ETS 2007: The Practice of Balanced Apologetics in Paul's Address in Acts 17 by H. Wayne House
November 15, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton
This paper was essentially a summary of Dr. House’s chapter in the recently released Reasons for Faith ed. Norman Geisler and Chad Meister. The following is my summary of his paper and reflects my understanding of the points Dr. House made.
The apologetic debate is over whether God intends to use general revelation to bring about salvific belief. The central question is: Do we share any common ground with the unbeliever?
Classical and Evidential apologetics acknowledge that unbelievers can understand some truth. The difference between them is the Classical begins at first principles and Evidential begins anywhere. Presuppostional apologetics deny unbelievers can understand any truth until after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
A crucial distinction is needed between “believing in” and “believing that.” Evidential apologetics can be used to bring someone to the point of “believing that.” “Believing in” requires regeneration. For example, there have been Jewish scholars who have affirmed that the resurrection of Jesus is a historically verifiable event. But there differ regarding the meaning of the resurrection- whether or not Jesus is the messiah. They believe “that” but not “in.”
Evidence can assist a person to belief in Christ by removing factual obstacles. The task of apologetics is to show the truth of objective reality. The move to embrace belief in (from belief that) requires the subjective work of the Spirit. The Spirit makes meaning of the historically objective reality.
In Acts, the audience has no familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures- much like where our culture is going today. Paul started with creation: God’s existence and nature, and moved on to what God has done. His framework was provided by his theology found in Romans 1: that “they knew God.” Many people understand with their mind but do not receive in their hearts.
Paul sought common ground with his audience. Instead of wasting time with pointless rabbit trail debates, he pointed out that they both believed in God and kerygma. He moved from what they accepted to what they did not know. Paul also assumed that he was being understood- that those in his audience could follow the logic of his argument (another aspect of common ground).
Related posts:
- How Then Should We Do Apologetics?
- Debating Emergent Apologetics
- Emergent Apologetics?
- How Not to Do Apologetics
- Are You Wary of Apologetics?
- Meredith Kline (1922 – 2007)
Posted in Apologetics, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
November 15th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Not sure if I'm a classicist or an evidentialist, but presuppositionalism sure does irk me at times. In the Reformed circles I frequent, however, it's a fact of life… Presuppositionalism isn't without its merits, but the pure Van Tillian flavor is almost postmodern in its emphasis on the state of the knower over the objective reality that can be known.
But I don't know that your characterization that “Presuppostional apologetics deny unbelievers can understand any truth until after regeneration by the Holy Spirit” is an entirely accurate description of the way today's presuppositionalists think about things. I don't deny that the whole presuppositionalist project definitely tends in that direction; I just don't want to see the “other side” mischaracterized and thereby fall prey to the usual straw-man problems.
Does John Frame put it that way?
November 15th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I'm not sure how Frame puts it, but that is how House put it, and I do know at least some presuppositionalists see things that way.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hope you're enjoying yourself down there Roger.
I think the notion between “believing in” and “believing that” is very misleading. The problem is not that the Jews mentioned “believe that” Jesus is God but don't “believe in” Jesus as God. The problem is in the propositions believed, not in the psychological state of the believer. They should “believe that” Jesus was raised from the dead and they should “believe that” He is God.
No amount of evidence can ever lead someone to “believe that” Jesus is God. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.
“Evidence” can be used to disprove anti-Christian claims. It cannot be used to prove Christian claims. You can destroy objections to the claims of the Bible, but you cannot build a positive case for Christ apart from the Bible.
The point about logic being the common ground is explained very well by Gordon Clark. General revelation is not creation. We do not know God exists because we look at stars and trees. General revelation is an innate idea, implanted in our minds, which is then suppressed by sin.
In the beginning was the Logos. Rationality is the image of God. Logic is not created, it is the way God thinks. We are created in the image of God, meaning we were created with rational minds, the common ground is the logic that “enlightens everyone” (John 1:9)
This whole idea is not Van Tilian presuppositionalism. Van Til was very much opposed to this understanding. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=194 – down at the bottom under contemporary theology)
November 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I don't want to take your words too literally, Brandon, comments being what they are. But two things trouble me.
