Links to all parts may be found here. This part will contain a review and evaluation of Mr. Lazar's Appendix in his book, Scripturalism and the Senses.
The doctrine of assurance serves as an appendix to Mr. Lazar's book on [Neo-]Scripturalism. In it, he seeks to outline and improve Clark's understanding. Serving as background to this post is my interaction with Mr. Lazar comments on whether Clark affirmed any synergism in a salvific context as well as how might the nature of saving faith be influenced by such a consideration (link, specifically the following):
...justification and [progressive] sanctification depend on faith, something we do indeed "do" (Acts 16:30-31). God alone indeed declares a man righteous in Christ - and in this sense, justification can be viewed as monergistic. But because justification in turn depends on saving faith, and because saving faith is something we "do," God's monergistic declaration depends on a synergistic cooperation. Of course, having faith is something we can "do" solely by God's grace, but this is besides the point.
Or to put things another way, we are, as Robbins says, sanctified by the truth, but not by a passive experience of truth. A reprobate can hear truth without it sanctifying him. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 shows that it is our belief in the truth through which we are saved, and actual belief is a volitional activity or act of will, as Clark argued (link). Thus, the point is that even on Robbins' view, a proper understanding of synergistic cooperation is involved in our "salvation" (link).
Incidentally, I think this admission enables admirers of Clark to revisit his view of the nature of saving faith. Once it is admitted that all sides agree saving faith is an obedience to the gospel - not that it is itself our merit or ground for justification (link) - there is less worry about what additional element (e.g. "trust" or "dependence") saving faith might include besides understanding and assent, so long as said element is also not taken to be merit or ground for justification. But I have attempted this elsewhere (link, link) and will look to reexamine such things in my final review of Mr. Lazar's book.
On Mr. Lazar’s position, “Assurance may be thought of as the conclusion to a simple deductive syllogism where we are first presented with Jesus’ promise of life and are expected to deduce the appropriate conclusion.” Using a discussion between Jesus and Martha as an illustration, the syllogism Mr. Lazar presents according to which he believes one may possess assurance is as follows:
P1: Whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life.
P2: I believe [in Jesus].
C: Therefore, I have everlasting life.
Here, I agree with Mr. Lazar. We can "have assurance" - i.e. "know," in the fullest sense possible (link) - that we are saved. While I will expound on this below, for now, I will point out that at one point in his life (at least), Clark agreed with this as well:
It is good to know you are saved. But if we depend on our feelings for this knowledge, our assurance cannot be very constant. On the other hand, it will be both constant and unshakable if we obtain that knowledge through some such syllogism as this: The infallible Word says that if I confess the Lord Jesus and believe God raised him from the dead, I shall be saved; I believe and have confessed; Ergo, I am saved. (1925. Gnosticism and Modernism, The Presbyterian & Herald and Presbyterian, Philadelphia, Sept 17, link)
If you follow Gordon Clark's epistemology all the way out here, none of us can know that we're saved. I had lunch with Gordon Clark once. I have met him on more than one occasion - not many - but I did have the privilege of having one long, afternoon lunch with him, and being able to discuss epistemology and discuss our differences, and I brought this up to him. Even to this day I'm a bit shaken that a Presbyterian minister would answer in the way that he did.
I said, "Well, now, if I understand you correctly, Dr. Clark, we can only know the things which are found in the Bible. And - well we've already talked about how we can't know what's the Bible without using your observational abilities, but forgetting that for a minute - can I know, or can you, Gordon Clark, know that you are saved? Because the proposition "Gordon Clark is saved" is not something you can read in the Bible. That right?"For Gordon Clark to know that he's saved or for Greg Bahnsen to know that he's saved or for Cornelius Van Til to know that he's saved, we need to read what the Bible says about salvation, the conditions of salvation, and then observe of our lives that we meet those conditions.I said, "Since you can't read 'Gordon Clark is saved' in the Bible, you can't know that you're saved." And so I figure, you know, in debate, that's known as a reductio ad absurdem. I've reduced you to something that even you would call absurd. But a reductio ad absurdem only works when the person thinks it's absurd. And Clark said, "Well, which of us can know that we're saved?"At first I thought he was toying with me... and maybe he was. I mean, it would be easier, even at this point - even though there's no indication of it - I'd still like to believe he was just saying that with a wink in his eye, and it's like, "I don't have an answer, leave me alone." But he insisted on that, because when I pointed out the confession of faith says that we can have an infallible assurance of our salvation, his answer was, "the Confession's not always right." (link, minute 49ff.)
It seems clear that Clark struggled to harmonize self-knowledge with Scripturalism. Bahnsen is correct that assurance is tied to self-knowledge, and he is correct that the Bible does not mention the words "Gordon Clark." It does not follow, however, that Clark himself could not have knowingly affirmed, "I am saved." As I have already discussed self-knowledge several times (see here and follow the relevant links within), I will mostly pass over further comment on this issue. That Clark entertained doubt about his own ability to be assured of his salvation is, however, relevant to the next section.
Assurance is the essence of saving faith because Jesus promised that everlasting life was the present possession of all believers, so if you believe that promise, you must necessarily believe you have everlasting life as a present possession. If you do not have assurance, you either do not understand Jesus’ promise of everlasting life, or you do not believe it.
If you believe the proposition, "Whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life," then you must conclude, "I have everlasting life," because that is what Jesus promised to believers. The Lord's promise is in the subjunctive. If you meet the condition, then it become true of you. Hence, if you believe that John 3:16 promise, and you fail to draw the conclusion that you have eternal life, you either do not understand Jesus' promise, or do not believe it.
Indeed, if we read Mr. Lazar closely, he understates his own position. Reread the following: "If you have never been sure of your salvation, that means you have never believed Jesus' promise of life, which is the saving message." Should not Mr. Lazar more frankly say, "If you are unsure of your salvation, that means you have never believed Jesus' promise of life, which is the saving message"? For Mr. Lazar, one must be presently sure of one's salvation; if assurance if the essence of saving faith, it is not sufficient for one merely to have been sure of it at some point in the past. Would Mr. Lazar argue that Clark was unsaved during his conversation with Bahnsen?
