I think this conversation has convinced me that faith
does involve trust, where trust is not mere assent. So saving faith is not just mere assent as many Scripturalists have it. It involves what many Reformed believers refer to as "trust."
But on a hunch, I don't think many
Scripturalists are going to be very open to this idea until the point that persons are
not mere propositions is also contested and demonstrated (as I have done here). When one sees that -
that I, a non-propositional reality, assent to certain propositions one of which is that God the Father, another non-propositional reality, justifies or saves me - it
follows that I am trusting the Father. As Ron says in that thread, I "rely upon" or depend upon
Him.
The point is that in assenting to what the Father says in His word, I
implicitly trust or depend on the Father Himself. But since neither He nor I just are propositions,
this requires that what mental state the word "trust" corresponds to is something other than mere assent. I can't assent to something non-propositional, at least not in the Scripturalist sense. But clearly I can rely or depend on (trust) something non-propositional.
8 comments:
You're right, Abraham was "fully persuaded that what [God] had promised, [God] was able also to perform." He believed in a proposition and also trusted in God.
Faith is not of ourselves, because we only trust someone if we think they are worthy of our trust. God makes himself lovely to us, which causes faith. Now I see a new dimension to faith.
Good to see a new post, Ryan. It is also good to see you toeing it up with Ron again.
Ryan,
I have made a recent examination of your beliefs which I think you may find interesting.
http://drakeshelton.com/2014/08/07/an-examination-of-objectivism-and-an-excursus-on-identities-nouns-verbs-and-the-soul/
"But clearly I can rely or depend on (trust) something non-propositional."
Not so clear to me.
That which is non-propositional cannot be known - how you can you trust what you cannot know?
Further, to try to alleviate this by imposing a "correspondence" between the propositional and the non-propositional only moves the problem: the correspondence is real (allegedly) but is itself not a proposition so it cannot be known either. Yet you claim to know and trust it. Weird. Please clarify.
If you recognize that God must more than just a propositional reality, you should be able to see how our trusting God must entail more than mere assent. It means we depend on Him for our salvation and existence. This dependence, however, can't just be assent if God isn't just a [set of] proposition[s].
Ryan,
I would like to see you take on the issue of geocentrism and heliocentrism.
If you recognize that God must be more than just a propositional reality
That which is non-propositional cannot be known - how you can you re-cognize what you cannot know?
"That which is non-propositional cannot be known - how you can you re-cognize what you cannot know?"
Because there is a corresponding truth that is propositional. The propositional reality in which God is the subject is about or refers to the non-propositional reality of God.
Post a Comment