Faith for Clark and Sandeman

[timfost]

I understand that both Gordon Clark and Robert Sandeman believed that faith was intellectual assent alone. What are the similarities and differences between the understanding of faith by these two people?

 

[timfost]

If no takers, could someone explain or recommend reading that explains Clark's position?

Thanks!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

There are a number of previous threads on this in the PB archive; search for them; you may get an idea why no one took up your thread.

 

[VictorBravo]

Just to help out, a few links below, should your search produce too many results:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/82846-Knowledge-Assent-Trust-elements-of-faith

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/33267-Gordon-Clark-s-Definition-of-Saving-Faith

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/29884-John-Robbins-Denounces-Experiential-Calvinism/page2#post364206

 

[MW]

I understand that both Gordon Clark and Robert Sandeman believed that faith was intellectual assent alone. What are the similarities and differences between the understanding of faith by these two people?

Regrettably there turns out to be no formal difference when it comes to defining the nature of saving faith. John Robbins' reply to the Banner of Truth on this subject only confirms the fact that Gordon Clark taught saving faith is belief of propositions. Sandemanians taught precisely the same thing.

The differences, materially, are twofold. First, Clark's view turns on a psychological view of man which does not altogether exclude trust but reinterprets it in terms of propositions. Secondly, Clark did not cast doubt on the faith of those who differed from him or start an ecclesiastical sect.

 

[KeithW]

One practical aspect of the teaching of Gordon Clark can be demonstrated in a friend of mine. He follows the teachings of Gordon Clark, went to the seminary founded by the son-in-law of Gordon Clark, and was a friend of John Robbins. I have heard the phrase assent of propositions many, many times. Part of his explanation of saving faith, and the Gospel, always includes something like -- assent of, or simple belief in, the imputed righteousness of Christ. Or to put it another way, there can be no saving faith without understanding the meaning of the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Here is a review that I did on the republication of Clark's What is Saving Faith? in 2004: http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/15-reviews.pdf. These are all the reviews for that issue and the relevant review is on pp. 217-226.

Peace,
Alan

 

[KeithW]

Thank you, Alan. I found that helpful.

 

[timfost]

Thank you all!

As I am reading the other threads that Victor provided, I had to revisit Heidelberg 21. Thinking of faith as knowledge + assent + trust, I've bracketed these categories in Heidelberg 21 below:

"What is true faith?

True faith is not only a sure knowledge [1. knowledge] whereby I hold for truth [2. assent] all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust [3. trust], which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits."

"Knowledge" and "trust" are obviously outlined in the Q&A, but honestly I didn't see "assent" until now.

I'm having a great time reading the materials you all provided! Thanks again!