The Head and the Heart

[Christusregnat]

Hello All,

I've pondered for many years why so many people will speak of a head vs. heart distinction. In my understanding, the Scriptures make no such division, but this is rather a man-made philosophy which separates the intellection function from the "real man".

If you believe in the head/heart divide, I am interested in hearing your reasoning. Please confine your comments to the texts of Scripture which you cite to make your case. I'm looking for specific, psychological statements, such as these:

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

1 Chronicles 29:18
O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee

Psalm 33:11
The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Although of God, it is interesting that even God's heart thinks.

Psalm 139:23
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts

Matthew 9:4
And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Luke 2:35
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Is there a different term used in Scripture, but we just use the word "heart" to describe this word?

Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers,

 

[Athaleyah]

Kinda but answers the question in a way.

I don't have any Bible verses to back it up, it is only my personal experience. But I have an illness that keeps me from experiencing most positive emotions. My mind delights in doctrine and theology. But my heart feels practically nothing for God. And it isn't that I don't read the Bible or pray. But regardless of whether I can justify it with a verse or two, the separation is my present reality. I know this isn't what you were asking for, just thought you should know it is possible even if it can't be proved from scripture.

And just do you don't think I'm just some strange unsaved person who is into theology, I haven't always been this way. It used to be before I got sick, that mind and heart were matched. It is my past feelings for God that give me encouragement to follow now. This does leave the possibility that I am really strange, and that I will grant.

 

[Davidius]

In my not-so-informed opinion, this comes from an overly scholastic, rigidly philosophical approach to the scriptures. Ignoring the commonplaces of language, we see one word used here, another there, and assume that there is a qualitative distinction to be derived, as if "there were loads of people at the ballgame" and "there were tons of people at the ballgame" carry metaphysically opposed meanings.

*EDIT*
The other problem is the one described by Angela. We have to find some way to reconcile our experience of coldness towards God and others.

 

[Pilgrim72]

Mar 12:30

 

[Christusregnat]

In my not-so-informed opinion, this comes from an overly scholastic, rigidly philosophical approach to the scriptures. Ignoring the commonplaces of language, we see one word used here, another there, and assume that there is a qualitative distinction to be derived, as if "there were loads of people at the ballgame" and "there were tons of people at the ballgame" carry metaphysically opposed meanings.

*EDIT*
The other problem is the one described by Angela. We have to find some way to reconcile our experience of coldness towards God and others.

Could be Davidius. The problem is that if you use a concordance (English, Hebrew or Greek), and look up all of the relevant terms, you find that the heart thinks, chooses, intends, convicts, excuses, but rarely (if ever) feels. Thus, what I'm questioning is not the existence of feelings, but whether we romanticize scripture to fit out notions of human personality.

Cheers,

 

[Whitefield]

Hmmm .. lemme see .. counting up the number of times the apostle Paul uses the words "know" "knowledge" "understand" and their cognates .. now counting up the number of times he uses "feelings" "emotions" and their cognates ... sorry, still looking for the occurrences of the latter.

 

[Davidius]

In my not-so-informed opinion, this comes from an overly scholastic, rigidly philosophical approach to the scriptures. Ignoring the commonplaces of language, we see one word used here, another there, and assume that there is a qualitative distinction to be derived, as if "there were loads of people at the ballgame" and "there were tons of people at the ballgame" carry metaphysically opposed meanings.

*EDIT*
The other problem is the one described by Angela. We have to find some way to reconcile our experience of coldness towards God and others.

Could be Davidius. The problem is that if you use a concordance (English, Hebrew or Greek), and look up all of the relevant terms, you find that the heart thinks, chooses, intends, convicts, excuses, but rarely (if ever) feels. Thus, what I'm questioning is not the existence of feelings, but whether we romanticize scripture to fit out notions of human personality.

Cheers,

This is exactly my point. It is impossible to derive from scripture systematic definitions of the "mind" and "heart" which do not overlap and thus destroy the validity of the definitions. It appears that the authors use these and other such terms interchangeably. When they were writing a passage with the word "heart" or "mind" they were not purposing to spell out a Judeo-Christian metaphysics.

 

[smhbbag]

Ditto to Davidius.

 

[Archlute]

Hmmm .. lemme see .. counting up the number of times the apostle Paul uses the words "know" "knowledge" "understand" and their cognates .. now counting up the number of times he uses "feelings" "emotions" and their cognates ... sorry, still looking for the occurrences of the latter.

If you do a broader study of the issue, you will find that Paul (and other writers of the epistles) use many terms that describe experience and emotion in the Christian faith. Terms such as comfort, peace, sorrows, groaning of spirit, etc. In fact, the whole of Paul's discussion in Galatians chapter 5 is a discussion that centers upon experience. A superficial word study on a couple of categorical terms may not come up with much, but a careful reading of the epistles certainly will help to overcome that error.

 

[Archlute]

As an aside, a ministerial colleague remarked to me during a conversation last week on this very subject that he had just come across a passage in Calvin's writings where he had made a point about head vs. heart knowledge using that very phrase, and that it had completely taken him by surprise (since we know that it is only pietists who make this distinction, right?). He didn't have the reference on hand, but said that he would go home and look it up for me. I'm not very surprised though. I've been studying Calvin on prayer, and find that he makes a good deal of hay over what we would label a "head vs. heart" distinction in the realm of prayer. Good stuff to give careful read if you have the time; especially 3.20 of his Institutes.

 

[Grymir]

We put on the mind of Christ. Can't remember the exact verse, it's late. Also the whole 'bowel's of compassion'. And the passage that God says He'll take away our stoney heart and give us a new one.

I was pondering your statement "but this is rather a man-made philosophy which separates the intellection function from the "real man"."

The head/heart distinction isn't overblown in philosophy, but in modern psychology, where it is way overblown. (and in Star Wars, ie, 'follow your feelings young Skywalker'. ) They are used Biblically as a kind of metaphor to show feelings vs intellect, not a specific location in the body where they come from.

Of course this leads to the body/soul distinction.

 

[Pergamum]

The demons believe - and tremble.

This shows me that cognitive ability is far from saving

The devil's theology is much better than my own - by my heart is Christ's!

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

How about this very famous passage, Matthew 22:37-38:

Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment.

Plus, in Romans 7 Paul says this:

For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law in my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

So clearly I can give intellectual assent to something without desiring it with my "heart." For example, in my mind I desire to eat healthy foods, but it's really hard to resist the siren song of Ben & Jerry's ice cream at the grocery store. So I think I can know and desire one thing with my mind, yet my heart will love what it will. Only through the supernatural transforming work of the Holy Spirit can it be changed to desire Christ alone...

 

[BJClark]

Our former pastor recently did a study on this I'll have to go through my notes and get back with you, hopefully I can find them all.

 

[jambo]

I think the head v heart is a virtual distinction and relates not so much to the Christian as to the person who knows theology but does not live his life accordingly. Thus if there is no change because of what he believes he therefore bears no fruit. If there is no fruit then the conclusion isthe person is not a Christian.

An example is seen in the Pharisees who knew the law but clearly did not know the Lawgiver.

 

[BJClark]

This is from one of the lessons: It's 4 pages in length of just one part of the overall course, that goes into the depth of the question.

Radical Corruption: Our need for God's Grace

We are not as sinful as we could be

Mat 5:43-47
Romans 2:14
King Abimelech can distinguish between forms of good and evil
2 Thess 2:7

We are sinful in Nature:

1. What makes people do the things they do? The will? The mind? The emotion? The Bible reveals that behind every individuals willing, speaking, desiring, and choosing is the person who wills, speaks, desires, and chooses. Using Scriptural language, behind an individuals capacities is his heart or nature. the heart is our inner core or 'organ' of thinking, speaking, desiring, and choosing. It is the point of concentration of all functions.

Proverbs 4:23. Our hearts regulate everything about us

Mark 7:21-23. As the fountain of our being, our sinful heart pollutes our thoughts, speech, desires, and choices. Whatever a person thinks, desires, and wills to do, his heart or nature ultimately is the source of it all.

Matthew 7:17-20. The fruit of the tree is determined by the nature of that tree. A person's thoughts and deeds (his fruit) are determined by his nature (the kind of tree he is).