Mr. Lazar would be hard pressed to defend such a position from Scripture. How would Mr. Lazar explain the father who cried, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)? The father clearly believed something. Rather, it was the logical implications of his belief he struggled to believe.
If God did not intend to complete that good work in us, it would not be completed. And if there were the slightest possibility that it would not be completed, we could not have the comfort of assurance. That is to say, as the "perseverance of the saints depends not on their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election," so assurance of salvation presupposes the perseverance of the saints.
An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian; in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation (link)
All the more does this make sense when we consider that many Scriptures are designed to assure believers. If Scripture is written for that purpose, it implies some believers may not yet be assured. Clark writes:
False assurance is a common thing.When Peter lists and exhorts his readers to exhibit spiritual qualities that supplement saving faith, he continues that we should do so, "For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."
Yet it is possible to have a true assurance and rejoice in a hope that will not disappoint. The Scriptures say it is possible and urge us to that state. John wrote his first epistle especially to teach us this lesson.
To begin to distinguish between presumption and true assurance, one may begin by noting the title of the chapter - Assurance and Grace. The unregenerate are not assured of grace: they believe that they are good enough to deserve heaven. But the assurance spoken of in the Confession is a result of faith in Jesus Christ. It is an assurance that can be found only in those who love him in sincerity and who endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him...
I John 2:3; 3:14, 19, 24, and 5:13 tell us how we may obtain assurance of salvation. Do we love the brethren? Are we humble or proud? Cf. I Cor. 15:9, 10; Gal. 6:14. Do we teach transgressors the way of the Lord? Cf. Ps. 51:12, 13; II Pet. 1:5...
On the other hand we must not say that assurance is a necessary and inseparable concomitant of faith. Some overly enthusiastic evangelists insist that unless a man is sure he is saved, he is not saved at all...
If assurance were a necessary concomitant of faith, the Scriptures would not exhort the faithful to press on to assurance. But the Scripture references contain such exhortations. (What Do Presbyterians Believe? 2001, pgs. 176, 178-179)
In general, one must be extremely cautious, not merely in asserting that faith and assurance are inseparable, but in making any universal statement of the psychology of Christians. The New Testament records a number of conversions, and psychologically they were all different, in fact very different. The New Testament and church history as well give abundant evidence of the infinite variety of Christian experience...
Assurance of salvation, like other blessings, does not come to all Christians...
What is the same is the object of our faith, and this object is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (What Do Presbyterians Believe? 2001, pg. 179)
Hopefully it is not too unnatural to pivot from thoughts about fear, doubt, and assurance to belief and faith, for these are all psychological activities. Having said enough on the matter that assurance does not seem essential to saving faith, what is? Here I find potential for some qualification of Clark's position. Clark equates "faith" with "belief" and defines the latter as follows:
But first it is clear that the Greek verb pisteuo is properly translated believe, and that this Greek verb and the English believe mean precisely the same thing. The important point now is to see what the object of this verb can be. Obviously it can be, and in the Bible usually is, the truth. Of course a person may believe something false; but even so the nature of the psychological act of believing, called faith, is the same, for the man who believes a falsehood believes it to be true...
Put aside questions as to the object or objects believed, recognize that phrases not containing the words voluntary or assent may nonetheless have the same meaning, and realize that the act of belief is psychologically the same no matter what is believed, and it is hard to find a phrase descriptive of belief better than voluntary assent. (link)
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.
I regret Calvin, a giant among pygmies, said that assent comes from the heart and not the head. This distinction is unscriptural; the Bible nowhere opposes heart to head, for it does not mention this “head.” Naturally assent comes from the heart because all psychological actions of a person come from the heart. There is nothing else for them to come from.Now, while saving faith is an obedience - after all, Scripture says that unbelievers are commanded to obey or believe the gospel, that one must "do" something to be saved (Acts 16:30-31), talks about "the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26), etc. (cf. link) - any obedience on our part is not the ground of our righteousness. The object of our assent is the gospel, and this gospel is about what the Christ in whom we trust has done (by which the Father has grounds to justify believers whose regeneration unto saving faith unites them to Christ). Further, God Himself is the determiner of who is gifted saving faith. While faith entails our activity, any such faith we have in Christ is a response to and first requires God's monergistic, regenerative grace.
Aside from this unfortunate slip, Calvin proceeds to say that assent is the obedience of faith. Clearly obedience is a matter of volition. Assent then is an act of will. No pious additions are necessary, for the assent itself is already pious. (Today's Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? 1990, pg. 83)
Undoubtedly Christianity requires a subjective, psychological act of believing; but the faith is what is believed. Unless a person believes something, he does not believe. He has no faith. The fundamental difficulty with much modern preaching is that it allows faith no object or content. (link)
Clark did not know what the saving message was. He denied there was a minimum saving proposition, but could not define a maximum. He thought the content of saving faith a complex of propositions known only to God. He counseled preachers to preach the whole Bible and trust that God would use some combination of propositions to bring the elect to faith.Of course, if you believe in justification by faith apart from works, but do not know what you must believe in order to be justified, you can never be sure you have saving faith. Your faith might consist entirely of non-saving propositions. Without a clear saving proposition to believe, Clark's doctrine of assurance will lead to doubt.
What propositions did they believe? Is there any passage in Scripture that identifies, in a scale of decreasing knowledge, the very minimum by which someone can still be justified?
But even if a minimum of propositions could be listed, below which number justification were impossible, it would still be the wrong question with a perverted outlook. The Church is not commanded, encouraged, nor even permitted to be satisfied with a barest minimum of theology. The command requires the maximum possible:
Matt. 28:19,20 Teach all nations … instructing them to observe all whatever I commanded you.There seems to be no other conclusion but that God justifies sinners by means of many combinations of propositions believed. For which reason a minister should not confine himself to topics popularly thought to be "evangelistic," but should preach the whole counsel of God, trusting that God will give someone the gift of faith through sermons on the Trinity, eschatology, or the doctrine of immediate imputation. (link)
There isn’t any minimum belief. There isn’t anything absolutely, no particular doctrine is absolutely necessary for a regenerate person to hold. Look at all the converts on the mission fields in primitive lands. All the peasants in medieval Russia or in Africa not so very long ago. They knew very little. They believed very little, and probably got it mixed up. But I’m not willing to say on that account they are excluded from heaven. There is no minimal belief that you can specify and I’m rather, and I would rather prefer to approve of the desire to know as much and believe as much as you can rather than to find out how little you can and get away with it. (link)
Whether peasants knew much or little, I don't know. But is not the point is that if they were saved, they must have known something? Romans 10:14-17 is clear enough that there is a need to evangelize precisely because of how little is known about Him in whom we must believe. Israelites were destroyed for their lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6, cf. Romans 10:1-2).
