John Robbins Denounces Experiential Calvinism

[Theogenes]

Jerrold,
Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
Jim

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jerrold,
Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
Jim

None of the men arguing that they are novel contra the Puritans have, once, referred to CVT on this issue. I find Van Til to be useful in some areas but the issue, as it has been developed here especially by Rev. Winzer, was that the conception of faith is novel with respect to the WCF and the Puritans. I know Rev. Winzer would find it amusing that any would claim his objections have to do with a particular attachment to Van Til. Not every criticism of Clark has to be framed in that context.

Also, I recognize that Clark and Robbins would state that the moment men move to what they consider "inexact" language that they believe no useful information is being added at that point. This, to me, is rather like arguing that God's inclusion of the Proverbs has the same "defect" as didactic clarity is hardly present. As Rev. Winzer just mentioned and I keep re-iterating:

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.

This "hard path of wisdom" is what we believe ought to be pursued but, in my estimation, Clarkians have decided a priori that this notion simply leads to a "lack of clarity". Hence, it gives warrant to men to quit the pursuit of wisdom at the point they've decided is the terminus. The syllogism alone provides philsophical certainty - Proceed no Further.

Thus, I disagree that we're not taking this into account. We're simply roundly rejecting it as an un-Biblical approach to wisdom. I think the case can be (and has been argued) that this was the Puritan view reflected in the Westminster Standards and the Directory. I have seen several assertions that some men believed the contrary but I have not seen any material presented that convinces me this is anything but assertion.

 

[JOwen]

Jerrold,
Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
Jim

Dear Jim,

First, I do not have a dog in the CVT/GHC hunt. Experiential Calvinism was around long before the 1950's. Second, I think if you will scroll back and read my responses to Anthony, you will find then quite reasonable. I dine on the Puritans morning and night. I'd say I'm a bit more than "functional" on Scottish Divines. I stand by my belief that Clark's view of saving faith is novel as per the Westminster Standards.

Blessings!

 

[Pilgrim]

Here's another article that touches on the same issue.

The White Horse Inn: Nonsense on Tap

 

[Theogenes]

Jerrold,
I apologize for presuming to know your motivations. Please forgive me.
Jim

 

[Civbert]

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.

While it may be "novel" in the sense that Clark is countering "common knowledge" regarding the meaning of the term "faith", I don't think even you think he has missed the mark completely. Certainly you disagree with some of Clark's criticism and conclusions, but in our discussion so far, we've agreed on more points than not.

What Clark does, that I really appreciate, is make me truly think about theology. He doesn't simply present traditional doctrine without question. While Clark is a dogmatist, he is not a unreasoned dogmatist. He gets under the traditions, and looks at the reasoning behind them. He let's you see both weaknesses and strengths, so you don't develop a false assurance that everything that is "traditional" is unquestionable. And when he sees a point of traditional thinking that is weak, he points it out. More often than not, he strengthens the traditional position by showing where some arguments are weak, and presenting clearer and stronger arguments.

I'll add if Clark is reacting to anything, it is the influence of irrationalism in Christian philosophy - a rejection of "human reason" and logical thinking, and an embracing of empiricism and mysticism (or really the postmodernism of today). And where I see it is when people finally get to a point where they can not logically defend their positions, and resort to saying things like "it's beyond human reason". They play the irrational/mystery trump card.

While Clark has never claimed that we can fully know all the mind of God, for much is hidden from us, and God's mind is so much greater than ours, that does not mean we have any excuse to be less than vigorous in our thinking and reasoning, so that we can better understand those things that God has revealed to us in Scripture, and that God does intend us to know.

We must think as clearly as possible, and test our doctrines, so that we can be like the Bereans, and like Paul by reasoning from Scripture. I hope no one would disagree with this.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

While it may be "novel" in the sense that Clark is countering "common knowledge" regarding the meaning of the term "faith", I don't think even you think he has missed the mark completely. Certainly you disagree with some of Clark's criticism and conclusions, but in our discussion so far, we've agreed on more points than not.

What Clark does, that I really appreciate, is make me truly think about theology. He doesn't simply present traditional doctrine without question. While Clark is a dogmatist, he is not a unreasoned dogmatist. He gets under the traditions, and looks at the reasoning behind them. He let's you see both weaknesses and strengths, so you don't develop a false assurance that everything that is "traditional" is unquestionable. And when he sees a point of traditional thinking that is weak, he points it out. More often than not, he strengthens the traditional position by showing where some arguments are weak, and presenting clearer and stronger arguments.

