The relation of faith to willing

[RamistThomist]

On the Hegelian thread it was asked

Isn't faith an act of the will?

But we didn't want to derail the thread so I decided to take it up here. What is the relation of faith to the will? Obviously, unregenerate man doesn't magically will to faith. On the other hand, though, I read something from Dabney the other day that was quite interesting.

In regeneration God efficiently produces the holy disposition which regulates (acts as proximate cause) man’s volitions (227).

Discussions vol. III.

So in a sense, post-conversion man (regenerate man) will will (sorry for the redundancy) to faith because his will has been renewed. It's still monergistic. Similar to the Catechism's language, "Renewing our wills."

 

[VictorBravo]

I suppose a simple way of looking at it is to say that will, although voluntary, is limited by the creature's nature.

We wouldn't expect a dog, for example, to demonstrate a will to master calculus, but it might demonstrate a will to break into a dog food bag.

Similarly (if only weakly), an unregenerate sinner would never have a will to faith--the ability simply doesn't exist.

But, immediately on regeneration, the will is "renewed", meaning it now realizes an ability it never had before: to have faith.

I can see the wormhole questions developing from this, and I am not prepared to go much further right now, but I do note that Christ often spoke of those of "little faith" (like Peter on the water), which strongly implies that faith allowed by a regenerate heart is in some way under that person's willing control.

 

[Rom]

To go along with Victor's helpful analogy, look at the Confession of Faith.

Chapter 9 is very helpful here:
I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]

 

[Claudiu]

In regeneration God efficiently produces the holy disposition which regulates (acts as proximate cause) man’s volitions (227).

This is how I take it. The reason the unregenerate cannot will to have faith is because his nature won't allow for it. However, once we are regenerated and our nature allows for it, we can will to have faith. That's why I was a bit surprised by the response I got in the Hegel thread that claimed that faith is not an act of the will.

 

[Rom]

It is the Spirit who works faith in us, the Shorter Catechism states:
Q: How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A: The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

See Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Philippians 1:29 - For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Your belief and trust in Christ has been granted to you and worked in you by the Spirit.

 

[Philip]

Faith is, in the end, a disposition, an attitude, a way of being which leads to a way of doing. I can't will myself to believe more or trust more---I have to exercise the faith that I have been given and pray that God would increase it.

 

[RamistThomist]

The Spirit renews our wills, but the faculty of will is still employed. We still have a will, fallen/corrupted whatever it may be. We might believe in fallen will, but we don't believe in no-will. That's what all of the Protestant Scholastics would say.

 

[MW]

"Monergism" is confined to regeneration in which man is entirely passive, and does not extend to the act of faith, for faith is an action of the renewed man.

Faith is an act of the whole man, not just the will. Hence knowledge and assent as well as trust.

It would contradict Scripture to say that a renewed man cannot will himself to believe. His very "willing" to believe is the work of grace within him. God worketh in him to will and to do. In fact the Puritans would say that the will to believe is the smallest measure of true faith.

 

[Claudiu]

"Monergism" is confined to regeneration in which man is entirely passive, and does not extend to the act of faith, for faith is an action of the renewed man.

Faith is an act of the whole man, not just the will. Hence knowledge and assent as well as trust.

It would contradict Scripture to say that a renewed man cannot will himself to believe. His very "willing" to believe is the work of grace within him. God worketh in him to will and to do. In fact the Puritans would say that the will to believe is the smallest measure of true faith.

 

[Philip]

It would contradict Scripture to say that a renewed man cannot will himself to believe.

How so?

I can't will myself to believe something. I cannot, for instance, decide that I am going to believe that the moon is made of green cheese. There has has to be some compelling reason presented which accords with other factors and gives rise to the belief. I don't get up in the morning and decide to trust my senses: I get up in the morning and find myself trusting my senses. I cannot choose to know something.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think Rev Winzer is trying to say that the faculty of will is going to be exercised.

 

[MW]

I can't will myself to believe something. I cannot, for instance, decide that I am going to believe that the moon is made of green cheese. There has has to be some compelling reason presented which accords with other factors and gives rise to the belief. I don't get up in the morning and decide to trust my senses: I get up in the morning and find myself trusting my senses. I cannot choose to know something.

Scripture holds men to account for their beliefs. Such accountability is established on the basis that men are responsible for what they believe and how they act in relation to those beliefs.

If you could not choose to know something there could be no such thing as self-deception or being "willingly ignorant," both of which are attested by Scripture as human experiences.

