John Robbins Denounces Experiential Calvinism

[VictorBravo]

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

No, they are not the same thing at all:

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

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

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

Now I am more confused.

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

Very true!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust is different that assent.

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

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

1) I trust Frank.

2) I believe what Frank says.

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

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

and not make sense to say,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

No, they are not the same thing at all:

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

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

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

Now I am more confused.

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

What about these 2 scriptures:

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

And Proverbs 23:7

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

 

[Jim Johnston]

Hi Jeff,

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

So do you trust me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Hi Jeff,

Hello!

So do you trust me?

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

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

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

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

Arminianism? Where! Run away!....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jim Johnston]

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

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

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

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

 

[Theogenes]

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

 

[MW]

Jeff,

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

Nicholas,

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

Blessings!

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. 129.

What does the word "Amen" signify?

A.

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

Rich,

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

 

[Theogenes]

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[Davidius]

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

My pleasure.

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

The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

My pleasure.

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

The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

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

My pleasure.



The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

My pleasure.



The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Calvin's Institutes 3.20.1

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[JOwen]

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

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

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

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