I'll add if Clark is reacting to anything, it is the influence of irrationalism in Christian philosophy - a rejection of "human reason" and logical thinking, and an embracing of empiricism and mysticism (or really the postmodernism of today). And where I see it is when people finally get to a point where they can not logically defend their positions, and resort to saying things like "it's beyond human reason". They play the irrational/mystery trump card.

While Clark has never claimed that we can fully know all the mind of God, for much is hidden from us, and God's mind is so much greater than ours, that does not mean we have any excuse to be less than vigorous in our thinking and reasoning, so that we can better understand those things that God has revealed to us in Scripture, and that God does intend us to know.

We must think as clearly as possible, and test our doctrines, so that we can be like the Bereans, and like Paul by reasoning from Scripture. I hope no one would disagree with this.

I don't think any would reject the idea that we should be rigorous and logical in our thinking. Again, however, you seem to be bringing the discussion forward to 1950 where most of the detractors are dwelling around 1650.

The Puritans can hardly be accused of intellectual laziness. Their arguments were incredibly complex and their expositions incredibly detailed. They were deep, deep thinkers and there is absolutely no way a fair person could ever accuse them of being mystics or blindly accepting tradition. If you want to find men that will keep you from the error you're concerned about you can hardly do better than them.

Again, however, this comes down to an issue not of rigor but of method. It comes down to a debate on where to begin and where to end in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It cannot be simplified to a debate of the lazy mystics vs. the hard working systematicians.

Put simply, I believe the Puritan approach applied rigor to the whole man and the Clarkian approach denies that a certain part of man really even exists by re-defining it as an idea that is simply folded into another part. Thus, as I have stated, I'm trying to fairly acknowledge that I understand where you're coming from but believe that our differences are not a matter of opinion over the need for vigor but on our basic outlook on what man really is according to how the Word of God describes him.

 

[py3ak]

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.

David, if you think I've been responding to people who say that figurative language can't be understood, that could explain why we seem to be talking past one another. (Jeff did say that if you can't put a figurative statement into literal language then you don't understand it, but I think that was as close as anybody came.)

C.S. Lewis has an essay, Bluspels and Flalansferes which can be found in Rehabilitations and Other Essays and probably other places as well. Since it's Lewis it's naturally very readable and quite short, and explains well that metaphors are an inevitable, indeed a dominant, part of our thinking. He gives this interesting rule: "the meaning in any given composition is in inverse ratio to the author's belief in his own literalness." If you don't have access to it I can try to summarize it, but I am no substitute for Lewis. That should set out pretty fully my meaning of an "illusion of perspicuity". But we can take one quick example: I have heard more than one person say that Clark's work on saving faith cleared away the haze, or fog, or words to that effect. This is a metaphorical way of speaking. But try to pronounce that same meaning without using another metaphor.

With regard to the fact that some parts of Scripture are harder to understand than others, I don't actually think that is primarily about the language (obviously barring points of translation, idioms, and manners of expression to which we are unaccustomed). Peter didn't say that Paul had said some things hard to be understood because Paul was an obscure writer with an excessive fondness for recondite phrases. Rather he said that because there are some things, some concepts which are harder to grasp than others. The love of God passes knowledge; the judgments of God are unsearchable. Some things are hard to be understood because they lead us so far into the depths of the wisdom of God.

 

[JOwen]

Jerrold,
I apologize for presuming to know your motivations. Please forgive me.
Jim

Granted gladly!

 

[Civbert]

To disagree here is contrary to sound exegesis and the unity of the historic understanding of faith. Clark's objection that three Latin words should not explain one Greek word is negating the textual rendering of the passage in its context. Thus, the fathers (Early Church, Reformed, and Puritan) were correct in saving faith's definition.

I think I showed that a simple look at the passages you gave do not demonstrate that faith means exactly three Latin terms. And again, even if the demons trusted, they still would not be saved. The "trust" would not make their faith into saving faith.

Secondly, you are presupposing Clark's understanding which is the point of debate and entirely outside the historical understanding.

I'm not presupposing it, I am making to case for it. As for historical understanding, that too is open to debate. However, Clark's understanding fit's well with the WCF because it recognized the "whereby" in the confession. I would also point out that nothing in Clark's understanding discounts trust as part of the nature or "acts" or "wherebys" of saving faith. I denies nothing about the nature of saving faith, which I think is essentially what the tri-part expression of faith is trying to do. But he does avoid conflation of cause and effect.

