# Head / Heart Dichotomy



## Arch2k (Mar 15, 2005)

Do you believe the bible knows of a "head/heart dichotomy?" Can a person miss heaven by 12 inches (belief in the gospel in the head, but not in the heart)?. Why or why not? If there is a distinction, what is the definition of "heart?"

Most people take it for granted that there is such a distinction biblically, but Gordon Clark makes a compelling case in "Faith and Saving Faith."

I have my own opinions on the subject, but I would like to hear what others have to say. (Forgive me if this has already been discussed - I did a search and could come up with nothing)

Thanks


----------



## andreas (Mar 16, 2005)

***Do you believe the bible knows of a "head/heart dichotomy?***

You could be full of head knowledge,know more than the average true christian and yet be an unregenerate.Head knowledge does not imply salvation .

"They call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel" Isa. 48:2. 

This sounds like saving faith does it not? God however said of the same people, 

"Thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass" Isa. 48:4.

andreas.


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide (Mar 16, 2005)

Andreas-

What exactly do you mean by "head knowledge"? Is there also "heart knowledge"?

Erin

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by MissSolaFide]


----------



## turmeric (Mar 16, 2005)

I don't think a person can miss heaven simply by being too intellectual. We can miss it by unbelief, which can mask as hyper-intellectualism among other things.


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 16, 2005)

Is this to say that a certian level of emotionalism is necessary to be truly saved? If so how much is enough? We are saved by grace through faith and our nature changes, the old is gone behold the new is come, how much of a change is enough? Does the appropriate level of "heart knowledge come instantaneously or over time? Isn't that "heart knowledge also a gift of God? Then does God give everyone a certian quanity of "heart knowledge" or is it different for everyone? What role does the Holy Spirit play in the aquisition of "heart knowledge? Just curious.


----------



## Robin (Mar 16, 2005)

A better way to explain the situation is using proper theological catagories.....

Faith is comprised of three parts: knowledge; agreement; trust. 

True faith must have knowledge of something/someone first. (It is NOT blind.) Then based upon that knowledge the attitude of agreement (or disagreement) - then based upon both of these, a complete trust in the former.

The so called "head knowledge" idea is really describing a person who has the right knowledge; even agrees with the knowledge -- but at the end of the day does not trust Christ.

Some characters in the Bible/NT exhibiting this were: Judas; Pharisees; the demons.

The Bible doesn't divide head/heart....but it does teach saving faith and false faith as above.



Robin


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 16, 2005)

I see nothing in the Bible about a Head/Heart dichotomy regarding salvation. This type of thinking is rampant in the broad evangelical world. I think it is a by product of revivalism where a profession was not good enough. You needed a conversion experience to prove that you accepted Christ into your heart. Scripture tells us that if you confess with you mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he rose from the dead you are saved (Rom 10:9-10). But who really knows the heart of any man except that man (1 Cor 2)?


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> The so called "head knowledge" idea is really describing a person who has the right knowledge; even agrees with the knowledge -- but at the end of the day does not trust Christ.



Can you be said to agree to the knowledge without faith?


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide (Mar 16, 2005)

I think that Jeff's question is about the distinction between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge". If you know something "in your head" but not "in your heart" are you waiting for your emotions to align with what's in your head? Is it assurance? Is it agreement? I've heard people argue each of these.

If you believe something with your heart, soul, mind, and strength do you have 4 different kinds of knowledge? I would say that those 4 things are the same, & that there is only one kind of "knowledge" (and, thus, no head/heart dichotomy).

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by MissSolaFide]

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by MissSolaFide]


----------



## bond-servant (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> The so called "head knowledge" idea is really describing a person who has the right knowledge; even agrees with the knowledge -- but at the end of the day does not trust Christ.
> ...



Robin, great point. I was actually thinking of one of those examples while reading this thread myself:

Mat 8:29 And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

Mar 5:7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." 

The demons sure acknowledged who Jesus was, and said something "flattering" in a way. They called Him "Son of God' and "Jesus, Son of the Most High God", but sure had not made the profession of faith, though they knew who He was. 


Agree with the poster that mentioned Rom 10:9 
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 16, 2005)

I believe this concept determines those who can recite every orthodox belief. Every confession. Those that will fight savagely for their faith. The problem rests in their hypocrisy. They are whitewashed Sephlecures. Rotten on the inside. They will read everything but it does nothing for their walk. They show no love of Christ. They show no meekness and lowliness of heart as our Master. They have self appointed themselves as the watchmen on the wall and will seperate the sheep and goats for Christ. But yet they are only concerned with the outward ceremonies. Attend church 2-4 times per week. Will correct every error that they believe is wrong. They listen to every sermon then bring out the flea comb and disect it. But on the inside they are rotten and not born again. 




In His Grace


Joseph

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 16, 2005)

My question is not regarding true belivers to mere professors. My question is more regarding some who believe that you can actually believe the gospel in your head, but if you don't believe it in your heart, it's all worthless. To these people, I would ask, are there two kinds of beliefs? What is the difference? The only things that that James mentions that demons believe is the fact that God is one.

A verse that touches on this subject, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he." Is this different than thinking in your mind/head?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 16, 2005)

there is not such as thing as head/heart - but there is a difference between mental assent and saving faith.

One can know the gospel and mentally agree with it, but that is not the same as believing it to be true and therefore obeying it and trusting Christ.

Think of it this way, what you believe affects how you act. If you calim to believe something but don't behave like you believe it, then you really don't believe it! You may agree with a collection of facts, but you do not believe.

Example: in which scenario will you run faster?

A. A bear is chasing you through the woods.

B. You believe a bear is chasing you through the woods.

Either way, you will run just as fast, because what you believe influences how you behave.