First, “…you cannot build a positive case for Christ apart from the Bible.” I think the better statement is “…apart from the Logos.” In my experience, there are people who respond to the Holy Spirit (they believe in) before they have seen or read the Bible and understand Christ's work (believe that). It is a rare thing, but not an unheard of thing, and in their cases I believe they have responded to the Logos, perhaps in the same way that Abraham did. They believe, they have a faith that goes beyond what can be perceived from creation, but their knowledge is quite limited because they are Bibleless.
Second, “Rationality is the image of God.” It is certainly an aspect of the image of God, but it may not be the most important aspect (though many rationalists would differ). Self-emptying love and a desire for intimate relationships are also aspects of our human nature that are God-breathed and that reflect the nature of our Designer. It is important not to overlook these because they may be more important to our desire to seek and find God than the rational beliefs we gather in our reading of the Scriptures.
Roger: I think Paul's example here is quite important for us in these increasingly secular times. Our apologetics need to seek points of agreement and common ground with our audience as Paul did. That will perhaps give us more receptivity with our listeners as we veer off in the direction of the cross.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“I think the better statement is “…apart from the Logos.”"
-Are you suggesting that the Word of God exists in this world apart from the Bible?
“In my experience, there are people who respond to the Holy Spirit (they believe in) before they have seen or read the Bible and understand Christ's work (believe that).”
-I already showed the problems with trying to make a distinction between “believing in” and “believing that.” It makes absolutely no sense to say someone “believes in” Christ but they don't “believe that” He rose again and “believe that” He is God. We also must not try to understand these things based on our own experience. “Lean not on your own understanding.”
“It is a rare thing, but not an unheard of thing, and in their cases I believe they have responded to the Logos, perhaps in the same way that Abraham did.”
-Abraham responded to the Word of God speaking to Him. Are you suggesting that God is still speaking revelation to individuals today?
“They believe, they have a faith that goes beyond what can be perceived from creation, but their knowledge is quite limited because they are Bibleless.”
It is impossible to come to faith without any knowledge of the Bible.
Romans 10:13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”
16However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?”
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Heidelberg Catechism
Question 21. What is true faith?
Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, (a) but also an assured confidence, (b) which the Holy Ghost (c) works by the gospel in my heart; (d) that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, (e) are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits. (f)
The Holy Spirit does not work apart from the Word of Christ.
“Self-emptying love and a desire for intimate relationships are also aspects of our human nature that are God-breathed and that reflect the nature of our Designer.”
Those are the result of being a rational being. Self-emptying love is not something that every human being possesses. Therefore it cannot be the image of God.
“It is important not to overlook these because they may be more important to our desire to seek and find God than the rational beliefs we gather in our reading of the Scriptures.”
There is no desire to seek God until one is born again. Aside from that, are you suggesting that love and a desire for intimate relationships is irrational?
The example of Paul in Acts does not suggest that we should look for every possible way to find “common ground” with an unbeliever. If we are to follow Paul's example, then the point of common ground is that these men know God exists but they suppress the truth. Notice in 17:17-18 that Paul started preaching Christ in the marketplace before he went to the Areopagus and preached about the unknown god.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Many of these things are off topic, so I'll be brief.
Yes, the Word of God exists in the world today in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a dead tree pulp facsimile of the true Logos.
And yes, God is still speaking revelation to individuals today through the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Bible and His revealing to us the nature of God through “knowing” (not personally but by revelation) the Lord Jesus Christ. See 1 Corinthians 2:11-14. Whatever we know about God has been revealed to us by his Spirit.
And yes, I would say that self-emptying love is both irrational (in a modern sense, because it is potentially self-destructive and thus anti-Darwinian) and it is something that every human being possesses. But like our minds (and thus, our bodies), it has been corrupted by sin, so we don't see it exhibited by everyone, not yet in this world.
Thanks for your challenging questions, Brandon.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
General revelation is not creation. We do not know God exists because we look at stars and trees.
Brandon (hi!), what about Romans 1:18-20:
Paul seems to to be directly claiming that God has made Himself evident to people (His power and divinity) through creation. That is the explanation he gives for how God has made Himself evident.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I don't think your comments are off topic at all. I think it is very much on topic and should be much more of the topic if we are going to correctly discuss apologetics/evangelism.