If this is your major problem with the threefold nature of saving faith, let me assure you that saving faith is a gift of God and has nothing to do with the volition of fallen man (Eph. 2:8). It is a result of regeneration, the changing of the nature making us willing who are by nature unwilling. It is in this context only that it is exercised. No Reformed Father would state otherwise.

A point of agreement.

I think we are getting closer to each other here. Not "more than the gospel" needs to be exercised, I will grant that, however "all of faith" need to be exercised by personal ratification (this is the trust aspect that missing from the examples mentioned above).

I would take care about being clear when you say "exercised". If you mean faith needs to be faithful, this could be confused with the FV understanding of justification by faithfulness. I'm not sure what "personal ratification" means but it seems to imply that faith is not faith if one doesn't not respond to it. In a sense I can agree. If there is not evidence (personal ratification), then there is reason to doubt a faith is true. This does not mean that faith itself is more than belief. And it does not mean that saving faith is anything more than belief in the gospel.

But the response (which is a gift) is part of saving faith. This is the point. Faith alone saves, amen, but this faith is comprised of knowledge, assent, and trust which is missing from the examples provided. Again, the point of contention with Clark and Robbins. You seem to think that the mechanism of the last element of Saving Faith is, in our minds, human volition, when the mechanism is as much a factor of the Holy Spirit's work as knowledge and assent are. There is no difference in the mechanism. Understand this, and you understand our view.

I think I understand, but I hope you can see how this can confuse cause and effect. If you want to see trust as something caused, that can work. However, this trust in the WCF is one of the "wherebys". It is a result of faith. Also, "trust" is understood as one of the internal responses to the Holy Spirit. Just as assurance is a response to sanctification. All these are things are "wherebys" which we can present as evidence of true belief in the gospel.

This does not follow. Both belief (believe) and faith are the same Greek root in the Bible (pisteuō, pistis). Your statement here brother is saying, "There is no biblical support for the idea that faith is more than faith" if we use biblical definitions. It is asserting the point by the point itself.

This is a key point to Clark's position on the meaning of faith. It is the same word translated as belief. But we tend to think of faith as something beyond belief - even if Scripture strongly supports that belief is simply the accent to propositional truths.

I have given several examples of propositional faith from the scriptures supported by the historic teachings of the Reformed Faith. What more can be done? As far as the WCF goes, the point in question is entirely supported by its language as has already been demonstrated. I would urge you to read Rutherford's The Covenant of Life Opened and Dickson's THERAPEUTICA SACRA for a proper understanding of what the Westminster divines believed about Saving Faith.

And I urge you to read "What is Saving Faith" where Clark demonstrates directly from Scripture that faith is belief - and belief is assent to the truth and not necessarily more. Later I can give more specific examples where 'believe' refers to specific propositions. You probably know most yourself.

Read the Divines and they explain perfectly the triple view of Saving Faith. Plain and simple. Disagree if you must, but it IS what the Divines taught.

Again I agree. But the triple "view" is not exactly defining faith, so much as explaining it's nature. The point I disagree with is the notion that it takes more than belief in the gospel to be saved. It seems to me that Scripture certainly does not teach "faith is assensus, notitia, and fiducia".

I give you Westminster Divine David Dickson as one example of what the Divines taught. This from his commentary on the WCF.

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

Yes; John 1.12. Acts 14.31. Gal. 2.20. Acts 15.11

Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain, Faith to be nothing but a naked assent to the truth revealed in the word; it being placed by them in the understanding only?

Yes.

Again, I have never denied that the acts of saving faith included "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace". However, the first part does not imply the second. No part of Scripture implies that we are saved by more than belief in the gospel. It is that belief alone that is required. The rest are like the works James requires, not in defining faith, but in proving faith.

Further,

"3d, Because we are justified before God by faith, Rom. 5.1. But we are not justified by a bare and naked assent to the truth, otherwise the devils should be justified, James 2.19. Neither are we justified by the Socinians faith, which is every where condemned in Scripture, Rom. 3.20,28. Gal. 2.16. Eph. 2.8,9. Phil. 3.9. Titus 3.4,5."

Notice his first proof text. James 2:19.

But the proof fails for the reasons given. Nothing in James 2:19 implies trust is missing, and certainly does not imply that trust would have saved a demon. It seems that much is being based on the one text, and even that much is unsupported by it. Trust does not seem to be in sight of James 2:19.