Phillip


----------



## Robin (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> My question is not regarding true belivers to mere professors. My question is more regarding some who believe that you can actually believe the gospel in your head, but if you don't believe it in your heart, it's all worthless. To these people, I would ask, are there two kinds of beliefs? What is the difference? The only things that that James mentions that demons believe is the fact that God is one.
> 
> A verse that touches on this subject, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he." Is this different than thinking in your mind/head?



First, you've got these verses yanked out of their context. Oops - that's going to mess you up! However, the Proverbs verse is relevent in the sense that if a person professes Christ - they will act like the profession is true. Good works will follow because they are already regenerate - not because they wish to earn salvation.

Second - keep in mind that the ancient Jewish idea of "heart" when it's in Scripture refers to a total combination of mind-will-attitude-heart-bowels as being that "center" of oneself - where deep conviction resides. It's not the romantic/sentimental/sappy 19th Century European idea of "heart."

Warning...read large portions of Scripture, in context-topically. Don't chop-out verses and assemble them to fit your question.



Robin


----------



## andreas (Mar 16, 2005)

***What exactly do you mean by "head knowledge"? Is there also "heart knowledge"?***

I can study music for years,get a doctorate degree,become a professor,but that does not make me a musician.

andreas.


----------



## Robin (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Yes, it can...the Jews did it...they stumbled over the cornerstone because they did not combine their hearing the Gospel with faith (trust.)

R.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Warning...read large portions of Scripture, in context-topically. Don't chop-out verses and assemble them to fit your question.
> 
> Robin



Robin, 

With all due respect, I have read the scripture in context, and was simply using it to pose a question, nothing more. I wasn't using it to advocate a side or promote a doctrinal position.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 16, 2005)

It seems in this thread that EVERYBODY has had something very useful to input, so I'll skip the "ditto's" and "amen's".

What I find when people talk about these things in two separate categories is that they're really just using figures of speech and not really refering to "categories" of knowledge.

The "head knowledge" group, for example liberal theologians or even atheists who KNOW the content of the Bible and even of the Gospel, but don't BELIEVE it, are very capable of elaborating on the doctrine of Christ, or of faith, or the Trinity, etc.

Now it seems that the label of having "head knowledge" is often used as a derogatory label towards those who in any way want to defend doctrine against the errors of the super-emotional/romantic individuals who "just want to love Jesus and get along." The value put on "thought" these days is so low (unfortunately, especially in the Christian community) that anyone to whom the "head knowledge" label is applied is automatically thought to be lower than the "heart knowledge" individual. Kind of like a queen beats a rook in Chess.

However, if and when WE are accused of having "head knowledge not heart knowledge" perhaps we too easily and quickly dismiss it without introspection into what our accusers may see in us. I can't remember who said it but someone talked about how in a way "our enemies can be our friends" because of the way they can point out in us what we ourselves are blind to.

But usually I think the case is simply that the unthinking and unlearned want a quick "no-thought" reply to an argument posed to them and so they throw out the ad-hominem to you thinking they have satisfied any obligation of further thought.

My


----------



## Robin (Mar 17, 2005)

Christopher!


Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***What exactly do you mean by "head knowledge"? Is there also "heart knowledge"?***
> 
> I can study music for years,get a doctorate degree,become a professor,but that does not make me a musician.
> ...



"Play the sunset...Playing music is supposed to be fun. It's about heart, it's about feelings, moving people, and something beautiful, and it's not about notes on a page. I can teach you notes on a page, I can't teach you that other stuff." -- Glenn Holland, _Mr. Holland's Opus_


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by andreas_
> ...



This idea of "heart" seems to be defined as more "emotions" or "feelings." It seems that many define the heart this way when speaking of doctrines. It seems somewhat difficult to interpret "heart" this way in scripture in my opinion. 

Love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, heart [emotion?], soul and strength.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 17, 2005)

Heart can also mean spirit correct?

This is where the distinction is made. One can have knowledge of mental assent without having the epignosis, Paul speaks about which permeates the whole spirit.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 17, 2005)

Heart as it is used throughout Scripture is not heart as we think of it today. Today we do think emotions - but that is covered in loving God with all your _soul _. 

The heart in the Bible, often translated in the past as "bowels", is the inner man, the real you deep down inside. 

Phillip


----------



## andreas (Mar 18, 2005)

Food will bring strength and comfort to the heart ,Gen. 18: 5; Judges 19: 5, 8, and excess affects the heart unfavorably Luke 21: 34. 
The heart is the center of personal life in all its relations Prov. 4: 23; and consequently, kardia, psyche, and pneuma, "spirit," may be used as synonyms, and joy, sorrow, emotion, is ascribed to the heart Prov. 12: 25 or to the soul . 
andreas.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Food will bring strength and comfort to the heart ,Gen. 18: 5; Judges 19: 5, 8, and excess affects the heart unfavorably Luke 21: 34.
> The heart is the center of personal life in all its relations Prov. 4: 23; and consequently, kardia, psyche, and pneuma, "spirit," may be used as synonyms, and joy, sorrow, emotion, is ascribed to the heart Prov. 12: 25 or to the soul .
> andreas.




Exactly andreas.

WHen the scriptures utilyze the terms "Love God with all of you heart mind body and soul" the Hebrews would not have understood these as seperate, but wholey (sp) The whole being. Not just a mental assent to some truth.


----------



## Robin (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Being a professional musician - I got to say something to this, guys - and I don't mean to be contentious....

