Clark Quick Quote

The following Clark Quick Quote was provided by Ryan Hedrich with some of Clark’s preliminary argumentation added.  Hopefully it will clear up some confusion over what an assent to an understood proposition entails and why the addition of fiducia as a third element of saving faith is an unnecessary redundancy, even a dangerous one.  Dangerous because it adds a level of ambiguity to the definition of saving belief that has been exploited by enemies of Christianity who seek to undermine and destroy the very heart of the Gospel, even justification by belief alone in the finished work of Christ alone:

After the Stoics, the Christian philosopher Augustine made use of assent. Augustine was not much interested in physical objects; his theory, on one reputable interpretation, does not even speak of concepts; he clearly puts great emphasis on truth, and assent is the voluntary decision to believe an understood proposition.

This Augustinian view continued in Christian philosophy or theology. The word notitia, used by Christians in discussing faith, means simply an idea, a notion, a concept, or, as above, the understanding of what a proposition means. Assent means the voluntary act of believing the proposition to be true.  I understand or know what Spinoza means by saying God is nature; but I do not assent to it. I also know or understand the meaning of the proposition, “Christ died.” That is not hard to understand and everybody assents to it.  Further, I understand the proposition “Christ died for our sins.” So do many other people; but they do not all assent to it; they do not all believe it.  I do.

This matter of assent, however, can be seriously misunderstood. In one discussion an otherwise competent theologian took assent to refer to a verbal and public profession of faith. He then noted that such a profession can be and sometimes is hypocritical. Therefore, he concluded, assent itself, or with understanding, is not faith.

This argument depends on a misunderstanding of assent. Assent can never be hypocritical, for it is the voluntary act of according belief to a given proposition. There need be no verbal and public manifestation. Assent is an inner act of will. (Today’s Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? pg. 69)

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Gordon Clark

54 Comments on “Clark Quick Quote”


  1. Reblogged this on The Sovereign Logos and commented:
    I often run across folks who do not understand what the word “assent” means. Gordon Clark remedies this problem.

  2. Steve M Says:

    “Assent can never be hypocritical.”

    How true! Only feigned assent can be hypocritical.

  3. Julie Kellam Says:

    Clark: “Assent means the voluntary act of believing the proposition to be true.” Scripture: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” “He who believes, has eternal life.” We humans are good at complicating and misconstruing………… Isn’t it wonderful He saves us in spite of and from our sinful selves!

  4. Denson Dube Says:

    “There need be no verbal and public manifestation. Assent is an inner act of will. (Today’s Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? pg. 69)”
    Augustine: To believe is to “think with assent”. Thinking is inward, in the heart or mind.

  5. justbybelief Says:

    I’m thankful that God raised up Clark to bring this to light. Thank you for the reminder.

    It’s humorous to listen to some in the reformed tradition define ‘trust’ in the same way as they define ‘assent’ when articulating the definition of faith (knowledge, assent, and trust) and then turn around and in the same breath deny that they are the same thing.

    Then, there is the ambiguous within the tradition: “By Fiducia we mean absolute trust and practical agreement. Fiducia is the hardest element of saving faith to define because it involves intangibles that may be perceived or apprehended without being fully comprehended.” http://www.providencepca.com/essays/savingfaith.html

  6. Sean Gerety Says:

    And therein lies the danger and deficiency of the traditional definition. Good quote, but what’s worse is that it is scandalous. Here we have a Reformed Pres pastor, who is in fact one of the “good guys,” who can’t even clearly define the word on which the entire Reformed and Christian faith stands or falls. I mean, if we cannot clearly define what we mean by faith then we certainly have no clear idea of what it means to be justified by it. If Webb is right, and I think the vast majority of P&R pastors would agree with him, then justification by faith alone can only be perceived or apprehended without being fully comprehended. That is a deplorable situation.

  7. justbybelief Says:

    Sean,

    @Webb: “Intangibles”

    That profile picture of yours, says it all.

    Eric

  8. justbybelief Says:

    “…if we cannot clearly define what we mean by faith then we certainly have no clear idea of what it means to be justified by it.”

    Amen!!!

    Should one even be teaching if ignorant of its definition? And, should we, or could we in good conscience, submit to one in said ignorance?

  9. justbybelief Says:

    Sorry, I can’t help myself…

    And, can a true church exist in such ignorance?