You decide to trust or to correct your senses. I am sure you don't think that stars are actually as small as you perceive them. You have decided to believe at some point that distance has made them appear smaller and that prior choice affects the way you interpret sensory experience.

 

[Philip]

Scripture holds men to account for their beliefs. Such accountability is established on the basis that men are responsible for what they believe and how they act in relation to those beliefs.

True, we are responsible to believe things, but does that make it an act of will?

If you could not choose to know something there could be no such thing as self-deception or being "willingly ignorant," both of which are attested by Scripture as human experiences.

To be willfully ignorant is, literally, to ignore something. It in no way implies that positive beliefs are acts of the will. If I hold a belief x it is based on prior commitments, affections, etc such that I am responsible for it, but the belief simpliciter is not an act of will.

You decide to trust or to correct your senses.

Not consciously. Certainly when presented with philosophical arguments, one may question, but even then how does the fact that I find, say, Descartes' argument less than compelling make my trust in my senses an active decision? It's not as if I have another live option.

Certainly one corrects for things, but that's just a matter of balancing sources such as sense perceptions, experiences, and authorities (weighted differently).

The reason why I hesitate to call faith an act of will is that it seems to me to be a much deeper matter. Faith is the ground of action---an affection of the will, a thing which moves to action. The very will to belief is proof of that belief. "I believe, help my unbelief" is at the heart of faith.

 

[MW]

True, we are responsible to believe things, but does that make it an act of will?

Responsibility is based upon the fact that you can choose or refuse. If you can't choose or refuse it is generally said to be out of your control and something for which you are not responsible.

If you "choose" to believe otherwise, I leave you to it, even though you choose to believe that you don't choose your beliefs..

 

[Cymro]

When we speak of little faith, does it not rather speak of the exercising of it rather than its quantity?
Faith is faith as a gift, but through hesitancy, ignorance and wilfulness etc, we
neglect to use it as we should. So when scripture speaks of great faith, it is describing the
willingness of its user to live by faith to a greater degree. Just a thought arising!

 

[VictorBravo]

When we speak of little faith, does it not rather speak of the exercising of it rather than its quantity?
Faith is faith as a gift, but through hesitancy, ignorance and wilfulness etc, we
neglect to use it as we should. So when scripture speaks of great faith, it is describing the
willingness of its user to live by faith to a greater degree. Just a thought arising!

That's what I was trying to get at in my first post--but I was rushed. Indeed, we are exhorted to exercise faith. That means it is volitional and subject to the will.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

That is duty language directed toward the regenerate, which assumes a will to direct action.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jacob, It seems I read Gerstner on this topic and he is a lover of Jonathan Edwards. Something that I read many many moons ago by him caused me to look deeper into the inclinations of the heart. Have you considered that as you look at the will? What makes a man appreciate one thing over another and cling to it has always amazed me. It seems that our inclinations have something to do with this subject of the will.

 

[Mushroom]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]

And that day I sorely long for, although by present evidence not sorely enough. Even so, Lord Jesus, come.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, It seems I read Gerstner on this topic and he is a lover of Jonathan Edwards. Something that I read many many moons ago by him caused me to look deeper into the inclinations of the heart. Have you considered that as you look at the will? What makes a man appreciate one thing over another and cling to it has always amazed me. It seems that our inclinations have something to do with this subject of the will.

I've read Edwards on this and am mostly in agreement with him. I follow Dabney's reading of Edwards. Dabney and others tried to point out there is a difference between the faculty of will and the exercise of will. Dabney and Edwards would say that our will follows our disposition (nothing in the finite world is uncaused; our wills look back to proximate causes--our dispositions, etc).

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I think the problem is with people's understanding of what it means to be compelled. The popular understanding is obviously that we cannot help believing the evidence when it is presented before us -- thus, we are compelled by the evidence. However, in reality, we are never compelled against our own will because the receiving of evidence is always followed by a moral decision whether to believe or not believe the evidence. This is also why the unbelievers don't believe in God's existence (the God of the Bible, that is). They suppress the truth, so their own eyes are blinded. When you choose to not believe something, you are effectually blinding yourself to it. Likewise, when you choose to believe something, you are compelled and adamant about it. This is the power of the will God has given us, but it is nothing more than a curse to the unbelievers.

 

[KGP]

Simple but helpful distinction for me:

Believing is an act of the will.
Faith is a gift of God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk