


> Read the Divines and they explain perfectly the triple view of Saving Faith. Plain and simple. Disagree if you must, but it IS what the Divines taught.


 Again I agree. But the triple "view" is not exactly defining faith, so much as explaining it's nature. The point I disagree with is the notion that it takes more than belief in the gospel to be saved. It seems to me that Scripture certainly does not teach "faith _is_ assensus, notitia, and fiducia". 




JOwen said:


> I give you Westminster Divine David Dickson as one example of what the Divines taught. This from his commentary on the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quest. IV. "Are the principal acts of saving faith, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace?
> 
> Yes; John 1.12. Acts 14.31. Gal. 2.20. Acts 15.11
> 
> Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain, Faith to be nothing but a naked assent to the truth revealed in the word; it being placed by them in the understanding only?
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

Again, I have never denied that the _acts _of saving faith included "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace". However, the first part does not imply the second. No part of Scripture implies that we are saved by more than belief in the gospel. It is that belief alone that is required. The rest are like the works James requires, not in defining faith, but in proving faith. 




JOwen said:


> Further,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "3d, Because we are justified before God by faith, Rom. 5.1. But we are not justified by *a bare and naked assent to the truth*, otherwise* the devils should be justified*, James 2.19. Neither are we justified by the Socinians faith, which is every where condemned in Scripture, Rom. 3.20,28. Gal. 2.16. Eph. 2.8,9. Phil. 3.9. Titus 3.4,5."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice his first proof text. James 2:19.
Click to expand...

 But the proof fails for the reasons given. Nothing in James 2:19 implies trust is missing, and certainly does not imply that trust would have saved a demon. It seems that much is being based on the one text, and even that much is unsupported by it. Trust does not seem to be in sight of James 2:19.


----------



## JohnOwen007

I've been working on a sermon this week on Phil. 3. It dawned on me, that a clear reference which shows that faith is more than mere belief / assent (a la Ckark) is Phil. 3:3.

Here Paul says that we "put no *confidence* in the flesh" (i.e. we don't trust works like circumcision for salvation). "Confidence" is at the heart of the faith vs works issue in Paul's mind. And "confidence" is surely more than belief / assent (as Gordon Clark would say).

A crystal clear biblical reference.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Doesn't Clark make a distinction between assent and understanding that you might not be included in this argument. These were brought to light by Victorbravo for me. This argument sounds more like a problem with how terms are used and meant than with the actual understanding. But I could be wrong. 



victorbravo said:


> Clark: "salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it."





> There is also a further complication in the notion of belief or assent that motivates the antipathy to intellectual activity. Those who say that intellectual belief in Christ is of no value not only fall into the errors exposed above, but they also in some instances fail to distinguish assent from understanding. When they attack "mere assent" they probably mean -- though it is rash to guess what some people mean -- that salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. *Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it. *



From _Christian Philosophy_, p. 174, Volume 4, Works of Gordon Haddon Clark 2004 Trinity Foundation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I know that Gordon Clark has a commentary on Philippians. 

Anyone have a copy of it?

If so can you give us his comments on this passage?

Philippians 3:3


----------



## JohnOwen007

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Doesn't Clark make a distinction between assent and understanding that you might not be included in this argument.



A distinction between assent and understanding is irrelevant to Phil. 3:3. The point is the distinction between confidence in the flesh versus confidence in Christ. In other words, as the reformers argued, faith *is* confidence, and confidence ultimately is something akin to *trust*. Hence, the Latin word they chose to express this was not _fides_ (belief / assent) but _fiducia_ (trust).

Blessings.


----------



## Theogenes

JohnOwen007,
Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith?" shows that faith=belief=trust=assent=confidence=all of the figurative words or phrases used to describe it. He shows that these are all synonyms for an internal activity of understanding and volition. One understands what is being asserted and agrees with it, assents to it, surrenders to it, etc...etc.
If we put no confidence in the works of the flesh(or law) it is because we believe that we can't be justified by them. 
Jim


----------



## Davidius

JohnOwen007 said:


> I've been working on a sermon this week on Phil. 3. It dawned on me, that a clear reference which shows that faith is more than mere belief / assent (a la Ckark) is Phil. 3:3.
> 
> Here Paul says that we "put no *confidence* in the flesh" (i.e. we don't trust works like circumcision for salvation). "Confidence" is at the heart of the faith vs works issue in Paul's mind. And "confidence" is surely more than belief / assent (as Gordon Clark would say).
> 
> A crystal clear biblical reference.



This sounds sort of like friends of mine who come up to me with verses that are "crystal clear biblical references" proving libertarian free will. All the Calvinistic theologians just missed these verses somehow! I'm always skeptical when someone throws out a systematic treatment of doctrine by providing a magic trump card.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Theogenes said:


> JohnOwen007,
> Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith?" shows that faith=belief=trust=assent=confidence=all of the figurative words or phrases used to describe it. He shows that these are all synonyms for an internal activity of understanding and volition. One understands what is being asserted and agrees with it, assents to it, surrenders to it, etc...etc.



Dear Theogenes,

Thanks for your post, it was fascinating.

Have you read the thread above, because as I have, it seems to be given that pro-Clarkians and anti-Clarkians *both *agree that Clark understood faith in only intellectual categories which do not include fiducial trust.

How could there be such a dissonance between the above discussion and your claim? Did Clark change his mind after writing the book from which you quote? I'm no Clark guru, but someone who is may shed some light. Could you provide us with some direct quotations to prove your point?



