Le Sabot Post-Moderne

You're right about belief not being voluntary. Philosophers recognize this in epistemology nowadays when dealing with the problem of how we can be held responsible for certain beliefs we have (since it's intellectually wrong to believe things for very bad reasons, especially if those beliefs have bad consequences, e.g. that it's morally obligatory to fly a plane into the World Trade Center).

However, there is a distinction between belief and acceptance, where belief is involuntary (though you can bring yourself to a point where belief is more likely, e.g. reminding yourself of truths, exposing yourself to good reasons, listening to fluffy motivational speakers, etc.) and acceptance is voluntary. Also, belief when it comes to salvation isn't belief in a proposition or set of propositions, though it requires that. It's primarily trust in a person, and that is voluntary. I agree with most of what you say about how people do in fact come to faith. I just don't think the involuntariness of belief establishes the truth of those statements.

In the Bible, in Romans ch. 4, it is said of Abraham that "in hope against hope he believed." One thing Abraham was faced with were the circumstances surrounding him. That was his age, Sarah's age, her barrenness. The other thing he had to consider was the promise from God of a son. Abraham chose to believe God's promise instead of what he could see and reason from those things. Personally, I try to live a life similar to Abraham's. I choose to not live according to what I can see and reason, but according to what God's word says. As a result, I have seen multiple miracles.

Hi Jeremy. . .

Reading your response, I'm not clear that you read my post with your usual degree of care. It leaves me unclear what point you're making.

"However, there is a distinction between belief and acceptance, where belief is involuntary. . .and acceptance is voluntary. Also, belief when it comes to salvation isn't belief in a proposition or set of propositions, though it requires that. "

I'm aware of the aspects of saving faith. A closer read would have shown you that I wasn't holding up intellectual acceptance as the whole of faith. For example -- "So even the MOST BASIC ASPECT of saving faith. . ." Any read of this should recognize the clear implication that there are other aspects of saving faith.

I'm also aware that assensus is a prerequisite for fiducia. You are as well, as you said yourself, "belief when it comes to salvation isn't belief in a proposition or set of propositions, though it REQUIRES that".

If it requires it, and this isn't voluntary, as you yourself have said, then which part of my post are you actually opposing?

How can someone trust in Jesus, which I completely agree is a function of will, if they don't first actually believe that He existed, is the Son of God, and died to take away sins?

This is an aspect that those advocating universal ability never seem to address. That trusting in Christ for salvation isn't just a "decision", but also requires belief. "If you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead. . .", for example. And believing this isn't something one chooses to do. One either believes that at a real time and place the Son of God was raised from the dead, or one doesn't.

While you seem to want to locate man's inability solely in the will, neither the Bible nor the Reformers chose to do so.

"For the message of the Cross is FOOLISHNESS to those who are perishing. . ." 1 Cor. 1:18

"The natural man receives not the things of God, because they are FOOLISH to him, nor can he KNOW them. . ." 1 Cor 2:14

Luther, in The Bondage of the Will, likewise locates man's inability in both the will AND the reason.

Because of the prevalence of Revivalism in North American Christianity, most of our critiques of the Arminian position focus on their teachings about fiducia and the will. But their position is equally inadequate in the area of intellectual assensus, and it's valid to point it out.

I would disagree with the idea that "intellectual agreement" or any close equivalent is what the New Testament means in the use of the word "faith", at least generally speaking. I've become more and more convinced, bu a variety of biblical scholars, that it is better thought of as "trust" or "loyalty", thus conveying more of an attitude or perspective than an agreement.
I'm not sure what this does to the argument you set forward here.

It's also unclear to me (since I'm not a philosopher) what is entailed in "ability to believe". I suppose different people could mean different things by that. The relevant point, to my way of thinking, is that we should present the gospel to people in good faith. We may surely say "if you believe, you will be saved" without even wondering if the audience is "of the elect".

Those who think it's blatantly foolish cannot then use their wills to decide to believe it. Nor can those who have a sincere conviction that it's true then decide to believe it's false.

I disagree. Belief is ultimately an act of submission to the consequences of an idea, and the willingness to submit our own worldview to the surgical knife of an external agent. Unbelief is an act of arrogance, not always unjustified, but sometimes merely a refusal to accept a reality that differs from that which we prefer.

Hence, unbelief is a choice. It is a choice to hold fast to our own set of ideas and values because we believe them to be superior to the alternative presented. It is a decision to stay belted in the driver's seat instead of letting someone else have the wheel.

