03-01-2008, 05:29 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius  Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by Civbert Thanks again brother for you reasoned responce. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time.
This is the point in contention. It is not a given.
James all along has been speaking of works as proof of true faith. And it appears as if he is saying we are saved by works. However, we know that James is speaking about how true faith is demonstrated by the evidence. We are careful to contend we are saved by faith alone, apart from the works which are the evidence of faith. We need to take that same care as we understand the meaning of faith.
So we still need to determine if Jame's argument is directed at "knowledge and assent" that lacks trust. His point may be not more than a claim to have faith does not make your faith true. And we know that belief in "one God" is only sufficient to damn a person.
But even if James argument was against "knowledge and assent" without "trust", this does not mean that "knowledge and assent" alone does not save - any more than we say that faith alone does not save us. My point, is that just as works are the evidence of faith, so too might trust be considered an evidence of faith. This fits better in the overall scheme of James. Knowledge and assent without trust is dead. Faith without works is dead. |
Anthony, the problem exists when we demonize trust and leave it out all together. At times when philosophy gets involved in the discussion too many words are used to explain a simple issue. I am comfortable believeing that belief and assent equals trusting. Therefore belief and assent equal faith. Trust is part of the gift, but I do not see the need to make it a 3rd leg when the 2 we have are strong enough to bolster the weight. | I suppose it depends on which philosophy is getting in the way. Clark's philosophy is very easy for me to understand. The long lofty lists of figurative language used to describe faith, on the other hand, leave me quite confused, along with the attempts (or lack thereof?) to really define trust in a concrete way as something other than assent. |
I meant long sophist words and phrases not contained in the writ. Why it takes this type of language to define the Gospel is beyond me. Different types of latin words created to define this type and that type of arguement. I do not need a discipline of logic to be my rudder David, the writ does just fine. But this is getting off topic.
__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI
Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."
|