Comments on: Is 'Personal Trust' an Essential Component of Saving Faith?–I

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:39:45 +0000

I agree with Amy, Micah, Timbo and Tyler, plus, to an extent, Victor, who raises the chicken-or-egg question re: personal trust. I also think we need to seek balance between intellect and emotion. Too often, people hurtle headlong into the pitfall of extremes, touting the intellect, or the heart, as key to a Christian walk and worldview. Obviously the answer is in Christ, and that is a mystery defying analysis. Still, I like the poster on the wall in a meeting-room at my church: “He came to take away your sins, not your mind.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:01:47 +0000

I've always thought of “personal trust” more as an evidence of a saving faith, rather than being a component of it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:28:45 +0000

I too affirm that the movements proclaiming anti-intellectual faith have been dangerous (as has been the near worship of intellectualism in other circles). These anti-intellectual movements remind me of other movements that “want to return to the Bible” and do away with tradition altogether as if the Bible itself or their interpretation of it were not products of tradition.
I agree with much of what others have said here. I think part of the problem is that our contemporary definitions of faith, belief, or believing (same root in Greek) are somewhat anemic when compared to the original language. The same word for faith could be translated as belief or faithfulness given the context — and sometimes the context supports both readings. Similarly, trust and faith are pretty synonymous. Our view of belief is a mental agreement with or without any action or trust involved.
I don't want to jump on Augustine for one quote when I don't have the context, but I react strongly to the statement,

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:14:09 +0000

Two points in response, Micah.
1) I don't think the demons are relevant here, since saving faith isn't an option for them. If my two-part proposal for saving faith isn't adequate because the demons can meet the conditions and yet fail to be saved, then a three- (or four-) part proposal will be inadequate for the same reason.
2) Can the demons really believe all of the relevant propositions? I think not. For example, no demon can believe, “God became incarnate in Jesus for the purpose of washing away my sins and restoring my ruptured relationship with him.” So there's at least one relevant proposition that the demons can't believe.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:38:28 +0000

I agree with Amy and Micah. There is, as Amy notes, a definite distinction between "belief that" and "belief in" such that defining one in terms of the other fails to capture the essence of either. Amy also points out that propositional truths are necessary but not sufficient, and though I agree, B.A., that the effect of 20th century anti-intellectualism within the church has been demonstrably disastrous, to attribute the decline of robust confessionalism solely to the rise of affective expressionism is to miss the failings of intellectuals in making their (our) legacy secure. The heart/mind relation is not like a seesaw. The relation between our believings in and our believings that is, or it should be, more complementarian. To borrow from Einstein, the heart without the mind is blind but the mind without the heart is lame. It seems strange to attribute a decline in our vision to an increase in our ability to walk, or a demise in our ability to walk to better vision. To antithesize them is to miss the necessity of a strong belief in God and a strong belief that God. . . .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:37:08 +0000

B.A., good to see you posting!!
I agree with Micah. The verse he refers to does show that it's possible to believe the right things and not be saved, so it seems that those things are necessary, but not sufficient.
I'm not sure you can replace “believes in” with “believes that.” I think that believing in something implies that you are trusting in that thing to be and do what it claims.
I do agree that learning the truths about God and His nature does increase our trust in Him, but there's also a surrender of our wills to the reign of Christ that goes beyond knowing who He is.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:38:36 +0000

But even the demons presumably know the truth of all those propositions and still shudder . . .