“the Word of God exists today in the form of the Holy Spirit”
-I could be wrong, but I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where the Word of God is equated with the Holy Spirit. It is equated with Christ. Can you show me your reference for your belief?
The Bible is not dead tree pulp. The bible is a collection of revealed propositions. The paper and ink have nothing to do with it. It is the clear communication of propositions revealed from God.
“And yes, God is still speaking revelation to individuals today through the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Bible and His revealing to us the nature of God through “knowing” (not personally but by revelation) the Lord Jesus Christ.”
-That's not what you suggested in your last post. You implied that God is speaking today to people who are “bibleless.” Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
I'm not sure how 1 Cor 2 refutes anything I have said. It clearly explains what I have said since my first post.
Not every human being possesses self emptying love. Perhaps you should define what you are talking about. My bible teaches that man is sinful and the only hope is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, which not ever person has.
The Holy Spirit does not work apart from the Word of God which is the Bible.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Amy, thanks for asking for clarification.
“being understood through what has been made” does not have to mean trees and stars.
KJV translates it:
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
the phrase “the things that are made” comes from a single greek word poiema. The only other time this word is used in the NT is Ephesians 2:10
10For we are His workmanship (poiema), created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
The things that were made refers specifically to human beings in this context, and we are given no other context to suggest Paul means anything different in Rom 1.
This fits with what I mentioned about John 1, with the logos lighting every man that enters the world. God reveals to every created human being that He exists, and He does so through innate knowledge, not through sense perception of trees.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Roger,
You said, “Presuppostional apologetics deny unbelievers can understand any truth until after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.”
This is not what a presupp would say. Rather they would say that the unbeliever understands truth, but that until regeneration they will always suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I'll give it some more thought, but I'm not convinced by your explanation because Paul prefaces it with “since the creation of the world.” Since he last speaks of the “creation of the world” before he speaks of “what has been made,” it does seem to me he's speaking of all of creation–all of God's workmanship (created works), not just human beings.
Also, if I put your interpretation from Ephesians into the sentence, it reads, “being understood through created human beings.” Even this has to be stretched to fit your interpretation of Romans, “through their innate knowledge.” And it doesn't seem fit into the context since he talks about the attributes of God being revealed by what is seen (that is, something we see outside of ourselves), not sensed within ourselves.
This is not to say there is no innate knowledge (there may be–I'd have to look carefully through the rest of the Bible to determine this), but it is to say that this passage says creation testifies to God's power and divinity so that no one can say they had no way to know.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I know its a new idea. I'm looking for criticisms of it, that's why I threw it out there.
However, human beings were created when the world was created, so I don't know if that makes a difference. Also, using your translation of course it doesn't make since to simply cut and paste. The translators made a decision that they thought it meant the world. The KJV renders it “by the things that are made” not “through the things that are made.”
You make a good point about the word “seen.” However, the greek word used here is not used anywhere else in the NT. The definition offered here http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2529&Version=kjv from thayer's lexicon is:
1) to look down, see from above, view from on high
2) to see thoroughly, perceive clearly, understand
November 17th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“new” is not the right word. unique or minority view might be better
November 19th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Amy,
I believe Paul talks about the law of God being written on men's hearts, which would suggest something along the lines of innate ideas, but I'll look into that further before being dogmatic about it.
Brandon,
Let me say that I'm Reformed and a big fan of Gordon Clark (what little I've read of him). Still, I'm not totally convinced by some of the things you've said.
For one thing, simply because Paul uses “poiema” to refer exclusively to human beings in Eph. 2:10, that doesn't warrent making the leap that the word ought to always refer only to humans. It could just as easily be said that trees are God's poiema, and stars are God's poiema, etc. As Amy pointed out, context is king here, and in Romans Paul definately seems to have all of creation in mind. You're correct to point out that humans were created with the world, but no one would contend that “creation of the world” is meant to refer exclusively to the creation of human beings.
Moreover, the definition of “seen” you supplied doesn't seem to contradict Amy's point in any direct way. If anything it strengthens the point that Paul is here referring to things “percieved clearly.” I doubt that Paul was a Cartesian Internalist, so this word is likely referring to our perception of our mental/rational faculties.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Sorry, that last sentence should read:
“I doubt that Paul was a Cartesian Internalist, so this word is *NOT* likely referring to our perception of our mental/rational faculties.”
