In another thread on hyper-calvinism, a different topic came up discussing the elements of faith.
Historically, reformed theologians considered faith to have three essential parts: notitia, or “knowledge”; assensus, or “assent”; and fiducia, or “trust."
Gordon Clark took issue with this definition, primarily on the grounds that assent included trust. This causes controversy even to this day.
I've read Gordon Clark's defense of this and I am not of the group that thinks he taught Sandemanianism (mere intellectual assent is sufficient for saving faith). I do think, however, that he can be understood that way, and on this issue there was a potential recklessness of teaching.
But I offer something else: anecdotal evidence that trust is different from assent. I take it from my own experience. God did not bring me to saving faith until my 40s. Before that, I had read Scripture, and I had even come to believe it was true. I had no doubt that Christ was a real human, Son of God, who walked on earth, was killed, and was resurrected.
But, that didn't do much of anything in my case, because I was quite confident that I did not need to rely upon Christ for my own sin. I was arrogantly confident that God would either leave me alone, or that I could argue with him about fairness on judgment day.
Not exactly a Christian frame of mind, is it? I had knowledge and assent, but no trust. It was a work God's Spirit to press me against the wall on the issue, and cause me to submit in sackcloth and ashes.
I think on a practical and pastoral level, the three elements need to be embraced, examined, and applied.
Historically, reformed theologians considered faith to have three essential parts: notitia, or “knowledge”; assensus, or “assent”; and fiducia, or “trust."
Gordon Clark took issue with this definition, primarily on the grounds that assent included trust. This causes controversy even to this day.
I've read Gordon Clark's defense of this and I am not of the group that thinks he taught Sandemanianism (mere intellectual assent is sufficient for saving faith). I do think, however, that he can be understood that way, and on this issue there was a potential recklessness of teaching.
But I offer something else: anecdotal evidence that trust is different from assent. I take it from my own experience. God did not bring me to saving faith until my 40s. Before that, I had read Scripture, and I had even come to believe it was true. I had no doubt that Christ was a real human, Son of God, who walked on earth, was killed, and was resurrected.
But, that didn't do much of anything in my case, because I was quite confident that I did not need to rely upon Christ for my own sin. I was arrogantly confident that God would either leave me alone, or that I could argue with him about fairness on judgment day.
Not exactly a Christian frame of mind, is it? I had knowledge and assent, but no trust. It was a work God's Spirit to press me against the wall on the issue, and cause me to submit in sackcloth and ashes.
I think on a practical and pastoral level, the three elements need to be embraced, examined, and applied.