2. Through Adam's fall every person's nature was affected. Jer 17:9

In verse 10 each man refers to all people. There are no exceptions.

Our hearts are incurable desperately wicked (Jer. 15:18). The heart has a disease that is terminal. The disease is sin. We have no cure for it.

Our hearts are also deceitful. the heart tries to tell us that 'all is well", when in reality it's deathly sick. We need a healthy respect for our hearts ability to fool us. Only God's Word is able to judge the hearts thoughts and intentions. (Heb 4:12)

C. We are Sinful in all that we do.

1. All we do is tainted by sin.

Romans 3:9-12. Even the best of our works are not good before Him.

Is. 64:6. God see's the heart & weighs the motive. Even our right-ness is filthy.

D. We are Spiritually Dead.

Eph. 2: 1,5 This is not a casualty report, it's a coroners report. (Col. 2:13)

by death Paul meant that lost people are unresponsive to God. "nekros" was often used in Biblical and Classical Greek to describe a corpse (cf: Acts 28:6; James 2:26) Lazarus in the tomb, no life, no hope. Everything is final. Before Adam fell he was animated by the Holy Spirit and responsive to God. But when he disobeyed, his soul died. All union & fellowship with God ended not only for Adam but also for all who would be born in his line. We lost our relationship with God.

The phrase 'in your trespasses and sins" means both the place where this death exists & it's cause. For example when a person drowns in a lake the water is both the place of death and the cause of his drowning. Natural man, is floating face down in his sins having been inwardly suffocated by the intrusion of sin..

Lost people are dead to God, but very much alive to sin. Walking according to the course of this world, living in the lusts of the flesh, indulging in the desires of the flesh.

Ezek 37. God likens lost people to dead bones: dried up bones means a complete demise really dead & beyond hope. Needing a miracle for them to respond to Ezekiels word.

E. We cannot change or escape from our sinful natures

1. Natural man is stuck with his fallen nature. In his own strength there is nothing he can do to change his sinful dead heart.

Job 14:4 Everyone's heart is unclean
Proverbs 20:9 No one can cleanse his own heart. Thus it is the heart or nature of a person that controls his mind, will and emotions. It is not the mind, will or emotions that control the nature.

Jer 13:23 Just as the Ethiopian is dark by nature and a leopard has spots by nature so we are sinful by nature. There is a permanence to the condition of man's heart. It does not have the ability to change itself from evil to good. It's like Jer. is saying "go ahead change your skin, take off your spots." Just as they can't neither can we change what we are.


As I said, there are some 4 pages of information on this section alone, and I've not shared all of it, but I do hope even this much will be helpful to you.

 

[py3ak]

I find that there seems to be a distinction drawn between the kidneys and the heart. Where we might speak of head and heart (or brain and heart if we weren't motivated by the alliteration), an Hebrew might speak of heart and kidneys.

 

[Arch2k]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/head-heart-dichotomy-5476/

 

[MW]

The distinction is used within the context where the "commitment" doesn't match up to the "concept," thereby indicating that it is a bare idea which floats around in the brain and not a true belief which has penetrated the person's psyche. The "dualism" is a practical one and acceptable when understood as such. There is no need to read a theory of psychology into it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam B,

I would think it implicit in Matthew 13:20, 21:

But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.​

The word here is in the mind / intellect, but is not rooted in the heart.

Steve

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam B,

I would think it implicit in Matthew 13:20, 21:

But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.​

The word here is in the mind / intellect, but is not rooted in the heart.

Steve

Steve,

Thank you for pointing up this passage. A little more in the context will reveal that the truly saved are those that understand, and the false professors are those who have "joy":

18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

So, there is an emotion vs. understanding dichotomy in the passage. However, it is opposite to what we think; the understanding is saving, while the bare emotion is damning.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

The distinction is used within the context where the "commitment" doesn't match up to the "concept," thereby indicating that it is a bare idea which floats around in the brain and not a true belief which has penetrated the person's psyche. The "dualism" is a practical one and acceptable when understood as such. There is no need to read a theory of psychology into it.

Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for taking the time to interact with my question. Your point raises another question that has troubled me for some years. I am interested in your understanding.