Of course, the idea that the gospel has definite content which can and should be specified does not imply that the gospel is the only content which should be recommended or prescribed, nor that one who desires to know this content just wants "to find out how little you can [believe] and get away with it" or has a "perverted outlook." Clark's implied suspicion as to the motivations of those who are interested in what specific propositions "the gospel" entails is a red herring.
A particularly troubling statement by Clark is the following: "There isn’t anything absolutely, no particular doctrine is absolutely necessary for a regenerate person to hold." If this were true, Mr. Lazar would seem to be quite right that we could not have assurance. Whatever doctrines we hold are not absolutely necessary for a regenerated person to hold, so we could not look to what doctrines we hold and hope to gain any assurance that we have been regenerated.
Further and as worrisome is that if the above were true, we could have no hope of distinguishing between good and bad trees, between sheep and wolves. If what doctrines we hold have no bearing on whether or not we are regenerate, sheep and wolves may believe the same thing. To deny this would, again, seem to require that we specify a doctrine one must believe to be regenerated.
Now, in defending peasants, surely Clark would not argue that only those who know whatever "maximum" number of propositions there are are saved. But then must there not be a minimum belief, even if Clark was not aware of it? This would have been a better admission, if still disappointing.
One alternative I can think of (which can be considered and then immediately dismissed) is that perhaps Clark could reply that one must not believe certain doctrines. For example, suppose Docetists cannot be saved because they believe something they should not. Clark could argue that those who believe in the bodily incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are no more or less assured of being regenerated than those who are agnostic or ignorant of the subject... for, again, on Clark's view, it is not necessary to believe that Christ assumed a body et al. to be saved. Given Clark's view, it would not even be necessary to deny Docetism, for such a denial ("Docetism is false") can itself be viewed as a "particular doctrine" that isn't "necessary for a regenerate person to hold."
This would imply that assurance is largely apophatic: we can be assured insofar as we do not believe falsehoods, but not by believing truths. What an ironic position that would be for someone whose position on the topic was precisely meant to encourage people to desire a maximum of knowledge!
I cannot seriously entertain that this is what Clark thought. Paul's warning to the Galatians (1:6-9) that they be watchful for anyone who preaches another gospel than that which Paul preached presupposes their being able to recognize, as Machen puts it, what is counterfeit by comparison to the authentic [gospel they had already accepted (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4)].
Likewise, Clark's own writings mitigate against this as seen in one of the very articles I linked to above. For Clark says, while commenting on the remarks of another theologian, that a "minimal amount of theological ideas or teaching is necessary as a prerequisite for true faith" is "a fine statement"!
How he could not have seen the tension between this affirmation and his denial of their being "minimal belief" in the same article is difficult to understand. I gather that this is a transcription of what was originally an audio recording, so one might be tempted to excuse it on those grounds. However, as I have cited, there are multiple places in which Clark protests against a specification of what is entailed by the gospel. Further, the following establishes multiple places in which Clark contrastingly affirms a "minimum of information" is necessary for a "true relationship to our... Redeemer" (parenthetically, note that this relationship - which was not always the case, for redemption occurs in time, e.g. Hebrews 9:15 - reinforces the idea that trust can be understood as something distinct from assent):
Of course it is true that God commands and redeems; but this is not incompatible with his giving information to man. When God said to Abraham, “Thou shalt be a father of many nations,” it was information; and when John wrote, “the World [sic] was made flesh,” it was information. Now, it may be true that God's redemptive acts do not of themselves inform; but in addition to the act God has provided us with its explanation. 'Christ died' is the act, but 'for our sins' is the informative theology. Far from theological information being incompatible with the true relationship to our Creator and Redeemer, this true relationship is impossible without a minimum of information; and the more the better. Like the Athenians we cannot worship an unknown God. (link)
Not just any minimum will do, however. In chapter 7 of What is Saving Faith?, Clark wrote:
Quoting James 2:19 Manton remarks that the faith here is a “bare speculation” and cannot possibly save anyone.
That this faith cannot save is very true. It is no more than a belief in monotheism. This the Muslims possess. But however it may be with Muslims, it seems incorrect to call the faith of devils a bare “speculation.” This word often is used to refer to some proposition that is so unverifiable as to be more likely false than true. Granted, Manton also calls it a knowledge; and this is better, because on this point, if on nothing else, the devils believe the truth.
If devils and Muslims are not saved even though they are monotheists, and if monotheism is true, then this belief or faith in truth is insufficient. It is too minimal! In other words, once again, the tension in Clark's thought cannot be excused so easily.
What, then, of this minimum? If one were an evangelist, would he not be advised to begin his preaching with propositions which would enable a "true relationship" with the only Redeemer of sinners? Why not begin by delivering the gospel Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 15, which many historians, scholars, and theologians consider to be the earliest creedal expression of Christianity, dated to within months if not years of Christ's resurrection? After all, in what other sense can we understand these propositions to be of "first importance" if not in that they convey a minimum of information which a Christian ought to believe? Let us continue to consider some points that may in turn help fine tune a correct understanding of the nature of saving faith and its objects.
Understanding, Assent, and Dispositions
Suppose an evangelist begins to evangelize peasants but does not begin with 1 Corinthians 15. Can they be saved? Of course. One of Clark's statements I quoted above does hold some potential: "God justifies sinners by means of many combinations of propositions believed." This statement allows that there is a minimum of theological information necessary for a true relationship with our Redeemer, yet this statement can be construed such that it also does not require said minimum to entail a particular doctrine. That is, what the propositions of "the gospel" are that one regenerate person believes and what the propositions of "the gospel" are that another person believes may be equivocal, without overlap. Perhaps there are two sets of propositions, set A and set B, which both suffice to meet whatever minimum Clark has in mind but do not overlap.
