# What do the Confessions testify of concerning Saving or Justifying Faith?



## cih1355 (Oct 1, 2007)

Civbert said:


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



To have faith in someone means to affirm that certain propositions about that person are true and to depend or rely on that person. Historical faith is not really faith because it does not include depending or relying on someone.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 1, 2007)

cih1355 said:


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



I can understand what you are saying when you say "faith in a person" means.... But what about just "faith"? I'd say faith is simply "to believe". But if one has faith _in a person _it means to believe propositions about the person and to believe/trust what that person says. And if that person says "depend on me" then if I have faith in that person, then I will depend on him. But I can see where I can have faith in a person and not depend on him. I can have faith in Joe because I believe he is honest and has good intentions, but I do not depend or rely on Joe.


----------



## KMK (Oct 1, 2007)

From LBC chapter 14:



> 2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, *and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: *and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also 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 have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.



Is there a difference between believing the Bible to be true (unsaving) and believing that it bears the glory of God, the excellency of Christ, and the power of the HS (saving)?


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 1, 2007)

KMK said:


> Is there a difference between believing the Bible to be true (unsaving) and believing that it bears the glory of God, the excellency of Christ, and the power of the HS (saving)?



I can relate personal testimony on this: I once believed, without any doubt, that Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, and resurrected. No question. I took it to be a historical fact I could not explain.

I even believed that people who called on the name of the Lord would be "saved", whatever that meant.

But, for me, I was determined that I didn't need any saving or any of that obedience stuff. I could make it fine enough on my own, thank you.

So, there was something I hadn't come to believe, and it was another statement in scripture: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"; and "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

So I believed that the stories in the Bible were essentially true (embellished maybe, but true), but until I believed those two passages out of Romans, there was no way I could even conceive of repenting. Accordingly, I was not a believer.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 1, 2007)

KMK said:


> From LBC chapter 14:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think so. It says "_By_ this faith..." we believe these things. This doesn't allow one could have faith and yet not believe "that it bears the glory of God, the excellency of Christ, and the power of the HS". 

What this tells me is that the _result _of gift of saving faith includes the following specifics: 

a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself
(a Christian) apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations.
And further results are a Christian: 
is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed
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 have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace".

All this tells me are the _consequences_ of faith. The last sentence tells me specifically that saving faith results in "resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life". Therefore definition of faith is not "resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life", but these are a direct consequence of saving faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 1, 2007)

Posts moved Gents.

I have to run right now but I want the discussion to focus on how the Confessions understand justifying faith. I'd be interested in determining if there is a difference between how Clark viewed faith and the Confessions as well as whether there is, perhaps, a neo-Clarkian re-casting of his thought that obliterates the third aspect of faith.


----------



## KMK (Oct 1, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a difference between believing the Bible to be true (unsaving) and believing that it bears the glory of God, the excellency of Christ, and the power of the HS (saving)?
> ...



Same testimony for me. I was raised in a liberal Methodist church and believed in Jesus Christ and believed the teaching of the Bible and as you said, "But, for me, I was determined that I didn't need any saving or any of that obedience stuff. I could make it fine enough on my own, thank you." 

But then, one day I read Ps 22 and saw the passion of Christ described in such detail in a Psalm that had been written hundreds of years prior. On that day I actually believed that the Bible displayed the glory of God, the excellency of Christ, and the power of the HS.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Posts moved Gents.
> 
> I have to run right now but I want the discussion to focus on how the Confessions understand justifying faith. I'd be interested in determining if there is a difference between how Clark viewed faith and the Confessions as well as whether there is, perhaps, a neo-Clarkian re-casting of his thought that obliterates the third aspect of faith.



Sounds good. From the horse's mouth, Clark acknowledged that understanding the facts of scripture is not the same thing as believing them:



> 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.



(Emphasis in original)

From Christian Philosophy, p. 174, Volume 4, Works of Gordon Haddon Clark 2004 Trinity Foundation.

Clark was trying to be precise, and earlier in the passage he admitted not being comfortable with the traditional formulation because it seemed to be requiring something in addition to faith, that is, some sort of free will action. My take is that he is turning the crystal more than denying the traditional formulation of faith. What he was arguing against was some sort of requirement of a mystical emotional experience.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 2, 2007)

"Turning the crystal", I like that. I'll try to remember it.


----------