 

[JohnOwen007]

I've been working on a sermon this week on Phil. 3. It dawned on me, that a clear reference which shows that faith is more than mere belief / assent (a la Ckark) is Phil. 3:3.

Here Paul says that we "put no confidence in the flesh" (i.e. we don't trust works like circumcision for salvation). "Confidence" is at the heart of the faith vs works issue in Paul's mind. And "confidence" is surely more than belief / assent (as Gordon Clark would say).

A crystal clear biblical reference.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Doesn't Clark make a distinction between assent and understanding that you might not be included in this argument. These were brought to light by Victorbravo for me. This argument sounds more like a problem with how terms are used and meant than with the actual understanding. But I could be wrong.

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."

There is also a further complication in the notion of belief or assent that motivates the antipathy to intellectual activity. Those who say that intellectual belief in Christ is of no value not only fall into the errors exposed above, but they also in some instances fail to distinguish assent from understanding. When they attack "mere assent" they probably mean -- though it is rash to guess what some people mean -- that salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe. They know what the Bible says, but they do not assent to it.

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I know that Gordon Clark has a commentary on Philippians.

Anyone have a copy of it?

If so can you give us his comments on this passage?

Philippians 3:3

 

[JohnOwen007]

Doesn't Clark make a distinction between assent and understanding that you might not be included in this argument.

A distinction between assent and understanding is irrelevant to Phil. 3:3. The point is the distinction between confidence in the flesh versus confidence in Christ. In other words, as the reformers argued, faith is confidence, and confidence ultimately is something akin to trust. Hence, the Latin word they chose to express this was not fides (belief / assent) but fiducia (trust).

Blessings.

 

[Theogenes]

JohnOwen007,
Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith?" shows that faith=belief=trust=assent=confidence=all of the figurative words or phrases used to describe it. He shows that these are all synonyms for an internal activity of understanding and volition. One understands what is being asserted and agrees with it, assents to it, surrenders to it, etc...etc.
If we put no confidence in the works of the flesh(or law) it is because we believe that we can't be justified by them.
Jim

 

[Davidius]

I've been working on a sermon this week on Phil. 3. It dawned on me, that a clear reference which shows that faith is more than mere belief / assent (a la Ckark) is Phil. 3:3.

Here Paul says that we "put no confidence in the flesh" (i.e. we don't trust works like circumcision for salvation). "Confidence" is at the heart of the faith vs works issue in Paul's mind. And "confidence" is surely more than belief / assent (as Gordon Clark would say).

A crystal clear biblical reference.

This sounds sort of like friends of mine who come up to me with verses that are "crystal clear biblical references" proving libertarian free will. All the Calvinistic theologians just missed these verses somehow! I'm always skeptical when someone throws out a systematic treatment of doctrine by providing a magic trump card.

 

[JohnOwen007]

JohnOwen007,
Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith?" shows that faith=belief=trust=assent=confidence=all of the figurative words or phrases used to describe it. He shows that these are all synonyms for an internal activity of understanding and volition. One understands what is being asserted and agrees with it, assents to it, surrenders to it, etc...etc.

Dear Theogenes,

Thanks for your post, it was fascinating.

Have you read the thread above, because as I have, it seems to be given that pro-Clarkians and anti-Clarkians both agree that Clark understood faith in only intellectual categories which do not include fiducial trust.

How could there be such a dissonance between the above discussion and your claim? Did Clark change his mind after writing the book from which you quote? I'm no Clark guru, but someone who is may shed some light. Could you provide us with some direct quotations to prove your point?

If we put no confidence in the works of the flesh(or law) it is because we believe that we can't be justified by them.

Is that in fact right? Does belief always lead to trust (fiducia)? Not according to James 2:29. True faith = knowledge, assent, and trust. The former two can be present, while the later absent. But that's not true faith.

God bless.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Davidius,

Call me thick, but I don't quite understand your post.

This sounds sort of like friends of mine who come up to me with verses that are "crystal clear biblical references" proving libertarian free will. All the Calvinistic theologians just missed these verses somehow!

I'm not quite sure where you going with this? If you don't find the verse "crystal clear" concerning faith as confidence, then feel free to show me where it's not.

Those who adhere to libertarian free will may use "crystal clear" verses in their mind, but I would want to say that they are mistaken and haven't read the verses closely enough.