  10. Steve M Says:

    Wasn’t it the apostle Paul who wrote:
    “For we maintain that one is justified by something we cannot fully comprehend apart from the works of the law”?.

    It is difficult (or impossible) to take much comfort in that.

    Webb: “Fiducia therefore mingles the emotion of love with trust, inclination, and agreement.”

    I’m getting confused. I thought fiducia was trust. Now I find out it is a mixture of things one of which is trust. Another is “agreement” which must be somehow different from assent (I don’t know how). Love is an emotion or feeling apparently and is also part of fiducia. Inclination is also apparently not assent, but, if not, what is it?

  11. Denson Dube Says:

    What is really sad about people like Webb is that they refuse to learn and will not be taught. They are content in their invincible ignorance.

  12. justbybelief Says:

    Steve M,

    “‘For we maintain that one is justified by something we cannot fully comprehend apart from the works of the law’?.”

    Great logical deduction (and sarcastic ad-lib of Paul). It sounds like what Paul condemns in Galatians–another gospel.

    Also, isn’t ‘love’ in the Bible defined by obedience to the law? And, hasn’t the above definition, by Webb, added it as a prerequisite to justification?

    Eric

  13. Steve M Says:

    Eric

    “Also, isn’t ‘love’ in the Bible defined by obedience to the law? And, hasn’t the above definition, by Webb, added it as a prerequisite to justification?”

    I think you are right about the biblical definition of love. Love is not an emotion or feeling in the Bible, but that is how Webb is defining it. So I think he is guilty of making emotions or feelings a part of saving faith rather than obedience, at least in the sentence I quoted. I don’t believe that any emotion is an element of faith. I don;t believe that God’s love for his elect is an emotion. I don’t believe the love we are to have for the brethren is an emotion, either.

  14. Sean Gerety Says:

    Good point Eric. While I’m sure unintended, but Webb and others like him have laid out the welcome mat to those who have destroyed the purity of the church. It’s a gaping hole and a losing fight until they plug it. I don’t know why this is so hard for so many pastors to grasp? My guess is they don’t want to accept anything that comes from Gordon Clark or John Robbins or even something that says your tradition is wrong.

  15. LJ Says:

    Sean: ” I don’t know why this is so hard for so many pastors to grasp? My guess is they don’t want to accept anything that comes from Gordon Clark or John Robbins or even something that says your tradition is wrong.”

    Sadly, I don’t even have to speculate. I know for a fact that the Van Tillian faction is alive and well and continue to scoff at giving Clark his due. Even if, perchance, they aren’t outwardly bigoted against Clark they are so imbued with the standard tri-fold formula, noticia, assensus, and fiducia, from Manton they’re just frozen. It’s been so drummed into their psyches from the seminaries they are just incapable of changing their minds.

    But I really, sincerely, honestly, un-hypocritically, believe IT’S NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND! And I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer either 😉

    LJ


  16. What is “practical agreement”? Can it be anything other than practice which follows from the propositions, i.e. obedience, i.e. works?

  17. justbybelief Says:

    LJ,

    “…they are just incapable of changing their minds.”

    I ran into this obstinate attitude among the Lutheran Church’s clergy. Losing one’s credentials would be tough to swallow after getting a masters or doctorate in theology, although in light of Christ’s words, it’s necessary.

    Isn’t it wonderful, also, that God saves ‘dull knifes’ and then build’s them up to bear His image and testimony?

    I used to have a Baptist pastor announce from the pulpit, “What if God took a crooked stick and hit you right between the eyes?” Of course, by the ‘crooked stick’ he was referring to himself. Anyway, thank God for ‘crooked sticks’ and ‘dull knives.’

    “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” 1 Cor. 3:18

    Eric

  18. Steve M Says:

    Patrick
    “What is “practical agreement”? Can it be anything other than practice which follows from the propositions, i.e. obedience, i.e. works?”

    No, it can’t.

    Webb: “He did not, however, demonstrate Fiducia because he was not willing to put his life into the tightrope walkers hands by getting into the wheelbarrow. Therefore his belief or assent never bridged the gap between the theoretical and the practical.”

    Practical assent, according to Webb, involves “getting into the wheelbarrow”. I don’t know how one could make it any clearer that he considers works to be an element of that faith which justifies. I have heard other examples to illustrate Fiducia, but they all end up with the same conclusion that works are part of faith. .