I suppose I should start proofing the things I write.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I'm not saying that the interpretation is arrived at from that verse alone. I'm not saying its the only interpretation, but I am saying that it seems to be a valid one
November 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
and that the verse does not HAVE to refer to general revelation being sense perception of trees, sky, stars, etc
November 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I believe Paul talks about the law of God being written on men's hearts, which would suggest something along the lines of innate ideas
David, yes, I did consider that verse from Romans 2:
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them”
But this seems a little different to me from what you're talking about, Brandon. It isn't as much a direct awareness of God as it is a direct awareness of an objective moral law–although that could point to a good, moral God, that's true. But if that's the case, then we're still reasoning from something we perceive in the world (objective moral truth) to God (just as we are when we perceive creation and know there is a God), and that's not really a direct, innate awareness.
I would say also that a direct awareness of morality points more to the characteristic of goodness rather than to the “eternal power” and “divine nature” that the creation of everything out of nothing points to, so this passage in chapter two seems to be about something different from what Paul is talking about in the first chapter. What do you think?
And I'm open to other examples from Scripture–this is an interesting subject. It could be there are many ways we know God exists, even innate ones, and it's just that the visible reasons that everyone can perceive will be used to close people's mouths on the Last Day by taking away their excuses.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:09 am
Hey Johnny,
If you read the post you'd see that I didn't say that- Dr. House did. I'm not sure if notable presupp apologists would agree with that or not, but I have heard lay-presupp apologists make such statements, so I'm not inclined to dismiss what Dr. House said.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:30 am
Brandon,
I'm starting my own thread in response here so I don't have to make several comments in the other ones…
I think the “believing that” and “believing in” distinction is accurate, valuable, and Biblical, and I don't think you've given an adequate criticism of it. James said that even the demons believe God is one, but they shudder at the truth. The “that” of their belief is accurate, but they refuse to believe “in.” We agree that everyone innately knows that God exist, many also claim to believe “that” He exists, but fewer believe “in” Him in a way that reflects the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
It's a valuable distinction, because along with Dr. House's distinction between apologetics and evangelism, it directs our attention to the need to proclaim the Gospel regardless of the apologetic we use. There are strong historical arguments for the resurrection, as noted by the Jewish writers Dr. House cited. However, convincing someone of the historical event is not an end in itself. We should not be satisfied simply convincing people to “believe that.” If nothing else, we must proclaim the Gospel in hopes that the unbeliever will “believe in.” Dennis Prager (one of my favorite radio hosts) is a Jew who believes that Jesus saves gentiles. Some Christians might be satisfied in seeing that Prager believes that Jesus saves, but that is not valuable unless it helps lead Prager to believe in the necessity of Jesus's power to save himself.
The other thing I'd like to reply to is Clark's interpretation of Romans 1. Many people have affirmed that all people have an innate knowledge of God. R.C. Sproul has said that he enters debates with atheists understanding that the problem with the atheist is not that he doesn't believe in God, but that he is lying about his belief in God. However, I don't see any reason to reject the historic interpretation that all people perceive God through physical creation. It appears to me that Romans 1 & 2 affirm both an innate knowledge of God and a perceived knowledge of God.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Robert Reymond, author of “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith”
http://www.monergismbooks.com/A-New-Systematic-Theology-of-the-Christian-Faith-2nd-ed.-p-16358.html
has this to say about general revelation:
” According to Holy Scripture, all men-Jews and Gentiles,
November 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am
Roger,
Thanks for jumping in!
“James said that even the demons believe God is one, but they shudder at the truth. The “that” of their belief is accurate, but they refuse to believe “in.”"
Where in the Bible does it say that belief in one God will save someone? Throughout the Bible we are told that faith in Jesus Christ and his work will save. That is a difference of “believe that.” It is a difference of propositions believed. If you can show me where the Bible says you are saved by believing in monotheism I will reconsider.
“We agree that everyone innately knows that God exist, many also claim to believe “that” He exists, but fewer believe “in” Him in a way that reflects the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.”