Music is a language - I've received all appropriate-extensive training in "Music Theory" "Harmony" etc. Yes, mastering this knowledge does not make a musician "musical"...however, no masterful improvising musician (Duke Ellington, included) can tap into the splendors of music unless they have previous knowledge of how music works. Period. I can't happen. Any and every superior musician (including all the Jazz greats) must have an intimate knowledge of melody; harmony; counterpoint; rhythm - a systematic "theology" of music, if you will. The doctrine is absolutely essential to gain the skill and freedom of expression. The freedom is based upon knowledge of the truth - even in music. The freedom begins with truth. If you make it to this point - then the deepest emotions happen!



Robin


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 18, 2005)

Robin,

Are you suggesting that emotion is more of a result from what is the "heart" and not the substance of it?


----------



## Robin (Mar 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Robin,
> 
> Are you suggesting that emotion is more of a result from what is the "heart" and not the substance of it?



Precisely, Jeff! That's *IT*

I've noticed something else, too: those who have strong emotions, based on understanding truth are truly confident ; those exhibiting emotion, based on lack of understanding or falsities are unstable.

Curious 

R.

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Caka (Mar 24, 2005)

Jeff_Bartel,

I agree with Dr. Clark in that biblical faith is "assent to a proposition". I have heard and used all of the head/heart, demon faith arguments for years but this book (What Is Saving Faith?) set me straight. I believe it represents the biblical position and consider it a must read. I am not a 100% Clarkite either but I really think on this issue he is on point.

Let me share this brief email response from John Robbins that I received after I had some concern about this book and a recent review of this book that appeared in New Horizons an OPC magazine. I know some have problems with JR but it's not the point of this to start anything about him personal or to change the topic of this thread but rather to deal with the topic at hand. I also wish not to turn this into a Clark vs Van Til thread



I wrote:
Mr. Robbins,
I received this book (WHAT IS SAVING FAITH?) free from you awhile back and am thankful for it. I was about half way through it and somehow it got lost...... well I finally found it and I'm continuing to read it. One thing that sticks in my mind and also other people have also noted that it seems as if the faith that Clark speaks of (assent to a proposition) is the same as the "demon faith" the bible speaks of. Can you please tell me how it differs??? Is there a point in the book that explains this and how it differs???

JR wrote:

Well the psychology doesn't't differ, Travis. Faith is faith. What differs is the object, the propositions believed. Demons don't believe the Gospel. Use the index to find the passages; there are many.

JR


I wrote:
Mr Robbins,
Have you read the review of this book in the latest issue of New Horizons (OPC magazine) by Alan Strange? Any comments?

JR reply:

Here is my letter to the editor; I don't know that they will print it.

Dear Editor,

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Alan Strange's review of Gordon Clark's book, What Is Saving Faith? even if it takes the form of merely a letter to the editor.

The faculty of Mid-America Reformed Seminary (where Dr. Strange teaches) published a longer version of Dr. Strange's review in their Journal and then refused to permit me to respond to it, even though it is an academic journal, and I am mentioned in the review.

Dr. Strange's argument is that Dr. Clark's view of faith differs from that of the Westminster Standards. This is false, and it not difficult to show why it is false.

Dr. Strange writes: "The classic Reformed answer to Robbins's and Clark's question has been that the 'something more' [than belief of the truths of the Gospel] of saving faith is 'whole-souled trust and reliance in Jesus.' " Dr. Strange emphasizes "trust" as something more than belief or assent (and thus something different from belief and assent) to the Gospel truths. It is this additional factor, not belief of the Gospel truths, that makes faith saving, he thinks.

Dr. Strange quotes the WLC, Q. 72, which not only fails to support his opinion, but which does not even use the words "whole-souled" or "trust," or the phrase "reliance in Jesus." In fact, neither Question 72, nor WCF chapters 11 and 14 on Justification and Saving Faith use the terms that Dr. Strange finds indispensable. Those passages do, however, speak explicitly of assenting and believing.

Dr. Strange quotes Q. 72 as saying, 

"Justifying faith is a saving grace...whereby he [a sinner] ....not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness." 

Strange remarks: "Whatever 'receiveth and resteth upon Christ' means, it is clearly something in addition to 'assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,' for that is explicitly denied to be the 'only' thing of which justifying faith consists."

There is an elementary confusion in this argument. 

First, Dr. Strange does not tell us what "receiving and resting upon Christ" means; that is, he does not tell us what he thinks saving faith is. Second, he does not tell us how "receiving and resting upon Christ" differs from believing the truths of the Gospel. He has substituted undefined terms for the clear language of both Scripture and the Westminster Standards. In this way, he obscures the truth of justification by faith alone.

Now I judge Dr. Strange's misreading of Q. 72 to be a common misunderstanding, caused in part by the omission of relevant words. Here is what Q. 72 says: 

"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."

Question 72 does indeed have a contrast in mind, but it is not contrasting assent with "receiving and resting," as Dr. Strange mistakenly supposes. There are two reasons Dr. Strange's contrast cannot be correct. 

First, "receiving and resting" are figures of speech, and "assenting" is literal language. "Receiving and resting" mean "assenting." Dr. Strange has made the common theological error of taking a figure of speech as literal. Incidentally, that is why he fails to offer any definition of "receiving and resting" that differentiates them from assent. In fact, they are not different, but metaphorical expressions of the literal word, "assent."

The second reason that Q. 72 is not contrasting "assenting" with "receiving and resting" is that the authors of the Westminster Standards have a different contrast in mind. Reading the Standards with subjectivist presuppositions, Dr. Strange supposes they are contrasting differing psychologies of faith (assent vs. receiving and resting), when they are actually contrasting the truths believed. Psychology was not on the minds of the Westminster Assembly, but making clear what truths had to be believed in order to be saved was. Dr. Strange forgets that the word "faith" has two distinct meanings, one objective and one subjective. The Standards are contrasting belief in the "promise of the Gospel," that is, in the truth of eternal life, with belief in the "righteousness [of Christ] for pardon of sin, and the accepting and accounting of his person righteous." They are making clear that the sinner must not only believe in (assent to) salvation from sin and eternal life (which they call the "promise of the Gospel"), but that he must also believe in (assent to) the imputed righteousness of Christ in order to be saved. Their concern is that the proper object of faith is believed, not that some undefined and nebulous mental state must be added to belief in order to make it efficacious. Their message is that belief in eternal life and pardon from sin is not saving faith, but to that must be added belief in Christ and his righteousness as the sole means of obtaining eternal life.

The Westminster Standards clearly teach that the object of faith, Christ and his imputed righteousness, not our subjective mental state, is what saves us. Dr. Strange, like so many today, reads the Westminster Standards with his subjectivist glasses on, and thereby misses and misrepresents what they teach.

Therefore, Dr. Strange is completely wrong when he asserts that "Clark is clearly not within the Reformed tradition in defining faith itself as knowledge and assent alone." Not only is Clark clearly within that tradition, but he is also the most accurate reporter of what Scripture teaches about saving faith. All your readers should read his book for themselves.

Sincerely,

John W. Robbins, Ph. D.
The Trinity Foundation
February 7, 2005
www.trinityfoundation.org



[Edited on 3-24-2005 by Caka]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 24, 2005)

Travis,

I agree completely. I believe that Clark was completely correct in his view of saving faith, and of the head/heart. 

Thanks for the letter.


----------



## Robin (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Travis,
> 
> I agree completely. I believe that Clark was completely correct in his view of saving faith, and of the head/heart.
> ...



Hey There, Travis,

Thanks for expounding....Dr. Scott Clark is one of the best to articulate the distinctions. That treatise basically brings it down to "what is Faith" and from that, the awareness that true saving faith is comprised of 3 parts: knowledge; assent; trust. Whereas false faith is made up of: knowledge; assent.....(sans trust.)

There are huge benefits from studying Dr. Clark.

Robin


----------



## Caka (Mar 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...




Just so I'm clear and to make sure we are not confusing our "Clarks" we were speaking of Gordon H. Clark rather than Scott Clark. I am probably the one confused by your post rather than you ours so forgive me. What is the entire title of work by Scott Clark that you are refering to?

I believe that Gordon Clark would take issue to what you just stated about faith having three parts and if you read the book "What Is Saving Faith" it gets into detail about these things. 

In the most simple terms _ Justification by belief alone _ is his position.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 24, 2005)

Gordon H. Clark is the theologian I had in mind. My apologies if I was misleading.


----------



## Robin (Mar 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Caka_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



G A S P! I am talking about a different Dr. Clark - Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary, San Diego.

I think it necessesary to unpack Gordon Clark's description - especially in these times. Indeed, we are justified by trust alone...yet Dr. Scott Clark's position more comports to Berkhoff's systematics - and of course, the 3 forms, Etc.

Here is a link explaining in-depth - in light of the present polemics about Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul - the position of Justification by professors at Westminster (Dr. Clark among them.) :

http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification.htm

If you read the entire treatise - as it employs the catechisms - you will find a thorough explanation of Faith's role in justification.

Hope this edifies!

R.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> there is not such as thing as head/heart - but there is a difference between mental assent and saving faith.
> 
> One can know the gospel and mentally agree with it, but that is not the same as believing it to be true and therefore obeying it and trusting Christ....
> ...



I don't agree. If one gives mental assent - trust is either there necessarily, or it follows from mental assent. Saying that one can have mental assent, but not trust leads to asserting a contradiction. 

Here's an interesting situation: picture a old narrow wooden bridge over a deep chasm. Can you say you truly believe a bridge will carry the weight of your car, if you then refuse to drive across it? If you really believe the bridge will hold, you will drive across it, no? What about people who fear flying? They may say they "believe" a plane will go from A to B, but their irrational emotions (fear) prevent them from getting on board. I'd say they do _not_ believe the plane is trustworthy. If their faith was true, they would board the plane.

True saving faith is followed by trust. Just as real faith will neccessarily motivate one to obedience. But just as obedience does not save, neither does "trust" define faith. To say that beliefe is defined by trust - could lead to the conflation of faith and works. I'd say "trust" is another evidence of true faith, just as works are also.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



Anthony,

The point that Phillip is making is that one can have assent faith that is not true faith. This is found in the classic formulation of different types of faith:

(1) _notitia_, or knowledge, in which a person acknowledges the truth of a fact (e.g. I know and acknowledge that it is true that Jesus Christ was a real person who lived in the 1st century in Palestine); 

(2) _assensus_, or using reason to agree that the fact is true generally (e.g. Christ died for sinners); and 

(3) _fiducia_, or a dependence on, or resting upon the truth, or trust in the truth (e.g. Jesus Christ died for me, and I rely upon that for my own safety and benefit)

Even the demons, James tells us have at least #1, if not #2, but #3 is what is required


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 10, 2006)

From What is Saving Faith?, by John Robbins: 


> "If anyone wish to say the children [of Matthew 18:6 and Mark 9:42] trusted in him, well and good; to trust is to believe that good will follow." Here Clark defined "trust" as belief of a proposition in the future tense, in this case, the proposition "good will follow." *To trust a person is to believe the proposition, "he always tells the truth."* To trust God is to believe the proposition: "God will be good to me forever." Or as Paul put it more eloquently in Romans 8: "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." But an undefined psychological state called "trust" has no place in the Gospel or in Biblical theology.



See this thread.

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> From What is Saving Faith?, by John Robbins:
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Jeff.

