Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace  Quote:
Originally Posted by Civbert Thanks again brother for you reasoned response. I will try to address some of it now as I only have a short time. Quote:
Originally Posted by JOwen My pleasure. 
The text demonstrates the difference between saving and non-saving faith. James is showing that there is a faith (knowledge and assent), that stops short of true faith. This is James' argument, not mine,.. | 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 agree. We must not leave 'trust' out when we are speaking about faith. But philosophy is part of any discussion. Any time we are trying to understand truth and reality - we bring our philosophical presuppositions with us. And our philosophy should not hinder our understanding. As you point out, some philosophies lead to more confusion than clarity.
I believe the biblical meaning of faith is not complicated - even if it's effects may be. This does not imply we can divorce meaning from effect - but I believe we must not conflate them either. The WCF is an example of this in many ways. For example, it clearly differentiates between sanctification and justification, faith and works, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. These are all related, but never identical. If we can not distinguish them, we can never understand how they are related.