  19. justbybelief Says:

    The pastor at the OPC I used to attend in Missoula, MT said that John Robbins was acerbic. I suppose that the truth always rubs the natural man the wrong way.

    “Wisdom is justified by all her children.”

  20. Steve M Says:

    Acerbic means bitter tasting. Truth is not a matter of taste. What does truth taste like? What does it smell like? What does it sound like? What does it feel like when you touch it? What does it look like?

    Truth is not something that can be ascertained through sensation. God, who is truth itself is invisible. He is incorporeal. One cannot touch him. One cannot smell or taste him. One cannot hear him in the sense of vibrations that reach ones eardrums.

    To hear God is to believe his revelation of himself in Scripture. God has revealed himself in Scripture.

    John Robbins was a warrior for truth. He was a warrior for God. I wish I were more like him.

  21. justbybelief Says:

    Steve,

    “Acerbic means bitter tasting.”

    2 Cor. 2:14-17

    “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”

    1 Peter 2:7-9

    “Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;”

    “John Robbins was a warrior for truth.”

    Amen! Yes! And, he’s living like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and every other saint. The truth which he preached still goes out in his books.

    We (me) found that the gospel he (J.R.) preached was Biblical and we rejoiced in it and in his boldness as a servant of the Lord. Those who don’t like the gospel and the Biblical defense of it find him (J.R.) offensive and abrasive–These are the children of the lie.

    “Wisdom is justified by all her children”

    Eric

  22. Sean Gerety Says:

    FWIW I dealt with Webb’s discussion of saving faith in Can the PCA be Saved and here: https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/the-fiducial-road-to-rome-part-1/

  23. justbybelief Says:

    Great assessment, Sean…

    “Generally the explanation is lacking any clear definitions and instead takes a short flight into the [LAND] of pious sounding analogies and word pictures.”

    “…the [LAND] of pious sounding analogies…” equals Fantasy Land.

    Obviously, Webb, should try to have his article NOT come to the top of a Google search, and he would avoid being the whipping boy for that element of errant Presbyterianism.

    2 Peter 1:16…

    “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

    Eric

  24. LJ Says:

    FWIW, I attributed the tri-fold formula, notitia, assensus, and fiducia to Manton. But I don’t think he originated it; not sure who did. But it is my experience when discussing saving faith within reformed circles that both the tri-fold formulation and Manton’s comments on James, making belief alone devilish, come hand in glove.

    LJ


  25. LJ, your “hand in glove” comment reminded me of the devilish abomination known as The Message, in James 2. Read it and weep for the destruction of the gospel in the hands of millions:

    “14-17 Dear friends, do you think you’ll get anywhere in this if you learn all the right words but never do anything? Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it? For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?

    18 I can already hear one of you agreeing by saying, “Sounds good. You take care of the faith department, I’ll handle the works department.”

    Not so fast. You can no more show me your works apart from your faith than I can show you my faith apart from my works. Faith and works, works and faith, fit together hand in glove.

    19-20 Do I hear you professing to believe in the one and only God, but then observe you complacently sitting back as if you had done something wonderful? That’s just great. Demons do that, but what good does it do them? Use your heads! Do you suppose for a minute that you can cut faith and works in two and not end up with a corpse on your hands?

    21-24 Wasn’t our ancestor Abraham “made right with God by works” when he placed his son Isaac on the sacrificial altar? Isn’t it obvious that faith and works are yoked partners, that faith expresses itself in works? That the works are “works of faith”? The full meaning of “believe” in the Scripture sentence, “Abraham believed God and was set right with God,” includes his action. It’s that mesh of believing and acting that got Abraham named “God’s friend.” Is it not evident that a person is made right with God not by a barren faith but by faith fruitful in works?

    25-26 The same with Rahab, the Jericho harlot. Wasn’t her action in hiding God’s spies and helping them escape—that seamless unity of believing and doing—what counted with God? The very moment you separate body and spirit, you end up with a corpse. Separate faith and works and you get the same thing: a corpse.”

  26. justbybelief Says:

    Concerning Manton and this doctrine: It is interesting that one can embrace all Christian doctrine and be sound in every point. If ‘belief’ which we (and the Bible) define by ‘knowledge’ and ‘assent’ is overturned then the rest, however holy, proves no good to our souls but only aggravates our condemnation. Maybe this is why it is being attacked in this subtle way through the tri-fold formula.