And that is why there is virtually no Reformed theologian, scholar or pastor who accepts Robbins' definition, except for a very few fanatic Gordan Clark followers.

Simply put, Robbins is wrong.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Yes, Jeff.
> 
> And that is why there is virtually no Reformed theologian, scholar or pastor who accepts Robbins' definition, except for a very few fanatic Gordan Clark followers.
> ...



Fred,

I am ok with that. I don't care _who_ is right and _who_ is wrong. All I care about is what is right and most importantly in this situation why it is right.

I just want to know what the bible preaches Fred, and so far, the case GHC has made in his book on saving faith has convinced me far and above anything else.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I agree. I just also think that it is significant that if Clark is right, no one else in the Church (and I mean NO ONE) has ever been right about justification. That means Church Fathers, Augustine, the Reformers, the Catholics, the EO, nobody. Only Clark has this odd and unique formulation.

It is also significant to me that Clark is perhaps best known for his odd formulations that *MUST* be true against every one else (e.g. his rejection of the ecumenical creeds so that he can say Christ is two persons - which is directly linked ot his formulations of knowledge)

In Clark's system, the demons are incapable of the statements they make in the Gospels, and James is wrong. Doesn't sound like the Bible to me.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree. I just also think that it is significant that if Clark is right, no one else in the Church (and I mean NO ONE) has ever been right about justification. That means Church Fathers, Augustine, the Reformers, the Catholics, the EO, nobody. Only Clark has this odd and unique formulation.



I understand the dilemma. Even though I think that Clark's definition is correct, I don't think that everyone else had it wrong, maybe not as precise, but not wrong.

It is also said that Beza believed that saving faith merely consisted of assent. From by Joel Beeke:
Does Assurance Belong to the Essence of Faith?


> Faith is not historical knowledge plus saving assent as Beza would later teach,8 but a saving and certain knowledge conjoined with a saving and assured trust.9
> 
> 8. Theodori Bezae Vezelii Volumen primum (-tertium) Tractationum Theologicarum (2nd ed.; Genevae: apud Eustathium Vignon, 1582) 1:678, 3:405.
> 9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [hereafter: Inst.] (ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. by F. L. Battles; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) Book 3, chap. 3, sec. 14. (Hereafter the format, Inst. 3.3.14, will be used.) For Calvin's Latin works, see Opera quae supersunt omnia (ed. by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, vols. 29- 87 in Corpus Reformatorum; Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke et filium, 1863- 1900). (Hereafter: CO)





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It is also significant to me that Clark is perhaps best known for his odd formulations that *MUST* be true against every one else (e.g. his rejection of the ecumenical creeds so that he can say Christ is two persons - which is directly linked ot his formulations of knowledge)



Yeah, I don't know about his view on Christ....I have studied it a bit, and sounds fishy.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> In Clark's system, the demons are incapable of the statements they make in the Gospels, and James is wrong.



I think people have tried to pull way too much from the account in James to support "trust" as an element of saving faith.

Here is an excerpt from my best friend's essay on the subject where he deals with the passage in James:



> Since it is often thought that James´ treaties on faith (or Manton´s comments on James) is enough to win the argument, that passage will be evaluated first. James, in the second chapter of his Epistle, addresses the subject of how to identify the subject of how to identify true Christian faith in another, and makes this statement: "œYou believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe "“ and tremble." Since this is after all a discussion on saving faith, the question must be asked, can be demons be saved? This has been the source of some discussion throughout church history, but the true Reformed faith has replied with a fairly unanimous opinion. The fall of angels was entirely supralapsarian. God decreed, before their fall, that certain angels would maintain their state of holiness and righteousness, and that others would sin and fall. As Reymond says in his superb chapter in defense of Supralapsaianism, "œThe angels who did fall, though they are creatures of God as much in need of redemption as are fallen men, will know no divine efforts to redeem them." (481) If a demon is not given a system to be saved by, then it doesn´t matter how many conditions he meets in any other system "“ he cannot be saved. The salvation of men, which is through saving faith, is given in a system known as the Covenant of Grace. As the Westminster says, "œthat Covenant was made with Christ and in Him, with all the elect as His seed" (LC, Q31). If then the system is only given to Christ´s elect, out of the sons of men, then no demon can ever been in that Covenant. If no demon is in the Covenant of Grace then no demon can achieve salvation through it. Plainly put, the offer of the Gospel is not made with fallen angels, so they could, theoretically, believe anything contained in Scripture, including the Gospel, and still fail to be saved. Do not misunderstand, I do not believe that demons can or do assent to all Scriptural truths, my point is simply that it wouldn´t matter if they did. Those who try to make some deduction of the nature of saving faith from a faith that can never save miss the point of the argument entirely. As Herman Hoeksema, founder of the PRCA, has noted, "œIt may be said that the fall of angels is absolute, that is, there is no salvation for them"¦In the world of angels, election and reprobation are in force. God´s council also there makes a separation. The difference however is this: that while in the world of men all fall under sin, and therefore the elect must be saved, the elect angels never fell. The power of election causes them to remain standing. Part of them fell, and because they fell without a Mediator, and a saving Head, all devils are fallen absolutely" (Reformed Dogmatics, 253). It can also be further stated that the faith described in James sounds similar to that described by Manton. These demons not only assent to the idea of a God, but they react to that in a volitional and emotional manner. They shudder. These demons not only believe that God exists, but fear Him, and trust in His threatening. It may be countered that they do not believe in Christ as their personal Savior. With this I would agree, but this gets, first of all, into the manner of the propositions believed and not the quality of belief. And secondly, it subjectifies the Gospel into a belief that "œChrist died for me," when the true Gospel contains objective truths about Christ´s life and death, but more on that later. Plainly said there is no way to know exactly what these demons do and do not believe. The only thing that we know is that they realize there is a God and that He is one. As Clark says, "œThe only belief James mentions is the belief in monotheism. Islam would therefore be a dead faith" (What is Saving Faith 35). James writing to Jews whose test of orthodoxy was monotheism, counters that this belief isn´t enough. This is clear from the lifestyle led by those who hold to monotheism, including demons. Belief in monotheism isn´t enough to change men´s lives, men need true faith in Christ, and the way we test this from the outside is by seeing its fruit. I do not believe that James is trying to make some kind of comparison of what is a true faith vs. what is a false faith. He is trying to tell us how to identify true faith in another, and lets us know along the way that the faith that demons have, monotheism, doesn´t produce works in and of itself. If, therefore, little can be drawn from James as to the distinguishing characteristic of saving faith, then we can easily turn to other Scriptures.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The point that Phillip is making is that one can have assent faith that is not true faith. This is found in the classic formulation of different types of faith:
> 
> ...