Knowing that a God exists is different from knowing who He is. Stephen Charnock explains it as (paraphrase): General revelation tells us that He is, special revelation tells us who He is. (I don't have his book on me now, I'll have to look at it when I get home for direct quotes).
Again, where does the bible say that we are saved by “believing in” monotheism?
“However, convincing someone of the historical event is not an end in itself. We should not be satisfied simply convincing people to “believe that.”"
I already showed the problem with that characterization. The problem is not that those people “believe that” Jesus Christ is God, who died for their sins, and was raised again from the dead, but they fail to “believe in” Jesus (some additional psychological state). The problem is that they only “believe that” someone named Jesus somehow was raised from the dead.
“If nothing else, we must proclaim the Gospel in hopes that the unbeliever will “believe in.” Dennis Prager (one of my favorite radio hosts) is a Jew who believes that Jesus saves gentiles. Some Christians might be satisfied in seeing that Prager believes that Jesus saves, but that is not valuable unless it helps lead Prager to believe in the necessity of Jesus's power to save himself.”
Here you are saying the problem is the propositions believed by Prager. His problem is that he “believes that” Christ saves some people. But he doesn't “believe that” Christ is the only way to save him.
“Many people have affirmed that all people have an innate knowledge of God. R.C. Sproul has said that he enters debates with atheists understanding that the problem with the atheist is not that he doesn't believe in God, but that he is lying about his belief in God.”
Certainly. We are not talking about the fact that atheists do know there is a God. We are talking about how they know there is a God. Sproul would disagree with Clark on this point as he is an evidentialist.
The following anaylsis of R. C. Sproul's view of saving faith might benefit the discussion. I'd love to hear some feedback on it.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238
“SPROUL: I must be persuaded of the truthfulness of the content. According to James, even if I am aware of the work of Jesus, convinced intellectually that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died on the cross for my sins, and that he rose from the dead I would at that point qualify to be a demon.
ROBBINS: Here Sproul's theological ventriloquism is blatant, for James says no such thing. Notice that Sproul does not actually quote James; he puts his own words into James' mouth. Here is what James actually says: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe – and tremble!” James says nothing about any demon believing that Jesus “died on the cross for my sins, and that he rose from the dead.” James mentions only belief in one God – monotheism. Since belief in one God is belief of one true proposition, James says, “You do well.” But monotheism is not saving belief because it is not about Jesus Christ and his work.
What is even worse than Sproul's gross misrepre-sentation of James is his denial of the power of the Gospel. The belief that Sproul says “qualifies [him] to be a demon” is, according to the Holy Spirit, the Gospel: “Moreover brethren, I declare to you the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved….. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Paul says these propositions are “the Gospel,” and that by them, “you are saved.” To the Romans he wrote: “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes…for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith'” (Romans 1:16-17). Sproul, contradicting Paul, says that these propositions qualify anyone who believes them “to be a demon.”
SPROUL: The demons recognize Jesus, and the devil himself knows the truth of Christ, but he doesn't have saving faith.
ROBBINS: Keep in mind that Sproul is discussing assensus, not notitia. According to Sproul, the devil is completely orthodox, at least on the doctrine of salvation: “The devil himself knows the truth of Christ” and this is not just “intellectual awareness” (notitia), but also assent (assensus). The devil himself assents to the “truth of Christ.” The devil himself “knows,” “is aware of,” and is “convinced intellectually” of the “truth of Christ.” But still “he doesn't have saving faith.” So in Sproul's soteriology, understanding and believing the “truth of Christ” cannot save. Notitia plus assensus together do not constitute saving faith, and they have no power to save. One can understand and believe the Gospel and still go to Hell, according to Sproul. This is a complete rejection of what the Bible teaches about faith and salvation.”
November 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
also the following addresses John MacArthur's interpretation of the belief of demons. (the full article provides a fuller analysis http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193)
Rather than discussing the Gospel, MacArthur discusses psychology. He attacks
November 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
One more quote from that article:
“Apparently MacArthur has been confused by the prepositions. If I have faith in Christ, I assent to true statements – the Gospel — about him. If I assent to true statements — the Gospel – about him, I have faith in him. If I trust a bank, I assent to certain statements about the bank. Two different prepositions do not indicate two different sorts of faith.”
November 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
“Apparently MacArthur has been confused by the prepositions. If I have faith in Christ, I assent to true statements – the Gospel — about him. If I assent to true statements — the Gospel – about him, I have faith in him. If I trust a bank, I assent to certain statements about the bank. Two different prepositions do not indicate two different sorts of faith.
Second, contrary to what MacArthur writes, if I say I believe some promise you have made, I am indeed saying I trust you. If you promise to give me a job and I believe your promise, I do in fact trust you. The contrast here is not between persons and propositions or promises, as MacArthur wishes to maintain, but between different propositions. If I believe the Gospel, I believe that Christ is indeed Lord, for that is part of the Gospel:
November 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
sorry for so many comments rather than just one, but I think these paragraphs state things well:
“A great deal of time and energy has been wasted for centuries by theologians trying to distinguish between various types of faith. They erred in thinking that what makes some faith saving and some faith not saving is a difference in the act of believing. They still had not freed themselves from the soteriological subjectivism of Roman Catholicism. They still had not understood the soteriological objectivism of the Gospel. There is nothing in the faith – the act of believing – itself that saves us. The only difference between saving belief and non-saving belief is the propositions believed – the object of faith. Saving faith is not saving because of some subjective difference in us or in our faith. Saving faith is saving only because of its object. The difference between saving and non-saving faith is objective, not subjective.”
[...]
“As for distinguishing a change of mind from a change of purpose or a turning from sin, once again MacArthur is attempting to separate things that cannot be separated. To believe the Gospel is to believe that
November 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Hey Brandon,
I'm on my lunch break so I can't reply to everything (that will take a few hours!). However, I want to point out that you've greatly misunderstood the point of the “believing that” “believing in” distinction. NO ONE said you can be saved simply by believing that. NO ONE said just believing in monotheism saves. The point of the distinction is that convincing someone of propositions is not enough to save them. However, if they “believe in,” then they have been regenerated.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Perhaps I'm not being clear.
You are arguing that someone can't just “believe that” because they have to “believe in.” I do not think that is true. The examples you provided do not prove that someone has to “believe in.” They prove that the people you mentioned are not regenerate because they do not “believe that” the correct propositions are true.
I am arguing that people are saved by “believing that.” You say that Jews “believe that” Jesus rose from the dead but they don't “believe in” Jesus, therefore are not saved. I am saying that the problem is not with how the Jews believe. The problem is not with their psychological state (perhaps you can clarify what you mean be “believing in”). The problem is what they believe. “Believing that” Jesus was a man who died and rose again is not enough to save. You have to “believe that” He is God and that He died for your sins and was raised from the dead by God the Father. The only way you can “believe that” is if you have been born again.
As mentioned in one of the quotes below, “believing in” Jesus can mean a few different things. It can mean that you “believe that” everything Jesus says is true. It can mean you “believe that” he has the power to save.
“The point of the distinction is that convincing someone of propositions is not enough to save them.”
-I say that is not true. I also say that an unregenerate man will not believe the true propositions about Jesus unless he is born again.
If belief in the truth is not enough to save, then what is?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Brandon,
One problem I'm having with your contention that it isn't possible to “believe that” Jesus is your savior and still not be saved is that Jesus himself (in Matthew) said that on the day of judgement people who beleived themselves to be His followers would come to Him and say “Lord, Lord” but He would tell them that He never knew them.
The signifance of these people saying “Lord, Lord” is that this repeated name signifies intimate relationship. These people will truly believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and acknowledge him as their Lord.
The point is that we aren't simply talking about Jews or atheists (or demons) who affirm certain true propositions about Jesus but don't acknowledge Him as their savior. We're talking about people within the church, who claim to be Christians, and who presumably know and assent to all of the propositions that make up the gospel.
Now, at this point I imagine you will argue that those people don't really have the proper “believe that” relation to all the propositions of the gospel, but at this point you've provided no real reason for us to think that. On the contrary, it seems perfectly possible to me for someone to assent to the propositions of the gospel without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Do you have any Biblical reasons for thinking otherwise?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
You are failing to recognize that it is possible to say something, yet not mean it. Christ knows our true thoughts.
Matt. 15:8
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 am
“Well, I've provided no refutation to your claims because I haven't read them until now.”
