Head / Heart Dichotomy

[Robin]

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.

Thanks for the letter.

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]

Originally posted by Robin

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.

Thanks for the letter.

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

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]

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

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Caka

Originally posted by Robin

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.

Thanks for the letter.

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.)

Robin

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.

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]

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....

Phillip

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]

Originally posted by Civbert

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....

Phillip

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.

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]

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]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
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]

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]

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.

Simply put, Robbins is wrong.

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]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.

Simply put, Robbins is wrong.

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.

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]

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]

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:

(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

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]

Originally posted by Civbert

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:

(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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

With you there.

Clarkonian novelty is Clark's legacy.

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

 

[Myshkin]

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 intellectualism. 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]

Allan,

Excellent comments. Very clear.

 

[Civbert]

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]

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]

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]

(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

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.