Theogenes said:


> If we put no confidence in the works of the flesh(or law) it is because we believe that we can't be justified by them.



Is that in fact right? Does belief always lead to trust (fiducia)? Not according to James 2:29. True faith = knowledge, assent, *and trust*. The former two can be present, while the later absent. But that's not true faith.

God bless.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Davidius,

Call me thick, but I don't quite understand your post.



Davidius said:


> This sounds sort of like friends of mine who come up to me with verses that are "crystal clear biblical references" proving libertarian free will. All the Calvinistic theologians just missed these verses somehow!



I'm not quite sure where you going with this? If you don't find the verse "crystal clear" concerning faith as confidence, then feel free to show me where it's not.

Those who adhere to libertarian free will may use "crystal clear" verses in their mind, but I would want to say that they are mistaken and haven't read the verses closely enough.



Davidius said:


> I'm always skeptical when someone throws out a systematic treatment of doctrine by providing a magic trump card.



Again, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this? Don't you believe that verses can definitively prove a teaching? If they can't how then do we establish any doctrine at all?

Sure there may be verses that are unclear, and hence can't be used to support a certain teaching. But some verses are crystal clear and are to be relied on like the rock of Gibraltar.

Moreover, some verses are crystal clear but we don't see it on first reading for a whole variety of reasons. But one day the penny drops, and we wonder why we didn't see before in all it's crystal clarity. It happens to me all the time.

Just because someone writes a commentary on a biblical book it doesn't mean that they've grasped everything in the book. I don't pick up everything even by the 10th reading of a passage. That's the wonder of the Bible, we can go back and work again on a passage we think we know well, and more fall into place--sometimes very obvious things we wonder why we missed them.

Every blessing dear brother.


----------



## Civbert

JohnOwen007 said:


> I've been working on a sermon this week on Phil. 3. It dawned on me, that a clear reference which shows that faith is more than mere belief / assent (a la Ckark) is Phil. 3:3.
> 
> Here Paul says that we "put no *confidence* in the flesh" (i.e. we don't trust works like circumcision for salvation). "Confidence" is at the heart of the faith vs works issue in Paul's mind. And "confidence" is surely more than belief / assent (as Gordon Clark would say).
> 
> A crystal clear biblical reference.



Would that not also imply that a lack of confidence means one is not saved? I know a few people who take that position, and claim that any doubt means one does not have saving faith.


----------



## Civbert

JohnOwen007 said:


> Have you read the thread above, because as I have, it seems to be given that pro-Clarkians and anti-Clarkians *both *agree that Clark understood faith in only intellectual categories which do not include fiducial trust.



Not exactly. Clark said 'trust' may be considered as the same as, or implied by, faith. Really depending on how it is understood. Ergo, if not trust, not faith. (Modus tollens.)

The problem is that terms like 'trust' can have psychological meaning to people, such that people then believe 'saving faith' is the emotion of 'trusting' - which is an internal personal response and experience. However, faith comes from God, as a free gift, and is external to the believer. The believer does not create his own faith, it is given to him by God. 

In no way does Clark 'exclude' trust from faith. Rather, it is a necessary result of faith, or even a synonym for faith. But he does show the problems with using the tri-part Latin construct as a literal _definition _of faith. The WCF speaks of the "wherebys" of faith, rather than define the term directly. WCF 14 predicates faith as a "grace", "the work of the Spirit of Christ". It gives a great deal regarding the nature of faith, the "by which" and "whereby" and "principle acts of", and this includes that by this faith "a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word". 

WCF Larger Catechism Question 72 says "justifying faith" is a "saving grace". It then does on to present the "wherebys". And here too the results or effects of this "saving grace" include both assent and trust (receiving and resting). 

So Clark would agree that saving faith, if nothing else, implies each of trust, assent, and understanding. And by modus tollens, if any of these are missing, then saving faith is missing.

But we still have the question, what _is _saving faith. The WCF does not directly tell us this. It carefully predicates that it is a "saving grace" and "work of the Spirit of Christ". It predicates nothing more directly. 

And we need to take care that not all predications are definitions. Getting at the heart of the meaning of a terms can be very important, and requires careful thinking. We don't want to be too loose in our meaning, lest they lead to error or confusion. Nor do we want to be overly strict, and loose anything essential. 

Clark's understanding of the meaning of "saving faith" preserves the simple and clear understanding of it's meaning as presented in Scripture, but without loosing any of the nature or implications of the term as traditions gives it to us.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Civbert,

Thanks for your response, although I'm none the wiser about Clark.



Civbert said:


> In no way does Clark 'exclude' trust from faith. Rather, it is a necessary result of faith, or even a synonym for faith.



I don't get it, how can faith = trust *and *be the *result* of faith? That doesn't make sense. Exhaust might be the _result _of a running car engine, but its not the car engine itself.



Civbert said:


> But he does show the problems with using the tri-part Latin construct as a literal _definition _of faith. [...] So Clark would agree that saving faith, if nothing else, implies each of trust, assent, and understanding. And by modus tollens, if any of these are missing, then saving faith is missing.



Again I don't get it. Either faith = knowledge + assent + trust, or it doesn't. Clark may want to say that faith = knowledge + assent and that trust naturally follows (which is untrue due to James 2:19), but this doesn't make trust a _part _of faith but a natural _consequence _of faith. This is close to, if not identical with, the Roman Catholic understanding of faith.

Does Clark say faith = knowledge + assent + trust, or does he not?

Blessings Civbert.


----------