People can will themselves to act in opposition to their beliefs, and they sometimes do so hoping that their mind will catch up with their actions. For instance, a woman who has never flown on an airplane because she fears the plane will crash goes through therapy. There comes a day when she steps on the plane. Her belief has not changed, the terror is still there, but her faith has taken control of her will.

This is what faith is all about: Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Faith is living as though the unseen is real, despite the lack of concrete evidence. Belief in such circumstances requires an act of the will, and a willingness to lay aside certain rational objections.

That one concludes that the message of the cross is an absurdity says not as much about the content of the message as the mental rigidity of the hearer.

I appreciate what you've written and hope you'll take my comments in the spirit of good debate. These are difficult issues, to be sure.

Paul-

Given the brevity of this medium, it's hard sometimes to know how much clarifying material to include in a post. That said though, I'm not sure how people are still so completely misreading my point.

The classical understanding of saving faith is that it involves three aspects -- Notitia (knowledge), Assensus (theoretical assent), and Fiducia (trust or practical assent).

Before one can exercise trust, loyalty, or whatever one chooses to call it, one must first have a conviction that the Gospel message is TRUE. This is called 'assensus'. And this conviction isn't arrived at through a voluntary act, any more than any other.

I'll clarify again, this time with an example:

I believe the Catholic Church teaches heresy. My great and burning desire is for the unity of all believers, and so I would wish that the facts were different, and they weren't heretical. But I can't simply choose to believe that the Roman church is within the bounds of Biblical teachingm when my mind is convinced it is not. A more mundane example would be the roundness of the earth -- there is no force that my will could exert upon my intellect to cause me to believe in a flat earth.

Likewise, a person who has an absolute conviction that the Gospel is false cannot simply choose to believe the opposite. Particularly as the "god of this world" has blinded him to the truth.

Once we recognize this fact, then the notion of a universal ability of all men to "make a decision for Jesus", apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit, falls apart.

I'm a bit boggled that this is even controversial. Could one of you all please explain to me how one trusts in the Gospel without believing it to be true? Because then I'd understand the nature of the disagreement a bit better.

I'm not remotely denying that saving faith goes way, way beyond mere intellectual assension. Even the demons know the Gospel to be true. One has to hope in, trust in, rely upon Christ to be saved. The main point of this post though, is that in order to come to this point of trust, one has to actually believe that there IS a Christ, that He died to save sinners, etc.

Here's a good, short essay on the nature of saving faith --http://www.providencepca.com/essays/savingfaith.html

My post also has little to do with how we present the Gospel. My concern here is for the centrality, sovereignty and glory of God in salvation. Something that's watered down when we ignore the Biblical teaching about man's inborn inability to come to God apart from the efficacious working of His grace in the heart of sinners. And this inability is located not only in his will, but in the intellect as well.

Charlie-

"I disagree. Belief is ultimately an act of submission to the consequences of an idea. . . Hence, unbelief is a choice. It is a choice to hold fast to our own set of ideas and values because we believe them to be superior to the alternative presented. . .

Please then, for the sake of demonstration, submit yourself to this 'external agent', and disbelieve in the existence of Greenland for the space of five minutes. Exert your will, and convince yourself of the fictitiousness of that particular geographical feature.

Was this accomplished? No.

Because there is no act of will that could make you believe in the absurd. Your conviction that your own "set of ideas" was true was too strong to be overcome by your powers of choice. You referred to it thusly: "the mental rigidity of the hearer."

There are many, many who are so "intellectually rigid" that they CANNOT believe the message of the Cross. This seems to me to be nothing mre than my own position expressed in different words.

In regards to your analogy about the woman and flying, I think it would be better to use examples that involve healthy minds. I'm not clear how one generalizes about human behavior by using neurosis as a baseline. . . Even within this analogy though, she climbs aboard the plane not in opposition to her belief, but because her belief in her therapy is stronger than her belief in an inevitable plane crash. That's double-mindedness, not will operating in opposition to belief.

Anyway, I like what you had to say, and the way in which you say it. I'll let it marinade in my brain tonight. I appreciate both the content and the tone of your post.

John,

as you said, this is just a difficult medium to have a conversation in, especially about complex topics. Even just trying to figure out where potential points of disagreement lie can be troublesome.

