Head / Heart Dichotomy

[Arch2k]

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]

***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]

Andreas-

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

Erin

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by MissSolaFide]

 

[turmeric]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

***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]

Originally posted by lwadkins

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?

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]

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]

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]

Christopher!


Robin

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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.

andreas.

"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]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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.

andreas.

"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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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.

andreas.

"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

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.

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]

Robin,

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

 

[Robin]

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]

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]

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.