I have no problem with figurative language either. However, I do believe that if one cannot translate figurative language into literal language, then you do not understand what the figurative language means. Similarly, Christ's parables where explained clearly to the disciples in literal language because they could not understand the parables.

__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

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.

__________________
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."

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.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

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.

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.

Calvin's Institutes 3.20.1
I would also add there is some misunderstanding being manifest that all these things ought to be plain and easily understood. There are a number of places where the contrary is asserted by Scripture itself. Beware of the philosophy that states it can simplify things where the Scriptures themselves do not promise the same.

Again, the seed of our understanding of faith is enough that we understand that we are like empty vessels who receive Christ or like beggars who cling to Christ but the deeper understandings of these things do not lend themselves to simplistic understandings but are the pursuit of those interested in Wisdom.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.

David and Jeff, maybe this is not directly relevant to the topic of the thread, but the point is that "literal" language isn't. And saying that something isn't understood unless it can be put in literal language is a remarkable illustration of that fact. What does "understand" mean? Is there not a figure contained in that word? And if we vary the word (say to "comprehend" or "apprehend") we have really varied the figure. We have no wholly abstract way of speaking: and this is why it is a dead-end to assume that concrete language gives greater clarity or precision. If it gives the illusion of greater perspicuity that is only because insufficient attention is given to the "literal" words.

However, I don't want to detract from the topic of the thread, which is about the relation of Clark and Clarkians to experimental Calvinism. I do think, though, even a differing perspective on language could be part of the divergent paradigm if Clark or Clarkians are, in fact, not in the stream of experimental Calvinism.

__________________
Ruben

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

If we take Phil 4:8 as a pattern of believing thought, we see there are different qualities to knowledge. We're not only to reflect on the "true," which might be best expressed in propositional terms, but also the "honest," "just," "pure," "lovely," etc, which all have a language of their own. Expressions which are reverent, moralistic, quaint, paradoxical, picturesque, etc., do not only show the truth of what is known, but bring out other qualities which are just as important. The Proverbs teach us that wisdom operates on a number of different levels. There is more to human life than meets the eye, and it requires reverential and reflective study to understand the height and depth and length and breadth of a knowledge which passes knowledge.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Well said! I do have a deep and abiding respect for Clark in many ways, however I think he and Robbins miss the mark completely on faith. Their view is novel at this point and a reaction to the abuse of a thing (over introspection), removing proper "self inspection". Not all subjectivity must be abandoned here, nor trusted.

__________________
Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis. (Dipl. IT; Assc. A; B.Th; M.Th Candidate, PRTS)
Lacombe Free Reformed Church
"A hot iron, though blunt, will pierce sooner than a cold one, though sharper."

JOHN FLAVEL

My Blog - Click HERE
Our Church site - Click HERE

Again, you're missing the point. No one said that figurative language can't be understood (I didn't, at least). This is the exact opposite of what I said on my last post, when I made the point that literal and figurative language describe the same thing. I understand the phrase "he is green with envy" as well as I understand the phrase "he is jealous."

Would you would explain what you meant when you said that concrete language only gives the illusion of perspicuity? The Confession itself says that some parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. Why do you think that is? Are you saying that it has nothing to do with language? The book of Revelation uses a lot of figurative language and I'm sure that this is partially why it's so hard to understand.

Jerrold,
Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
Jim

__________________
Jim
Elder, Harvest Reformed Church (RCUS)
http://www.harvestreformedchurch.org/
http://tbftgoggi.wordpress.com/

Upon a life I did not live; upon a death I did not die, Another's death, Another's life, I'd rest my soul eternally
Omnia dicta fortiora,si dicta Latina
Si vis pacem, para bellum

None of the men arguing that they are novel contra the Puritans have, once, referred to CVT on this issue. I find Van Til to be useful in some areas but the issue, as it has been developed here especially by Rev. Winzer, was that the conception of faith is novel with respect to the WCF and the Puritans. I know Rev. Winzer would find it amusing that any would claim his objections have to do with a particular attachment to Van Til. Not every criticism of Clark has to be framed in that context.

Also, I recognize that Clark and Robbins would state that the moment men move to what they consider "inexact" language that they believe no useful information is being added at that point. This, to me, is rather like arguing that God's inclusion of the Proverbs has the same "defect" as didactic clarity is hardly present. As Rev. Winzer just mentioned and I keep re-iterating:
This "hard path of wisdom" is what we believe ought to be pursued but, in my estimation, Clarkians have decided a priori that this notion simply leads to a "lack of clarity". Hence, it gives warrant to men to quit the pursuit of wisdom at the point they've decided is the terminus. The syllogism alone provides philsophical certainty - Proceed no Further.

Thus, I disagree that we're not taking this into account. We're simply roundly rejecting it as an un-Biblical approach to wisdom. I think the case can be (and has been argued) that this was the Puritan view reflected in the Westminster Standards and the Directory. I have seen several assertions that some men believed the contrary but I have not seen any material presented that convinces me this is anything but assertion.

Dear Jim,

First, I do not have a dog in the CVT/GHC hunt. Experiential Calvinism was around long before the 1950's. Second, I think if you will scroll back and read my responses to Anthony, you will find then quite reasonable. I dine on the Puritans morning and night. I'd say I'm a bit more than "functional" on Scottish Divines. I stand by my belief that Clark's view of saving faith is novel as per the Westminster Standards.

Blessings!

Here's another article that touches on the same issue.

The White Horse Inn: Nonsense on Tap

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

Click to get: Board Rules--Signature Requirements--Suggestions?