My response above is based on the idea (which is still fairly new to me, so I'm trying to work it out a bit) that "saving faith", as you put it would be better said as believing IN Jesus AS Lord, rather than believing THAT Jesus IS Lord. These are, as you well know, two different usages of the term believe. Additionally, if I hold to the former, this idea of believing the gospel to be true is simply a category mistake. The gospel is not a set of propositions, despite how it has been presented by evangelicals for the last century or so. Anyhow, maybe that should be another discussion for another time.

The comment about the offer of the gospel has just been lodged in my mind from other discussions (with other people) about misuses of "Calvinism" and probably was out of place here. Sometimes things from other conversations slip out of my mouth, err, keyboard, at the wrong time. So my apologies on that front.

Paul-

Thanks so much for clarifying. Within the limits of the medium, I believe I understand and agree with much of what you're saying.

"My response above is based on the idea (which is still fairly new to me, so I'm trying to work it out a bit) that "saving faith", as you put it would be better said as believing IN Jesus AS Lord, rather than believing THAT Jesus IS Lord."

I completely agree, and this is what fiducia is all about -- trusting in and relying upon Christ Himself. I don't see that as a novelty at all, but rather part and parcel of the traditional understanding of saving faith. Again though, I don't see that this mitigates the fact that this comes alongside a necessity that one must actually believe that Christ IS Lord in order to do it, along with believing other propositions, such as his divinity, his atonement, etc.

If I were to accept your definition that saving faith is entirely composed of fiducia -- trust in the person -- I would be left speechless in the face or Mormons, JWs and other heretics. Because they also claim faith in Jesus Himself. One must also assent to certain propositions of the Word, and this is where assensus enters. For example, it matters what and Who we mean when we use the word "Jesus."

I think a better way to state it would be that the Gospel is not MERELY a set of propositions.

"The comment about the offer of the gospel has just been lodged in my mind from other discussions (with other people) about misuses of "Calvinism" and probably was out of place here."

It was out of place, but I understand the sentiment behind it. Those new to Reformed theology often try to be more Augustinian than Augustine. The words of John 3:16 catch in their mouth and nearly refuse to come out.

We're absolutely not called to speculate about a non-believers election or reprobation. We're emissaries sent to preach the Gospel of Peace freely, openly and constantly. Our job is to call sinners to repentance, and assure them that any who come to God will find peace, love, reconciliation and eternal life through Christ Jesus.

That's not to say that my knowledge of the sovereignty of God in salvation plays no part in my evangelism. It empowers it. First, because I no longer have terror that if I "mess up" my Gospel presentation and make it unconvincing, some person might go to Hell. I preach faithfully and as winsomely as I'm able. But I realize that it is the Holy Spirit's work to convert sinners, not mine.

Secondly, it encourages me tremendously. No matter how hardened a sinner or skeptic might appear, I know that their resistance is NOTHING compared to God in the day of His power. If God has chosen this person, his heart will be opened to the truth. I see it time and again.

Anyway, I'm preaching to the choir, I know. But I wanted to say that I understand what you were saying. :-)

Paul-

"It was out of place, but I understand the sentiment behind it. Those new to Reformed theology often try to be more Augustinian than Augustine."

I want to clarify this, because it would be easy to read pride into this statement. It's not that these people have bad motives or are being foolish. It's quite understandable.

Given how massively anthropocentric modern Christianity has become, it requires a new vocabulary and way of speaking about salvation to express the fulness of Biblical truth on the subject. And because it runs so contrary to the way most of us were raised to think about salvation, it's a process to begin to understand the implications of God's Providential sovereignty in all of life.

Going over this with a fresher mind, I realize I forgot one other term I wanted to include, i.e. "Loyalty". I also was searching for the term "disposition" to contrast with "assent".

In my mind all of this ties together well by using a political analogy, which I would argue is the primary analogy the scriptures use for our relationship to God. If Fred is King of Freedonia, merely recognizing that fact is not the same as being a subject of Fred of Freedonia. American pagans are well aware (at least some of them are) that Christians serve Jesus. In doing so they may acknowledge that He is our king. I take "faith" as describing the relationship of loyalty to our monarch.

This is just trying to be more precise on this whole discussion, rather than anything new. I really shouldn't write when I am tired :)

Also, as I tried to imply in my first response, I don't rule out the idea that pistis (faith) can be used in other ways in the NT, just that this is the primary way it is used relative to salvation.

