Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
E.g., Clark's definition of faith, in the doctrine of justification, is not particularly amenable to either WCF 11.1 or HC 21.
Could you explain?
WCF 11.1
11:1 Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth(Rom_3:24; Rom_8:30): not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ´s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them (Jer_23:6; Rom_3:22, Rom_3:24, Rom_3:25, Rom_3:27, Rom_3:28; Rom_4:5-8; Rom_5:17-19; 1Co_1:30, 1Co_1:31; 2Co_5:19, 2Co_5:21; Eph_1:7; Tit_3:5, Tit_3:7), they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Act_10:44; Act_13:38, Act_13:39; Gal_2:16; Eph_2:7, Eph_2:8; Phi_3:9).
I see no conflict with Clark's definition of faith and this. Would it be that Clark said that faith is belief and the WCF seems to imply they were not the same when it says: "...nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them...". Even if that is the case, it hardly means Clark's definition conflicts with the WCF. WCF 11.1 would still say essentially the same thing in either case. If Clark is correct, then the WCF is simply being redundant, If Clark is incorrect, the WCF is just being a bit more explicit. They could have listed more acts of "evangelical obedience" and been even more explicit. But maybe you could explain what you mean.
(I know this is off-topic, but I'm really scratching my head over this.)
P.S. I looked up HC 21 and I agree. I think the HC is just following the the (false) heard/heart dicotomy there. (I think it's a Greek thing.) Oh well, nobody's perfect.
[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Civbert]