Typically, there is a three-fold division for Latin theologians in faith: knowledge, assent, and fiducia. The Greek theologians only know pistis (that being the only word for faith - with its cognates - used in the NT, as far as I'm aware). Any how, the three-fold division seems to be based on the head/heart dichotomy. My question is this: doesn't fiducia elude definition as a sort of "fidelity" or "faithfulness", such as Norm Shepherd and FV argue for? If, as cited in the parable of the sower, the good ground is the one that "understands" (puts it all together), what need is there to look for a further "commitment".

I understand the danger seeking to be avoided (the very real danger of anti-nomianism), but I'm wondering if the three-fold definition of faith doesn't give ground to errorists, as those mentioned above.

Very interested in any input you may have.

Cheers,

 

[cih1355]

If a person knows that the Bible makes true statements, but does not actually depend upon Christ alone for his salvation, then he really does not believe in Jesus. It is not like he believes in Jesus in his head, but does not believe in his heart. He does not have believe in Jesus at all. The whole person believes in Jesus, not just part of the person. There is no such thing as having saving faith in your head, but not in your heart. You either have saving faith or you don't.

 

[Galatians220]

As a Catholic, I would read John 3, where Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." And I would ask the nuns, "What's this 'born again' stuff?" They would always say, "Oh, don't worry about it. You were born again when you were baptized." But that answer would never satisfy me and I'd think no, there's still something wrong with me... I am not born again, whatever that is.

Years later, I was attracted to and joined a Reformed church, and took great joy in the preaching, music, etc. But I was still in various patterns of sin and took pleasure in them. I was gaining a great deal of "head knowledge," i.e., knowledge of the WCF, etc., but I had no love for the Lord Jesus Christ. He wasn't my Lord; He wasn't yet my Savior.

I'd always had an agenda for my life. I thought that what I dimly perceived at the end of it was a warm, welcoming hearth. Eventually, I reached some of those (sinful) goals, to my shame. However, the Lord then shook me up and I saw that what I thought was a warm hearth was really the fires of hell. My agenda was nothing but sin! I knew then that I was a miserable, wretched sinner in desperate need of a Savior. "Head knowledge" and studying the Bible and the confessions saves no one, not I or anyone else. The Lord quickened me, gave me the grace to love Him and to see my sinful agenda through His eyes. Oh, did I ever not want that garbage anymore! I wanted nothing of the "old self."

You can't discern "heart knowledge" through study or even through the Scripture itself if the Holy Spirit is not working in you. John 3:8.

This is why I'm so "down" with Reformed theology. An Arminian lawyer friend told me, after my conversion, that "the Lord foresaw that you would choose Him and that's why He gave you faith." NO! She was wrong. It was not I who did anything! Praise the Lord: it was all of His life-giving power and might!

The same almighty Power that raised Jesus from the dead raises each of us to eternal life. He makes something from nothing every time He does it - and what a tremendous Father we have!

Margaret

 

[MW]

My question is this: doesn't fiducia elude definition as a sort of "fidelity" or "faithfulness", such as Norm Shepherd and FV argue for? If, as cited in the parable of the sower, the good ground is the one that "understands" (puts it all together), what need is there to look for a further "commitment".

The good ground brought forth fruit. The issue here is whether a denial of fiducia can still, in and of itself, facilitate the bringing forth of fruit. My understanding is that it cannot. My reason is simple. The Bible gives propositional revelation, such that it requires assent. But the Bible does not only give propositional revelation; that revelation is also relational and personal, such that it requires trust. God addresses us in terms of specific moral relations, and these moral relations require response as equally as the propositional truth of Scripture. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, and an all-sufficient Saviour, and the Lord of all, and the Judge of the living and the dead, is not the same as believing 2 + 2 = 4. The proposition that Jesus is Lord and Saviour demands something personal of me that mathematical equations do not. "Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all." To deny this personal response of trust, rest, dependence, or whatever else one might be inclined to call it, is to shut off the natural consequence which follows from acknowledging that Christ is Lord and Saviour, namely, that therefore my whole life is to be lived to Him, 2 Cor. 5:14, 15. At that point the natural affections have been severed, and the fruits of righteousness cannot naturally be produced as a consequence of faith. Hence to deny fiducia as an element of faith in response to the personal aspect of revelation is to dig up the very soil which brings forth the fruit of the seed sown.

