Comments on: ETS 2007: The Practice of Balanced Apologetics in Paul's Address in Acts 17 by H. Wayne House

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:05:32 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:45:19 +0000

Sorry, I thought that was kind of obvious. “Believing in” = Faith. “Believing that” refers to affirming propositions without saving faith.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:40:17 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:15:15 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:08:50 +0000

“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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:51:04 +0000

“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!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:17:04 +0000

You are failing to recognize that it is possible to say something, yet not mean it. Christ knows our true thoughts.
Matt. 15:8

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:01:43 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:28:43 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:28:55 +0000

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.