Framed this way, I doubt it would present as an attractive option to Clark or most who follow him. If, for Clark, the faith of demons is too minimal, Hebrews 11:6 nevertheless seems to establish theism as a necessary belief for those who are faithful. Can one be saved without believing God is or exists (Hebrews 11:6)? On the other hand, I can't think of any other way in which one could attempt to coherently synthesize Clark's statement about combinations of beliefs and his statement that "There isn’t anything absolutely, no particular doctrine is absolutely necessary for a regenerate person to hold."
I will offer an alternative to Clark (on this point, at least) that might also both serve to answer a few lingering questions and develop a more robust and consistent understanding of the nature of saving faith. I'll begin by considering a following note that Doug Douma says Clark wrote in the margins of a letter to J. Oliver Buswell:
In several places you accuse me of the Greek fallacy. No doubt I am confused. The problem is extremely complex. But obviously, by the statement of Scripture in Luke 12:47 responsibility is proportional to knowledge. I think the difficulty lies in the fact that I have not made clear what the primacy of the intellect is; and I suppose at this point we pass from unessential details to the main point. Hence your remark exactly at the bottom of p.2 is quite beside the mark. [[Clark has a marginal note here connected to the fourth sentence of the paragraph: Not exactly. Knowledge increases responsibility but responsibility does not depend on personal knowledge because infants are born in sin – guilty.]] (Feb. 9th 1939, To J. Oliver Buswell, Pres. Wheaton College, PCA Archives)
Now, there are other places in which Clark says that "responsibility depends on knowledge" (link; see also many other locations, e.g. link). But the above paragraph balances those places by mentioning an exception. Clark's article here also mentions this same exception when he writes, regarding Romans 1: "In any ordinary sense of the verbs, know, suppress, or hold, infants do not have the truth. They have not even seen stars and stones, much less the effects of sin in disease and death. There may be others than infants too... The text does not explicitly attribute this knowledge to all mankind. At the minimum infants are excluded."
Similarly, as important qualification of Clark's position on the nature of saving faith is his intended audience. He is not writing to infants, so he typically excepts them from a discussion of faith: "Faith, like regeneration, is necessary to salvation, if for the moment we defer discussion of infants, imbeciles, and the insane" (link).
The question, then, becomes whether Clark thought that infants couldn't have faith in any sense. If personal knowledge is not necessary for one to sin... must it be necessary for one to believe? Are infants excluded from a "true relationship to our Creator and Redeemer" because they cannot articulate any "minimum of information"? If nothing else, Clark was sympathetic to the Lutheran argument on this point:
One difficulty in the doctrine of justification by faith alone has to do with infants and imbeciles. Most Christians believe that some who die in infancy are saved, and many believe that all who die in infancy are saved. But if faith is necessary, and if infants are incapable of believing anything, what happens to Calvinistic theology? The usual answer is to deny that faith is universally necessary and that infants and some others are justified without faith. The Lutherans, however, are more consistent. They hold that infants can exercise faith even before birth. Of course, how they can believe the Gospel which they cannot possibly have heard remains a mystery, for the Scripture says, Faith comes by hearing. On the other hand, Lutherans have a powerful point in their favor as they cite the case of John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Ghost while yet in his mother’s womb. (What is Saving Faith? 2013, Chapter 14)To my knowledge, Clark never took issue with the commonly held belief that infants can be justified. Now, Clark did write:
Of course a newly born infant cannot express his faith. No matter, say the Lutherans, infants can and some infants do have faith because some infants are justified and justification is by faith alone. This is an impressive argument; but Presbyterians, thinking of a theological expression of faith, allow other means of justification for the incompetent exceptions such as infants and the insane. (Sanctification, 1992, pg. 68)
While notable, it is not clear to me that Clark here means that infants cannot have faith. Infants, in contrast to Clark's intended audience, cannot "express" faith, to be sure. However, if possession of "faith" simpliciter does not necessarily require the capacity to "express" it, then infants could have faith. Consider:
The positing of innate ideas or a priori equipment does not entail the absurdity of infants’ discoursing learnedly on God and logic. To all appearances their minds are blank, but the blankness is similar to that of a paper with a message written in invisible ink. When the heat of experience is applied, the message becomes visible. Whatever else be added, the important words refer to non-sensuous realities. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pg. 203)
Even though this statement is not written in the context of salvation, one could easily apply it as follows: among infants who are regenerated, the heat of experience will eventually yield (once they have sufficiently matured) a theological expression of their saving faith. This would mean they could have saving faith as infants, albeit in an incipient form. The word of God is written in invisible ink on their hearts, and the public manifestation and confession of this message will visibly follow, assuming the infants do not die such that they sufficiently develop.
Perhaps it is too much to say that Clark affirmed that infants could have faith. I do think, however, that this position is generally compatible with his views, and it opens up an attractive alternative to his generally understood view on the nature of saving faith that avoids the dual pitfalls of requiring too little or too much theological information of the person saved. The position I am referring to can be outlined as follows (link):
An occurrent belief is a belief one has, considers, entertains, etc. at a given time. A dispositional belief is a belief one would... have under certain circumstances - say, if one asked a person a question about whether or not he believes some proposition.Applied to this discussion, if I don't need to have an occurrent belief in the gospel while I sleep (or even, at times, when I am awake and am focusing on other things) to be counted among the faithful, why should an infant need an occurrent, conscious belief? There doesn't seem to be any reason that an infant couldn't have dispositional beliefs just like a sleeping person can. If this is true, must they have had an occurrent belief in the gospel at least once before they can be counted among the faithful? I don't see good reasons for thinking this. On the contrary, I see many reasons for disbelieving this (see below).
So let's look at the discussion of essential and nonessential doctrines from a different angle. Does everything one could list that I "would" need to agree with in order to be saved actually need to be an occurrent belief rather than a dispositional one? The answer is negative. When a believer sleeps, he doesn't usually, at least in my experience, actively believe "Jesus died and was raised for my sins." He's disposed to believe that. And we don't become unbelievers when we [occurrently] think something other than "Jesus died and was raised for me." All of this also indicates that even a Scripturalist who sincerely believes that "a person is what he thinks" must take "thinks" in a dispositional sense, so he should have no problem accepting this distinction.
However, in these cases, the actual or occurrent belief that "Jesus died and was raised for my sins" had already occurred at least once prior to my sleeping or thinking about something else. A better question is: do all propositions relating to the gospel need to have been occurrent at some prior time in order for one to be currently disposed to believe all of them? I don't see why. The burden of proof would be on the one who believes this to be the case to explain why.
Of course, I'm not saying one shouldn't entertain actual thoughts about the gospel. Less trivially, we can't know who is disposed to believe what. We have to act based on what we believe to be the case. This bears on the question of whether we should preach the whole counsel of God. I sometimes hear the argument that Christians should just list a minimal amount of propositions needed to be believed for salvation. That way, the audience isn't exposed to what I guess the arguers would call unnecessary potential obstacles to belief.
But in considering the above distinction between occurrent and dispositional beliefs, as witnesses, evangelists, and apologists of God's word, we only become aware that those to whom we are speaking actually were disposed to believe some doctrine when we actually confront them with it to see if they occurrently accept it, reject, or require clarification of it.
If one rejects a non-essential doctrine, while that doesn't necessarily mean the person isn't saved, the situation bears correction and watching. Christians make mistakes, but they should be teachable. It helps when the so-called teachers aren't constantly accusatory and defensive, which seems to be the case in many apologetic discussions. But sometimes, disagreements are never settled. That's just a fact of life we have to deal with. Sanctification is a process.
To the main point. If one rejects an essential doctrine, that's how we know he wasn't disposed to believe it and how we know he can't occurrently believe the gospel. If he accepts the essential doctrine, then we would have prima facie grounds - and here, Scripturalism needs to update its epistemology to account for kinds of justified belief other than infallibilistic - for believing they already had the disposition to believe it.
This point is relevant to cases where certain parts of the gospel may have been left unsaid in an evangelistic encounter, for even as, in that case, we could not have [as strong] grounds for believing that the audience became or were believers - for we would have no evidence of their dispositions toward what was left unsaid - God could know whether He had disposed them to believe. They could be saved after all.
Again, this doesn't discount or discourage us from activity, for we don't have access to this divine knowledge, assuming it is divinely known. We work with what we have. But that it is a possibility at all is of some note in a discussion about what must one "believe" to be saved.
In a number of ways, this dovetails nicely with Scripture. Romans 10:14-17 does not need to imply that only persons with developed consciousnesses can have faith. Infants are just as in need of hearing the gospel as any other sinner, but if, for example, the Holy Spirit uses parents to regenerate a child in the womb or in infancy, they are also just as capable of believing - in a dispositional sense - this gospel in which they have been raised (2 Timothy 3:15). That John the Baptist leapt in the womb has already been mentioned. Other evidences for infant faith would include Psalm 22:9 and Matthew 21:16, which ascribe actions of "trust" and "praise" to nursing infants. Finally, if it impossible to please God apart from saving faith (Hebrews 11:6), are we to believe infants are excepted from the rank of the faithful? Is the author of Hebrews allowing for exceptions, or is it not rather the case that to such infants belong the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:14) precisely because they have a childlike faith, one completely dependent on Jesus and contributing no merits of one's own to the ground of one's justification before the Father?
Of course, parents won't necessarily know or see more robust evidence of their children's faith until such a time as their children are capable of articulation. But the ignorance of parents does not cut against the potential of saving faith in their children. On the contrary, it should stir the parents to better disciple their children so that they as parents can be assured that their children have been made by God to be good trees after all.
Relatedly, this helps answer why our evangelical witness does not need to follow a programmatic method, such as repeating 1 Corinthians 15 on autopilot. The question which should be asked is whether a person is disposed to or would affirm the gospel as presented in 1 Corinthians 15 under certain circumstances (if they were asked), not whether they actually believe it at a given moment in time (such as when they are asleep). In this sense, Clark may be right after all that persons can be justified by faith in any variety of biblical propositions, if "faith" be taken in an occurrent sense. That is, all believers are disposed to believe in a single, definitive set of content ("the gospel"), but not all may consciously or occurrently believe said content at the same time.
As mentioned in the lengthy quote above, this does not make evangelism a free-for-all of teaching whatever propositions randomly come to mind. A goal of the evangelist should be to confirm the faith of the person to whom he is witnessing. As mentioned, Scripture indicates some propositions which ought to be believed (e.g. theism, Hebrews 11:6; monotheism, James 2:19; solus Christus, John 14:6; etc.). Clark is right that we ought to preach the whole counsel of God, yet one may prioritize communication of certain propositions adapted to various situations. For example, one who is already a monotheist yet struggles to understand the Trinity should discuss Scriptures which illustrate the deity of Christ. In this sense, evangelism can be viewed as pragmatic and situational, although the content of the gospel [which the faithful are continuously disposed to believe] is definitive.
To some, this initially might sound strange. Parents should tell infant children about the gospel when they can't talk or understand? But if we think about it, that's precisely the means by which our children normally learn to talk or understand: parents talk to their children all the time - not just about the gospel - even though they don't know how to talk. Speech is creative in divine activity (Genesis 1), and this is imaged in our speaking as images of God to images of God. Parents ectypally create understanding and speech in their children by speaking to them just as God archetypally [re]creates us by speaking His word to us.
While it would be too much to attempt to prove in a post like this, I also think nonverbal communication has an understated role in teaching. Many people have the intuition that a mother cuddling her infant implicitly communicates to her infant, "you are safe and cared for," "I love you," "I have compassion on you" (Isaiah 49:15), or some such proposition[s]. Naturally, one can mistake an inference based on nonverbal communication; perhaps my silent gesture of cranking a film reel by hand during a game of Pictionary is mistakenly interpreted by another as the reeling in of a fish. For one who understands and accepts Clark's core epistemology, this would come as no surprise, but nor should it prevent us from suggesting that communication can and does occur nonverbally. Mistaken inference can occur when one attempts to verbally communicate just as it can when one attempts to nonverbally communicate (e.g. sign language). But no one - presumably not even the most ardent disciple of Clark - would deny that humans verbally communicate.
Just as it is possible to understate the role of nonverbals in human communication, it is equally possible to overstate it. While giving cold water to little ones may be behavior due to one's being a disciple of Christ - and an act for which one will be rewarded - Matthew 10:42 does not suggest that one can infer another's kind actions are the result of being a disciple of Christ apart from verbal communication. Even where verbal communication is present, such evidence for that person being a good tree is, as has been said, fallible.
In any case, all human-to-human communication is embodied, occurring through physical means. As a result, communication is intertwined in subtle ways that we don't quite understand. Sometimes, nonverbal communication facilitates understanding in cases in which it would otherwise be impossible, like if someone is deaf. On the other hand, sometimes, it can facilitate misunderstanding (e.g. tone of voice or inflection would imply something different than a text message would convey using the same words). Difficulties in developing an empirically grounded epistemology - verbal or nonverbal, examples and difficulties of which easily could be multiplied - are apologetic evidence for why we must have a revealed epistemology for full assurance of knowledge (link). What is being proposed here is an augmentation to a Scripturalist view of the means of communication and understanding (which relate to evangelism and fallible knowledge of the salvation of other), not of a robust epistemology.
Returning to the topic at large, in the final analysis, let us now try to outline a proper, finely tuned understanding of the nature of saving faith. If infants, imbeciles, or the insane can be counted as true believers, what do each have in common with a person whose cognitive faculties have developed to the extent that they can also express or articulate their faith? A helpful analogy from Clark might be made between faith and knowledge:
Mode and object: the mode of knowing, as I use the word, is simply the psychological activity of the knower. The object is what the knower knows. An answer to the question, How do you know, would state the mode of your knowing. An answer to the question, What do you know, would state the object. And so far throughout all the discussion I have failed to see any reason for introducing any other element; in particular the third element that has been introduced is simply unintelligible to me. (Feb 20, 1946, To Ed Clowney, WTS Archives)
Faith or belief also has modes and objects - this makes sense since faith sometimes is knowledge. Faith or belief involves understanding, assent, and trust. The objects of understanding and assent are propositions, whereas the objects of trust are persons. These objects are objective or external: you and I can have the same objects of faith at the same time without conflation of our distinct persons. The mode of faith - the psychological activity of the believer - is subjective or internal, for my psychological activity is not yours.
How it is that one's subjective, psychological activity is directed towards understanding of, assent to, or trust in these objects is always ultimately determined by God and never morally neutral. Men were created with an understanding and direction or orientation towards submission to truth and God. When Adam fell, all fell in Adam in that we participated in sin (cf. traducianism, link). From conception, then (Psalm 51:5, Romans 1-8), our wills are now oriented towards rebellion to truth and God. We often lack understanding to the extent that as unrepentant sinners, if we accept any truth, it is not for the right reasons - it is unsound, being ultimately grounded in false premises. We do not trust God.
God works to reorient our wills towards truth and Himself again through the regenerative work of the Spirit - infants as well as fully mature men and women. This regenerative work is monergistic. This does not require the activity of our will; on the contrary, that which reorients our will is God's activity alone. Due to sin, synergy or cooperation between God and man now can only take place on the prior ground of monergism. Faith, since it entails the involvement of our wills, is one example of such a synergy. This particular activity "completes" the union of ourselves to Christ that the Spirit's regenerative work "began," although there is no temporal distinction between the two (since, at regeneration, one is at least immediately disposed to belief in the gospel; that is, the causal relation between regeneration and saving faith does not entail a time at which one was regenerate yet an unbeliever). And, as was mentioned earlier, no synergistic activity is the meritorious ground upon which we are viewed as righteous.
Essentially, then, saving faith is one's reorientation towards [the gospel] truth and God [incarnate and triune]. Just as an unregenerate [infant et al.] has a rebellious disposition towards truth and God [even if he is not able to consciously express this], a regenerate [infant et al.] has a submissive and accepting disposition towards truth and God [even if he is not yet able to consciously express this]. Again, one's will - in its activity or its disposition, direction, or orientation - is never morally neutral. We are rational, moral creatures, and our moral makeup, while mutable, is always determined (ultimately by God) towards falsehoods or truth, good or evil, God or sin. In this way, sola fide still applies to infants et al.
Continuing the theme of contributions from contemporary epistemology on the subject of assurance, in what way do the above nuances regarding [saving] faith affect assurance [of salvation]? If all without distinction can have saving faith, can all without distinction have assurance? This question itself requires nuance in terms of what it means to "have" assurance. For example:
Epistemologists distinguish between two notions of epistemic justification: having justification to believe that p versus justifiedly believing that p. To keep track of these notions, epistemologists typically refer to the former as propositional justification and to the latter as doxastic justification. (link)
Since the epistle was written for this purpose, it is one of the best places in the Bible to find directions. I John 2:3 says, “Hereby we do know that we know him—if we keep his commandments.” Recall the lament, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” But these people were condemned because they had not acted righteously. They may have walked down the aisle, shaken someone’s hand, and signed a card; but they were workers of iniquity. Remembering some emotional experience would do them no good. We know that we know the Lord by keeping his commandments. Another test by which we may come to assurance is given in 3:14, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.” Later in the same chapter it says, “Let us love. . . in deed and in truth; and hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.” Again, “He that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”
II Peter 1:5 does not explicitly mention assurance, but the section has to do with God’s “exceeding great and precious promises” with which he “called us to glory and virtue,” so that the remainder of the section describes how we may be assured of profiting by those promises. Verse five then says, “Giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to your virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance. . . for if these things be in you, and abound, they shall make you that ye shall be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Without minimizing the other items in this list, it is well to emphasize knowledge. If one wishes assurance, he will try to increase his knowledge. Knowledge is mentioned twice in the section. Therefore, if one wishes assurance that he is regenerated, let him ask himself, Do I study the Scripture? How much of it do I know? Some people know so very little; some people believe so very little; some evangelists must have so very little assurance. (Today’s Evangelism, Counterfeit or Genuine? 1990, pgs. 93-94)
Here is the difficulty Hodge does not face. How can one know that his assurance is not a delusion?But where there is true faith, the want of assurance is to be referred either to the weakness of faith or to erroneous views of the plan of salvation. Many sincere believers are too introspective. They look too exclusively within, so that their hope is graduated by the degree of evidence of regeneration which they find in their own experience…. We may examine our hearts with all the microscopic care prescribed by President Edwards…. And never be satisfied that we have eliminated every ground of misgiving and doubt.Hodge continues by listing five grounds of assurance – external, not internal grounds. But the reader must judge for himself whether or not Hodge has eliminated every ground of misgiving and doubt. In fact, while Hodge’s external grounds are exceedingly important, and usually underemphasized, ignored, or even explicitly denied in contemporary pietism, our text in John’s Epistle certainly seems to depend on internal factors and our mental ability to arrive at a correct psychological analysis of them. Does regeneration guarantee competence in psychology? It must be admitted, therefore, that these apparently simple verses are in truth immensely difficult. (First John, 1980, pg. 107)
With some diffidence and reserve because of the complex difficulties, I suggest the following: By loving in deed and truth we shall know that we are of the truth. (First John, 1980, pg. 113)
Assurance of eternal life can be deduced from a knowledge that one is a believer. Of course, as the negro spiritual says, “Everybody talking about heaven ain’t going there.” With constant frequency people are assured of many things untrue. Indeed certainty increases in direct proportion to ignorance. The less educated a man is, the more things of which he is certain. If this obvious truth disturbs anyone, he should also realize that assurance is not essential to salvation. Different people have different mentalities. John Bunyan was so morbid he could hardly have had much assurance. But if one knows, if one has a clear intellectual understanding that he believes, he should have legitimate assurance. (First John, 1980, pg. 161)
- Assurance Is Possible
- Assurance Depends on Divine Monergism
- Assurance Is Based on Psychological Experiences
- Assurance Is Based on Good Behavior
- Assurance Can Be Lost
- False Assurance Is Based on Good Behavior
Let us use as much archaeological evidence as we can find. Let us go into great detail on J, E, D, and P. We shall discuss the presence of camels in Egypt in 2000 B.C., and the hypothetical council of Jamnia. But our arguments will be entirely ad hominem. We shall show that the principles our opponents use destroy their own conclusions; that their critical procedures on Genesis cannot be applied to Homer’s Iliad; that their historiography ruins Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The argument is ad hominem and elenctic. When finally the opponent is reduced to silence and we can get in a word edgewise, we present the word of God and pray that God cause him to believe. (link)
One will recall that Clark faulted Arminianism for making assurance depend on persevering in faith and good works. He pointed out that since the Arminian cannot be sure he will not choose to unregenerate himself in the future, he cannot be sure of his salvation. However, Clark’s doctrine of assurance is subject to a similar objection. Clark based assurance on good behavior. This poses a problem, because while you might be behaving properly now there is no certainty you will continue to do so in the future.
Mr. Lazar finds Clark at fault for a similar reason Clark faults Arminians as having false assurance. One relevant distinction between Clark and Arminians, however, is that for Clark, if you are "behaving properly now" (doing good works), you can have "certainty you will continue to do so in the future." In an Arminian system, this may be so: one may lose his salvation by choice.
[As a brief aside, what Mr. Lazar means by "certainty" is probably not what Clark means by the same word, at least in the following case:
You use the word certainty. People are certain of very peculiar things. Some people, I judge, a few not many, are certain that drinking vinegar will cure warts. Hence it is not particularly important in my point of view to ask or explain why a person is certain of anything. Certainty is a psychological act that is more misused than anything else. To be certain of something doesn’t mean that it is true. People are certain of many things that are false. And so that part of your question I would dismiss. (link)
Mr. Lazar is probably thinking of cases in which people are knowingly self-aware that they will continue to behave properly. Assuming this is true, I would agree that being knowingly self-aware is important, so I will continue to address Mr. Lazar's with this assumption in mind.]
As was mentioned earlier, Clark holds to the perseverance of the saints and explicitly grounds the ability for one to be consistently assured on [belief in] the truth of this doctrine. In the Reformed system, if one is "behaving properly" (doing good works), this is only possible because one has already come to saving faith, for without such faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). A bad tree does not bear good fruit.
Further, saving faith is only possible if one has been elected by God. This answers a charge Mr. Lazar makes later on:
Clark claimed that assurance must be based on monergism, including the belief that God has only predestined to save the elect. This Calvinistic view undermines assurance, because while you can be sure that God will save the elect, you cannot be sure that you are among them.
This statement by Mr. Lazar suggests a poor understanding of Calvinism. Clark holds to what has been called the golden chain of redemption: election necessarily leads to regeneration, regeneration necessarily leads to saving faith, and saving faith necessarily leads to a life which normally consist of good works (depending on how long one lives after conversion) and perseverance unto eternal life.
As such, recognition that any link in this chain applies to his own life affords him legitimate assurance of salvation. Because election leads to saving faith and only election can lead to saving faith, faith can be an evidence of election, redemption, or salvation. This answers Mr. Lazar's charge directly above. Likewise, though, because saving faith leads to good works and only saving faith can lead to good works, good works can be an evidence of election, redemption, or salvation. Good works is not the only evidence of election, redemption and salvation - cf. saving faith - but such can be evidence.
It is in this sense that assurance can be (not must be) "based" on good works. Other people can only see fruits by which they make a determination as to whether a person is a good or bad tree, believers themselves can know they are believers. Believers themselves don't need to see the fruit of their saving faith to know they have it and to be assured of their salvation, but they can be assured by an introspective reflection on what good works they've done or not, works which spring from saving faith. It is in this sense that Clark can recommend a chapter in Jonathan Edwards' Treatise Concerning Religious Affections entitled, "Christian practice is a distinguishing and sure evidence of grace to persons' own consciences." (What Do Presbyterians Believe? 2001, pgs. 178-179)
Take another relevant distinction that was already alluded to by Mr. Lazar: the Arminian denies monergism. On Arminianism, grace is a necessary but insufficient condition for salvation. The decisive factor which fundamentally explains why two people who have both been given grace by God do not both become saved lies in man's free will. As such, on Arminianism grace cannot fully account for why one person is saved and another is not.