Sorry, I meant that in your previous comments you had provided no reason to think that people who profess the gospel with their lips aren't really assenting to the right propositions. According to what you've said so far, no matter what propositions a person claims to assent to, if he isn't a Christian, there must still be some other proposition that he needs to assent to in order to have true faith. Not only does it seem that this method of argumentation would go on ad infinitum, but, as I said, you've provided no reason to accept it.
“You have done nothing to prove that these people believed the Gospel, you simply assumed it.”
Actually I wasn't assuming it. What do you think “professed with their lips” means? How do you profess something with your lips without first assenting to it intellectually? Obviously you could be lying, but that doesn't seem to be in view in this passage.
Moreover, 1 Cor. 2:14 seems to support my position rather than yours. Natural man cannot understand the propositions of the gospel without spiritual discernment, which suggests the work of the Holy Spirit. It does not follow from this, however, that these propositions cannot be assented to by the natural man's fallen intellect.
I hope that makes sense. Please let me know if any of that needs clarification.
Thanks for the great discussion!
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 am
“According to what you've said so far, no matter what propositions a person claims to assent to, if he isn't a Christian, there must still be some other proposition that he needs to assent to in order to have true faith.”
No. The verse I quoted above shows that what someone says with their lips is not always what they believe with their heart. Professing does not always mean assenting. It is very difficult for you and I to know the difference, but we aren't the ones giving the final judgment.
What I said is that monotheism is not enough to save someone, and its true. Romans 1 shows us that everyone knows God exists. Does that save anyone? Has any Christian ever argued that monotheism saves anyone? Just because I say you have to believe more than monotheism does not mean it goes on ad infinitum. Just because I say someone isn't saved by believing Jesus was a man who was raised from the dead doesn't mean it goes on ad infinitum. If you believe that Jesus Christ is God and that He died for your sins you are saved.
“How do you profess something with your lips without first assenting to it intellectually?”
-Have you ever been in a court room? Assent is more than understanding. You can understand what you are saying without believing it (assenting to it).
“Natural man cannot understand the propositions of the gospel without spiritual discernment, which suggests the work of the Holy Spirit. It does not follow from this, however, that these propositions cannot be assented to by the natural man's fallen intellect.”
Here's the problem. You have no idea what assent means. I apologize for not defining it clearly before. It means that 1) you understand a proposition and 2) you believe it (assent to it). If you cannot understand something, it is impossible for you to assent to it.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Let's imagine a person who affirms the proposition “Jesus died to save me from my sins”, but who is not a regenerate Christian. Since you have now argued that it is not about adding on more and more propositions, the solution can't be that he isn't “believing that” the right propositions. What you seem to be saying now (regarding your distinction between assenting and merely affirming) is that there is a difference between believing a proposition and actually understanding the true content behind said proposition.
Now, what is so different between this distinction and Roger's original distinction between “believing that” and “believing in”?
Again, thanks for your willingness to continue this discussion.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Just because someone says something with their lips does not mean they believe it in their heart. Its extremely simple.
What you seem to be saying now is that there is a difference between believing a proposition and actually understanding the true content behind said proposition.
Absolutely. I understand Islam's claim that the Koran is an inspired text. I do not believe it, I do not assent to it. It is impossible to believe something without first understanding it (Rome seems to think its possible because of their teaching of implicit faith).
Now, what is so different between this distinction and Roger's original distinction between “believing that” and “believing in”?
Understanding does not equal believing.
The distinction in the paper suggests that someone can understand and believe (assent) yet something is still lacking. They have to do more than assent, they have to “believe in.” What is that something else? What does it mean to “believe in”? No one has defined that for me yet.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Sorry, I thought that was kind of obvious. “Believing in” = Faith. “Believing that” refers to affirming propositions without saving faith.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Sorry, I thought that was kind of obvious. “Believing in” = Faith. “Believing that” refers to affirming propositions without saving faith.
That definition doesn't define anything. Faith=belief. They are synonyms. To have faith is to believe. What exactly is saving faith? Give me a definition.
Is it more than believing that you are a sinner and that Jesus Christ is God and that He died for your sins?
Can someone believe that they are a sinner, that Christ is God, and that He died for their sins, and not be saved?