I understand the tri-part view of faith. But let me ask you this, are we saved by faith alone, or are we saved by faith and works. The traditional view of faith could cause one to say that one can have true belief and lack trust. This is what James was fighting against - the idea that one can have saving faith, but lack works. But we must be clear that works _follow_ from faith, works do not define faith. For if we do not make this clear, one might start contradicting Paul and say we are saved by faith and works.

It is sufficient to say belief is mental assent - because just as trust follows from real belief, so do works follow from saving faith. Works evidence faith, but faith alone saves. Trust evidences real belief. 

If I'm not running as fast as I can, I do not really believe there is a bear chasing me. But running faster does not make me believe there is a bear chasing me.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Ok. I understand that you are coming from the same Clarkian angle that Jeff is. I categorically reject it, and see it as trying to drive a wedge between the act of faith and the cognitive formulation of faith - htus making men, in Clark's (and Robbins' ) words, "conglomerations of propositions."

There is no true escape, try and Clark might. Because to think is itself a work. Mere assent involves work (strictly speaking). The only way to have faith be truly meritorious is to have it be the gift of God. And that can exercised truly by the believer, having trust.

Again, Clark's view has been rejected by just about everyone, and it has inevitably lead, in my observation, to a complete lack of Christian growth, sanctification and charity, as expressed by the folks over at the Clark admiration and glorification society.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Ok. I understand that you are coming from the same Clarkian angle that Jeff is. I categorically reject it, and see it as trying to drive a wedge between the act of faith and the cognitive formulation of faith - htus making men, in Clark's (and Robbins' ) words, "conglomerations of propositions."
> 
> ...



If saving faith is a work - it is a work done by God when he regenerates the mind. So "strictly speaking" - it is irrelevant if faith is technically a work - as long it is clear _who's_ work it is.

And Clark's acceptance or rejection by one or many does not having any bearing on the issue. More people accept Islam than the Christianity. Does this mean Islam is the better than Christianity?

Technically, all definitions are true. The question is, is Clark's definition good or better. Since Clark's definition of saving faith maintains Sola Fide, and it does not conflate faith (a work of God) and trust (our reaction to faith), it is a good definition. It is better than defining faith as trust because it is more univocal. It is better than defining faith as trust because it is more logical. It does not lead to confusion faith and "assurance" and does not "drive a wedge" between them either. It neatly clarifies the distinction between the two. 

I think it is important to distinguish between faith and trust because trust is closer to "assurance" which is an emotional state that may (or may not) indicate we have faith. 

Gordon Clark is worthy of great admiration.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I would have expected you to say that, but is very relevant. Because if what you state is true about it being important whose work it is (and it is true) then there is no problem that needs to be solved. The same is exactly and precisely true of the classic formulation. There is no disaster for Clark to save us from.



> And Clark's acceptance or rejection by one or many does not having any bearing on the issue. More people accept Islam than the Christianity. Does this mean Islam is the better than Christianity?



It does in the context that Clark sought to change the Church's understanding of faith - and that he sought so without any pedigree in Church history. Novelty is to be viewed with suspicion, not eagerness.



> Technically, all definitions are true. The question is, is Clark's definition good or better. Since Clark's definition of saving faith maintains Sola Fide, and it does not conflate faith (a work of God) and trust (our reaction to faith), it is a good definition. It is better than defining faith as trust because it is more univocal. It is better than defining faith as trust because it is more logical. It does not lead to confusion faith and "assurance" and does not "drive a wedge" between them either. It neatly clarifies the distinction between the two.
> 
> I think it is important to distinguish between faith and trust because trust is closer to "assurance" which is an emotional state that may (or may not) indicate we have faith.
> 
> Gordon Clark is worthy of great admiration.



No technically not all definitions are true. If I define a dog as an animal that lives underwater and breathes through gills, it is not atrue definition of a dog. Since sola fide was doing just fine for the relatively half millennia before Clark, with the likes of Luther, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, Knox, Zwingli, Hodge, Thornwell, Ryle, et al defending it without the need to make people disembodied brain-wave collections, I don't that is relevant.

Your penultimate paragraph makes my point. I will take Westminster's definitions of saving faith and assurance:

"By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."

WCF 18.2 This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

WCF 18.3 "This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness."

But I will bow out now, knowing from experience that it is easier to lift a tank than persuade a Clarkian that Gordon Clark could possibly be wrong, or even not the most faithful teacher of all things about the Bible that ever lived.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."



Just a comment on the quote from the WCF as a "definition of faith".

"yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. "

Notice that faith _"yields"_ "obedience", "trembling", "embracing". These do not _define_ faith, but are a _consequence_ of faith.

