Interesting read, but the author is wrong at a couple critical points:
Quote:
|
At any rate, the passage from James makes it clear that mere intellectual assent does not constitute real faith. While the facts can be analyzed rationally, the ultimate expression of faith is neither rational nor irrational. Faith is ultimately expressed in action.
|
First this is incoherent. If faith is not rational, it must be irrational. It can not be rational and irrational at the same time in the same sense.
Second - the common antagonism against the rational thought is seen in his statement that faith is not mere intellectual accent. I think faith is simply that, intellectual assent. Saying faith is more makes it something other than a gift from God, it becomes our emotional response. The author misapplies James 2:19 to make his point. The problem is, his conclusion does not follow. The demon believes in God and shudders. The demon's faith in God is enough to convict him. The point of the verse isn't that the demon's faith was not genuine because it was "merely intellectual", the point was faith in the mere existence of God (no matter how genuine) is insufficient for salvation.
A genuine intellectual accent (faith) will result in trust. So saying faith is defined by trust is unnecessary. True faith leads to trust and obedience, but neither of these things define faith - nor should they.
P.S. Almost forgot to add this link:
What is Saving Faith - by Gordon Clark. This explains it better than I do.
[Edited on 6-1-2006 by Civbert]
Linear Mode
