Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel  Well, as I see it, then you would trust your parents in some circumstances, but not in others. Trusting someone wholly would be believing EVERYTHING they say. |
But you didn't put THOSE QUALIFIERS in your ORIGINAL statement. I can only go on what you tell me.
Quote:
|
I agree that if one does not accept Christ as both Prophet Priest AND King, then he is not saved. However, my point is that I doubt that your brother truly believes what he says he does.
|
Then nothing can falsify your theory. It's simply an a priori assumption (that you haven't exegeted from the Bible, btw). It should be relegated to those other unfalsifiable psychological theories.
You know, like psychological egoists. They say that every one always does everything from selfish reasons. So, the story told is one with Abraham Lincoln:
Lincoln and a man were traveling by train discussing the ethics of egoism. Lincoln was arguing for it. Arguing that the reason we do any action is for egoistical reasons, that it we are always motivated by rational self-interest. Just then, they see some baby pigs stuck in the mud. Lincoln stops the train, runs down into the mud, and saves the pigs. When he got back on the man asked him how he could support his egoism in light of what he just did. Lincoln responded, "If I hadn't helped those pigs I would not have slept a wink all night!."
The gist of the critiques of psychological egoism in the ethical literature, is that no matter how altruistic the action, the egoist always says, 'But they really did it for themselves."
Frankly, I have your bare assertions, minus any exegesis, feuled by devotion to Clark, and my first hand, involved experience with the situation. I know my brother better than you do, sorry. And, yes, he really does believe those things.
We might not want to admit it because he shows how powerful the grip of sin on a man is and how much salvation is truly by grace alone, through faith alone. Not, as Anthony said above: "Salvation is by believing the right sorts of facts."
Quote:
|
The point I was trying to get at in the post above is that in my understanding, trust is not so different from assent. They are in my mind two ways of looking at the same thing. Belief, trust, assent, reliance, faith...all different ways of saying the same thing. I have no problem with including trust as a part of saving faith, but I don't believe that Clark does either. I think that he was essentially saying the above.
|
Trust is different that assent.
Not only do people like my brother disprove it, but everyone has admitted that demons assent to the proposition "God is one." So, do they 'trust' God?
And, it is also different because we can apply open ended arguments to it:
1) I trust Frank.
2) I believe what Frank says.
If those where essentially the same, then why would it make sense to say:
3) You trust Frank, but do you believe him?
and not make sense to say,
4) You trust Frank, but do you trust Frank?
(4) is silly, but that is the effect of teating the two words as the same.