"But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." 

Again, "accepting", "receiving", and "resting upon Christ" - are "acts" that follow from faith. Again, they do not define faith, they follow from faith.

In the 14:1 the WCF says:


> 14:1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls , is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word.


Thus faith is a "work of the Spirit". So faith as a work does not invalidate the distinction of saving faith and good works. One being a work of the Spirit, and the other a work of man.

It's also important to distinguish between true/false and right/wrong. A definition is true because it is a tautology. It is right (or good) if it works well within a system of thought, or agrees with a system. But you did not say Clark's definition was false - and my "technical" comment was just an aside. I did not mean to sound like I was correcting you.

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 10, 2006)

> But I will bow out now, knowing from experience that it is easier to lift a tank than persuade a Clarkian that Gordon Clark could possibly be wrong, or even not the most faithful teacher of all things about the Bible that ever lived.





With you there. 

Clarkonian novelty is Clark's legacy.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> > But I will bow out now, knowing from experience that it is easier to lift a tank than persuade a Clarkian that Gordon Clark could possibly be wrong, or even not the most faithful teacher of all things about the Bible that ever lived.
> ...





Is this meant to encourage discussion? Have I mistaken the purpose of the board?


----------



## Myshkin (Jan 13, 2006)

Jeff-

If I may attempt (feebly) to help. I was personally discipled by a Clarkian.
Technical stuff aside, I submit something rather simple: The distinction between a distinction and a separation. 

From a Clarkian point of view there are only two options: his view or the view of those who define faith like the FV men. It is this very fact that makes Clark's view so attractive. The problem is he is presenting a false dilemma. Legalism of any form defines the third element of faith as "working faith", meaning the good works that follow from faith aren't a result of faith but rather are faith itself. Clark rightly responded to this tendency, but did so by swinging to an extreme. To combat this, Clark erases the the third element of faith instead of simply proclaiming what the third part of faith actually is (trust; the gospel is _for me_). As has been stated, orthodoxy has historically held the three part view of faith. Clark's view is a novelty. Whether he intended to or not, his removal of the third part makes faith a matter of intellectual_ism_. Whereas the legalist view of faith includes three elements with the third element being redefined, Clark responds by denying the third element rather than simply correcting the legalist view of that third element.

I know how hard it is to come out of Clarkian thinking. I am still struggling with the effects of his philosophy and method. Please understand I have no desire to debate with you. I am just a fellow pilgrim who walked the Clarkian path once and am therefore more tender to those who may not see where they are going. I thought my only option was to turn to the FV men because they were emphasizing works and following the law, while my Clarkian environment was very antinomian and hyper-calvinistic. I then realized that there was a third option: The historic reformed faith.

Robbins straw man tendency and heated rhetoric makes it often diffcult to see his ( and I believe Clark's) extremism. 

For what it's worth, from my experience, I do not think much of the FV would exist if it were not for Clark's (and the like) view of faith. What he does in one direction, they do in another, by criticizing "Lutheran" justification, and "lutheran" law/gospel issues, etc. as the same view of Clark, Sandeman, and other assent=faith proponents. Both sides are throwing straw men while using orthodox langauge, and that's why the debate over the FV is so confusing to the reformed world right now.

I hope this may be of some small help.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2006)

Allan,

Excellent comments. Very clear.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...From a Clarkian point of view there are only two options: his view or the view of those who define faith like the FV men. ... Clark rightly responded to this tendency, but did so by swinging to an extreme. To combat this, Clark erases the the third element of faith instead of simply proclaiming what the third part of faith actually is (trust; the gospel is _for me_).
> ...
> Robbins straw man tendency and heated rhetoric makes it often difficult to see his ( and I believe Clark's) extremism.



Allan,

I don't understand why defining faith/belief as mental assent to propositions - which is evidenced by trust - would be extreme. What argument do you have to justify calling this "extremism"? I see it as a way to define faith that leads to all the correct outcomes, and removes the pitfalls that comes from an unquestioned acceptance of the traditional tri-part view of faith as a good way to define faith.

I don't think Clark would disagree with the tri-part view of faith, he would merely say the parts do not necessarily _define_ faith very well. Just as - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1 NKJV) - is not a good definition of faith. Clark's definition was more precise and specific - and does not lead to intellectualism - but clearer thinking.

Consider the definition of love. There are many ways we can define it, but there are also different words which have been translated simply as love. We say love is obedience. We say love is patient. We say love is affection. We say love is passion. But is love defined as obedience, patient, affection, and passion?

Here's the point. How faith is defined depends on the context. We might mean trust, or mental assent, or knowledge believed, or loyalty. But Clark was using faith in a specific context (faith that saves) and he wanted to be clear about what he meant by "saving faith". He wanted to make sure that faith was a gift from God, and the what were the effects of receiving this faith. 

The problem with the head/heart dichotomy is it leads people into a the error that the heart is where we feel and have experiences that can not be expressed with words. The view is there is "emotional knowledge". But Clark showed that this sort of irrationalism was nonsense. Knowledge is propositional, and we have the Word and "mind of Christ" by believing (having faith in) the Gospel. This should not be confused with the emotional effects of having saving faith (the passions, affections desires, joy, assurance we feel) - and should not be confused with our active response to saving faith (our active love and obedience towards God). If we confuse these things, we might start to thinking the gift of God (saving faith) is our responses to the gift. 

Really, the argument that must be made to defeat Clark is this - it is possible to have true (saving) faith - without responding with love, obedience, trust, etc. According to James this is impossible. Can one really have mental assent to the propositions of the Gospel, and not respond with love and obedience? Does the knowledge of God not cause us fear and trembeling? 

The false dilemma is this: head knowledge verses heart knowledge. This artificial separation of head and heart is an error that leads to confusing saving faith with the effects of saving faith. If we define saving faith as the subjective effects of regeneration, this makes saving faith something that originates from withing us, and not the objective gift of grace God gives us.

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Jon (Jan 25, 2006)

I too agree with most of what Dr. Robbins wrote, but differ only on a minor point in his interpretation of the Confession.



> _Dr. John W. Robbins_
> First, "receiving and resting" are figures of speech, and "assenting" is literal language. "Receiving and resting" mean "assenting."


I disagree that "receiving and resting" are figures of speech here. I believe they are literal, but that they refer to a different object of assent than the former instance of "assenting." Allow me to elaborate.



> _Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 72_
> Justifying faith . . . [does] not only assent to the truth of the promise of the gospel. . . .


I believe what the Divines mean here is that justifying faith does not simply say, "Yes, this is what the Bible says."



> _Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 72_
> But [it] receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness. . . .


And here, I believe the Divines mean that justifying faith believes the "truth of the promise of the gospel" is _for_ the believer, who, upon regeneration, professes repentance and belief in the gospel as being personally true for the believer.

I think this is the difference between _assensus_ (assent) and _fiducia_ (trust). Assent is the belief that the Bible contains such and such proposition. Trust is the belief that such and such proposition applies to oneself.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 26, 2006)

Just testing to see if I post here if this thread will be immediately locked too. 

What a welcoming group. The brotherly love I've experienced already is palpable.



[Edited on 1-27-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 27, 2006)

> (1) notitia, or knowledge, in which a person acknowledges the truth of a fact (e.g. I know and acknowledge that it is true that Jesus Christ was a real person who lived in the 1st century in Palestine);
> 
> (2) assensus, or using reason to agree that the fact is true generally (e.g. Christ died for sinners); and
> 
> ...




I´m going to venture a reply to hopefully renew some debate and to see if the mods are going to slam this door in my face as well. I get the impression it´s probably not safe to get into the water (not quite sure what I´ve done, but it does seem like the mods are not too happy I´m here for some reason).

The above offers some rather odd (would that be novel?) definitions to the traditional formulation. Notitia is generally defined as understanding, not knowledge. Assent means to agree, concur or acquiesce to something especially after thoughtful consideration. It appears to me that the above fails to capture what is entailed in the meaning of assent and rather confuses assent with understanding. Further, if someone understands and assents to the truth, what is added to the definition of faith by adding the word trust as a third element? If I believe that Jesus Christ died for me or if I trust that Jesus Christ died for me have I really said anything different? I don't see that I have. 

According to my thesaurus synonymous with trust is to have faith in something or to bank on, have confidence in, rely upon, swear by and the list goes on. Similarly, synonymous with faith is trust. Therefore to define faith as trust, at least according to my understanding of the English language, is to define the word faith with itself. 

Look, I´m not saying the above is heterodox or adding work to faith or anything of the sort, just that it is pretty much nonsensical and, at worse, an abuse of the English language. Further, it is simply not true that Clark was presenting a "œnovelty" in defining faith as understanding and assent, he was just trimming off the third element of fiducia which adds precisely _nothing_ to our understanding of what faith is. 

The other important if not crucial thing that seems to have gone unnoticed above, is that what makes faith saving are the propositions believed and not some psychological or subjective additional element. It is for this reason that I think Clark´s discussion of faith in _What is Saving Faith_ is such a necessary corrective to the nonsense surrounding the Neolegalism of those at Auburn Avenue. For what it's worth they do have a use and a clear purpose for this ambiguous "œfiducial" element to saving faith and they are, unlike those who seem to hold on to the traditional formulation at all costs, unequivocal in how they employ the word. 

For example, Doug Wilson is a man who has replaced salvation by faith alone with salvation by faithfulness. It is through our faithfulness to the demands of the covenant which allows us to meet the conditions necessary to be justified before God. Of course, this all plays very well with Wilson redefining justification in historic and eschatological terms. Consider how he employs fiducia in the following:



> "œMany of those who are attacking us have adopted the same basic definition of faith as was held by the Council of Trent -- that is, that faith is assent to raw propositions, and is primarily an intellectual transaction. Trent held that faith was primarily an act of the intellect, and that is what John Robbins holds. The difference between them is that Trent went on to say that this raw assent was not enough, and had to be supplemented by works somehow. Robbins thinks that this lonely faith is the instrument of justification. In contrast to both Trent and Robbins, the historic Reformers held that saving faith did not need to be supplemented from the outside in any way because one component of this faith was fiducia, or loving trust. For the Reformers, faith was a gift from God, and when God gives faith, He does not give anything other than a living, obedient faith. Being the kind of God He is, this living faith is the only kind of faith He can give.
> 
> So the debate is not whether we are justified by faith alone. The debate is over what kind of faith God actually gives. And many of our hostile brothers need abandon their heterodox opinions, and return to the historic Reformed faith."




Note carefully, according to Wilson to say a man is saved by faith is the equivalent of saying a man is saved by his obedience, because "œthis living faith is the only kind of faith He can give." Further, for Wilson the faith that saves is not primarily or even solely an intellectual act. One can believe the message of the Gospel and still be lost per Wilson´s gospel. A "œfiducial" faith is an obedient faith and salvation is by our faithful obedience. Salvation is not by "lonely faith" alone, but by a faith that works. This is what the Federal Visionists mean by fiducia and there is nothing ambigous at all about their fomulation. I will say, Wilson's mention of Trent is very fitting even if misapplied for propaganda purposes, something Wilson excels in. Goebbels would be proud.


----------