I have a tendency to focus exclusively on biblical theology at the expense of historical theology, thus making it tricky for me to understand and communiate with those of the opposite tendencies. Not trying to label you, just admitting my weaknesses.

Please then, for the sake of demonstration, submit yourself to this 'external agent', and disbelieve in the existence of Greenland for the space of five minutes.

Well, you made me laugh. But I think you're mixing apples and oranges here; it's a very different thing (for a healthy mind) to disbelieve in something subject to physical proof vs. a metaphysical proposition. And that's my ultimate point. We don't take metaphysical positions of any stripe on the basis of anything we might call rational, scientific proof, but rather because these metaphysical ideas are more appealing to us than certain others.

I appeal to Romans 1:20-22:

From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they becaome utter fools instead. NLT

Metaphysical belief systems are mere preferences. Every one of them is a leap of faith, no matter what proofs we concoct in our minds. And, I believe, we adhere to certain god-is-not-there belief systems because they appeal to our dark and confused minds, they appeal to the way we want our world to be, and not because we have no choice in the matter.

We prefer there to be no God and no ultimate accountability for our actions, so despite the nagging evidence to the contrary in nature, and the nudging of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, we choose to disbelieve.

Now, I've never seen Greenland, but I believe the witnesses to the existence of Greenland. I have also chosen to believe the witnesses to the words and actions of the Christ... but that's another discussion.

I've seen Greenland. You aren't missing anythng :)

Y'all-

I appreciate your thoughts, and I'll definitely respond manana. I just got in from teaching our college fellowship tonight, and I'm wiped out. What began as a 30-minute teaching time turned into a VERY cool 2-hour discussion on the nature of male-female relationships, Christ and the Church, and the place and significance of physical relationships within this context. But this followed 5 hours of teaching evangelistic English, and my brain is well-fried now. I'll respond here tomorrow. :-)

OK, I'm coming in on this late and I can't say anything as eloquent as what's been said already. Further, I know nothing I say would convince you to change your mind, Disco, but humor me for a minute.

Belief is VERY much subject to what we allow ourselves to consider, that to which we will open our minds. In order to truly believe something, we have to consider that the opposite stance might be true, and have sufficient grounds to reject the opposition. (Questions regarding Greenland, or a flat earth, do not apply here because these are not matters of faith, as there is physical proof answering the question for us.) And for belief to have meaning it must be followed by action.

As for spiritual matters, much of what we believe comes from familiarity, ideas we were raised with. But how did you come to leave the Word of Faith movement and become Presbyterian? Was it not that someone introduced you to concepts, you mulled them over in your mind, and then saw the rightness (as you perceive it) of what you'd been told and accepted these concepts as something to which you subscribe? You later officially changed your denominational affiliation and then your behavior (attending the Presbyterian church and adopting its practices, discarding those WoF practices that were not accepted by your new home), yes? You were free to choose how to worship and you were not too rigid in your practices, nor too arrogant to say, "Perhaps there is a better way." It is the same with coming to faith in Christ.

Joshua 24:15b - "then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve..."

If I am not free to choose Christ, then I am not free to reject Christ and I am merely a puppet playing out in role in a cosmic play.

Just as I take no joy in forcing my affection on my children, neither do I believe that God would forcibly elect me to receive his grace. I delight in my children coming to me to bestow their affection on me, and allowing me to do that same to them. So does God revel in our praises, and delight in giving us good gifts, even salvation. But he is a gentleman, I believe and will not force himself upon anyone. He will seek us, like a lost sheep if we go astray, and will not be content until we come home, because it is his will that none should perish. But he will not force us. *If he were in the business of choosing for us, would he not choose everyone of his creations to spend eternity with him?* After all, that is what he created humanity for, for his own good pleasure and companionship.

Just my 2 cents.

Along these lines:
Matt 23:37 - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
Sounds to me like we have a will, and God will allow us to exercise it even if it is contrary to his, and saddens him deeply.

Autmom-

I appreciate you weighing in, but this thread isn't over the nature of man's will, but rather his intellect. This post wasn't Scriptural so much as philosophical.

The post where I spoke directly to man's will is a couple down from here. Unfortunately, it hit while you were under the weather. I'd still very much like to hear from you down there though, when you have a sec. I'd be especially interested to see you address the Scriptures I posted, and explain how you see them interacting with your view of "free will."

Gang-

Sorry to bail on you a second night, but I have way too much RL work to do tonight, and am in a bloggin-free zone til I get it done. I'll get back with you ASAP.