This shows a way in which an Arminian doctrine of assurance is "based" on good behavior in a sense that Clark's doctrine is not: for Clark, our good behavior is not ultimately based on or rooted in an alleged autonomy but in God's grace. We have nothing which we have not received (1 Corinthians 4:7), including the saving faith by which we can do good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). That is, for Clark, it cannot be alleged that we are "good enough to deserve heaven." Mr. Lazar even cites Clark on just this point yet seemingly fails to appreciate the relevance: "The unregenerate are not assured of grace: they believe they are good enough to deserve heaven" (Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?, pg. 178).
In short: it is not a paradox to say that one who is going to heaven will do good works while also denying that same person is going to heaven because he deserves to on the basis of his good works.
5 comments:
Hi bro Ryan! It seems that your Facebook account was hacked or something. I try to write you and your profile has other person on it.
About believe and trust, what would you say if trust is conceived as a consequence of belief instead of an element of belief itself?
Haha that happened a year and a half ago or so, actually. I quit facebook because of it. Is this Claudio? I wanted to tell you that I had finally finished this series you gave me the inspiration to start, but I was off of facebook by that point.
"About believe and trust, what would you say if trust is conceived as a consequence of belief instead of an element of belief itself?"
The following lines from the post are meant to anticipate that question and show how it is not possible to assent to propositions without also depending on (trusting) the persons who communicated said propositions:
"Faith in general has to do with understanding and assenting to propositions that may or may not relate to salvation - and, ex hypothesi, to persons in general. For we only encounter propositions through the medium of persons. To accept the propositions of the gospel is to trust the God whose word communicated this gospel in the first place.
This is clear in the case of saving faith (Romans 10:14-17) but is also true in general. Propositions do not exist independently of God - we are not Platonists. So we can only experience propositions as they are communicated to us by God either directly or immediately, through divinely appointed intermediaries (e.g. parents, friends, evangelists, etc.), or innately (see below; cf. we ourselves are created, embodied images of God, "words of God" intrinsically ontologically capable of self-awareness, reflection, and, therefore, intrapersonal communication - link). Some communicated propositions will be true, while others (e.g. communicated through intermediaries) will be false. In every case, though, persons are involved, and our assent to the propositions communicated will correspondingly involve the non-propositional, psychological act of "trust in" or "dependence on" the persons who communicated them."
Yes! It's me jajajaja!
I've read that, and thought the same while reading. If that's the case, can we reduce the trust element to the belief in the proposition "the person expresing knowledge is fully reliable"? Of course, this in reference to God only, cos' other sources aren't infalible.
"If that's the case, can we reduce the trust element to the belief in the proposition "the person expresing knowledge is fully reliable"? Of course, this in reference to God only, cos' other sources aren't infalible."
Two points:
As you point out, other sources aren't infallible. If I believe or have faith in the media (like I mention a little later on in the original post), I still depend on them for the information I received. So belief or faith in such persons is not reducible to the proposition you mention. But the same would be true of the evangelists, preachers, family, friends, or even strangers by whom you came to learn of the gospel.
One could try to opt for occasionalism on these points - as Clark did - and say that such people are merely occasions by which we come to learn the truth of God's word. That is, one could argue that we don't really depend on these people (the "occasions") but rather on God. While I disagree with occasionalism (https://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2015/05/scripturalism-occasionalism-and-kinds.html), let's assume that it is valid response here (for the sake of argument) and see where it leads.
Even if we restrict the question to God - who is indeed fully reliable - I still would argue that we cannot reduce trust to mere belief in a proposition such as "the person expressing knowledge is fully reliable." For again, where did belief in this proposition come from? The proposition you mention must itself have been somehow communicated to us, and to the extent that we understand and assent to the proposition, we must also depend on the person[s] by whom this proposition was communicated.
An important, related point is that persons are not themselves reducible to propositions or thoughts, contrary to Clark:
http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2013/01/gordon-clark-metaphysics-and-personhood.html
Main argument against persons being thoughts:
"...if God metaphysically just is what He thinks and one of His thoughts is dependent upon the fact of creation, God is metaphysically dependent on creation."
This is a reductio ad absurdem, since God does not depend on creation for His being.
https://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2015/04/further-problems-with-clarks.html
Main argument against persons being propositions:
"...let's say we are just a set of propositions... In that case, mustn't whatever set of propositions God knows us to be, whatever set of propositions we are, be changeless - which would make us eternal - on pain of making God's knowledge change? As propositions, we must be the objects of God's thoughts; if we change, God's thoughts and knowledge must change...
I think this view leads to a kind of process theology or divine becoming. For if persons are propositions, the persons of the Trinity must be propositions. And if "the Father is a knower of [person] x as [a set of propositions] y" is true at one time and false at another (corresponding to the time[s] at which He decreed we change as persons), does this not imply metaphysical change on the part of the Father?"
This is also a reductio ad absurdem. We are not eternal (unlike propositions). We change. But that means we can't be propositions. Or, if one thinks that persons are propositions and that propositions can change, that would imply God, since He is an omniscient person, changes. But God's being does not change.
There are other arguments, but I chose the simplest.
Summary:
Persons are neither metaphysically reducible to thoughts nor propositions. Therefore, because faith involves trust in (i.e. dependence on) persons who communicate propositional truths to us, faith itself implicitly involves a psychological component distinct from understanding and assent to propositions.
Another argument from the original post was that assent itself is an act of will. Clark calls assent psychological and subjective. The objects of assent may be propositions, then, but the act of assent it not (since propositions are objective, not subjective, objects which many persons can access, reflect on, etc.).
In other words, since Clark says faith involves assent, and since assent itself isn't a proposition, it shouldn't really be that big of a deal for any admirer of Clark (myself included) to admit that a distinct, psychological, non-propositional component like "trust" is possible in the definition of faith/belief.
Good to hear from you, as always! You're welcome to continue commenting anywhere here, but also feel free to email me at rhedrich3@gmail.com if you ever want to discuss other things in the future.
Post a Comment