Thank God for ‘the soteriological objectivism of the Gospel.’ No hope without it!

Glory!

“A great deal of time and energy has been wasted for centuries by theologians trying to distinguish between various types of faith. They erred in thinking that what makes some faith saving and some faith not saving is a difference in the act of believing. They still had not freed themselves from the soteriological subjectivism of Roman Catholicism. They still had not understood the soteriological objectivism of the Gospel. There is nothing in the faith – the act of believing – itself that saves us. The only difference between saving belief and non-saving belief is the propositions believed – the object of faith. Saving faith is not saving because of some subjective difference in us or in our faith. Saving faith is saving only because of its object. The difference between saving and non-saving faith is objective, not subjective.”

Whazzat? Whom be ‘G’?

I’m glad you said, “villians” and not “VanTilians”!

It seems to me that the above Note on Faith was discussing the former rather than the latter sense of the word.

I understand this to mean the content (saving propositions) of The Faith that saves.

But do you mean the constituent components (knowledge & assent) are the content of saving faith, Steve, when you write, “The Gospel is the object (not the content) of saving faith.”

This too is true. I can agree to this as well: “Asssenting to the propositions of Paul (1 Cor 15:3f) is saving faith or something else is required. It has to be one or the other.”

Good, helpful distinctions! Thanks, men. I am confident my friends will correct me if I have misread them!

P.S. Is ‘jugstification by faith’ hopeful bottle-blowing in a hillbilly band?

“Steve, I imagine by ‘content’ that LT means the propositions of the gospel, i.e. 1st Cor 15:3f ~

…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…

From LT:

“Yes, Hugh, that’s what is meant by “content.” By “determine” I mean “establish or fix.” But what I should have said is that the definition of saving faith does not determine the doctrine of jugstification by faith.”

>>The Gospel is the object (not the content) of saving faith. The proper definition of faith is part of the doctrine of justification by faith (alone) just as the definitions of the other major terms such as “justification” and “alone”. If I claim to believe the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but define faith so as to include in it an element of works or as Horatius Bonar says “make works an ingredient of faith”, I destroy the doctrine.

LT:

“The MEANING of biblical terms is what is essential, not how one defines them.”

It is impossible for someone to understand the meaning of a biblical term without a definition in mind. If you have non-propositional thoughts, please express them without using propositions. It will save me from having to respond. Since a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence, a declarative sentence with no meaning does not qualify as a proposition. For a declarative sentence to have meaning its terms must be defined at least in someone’s mind and then it will only have meaning to one in whose mind it has been defined.

LT:

“The definition of saving faith does not (establish or fix) the doctrine of justification by faith”

I don’t know who would argue that a definition of a word establishes a doctrine, but that is not what the discussion was about. The discussion was about whether anyone can understand what a doctrine MEANS without definitions of the major terms (whether stated or in ones mind).

Asssenting to the propositions of Paul ( 1st Cor 15:3f ~
…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…) is saving faith or something else is required. It has to be one or the other.

I know of at least one person that thought we were the same, so just in case anyone else thought that, well, now you know.

Carry on.