I'm always skeptical when someone throws out a systematic treatment of doctrine by providing a magic trump card.

Again, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this? Don't you believe that verses can definitively prove a teaching? If they can't how then do we establish any doctrine at all?

Sure there may be verses that are unclear, and hence can't be used to support a certain teaching. But some verses are crystal clear and are to be relied on like the rock of Gibraltar.

Moreover, some verses are crystal clear but we don't see it on first reading for a whole variety of reasons. But one day the penny drops, and we wonder why we didn't see before in all it's crystal clarity. It happens to me all the time.

Just because someone writes a commentary on a biblical book it doesn't mean that they've grasped everything in the book. I don't pick up everything even by the 10th reading of a passage. That's the wonder of the Bible, we can go back and work again on a passage we think we know well, and more fall into place--sometimes very obvious things we wonder why we missed them.

Every blessing dear brother.

 

[Civbert]

I've been working on a sermon this week on Phil. 3. It dawned on me, that a clear reference which shows that faith is more than mere belief / assent (a la Ckark) is Phil. 3:3.

Here Paul says that we "put no confidence in the flesh" (i.e. we don't trust works like circumcision for salvation). "Confidence" is at the heart of the faith vs works issue in Paul's mind. And "confidence" is surely more than belief / assent (as Gordon Clark would say).

A crystal clear biblical reference.

Would that not also imply that a lack of confidence means one is not saved? I know a few people who take that position, and claim that any doubt means one does not have saving faith.

 

[Civbert]

Have you read the thread above, because as I have, it seems to be given that pro-Clarkians and anti-Clarkians both agree that Clark understood faith in only intellectual categories which do not include fiducial trust.

Not exactly. Clark said 'trust' may be considered as the same as, or implied by, faith. Really depending on how it is understood. Ergo, if not trust, not faith. (Modus tollens.)

The problem is that terms like 'trust' can have psychological meaning to people, such that people then believe 'saving faith' is the emotion of 'trusting' - which is an internal personal response and experience. However, faith comes from God, as a free gift, and is external to the believer. The believer does not create his own faith, it is given to him by God.

In no way does Clark 'exclude' trust from faith. Rather, it is a necessary result of faith, or even a synonym for faith. But he does show the problems with using the tri-part Latin construct as a literal definition of faith. The WCF speaks of the "wherebys" of faith, rather than define the term directly. WCF 14 predicates faith as a "grace", "the work of the Spirit of Christ". It gives a great deal regarding the nature of faith, the "by which" and "whereby" and "principle acts of", and this includes that by this faith "a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word".

WCF Larger Catechism Question 72 says "justifying faith" is a "saving grace". It then does on to present the "wherebys". And here too the results or effects of this "saving grace" include both assent and trust (receiving and resting).

So Clark would agree that saving faith, if nothing else, implies each of trust, assent, and understanding. And by modus tollens, if any of these are missing, then saving faith is missing.

But we still have the question, what is saving faith. The WCF does not directly tell us this. It carefully predicates that it is a "saving grace" and "work of the Spirit of Christ". It predicates nothing more directly.

And we need to take care that not all predications are definitions. Getting at the heart of the meaning of a terms can be very important, and requires careful thinking. We don't want to be too loose in our meaning, lest they lead to error or confusion. Nor do we want to be overly strict, and loose anything essential.

Clark's understanding of the meaning of "saving faith" preserves the simple and clear understanding of it's meaning as presented in Scripture, but without loosing any of the nature or implications of the term as traditions gives it to us.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Civbert,

Thanks for your response, although I'm none the wiser about Clark.

In no way does Clark 'exclude' trust from faith. Rather, it is a necessary result of faith, or even a synonym for faith.

I don't get it, how can faith = trust and be the result of faith? That doesn't make sense. Exhaust might be the result of a running car engine, but its not the car engine itself.

But he does show the problems with using the tri-part Latin construct as a literal definition of faith. [...] So Clark would agree that saving faith, if nothing else, implies each of trust, assent, and understanding. And by modus tollens, if any of these are missing, then saving faith is missing.

Again I don't get it. Either faith = knowledge + assent + trust, or it doesn't. Clark may want to say that faith = knowledge + assent and that trust naturally follows (which is untrue due to James 2:19), but this doesn't make trust a part of faith but a natural consequence of faith. This is close to, if not identical with, the Roman Catholic understanding of faith.

Does Clark say faith = knowledge + assent + trust, or does he not?

Blessings Civbert.