 

[Christusregnat]

My question is this: doesn't fiducia elude definition as a sort of "fidelity" or "faithfulness", such as Norm Shepherd and FV argue for? If, as cited in the parable of the sower, the good ground is the one that "understands" (puts it all together), what need is there to look for a further "commitment".

The good ground brought forth fruit. The issue here is whether a denial of fiducia can still, in and of itself, facilitate the bringing forth of fruit. My understanding is that it cannot. My reason is simple. The Bible gives propositional revelation, such that it requires assent. But the Bible does not only give propositional revelation; that revelation is also relational and personal, such that it requires trust. God addresses us in terms of specific moral relations, and these moral relations require response as equally as the propositional truth of Scripture. Believing that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, and an all-sufficient Saviour, and the Lord of all, and the Judge of the living and the dead, is not the same as believing 2 + 2 = 4. The proposition that Jesus is Lord and Saviour demands something personal of me that mathematical equations do not. "Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all." To deny this personal response of trust, rest, dependence, or whatever else one might be inclined to call it, is to shut off the natural consequence which follows from acknowledging that Christ is Lord and Saviour, namely, that therefore my whole life is to be lived to Him, 2 Cor. 5:14, 15. At that point the natural affections have been severed, and the fruits of righteousness cannot naturally be produced as a consequence of faith. Hence to deny fiducia as an element of faith in response to the personal aspect of revelation is to dig up the very soil which brings forth the fruit of the seed sown.

Thank you for addressing this issue; I agree with the point that our all is committed to Christ, and the affections of the mind cause us to bring forth the fruit of righteousness.

Would you say that fiducia is a sine non qua of justification, or sanctification, or both? Does fiducia include the works we do? This was more the direction I intended to ask.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

Would you say that fiducia is a sine non qua of justification, or sanctification, or both? Does fiducia include the works we do? This was more the direction I intended to ask.

So far as a condition "sine qua non" is concerned, reformed theology teaches good works are such a condition to justification. So obviously the "trust" which brings forth these good works is at least such a condition. But I would maintain that "trust" is more than this because it is essential to faith in its receptive nature and therefore essential to a true justifying faith. Hence "trust" is a constituent part of the faith which is the "instrumental means" of justification.

 

[Christusregnat]

Would you say that fiducia is a sine non qua of justification, or sanctification, or both? Does fiducia include the works we do? This was more the direction I intended to ask.

So far as a condition "sine qua non" is concerned, reformed theology teaches good works are such a condition to justification. So obviously the "trust" which brings forth these good works is at least such a condition. But I would maintain that "trust" is more than this because it is essential to faith in its receptive nature and therefore essential to a true justifying faith. Hence "trust" is a constituent part of the faith which is the "instrumental means" of justification.

Thank you for the information. How then, in terms of "good works being such a condition to justification" would you distinguish your view from this:

Theologia » The 34 Theses

In particular, where Shepherd states that "Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9)."


This sounds similar to what you are saying, but I want to find out how you think the position of justification by fiducia, or faithfulness, is different from what Shepherd advocates. By no means do I think you would agree with him, but I'm having trouble distinguishing the two (mea culpa).

Cheers,

 

[MW]

Thank you for the information. How then, in terms of "good works being such a condition to justification" would you distinguish your view from this:

Theologia » The 34 Theses

In traditional language, the condition of good works is consequent, whereas Norman Shepherd makes it simultaneous. To speak of "obedient faith" as justifying is to make the obedience present in the faith as well as insinuate that the obedience is in some sense a constituent part of the instrument that justifies. The language and the thought it conveys is unacceptable to the reformed commitment to sola fide. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The person must be acceptable before his work can be regarded as "obedient." The person can only be acceptable by faith. Hence faith must be the alone instrument of justification apart from any consideration of obedience or perseverance.

 

[MW]

This sounds similar to what you are saying, but I want to find out how you think the position of justification by fiducia, or faithfulness, is different from what Shepherd advocates.

I'm not sure why you have placed faithfulness in apposition to fiducia in this sentence.