    Yes, LJ, the tricks of Satan that you’ve mentioned above which have been turned on you in the church have been used on me when trying to champion ‘belief’ as ‘knowledge’ and ‘assent.’

    Who are we to question the likes of the great Manton? He may have been nothing more than a predator in the pulpit. We should always be careful to be no respecter of persons.

    This doctrine, which if denied, is a straw which breaks the camel’s back.

  27. justbybelief Says:

    The funny thing is that one person that I was arguing this doctrine with, from a human perspective, had everything one would see as commending him to men, he is quiet, he is tall, has a respectable southern draw, is soft-spoken, is an army officer, is well read, and on and on. Yet this person is deceived and a liar.

  28. LJ Says:

    Patrick, that’s depressing!

    Belief alone; then work out your salvation in fear and trembling for no one shall see The Lord without holiness. God did not purpose to confuse his children.

    The road to Rome is wide, seductive, and many are drawn there.

    LJ

  29. Denson Dube Says:

    We sometimes forget that God is not a man. What we are impressed with, God may not be. David’s brothers looked cool in their Raybans but God had not chosen them. The truth is not hard to see, but this is only because God has chosen that one see the truth. Without the doctrine of election, it is hard to explain why some people see the truth while others are blind to it.

  30. Pht Says:

    Well, here, be more depressed!

    From Vines:
    “The main elements in “faith” in its relation to the invisible God, as distinct from “faith” in man, are especially brought out in the use of this noun and the corresponding verb, pisteuo; they are (1) a firm conviction, producing a full acknowledgement of God’s revelation or truth, e.g., 2Thess. 2:11,12; (2) a personal surrender to Him, John 1:12; (3) a conduct inspired by such surrender, 2Cor. 5:7. Prominence is given to one or other of these elements according to the context. All this stands in contrast to belief in its purely natural exercise, which consists of an opinion held in good “faith” without necessary reference to its proof. The object of Abraham’s “faith” was not God’s promise (that was the occasion of its exercise); his “faith” rested on God Himself, Rom. 4:17,20,21. See ASSURANCE, BELIEF, FAITHFULNESS, FIDELITY.”

    Yes, he DIRECTLY says in number 3 that a part of saving faith is “conduct” – this cannot be anything BUT obedience; this is a WORK…

    I myself have recently heard this preached at my church, along with a few other definitions – sproul’s version of the latin and some few other confused allegories.

    I printed out trinity reviews numbers 265 and 254 and typed out some cover notes for him; We’ve discussed it since, but I’m still not sure where my pastor stands on this.

    To his credit, the discussion was actually pretty cordial. I suspect from personal experience that there may be a bit of confusion on the topic as of yet… I can, however, thank God that my pastor seems to have respect for the bible as being the Word of God and Truth. He truly seems to enjoy exegeting from the text; he’s doing it nearly at every church meeting now, from what I gather.

    My pastor and his wife have just recently in the past few years come to realize the truth of the sovereignty of god in salvation, and seen, I gather, how much of a failure the arminian hermeneutics and arguments are. Amazingly, there hasn’t been any notable blow-back, yet, from the congregation…

    I’d like to ask you guys to pray for my pastor to have clarity and see in the bible what faith is.

    He has repeatedly said that our salvation is something that is achieved totally by God; so I have high hopes for him to get it right.

    Speaking of which, pray for ME so that I don’t do what I usually do … try and hit people with the “reformed firehose” when I should be handing them a glass of water instead.

  31. justbybelief Says:

    Pht,

    “We’ve discussed it since, but I’m still not sure where my pastor stands on this.”

    It is perfectly just to ask your pastor where he stands. It is also perfectly just to call erroneous teaching error and to point out that teaching which is pure–to guide.

    The outcomes for me have been mixed. Some, really appreciate it and others, not so much.

    Of the ones that appreciate it, some have been VERY angry initially and later realized that I spoke to their benefit. I’ve come up with a saying for this type of reaction:

    ‘The initial anger expressed upon hearing the truth is directly proportional to the zeal with which the corresponding lie is embraced.’

    You’re in my prayers.

    Eric

  32. LJ Says:

    Speaking of which, pray for ME so that I don’t do what I usually do … try and hit people with the “reformed firehose” when I should be handing them a glass of water instead

    Yes! The entire God’s Hammer Voluteer Fire Dept.

  33. Pht Says:

    Thanks for your prayers JB.

    I don’t have any problem realizing that we should contend for the actual content of the gospel… Galatians *is* in our bible, after all…

    The only place where things are a bit grey for me is where we draw the dividing line between “the gospel proper” and “all else” for the purposes of “defending the gospel” … especially in the light of God’s word being the only truly coherent system of thought in the world.

    As it stands, I reserve the contending for strictly things that deviate from justification by faith alone…

    (shame on me, I should study my bible more!)

  34. justbybelief Says:

    Pht,

    “shame on me, I should study my bible more!”

    Shame on us all. But, thanks to God for crediting Christ’s perfect obedience–active and passive–to us through belief, which is also a gift of God.

    Eric

  35. Steve M Says:

    Arthur Pink on saving faith: “Scripture also teaches that people may possess a faith which is one of the Holy Spirit, and yet which is a non-saving one. This faith which we now allude to has two ingredients which neither education nor self-effort can produce: spiritual light and a Divine power moving the mind to assent. Now a man may have both illumination and inclination from heaven, and yet not be regenerated.

    People may have a Divine faith, not only in its originating power, but also in its foundation. The ground of their faith may be the Divine testimony, upon which they rest with unshaken confidence. They may give credit to what they believe not only because it appears reasonable or even certain, but because they are fully persuaded it is the Word of Him who cannot lie. To believe the Scriptures on the ground of their being God’s Word, is a Divine faith.

    Yes, there is a faith in Christ, which saves; but there is a faith in Christ which does not save. From this statement probably few will dissent, yet many will be inclined to weaken it by saying, That faith in Christ which does not save is merely an historical faith, or, where there is a believing about Christ instead of believing in Him. Not so. That there are those who mistake an historical faith about Christ, for a saving faith in Christ, we do not deny; but what we would here emphasize, is the solemn fact that there are also some who have more than an historical faith, more than a mere head knowledge about Him, who yet have a faith which comes short of being a quickening and saving one. Not only are there some with this non-saving faith, but today there are vast numbers of such all around us. They are a people who furnish the anti-types of those which we called attention to in the last article: who were represented and illustrated in O.T. times by those who believed in, rested on, leaned upon, relied upon the Lord, but who were, nevertheless, unsaved souls.

    Saving faith consists of the complete surrender of my whole being and life to the claims of God upon me.

    Once it is seen that saving faith consists of very much more than believing that “Christ died for me,” that it involves and entails the complete surrender of my heart and life to His government, fewer will imagine that they possess it. Once it is seen that God’s salvation is not only a legal, but also an experimental thing, that it not only justifies, but regenerates and sanctifies, fewer will suppose they are its participants. Once it is seen that Christ came here to save His people not only from hell, but from sin, from self-will and self-pleasing, then fewer will desire His salvation.”

    Any comments?

  36. louiskbb Says:

    Steve M,

    **Arthur Pink on saving faith: “Scripture also teaches that people may possess a faith which is one of the Holy Spirit, and yet which is a non-saving one. This faith which we now allude to has two ingredients which neither education nor self-effort can produce: spiritual light and a Divine power moving the mind to assent. Now a man may have both illumination and inclination from heaven, and yet not be regenerated**

    1. Does Pink aduce any Biblical evidence for his sytem?
    2. Does he name those people of the O.T. times
    **who believed in, rested on, leaned upon, relied upon the Lord, but who were, nevertheless, unsaved souls**?

    Thanks, Louis Breytenbach

  37. LJ Says:

    What is the book and publisher you’re quoting from?

    This is as good an example of pietist muddling of justification and sanctification as we usually see. I wonder how well Pink MEASURED UP to his own standards? If he were honest with himself I suspect the law crushed his spirit and he was despondent and lacking assurance to the end. The yoke that he places on God’s children is heavy to bear; indeed who can bear it?

    LJ

  38. LJ Says:

    Pink: Saving faith consists of the complete surrender of my whole being and life to the claims of God upon me.

    It appears that this phrase from Pink blurs the distinction between justification and sanctification. If he had said, “sanctification consists of the complete surrender of my whole being and life to the claims of God upon me,” then he would have been closer to the truth. But even here it seems better to say that (we) STRIVE, TOIL, and WORK by grace in the power of the Spirit seeking holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord.

    But it seems the distinction must be clearly delineated that the long road of work, toil, and striving is the Christian life, and that it begins when we BELIEVE that Christ died for sinners and rose for our justification; by grace are ye saved through BELIEF, and that not of yourselves …

    Our salvation in its fullness is “complete surrender” in a sense because we are entirely helpless without the grace of God. But the pietistic use of the phrase “complete surrender” takes our eyes off Christ and focuses them on ourselves which, if we are honest, leads to hopeless despair and the stifling of the Christian’s hope and life.

    LJ

  39. Steve M Says:

    LJ
    I cut and pasted this some time ago and I just happened to come across it again, so I am not exactly sure where I found it originally. I have found similar views expressed in Studies in Saving Faith.

  40. justbybelief Says:

    Pink: “Saving faith consists of the complete surrender of my whole being and life to the claims of God upon me.”

    This is a denial of both justification and sanctification. If we’ve completely surrendered, there is no need for sanctification we’d already be fully sanctified. There is also no need for justification–God’s declaration of my innocence. Do I really need Christ if I’m fully surrendered to God?

    This is also a claiming of knowledge that God can only posses. How shall I ever know whether I am completely surrendered?

    I think you’re right on the money, LJ, in that a ‘complete surrender,’ in a Biblical sense, and not as Pink defines it, is an acknowledgement of complete helplessness on my part.

    I think this is worse than muddled thinking, though, on Pink’s part. These are the thoughts of the natural man.

    Romans 10:4,5
    “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.”

    Eric

  41. LJ Says:

    Eric: This is a denial of both justification and sanctification. If we’ve completely surrendered, there is no need for sanctification we’d already be fully sanctified. There is also no need for justification–God’s declaration of my innocence. Do I really need Christ if I’m fully surrendered to God?

    Devastating implication.

    Off to church. Have a blessed Lord’s Day!

    LJ

  42. Steve M Says:

    Did Paul really mean:
    “For we maintain that a man is justified by the complete surrender of his whole being and life to the claims of God upon him apart from the works of the law.”?

  43. justbybelief Says:

    Steve M,

    Awesome! Simply, Awesome! You show the complete illogic of Pink’s position.

    Eric

  44. louiskbb Says:

    Sean,
    Any reason why you removed my posting from your blog?
    Louis Breytenbach

  45. LJ Says:

    I was asked this question by a friend who is a minister:

    “Is knowing something is true and believing something is true synonymous?”

    I answered, but I’d like to hear what you (y’all) think the correct answer is before I share my ignorance for all see!

    LJ

  46. Steve M Says:

    There is difference between knowing and believing. The object of knowledge must necessarily be true or it is not knowledge. The object of belief, on the other hand, may be either true or false.

  47. LJ Says:

    Thanks Steve. Very succinct.

  48. Cam Porter Says:

    “The important contrast is not between faith and knowledge, but between truth and error” – G.H. Clark

  49. Steve M Says:

    Cam
    Where is the quote found?

  50. Pht Says:

    I believe the Pink book can be found for free from monergism.com ‘s front page…

  51. Cliffton Says:

    LJ: “Is knowing something is true and believing something is true synonymous?”

    Cliffton: Ultimately, divine revelation is the precondition for intelligibility. And of course, divine revelation is knowledge. Knowing something is true and believing something is true are essentially intellectual activities. Even if they could be distinguished as intellectual activities they must, as intellectual activities, still stand in relation to divine revelation. From that perspective, the perspective of the Christian worldview, there is no difference between knowing divine revelation and believing divine revelation. They would both be thinking God’s thoughts after Him.

  52. Cam Porter Says:

    Steve,

    Sorry for the delay. That quote is in A Christian View of Men and Things, Chapter 7, near the end of his conclusion.

    Cam

  53. Jon Says:

    I would say there is a difference between knowing and believing divine revelation. Knowing it implies having more facts, believing less. We know what GOd tells us. We believe him about what he doesn’t. For example, God tells us he sent JEsus CHrist to die for us. We do not know the future, however, at least not until he returns.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: