Faith "alone"

[heymikey80]

Side note: saving faith is of the same genus as all other types of faith - only the content (what is believed) is different. Demons believe in God - but they do NOT believe He saves them....they tremble at that thought.

On this side angle, I think there's a distinction -- it may be a distinction without a difference though.

There can be a difference between believing in the existence of God, and believing by relying in God. To me that's one difference in kind between demonic faith and the faith that saves. Demons know that there is one God. But they don't rely on that one God to define their actions or their rescue (apparently because no offer of rescue is extended to them).

But I'll definitely agree that some who rely in God don't rely in a way that will save them, either. They rely, as Paul said, as if their works receive a wage. And that doesn't save them either.

 

[tanelornpete]

One thing that helped me in simplifying explanations and avoiding confusion was the realization that if I needed a clear definition of faith. The modern definition of faith hasn't been around very long - only since Kierkegaard. Before that, it was a fairly simple concept.

Faith is volitional assent to an understood proposition.

While I understand what you are trying to say by referring to 'relying on God' it still is not quite complete. For example, the demons can rely on God too! They rely on His opposition to them. So it basically ends right back where it started.

That is, unless we understand that while 'faith is faith is faith,' the content of faith can differ, there is always confusion. Everyone has faith - its a description of how we agree with any given statement. Demons have faith, unbelievers have faith, believers have faith. What is different is the particulars they agree with. Believers have a certain basic set of beliefs that set them apart from all others.

And, as Scripture shows, all of us are incapable of accepting these core beliefs (whatever they are) without God bringing us to spiritual life. In fact, I would argue that the very essence of that spiritual life is the volitional assent we give to certain propositions, one of which is Jesus died for my sins.

In other words, God's work in regenerating a spiritually dead individual results in that individual beginning to believe things that were impossible to believe before.

David

 

[da525382]

Hey, this is all very interesting....however, it seems we are straying from my initial post....Can we get back to it? Is "faith alone" scriptural or heretical, since the phrase does not exist in scripture???

 

[tanelornpete]

I believe it is quite applicable, since the question regards faith, and yet there is no specific definition of it. Does not the question involve: is salvation a matter of faith alone, or are there other things involved?

 

[heymikey80]

Hey, this is all very interesting....however, it seems we are straying from my initial post....Can we get back to it? Is "faith alone" scriptural or heretical, since the phrase does not exist in scripture???

It's a slogan, one that represents a Scriptural doctrine.

Faith is the sole instrument of the justification of people by Christ Jesus. But it is not alone from the standpoint of being unaccompanied by other saving graces, and saving faith works in love.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ep 2:8-9
​

 

[heymikey80]

One thing that helped me in simplifying explanations and avoiding confusion was the realization that if I needed a clear definition of faith. The modern definition of faith hasn't been around very long - only since Kierkegaard. Before that, it was a fairly simple concept.

Faith is volitional assent to an understood proposition.

I have to admit, I don't think that's what Scriptural faith is. In fact I think that's a distilled and categorized version of faith. I think it missed something, though.

To me faith in a person is not considering a proposition to be true with your whole will.

To me faith in a person is relying on a person. It results in Christian faith because the facts you have discovered about Christ lead you to a submission to this Person as the Authority over every aspect of your life, your thought, your spirit, your actions. But the faith itself is wholly throwing yourself on the Savior; not really on facts.

 

[da525382]

I have to admit, I don't think that's what Scriptural faith is. In fact I think that's a distilled and categorized version of faith. I think it missed something, though.

To me faith in a person is not considering a proposition to be true with your whole will.

To me faith in a person is relying on a person. It results in Christian faith because the facts you have discovered about Christ lead you to a submission to this Person as the Authority over every aspect of your life, your thought, your spirit, your actions. But the faith itself is wholly throwing yourself on the Savior; not really on facts.

Heymikey,

My quandry is how to answer those who tell me that the five solas, you know, with "faith alone" being one of them, well, these people(who believe obedience combines with faith in salvation, especially with respect to a water baptism) tell me "faith alone" is unscriptural because the phrase never is found in scripture, especially in the context of salvation.

What would be your response to that?

 

[heymikey80]

Heymikey,

My quandry is how to answer those who tell me that the five solas, you know, with "faith alone" being one of them, well, these people(who believe obedience combines with faith in salvation, especially with respect to a water baptism) tell me "faith alone" is unscriptural because the phrase never is found in scripture, especially in the context of salvation.

What would be your response to that?

My response is simple. The slogan represented something important: crucial, actually. The slogan can be misinterpreted, just like "pro-choice" can be misinterpreted. It's a code. (and ... is "pro-life" Scriptural? Does that mean it's wrong?)

What the slogan means is flatly Scriptural. The Ephesians 2:8-9 passage demands it, but it's pervasive throughout Paul.

the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Rom 4:5

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Rom 3:28-30

I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ... I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done [!!!!] what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. Rom 7:18-19, 7:25-8:3

But of course most people twist what the slogan actually means. It doesn't mean I can "just say I have faith, and do nothing." None of the great Reformers said or meant such a thing. Faith has results; some of those results are works. But we don't peg our eternal lives on the works. They crash & burn. We peg our eternal lives on the Christ over all. "Faith alone in Christ alone."

The solas are five in number. And there's a reason for that. How can you have five solas?! That'd be contradictory -- unless each sola were actually limited. It isn't "sola fide" and nothing else. The slogans mean something in a context:

On the authority of Scripture Alone
salvation is through Faith Alone
in Christ Alone
by Grace Alone
to the Glory of God Alone.

 

[tanelornpete]

To me faith in a person is relying on a person. It results in Christian faith because the facts you have discovered about Christ lead you to a submission to this Person as the Authority over every aspect of your life, your thought, your spirit, your actions. But the faith itself is wholly throwing yourself on the Savior; not really on facts.

Facts are things that you know about a person - throwing yourself on the Savior - unless you are doing it physically, is meaningless. Unless you know what a savior IS you wouldn't even know this is the person you should be relying on!

You have to start with at least that fact. But you need a lot more: if I walked up to you and said, 'Believe in Jesus and you'll be saved' you'd at best want to know 'saved from what?' - as well as 'Who is this Jesus? and How can He save me?"

'Throwing' yourself on him - the reliance you look at - is the result of your knowing some basic things about Jesus. Without those facts, you could easily be relying on the wrong person.

What does 'rely on' mean, anyway? If it has a meaning at all, you are exactly where I was pointing: you know how to rely, you know on Whom you rely, and you have some idea why you rely.

And this trust is what proves your salvation. You respond to this trust by the works you then commence to do...

Other than all this, excellent response in the above post!

David

 

[heymikey80]

(this post continues on the side point)

I do think it's just a distinction that I've encountered more and more as I've had to comprehend things. I've noticed bits of it being addressed in John Murray, but I'm not sure how far my experience goes to add to that viewpoint.

I do see a hypercalvinistic issue in taking knowledge too far. Frankly, I'm not accusing you of this. I don't know you, and I like to begin with good faith assumptions about Calvinists. But occasionally we press knowledge too high for me to accept:

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40646445&postcount=82
​

I doubt seriously that everyone relying in Christ Jesus is required to have an accurate view of election, for instance.

I think Peter relied in Christ before he even knew Christ Jesus was going to die. I think Peter was wrong. But I think Peter was saved.

Facts are things that you know about a person - throwing yourself on the Savior - unless you are doing it physically, is meaningless. Unless you know what a savior IS you wouldn't even know this is the person you should be relying on!

To me what you're saying is, "some knowledge is necessary to have faith." And I agree. Knowledge is a good direction to be going in. But that doesn't mean knowledge is that faith. Faith in a person is actually reliance on that person, born out of a close relationship. The most knowledge about that person can do is inform that faith, either growing it stronger or preventing deception. But it's not that faith.

Knowledge can tear down walls that block people from relying on the Savior. Knowledge can be assuring. Knowledge can prevent stumbling. But that knowledge can never itself cause or evoke faith. At least that's the way my knowledge sees it.

Just taking your own definition, volition is not a rational result of gaining knowledge. People aren't rational at core. People who learn the exact same things about the Savior, one will turn to Him, another will turn away. The knowledge isn't the thing. The relationship is.

Now again, I have little doubt that you recognize this, and maybe we're just talking semantics. There is a vast importance to knowledge. It's something you and I can share. Faith is something I can't give to you. The Spirit is something I can't give to you. What I can give, I share. So knowledge is vastly more prominent in our lives of faith.

It's just, I don't see faith as that knowledge.

There were Greeks early on who valued spiritual knowledge far above faith in Christ Jesus. And they slowly became such radical thinkers about unifying religion and gaining deep spiritual insight that they showed they were obsessed with this attempt, far above relying on the Savior. They were the "knowledgists" -- the "gnostics".

Christians say there's some value in knowledge (cf 1 Cor 13). But it's not faith. If we have knowledge it passes away; yet faith remains.

You have to start with at least that fact. But you need a lot more: if I walked up to you and said, 'Believe in Jesus and you'll be saved' you'd at best want to know 'saved from what?' - as well as 'Who is this Jesus? and How can He save me?"

Yes, you need to know something to recognize that the conditions for faith exist. But you don't need a lot. I can't even say at this point what all I'm saved from. My knowledge only scratches the surface of my own sorry state before God. I can't really say I know Who Jesus is, any more than manipulating words and symbols that represent things I don't really know much about -- omniscience, omnipresence, God, Firstborn. Many of these words represent things I don't know, or are in essence unknown as to what they mean.

Relational connections are like that. And they seem to me the only thing possible for a limited creature in his relationship with the infinite Creator. So "we know in part." Yet we rely with our whole beings.

'Throwing' yourself on him - the reliance you look at - is the result of your knowing some basic things about Jesus. Without those facts, you could easily be relying on the wrong person.

Yes. I think the question is, though, are we verifying a faith we already have? Or is more knowledge required of us to actually become a saving faith? Or maybe there's an excluded middle? For what it's worth, I think it's the former. We already have faith -- but the Spirit spurs us to more knowledge, more assurance, more foundational grounding so that we cannot be moved from the Savior.

And yet I agree, people often rely on persons who are deceiving them. They base their faith on knowledge that is a lie. That's a faith; but it's a faith that doesn't save them. That's how satanists and demons get their followers. That's how skeptics look to themselves or to their own skepticism. It's a faith, and it's deceptive through lack of knowledge. We don't really know ourselves; we really don't know demons.

What does 'rely on' mean, anyway? If it has a meaning at all, you are exactly where I was pointing: you know how to rely, you know on Whom you rely, and you have some idea why you rely.

Actually, I see reliance as depending on someone else's ability and knowledge, not mine. And it's an ability I don't fully understand. It's purely a general abstraction to say "I know". It's far more accurate to me to say I don't know.

The most I can say is that I know a Person. And that doesn't mean I know that Person any more than I know some other person: it merely means I have a personal relationship with Him. He chooses the content of that relationship, I don't know Him fully. I don't even know all the implications of that relationship.

And this trust is what proves your salvation. You respond to this trust by the works you then commence to do...

With this I agree. Saving faith is how the Spirit operates within a person.

 

[tanelornpete]

I believe you misunderstand what I am saying – it is understandable, our thought over the past two centuries has been very colored by Kierkegaard and company and their redefinition (actually undefinition) of faith. Its caused more problems in communication!

I am not equating faith and knowledge. My definition of faith is “volitional assent to an understood proposition”. That ‘understood proposition’ is knowledge. Faith is volitional assent – that is, willing agreement – to a particular statement. But it is more specific than that. You cannot have faith in ‘Hat’. Or ‘rose’ or any (and I reemphasize any) thing that is not a proposition. Take “Jesus is the Savior.” That’s a proposition with which you can agree (or you can agree with its negation: “Jesus is not the Savior.”) In both instances you believe the statement to be true. You volitionally agree with that statement. Of course, there are previous proposition with which you also agree: you know which Jesus we’re talking about, you know what the term ‘savior’ is indicating.

However, I disagree with you that people are not rational at the core. Rationality is part, if not all, of the image of God. People can make moral judgments. They can balance their checkbooks. Animals cannot. Animals are not rational at the core. The problem is that we misuse our rationality – we choose incorrect conclusions, we use invalid statements: but we understand.

Yes, the Gnostics valued a spiritual knowledge that was not completely based on the work of Christ – if at all. They valued the particular ‘secrets’ that only they knew – and these secrets could be passed on to others. The point I am making is that faith is not a mystic substance, a magic formula, or even a secret essence that God only gives to some.

It is belief in statements. And there are some statements to which the unbelieving mind cannot volitionally assent. God must bring about a change in that person before they begin to believe the statements that they may know very well are actually true! There is no secret knowledge that a Christian has – it’s all very clearly laid out in Scripture.

Hence in a way, your statement ‘it is a relationship’ is correct: our belief that what God says is true demonstrates a different affiliation with God than an unbeliever. But a relationship is not faith. Faith is part of – and maybe even a result of – a relationship. Unbelievers also are in a relationship with God.

Christians say there's some value in knowledge (cf 1 Cor 13). But it's not faith. If we have knowledge it passes away; yet faith remains.
​

As one Classical Christian to another – just a respectful admonition ( I do not want to offend): This verse needs to be used in context: Paul is not saying that one day we won’t know anything – that smacks of a totally different religion! He is saying that philosophies and opinions change, but our trust in God always remains the same. An overall emphasis of Scripture is that God’s Word is true. And it will never pass away. As long as God’s word remains true, we will always “assent to it!” Volitional assent to the truth is a hallmark for a Christian. At no point will we lose our knowledge (at least of the truth) nor will we start disbelieving it someday!

This should sort of show how the Sola Fide fits into the picture...

 

[heymikey80]

I believe you misunderstand what I am saying – it is understandable, our thought over the past two centuries has been very colored by Kierkegaard and company and their redefinition (actually undefinition) of faith. Its caused more problems in communication!

Yes, I'd agree there. I wince even at citing Hebrews 11 for a definition of faith; I don't think that's what the Apostle was saying.

I tend to peel so far back on history that Kierkegaard is the lesser of my worries. People who try to embrace Kierkegaard and existentialism find they have little substantial to say -- because they have so little to get across or to mean! It's actually fun sometimes to run a steamroller over existential thought again & again, because it can't really protect itself. But I confess engaging in a certain kind of philosophical abuse , forgive me.

I am not equating faith and knowledge. My definition of faith is “volitional assent to an understood proposition”.

so ... "assent of the will to a proposition that the person understands." You see the trouble I'm having -- people don't have a personal relationship with propositions, yet "relying in Christ" contains that personal relational aspect by its very semantics.

So as I take it, faith is more. It's willing assent to facts is thus two components of faith as-defined in at least medieval terms. It's that "trust" or "reliance" piece that seems so tautologically embroiled in the term "faith" that I'm unsure how to tease out of your definition. To me it's more than "relying on a proposition". It's entrusting ourselves to the Person in light of realizing His intent and desire to save us: the start of a personal relation because we recognize His overtures in the central fact of history, the Resurrection of Christ.

I have to say, I know people who have lost knowledge through dementia and Alzheimers, and it does happen. To me we're not really concluding we have a permanent faith either through "faith alone" or "once saved by faith, always saved"; we're actually committing our failing selves into His hands, and having done so, we have been changed so as to never truly revert to spiritual death; and He has promised that He never shall send us away. That's how it seems to me.

 

[tanelornpete]

so ... "assent of the will to a proposition that the person understands." You see the trouble I'm having -- people don't have a personal relationship with propositions, yet "relying in Christ" contains that personal relational aspect by its very semantics.

Here’s the problem that I see – and the reason I point this out. What is a ‘personal relationship’ without knowledge? Unless you know some very basic facts at the minimum, you cannot have a real relationship. Of course, all men are ‘related’ in that we all can trace our roots back to Adam. But this is not the relationship being discussed – it is something else! Our relationship with Jesus is based on and build upon what we know – just as mine is with my wife. The more I know of her the more I love her – the deeper our relationship becomes. But it still goes back to what I know – and knowledge, in its pure form, takes the form of propositions.


I understand it seems dry and academic (it is!) The point is that if we wish to state our case with clarity, we need to be specific. The vague idea of a personal relationship with Jesus is virtually meaningless. Everyone has a personal relationship with Jesus, whether they like it or not. Some of those relationships are not so pleasant!


Still I understand what you are saying. People don’t have personal relationships with single propositions. But knowledge is built of propositions, and the knowledge is one of two foundations of a relationship (the other would be spatial proximity, I believe.)

So as I take it, faith is more. It's willing assent to facts is thus two components of faith as-defined in at least medieval terms. It's that "trust" or "reliance" piece that seems so tautologically embroiled in the term "faith" that I'm unsure how to tease out of your definition. To me it's more than "relying on a proposition". It's entrusting ourselves to the Person in light of realizing His intent and desire to save us: the start of a personal relation because we recognize His overtures in the central fact of history, the Resurrection of Christ.

I always reject the idea of using a synonym as a definition: there is no difference between trust and faith – as you point out. Tautology serves almost no purpose. Isn’t ‘entrusting’ yourself to someone the same as trusting someone else? And aren’t the notions of ‘realizing’ His intent and desire to save us the same as specific propositions defining the issue? Even our belief in the resurrection itself is volitional assent to a proposition: “I believe Jesus rose from the dead.” Ok, so that’s a real-language translation of the proposition, but you know what I mean

I have to say, I know people who have lost knowledge through dementia and Alzheimers, and it does happen. To me we're not really concluding we have a permanent faith either through "faith alone" or "once saved by faith, always saved"; we're actually committing our failing selves into His hands, and having done so, we have been changed so as to never truly revert to spiritual death; and He has promised that He never shall send us away. That's how it seems to me.

Here’s the issue though: do you believe that those who lose their ability to remember facts in this life still do not remember them in the next? My argument is that we cannot really judge what goes on in the minds of those affected by diseases. They may just be externally unable to communicate what they know.

In any event, the point of defining faith ‘as it really is’ in order to rid us of all the baggage that keeps us from communicating is vastly more important than it at first seems. If faith is simply belief, which I argue is the case. The issue becomes one of the content of our belief. There is a difference between what a believe holds to be true and what an unbeliever does. And the difference is because of faith – which is given to us freely. We begin to believe, and we grow in the knowledge of the Lord – take a look at Romans 12:2 with my view of faith in mind!


So the question: is faith alone a heresy? Is something that can be easily handled by showing that if we believe that faith is some sort of special infused quality that God puts in us to make us holy, then, yes, that would be a heresy. But if we argue that we understand that justification is ours because we take God’s word for it, then we can show that our salvation is not dependent upon any activity we partake of – physical or mental. There is no magic formula or incantation, there is no ritual.


We believe because we are saved and that is faith alone - without any work.




David

 

[heymikey80]

Here’s the problem that I see – and the reason I point this out. What is a ‘personal relationship’ without knowledge? Unless you know some very basic facts at the minimum, you cannot have a real relationship.

Yes, definitely in this case I'd say some information is required in order to begin trusting. So on the whole, the typical receiver of Christ must also receive that information. The Romans 10 verse (paraphrased, "how shall they believe without hearing?") would be the most obvious.

In nature some people are hardwired for faith: infants come to mind. But I'm more than willing to hold off on that for the moment.

So for me it's normally necessary to have knowledge to gain faith -- the question for me is whether it's sufficient.

Of course, all men are ‘related’ in that we all can trace our roots back to Adam. But this is not the relationship being discussed – it is something else! Our relationship with Jesus is based on and build upon what we know – just as mine is with my wife. The more I know of her the more I love her – the deeper our relationship becomes. But it still goes back to what I know – and knowledge, in its pure form, takes the form of propositions.

Yet someone who knows everything about your wife does not then have the same relationship with your wife. Not unless you include into knowledge, experience and involvement. And those aren't propositional.

 

[tanelornpete]

Yet someone who knows everything about your wife does not then have the same relationship with your wife. Not unless you include into knowledge, experience and involvement. And those aren't propositional.

Maybe a little off topic, but I would say that the terms 'experience' and 'involvement' are way too vague to be able to make a decision as to if they are propositional or not.

Knowledge IS propositional. You cannot have knowledge unless it is in the form of a proposition: you can't know a hat unless you also predicate the word. Hence, experience - to be understood, must be resolved into propositional form for you to understand it, or to relate it to someone else. Something may happen to you (experience) but unless you intellectually record it, it is meaningless to you - because meaning is proposition: it is definition, isn't it?

As for 'involvement' - isn't that a connection of ideas? Mere physical proximity is a form of involvement - but even then, you are still relating various propositions about the phenomenon to yourself in terms of elements of knowledge.

Just to note: the problem is not knowledge, its what you believe to be true that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever.

As for my wife - it is always reducible to propositions - if I know her at all. And the relationship we have is distinguished by our commitment to one another - an intellectual exercise

David.

 

[mlqurgw]

Knowledge IS propositional. You cannot have knowledge unless it is in the form of a proposition

Unless you use the word know or knowledge in the Biblical sense as Christ did in Matt. 7:23. He certainly knew, in a propositional sense, all about them. He didn't have an intimate, relational, special union with them. Also Christ gave us in John 17:3 the definition of eternal life: Knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. It must mean more than just a propositional knowledge. It has to do with an intimate relational knowledge. It puts Prov. 1:7 in a new light when we begin to see that knowledge isn't just some assent to facts.
I find it interesting that the Scriptures use several words as synonyms for faith: To know, to come, to rest, to see, to look, to believe, to trust. It never adds works to those things.

 

[heymikey80]

Maybe a little off topic, but I would say that the terms 'experience' and 'involvement' are way too vague to be able to make a decision as to if they are propositional or not.

Knowledge IS propositional. You cannot have knowledge unless it is in the form of a proposition: you can't know a hat unless you also predicate the word. Hence, experience - to be understood, must be resolved into propositional form for you to understand it, or to relate it to someone else. Something may happen to you (experience) but unless you intellectually record it, it is meaningless to you - because meaning is proposition: it is definition, isn't it?

Not to me it isn't, no. In fact from my point of view meaning isn't even covered by propositional thinking. Propositions only permit the possible transmission of meaning, they don't even reach to the point of being meaningful until they're received by a person.

As for 'involvement' - isn't that a connection of ideas? Mere physical proximity is a form of involvement - but even then, you are still relating various propositions about the phenomenon to yourself in terms of elements of knowledge.

Just to note: the problem is not knowledge, its what you believe to be true that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever.

To me it's who you are related to that distinguished the believer from the unbeliever, not what you know.

As for my wife - it is always reducible to propositions - if I know her at all. And the relationship we have is distinguished by our commitment to one another - an intellectual exercise

I don't think it's reducible to propositions. When truth is reduced to propositions it ceases to be truth because it has been reduced.

 

[tanelornpete]

Unless you use the word know or knowledge in the Biblical sense as Christ did in Matt. 7:23. He certainly knew, in a propositional sense, all about them. He didn't have an intimate, relational, special union with them.

The fact that his relationship with them is different than with His own does not mean that the relationship He has with believers is somehow a different species of term. I would like to reiterate this again:

Gods has a direct relationship with all men, believers and unbelievers. There is a correspondence between them. The terms of the relationship differ, but just because you do not believe the words of the gospel does not mean you do not have a relationship with God. It may be a negative relationship; detrimental to your eternal health, but it is a relationship nonetheless.

Moreover, there is no biblical precedence for denying that relationships are propositional. Just because we may not be fully capable of verbalizing the terms does not mean that God’s knowledge of us is more than truth. Or that truth is something more than a function of propositions. God is truth. God is spirit, and knows all things. Anything else is a form of Gnostic mysticism.

Also Christ gave us in John 17:3 the definition of eternal life: Knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. It must mean more than just a propositional knowledge. It has to do with an intimate relational knowledge.

It doesn’t mean more than a propositional knowledge: it means exactly a propositional knowledge – there is no other definition of knowledge! Even a ‘close’ relationship is one where more is known about between the two partners. You can’t have a close relationship with someone without knowing more facts about them than most, if not all, other people. You cannot be intimate without knowledge: you must ‘know’ what pleases the other person, and then do those things. While John 17:3 is somewhat of a definition of eternal life (it’s more of a description,) I would like to say that it is a wonderful one. I would say it is an indicative statement: those who know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent are partaking in eternal life.

It puts Prov. 1:7 in a new light when we begin to see that knowledge isn't just some assent to facts.

Just to point this out: I have never argued that knowledge is assent to facts. That is the definition of faith. Faith and knowledge is not the same thing. Knowledge is the intellectual collection of propositions. Faith is volitional assent to those facts. Faith is not knowledge, nor is knowledge faith.

Proverbs 1:7 ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...’ Fear is not the emotion of terror here: it is proper respect. And the knowledge referred to here is the truth, as opposed to an acceptance of falsehoods. Hence, this verse is directly in line with my argument: To volitionally assent to various understood facts about God is the path to learning truth: God is truth.

Paul’s version of Proverbs 1:7 - “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

 

[tanelornpete]

…from my point of view meaning isn't even covered by propositional thinking. Propositions only permit the possible transmission of meaning, they don't even reach to the point of being meaningful until they're received by a person.

Just to get this straight, then: “Meaning is not covered by propositional thinking.” Would you say that statement is true? Since I tend to be kind of dense, could you clarify some things for me: What do you mean by a proposition? What is propositional thinking?

I am tempted to make a more specific reply but I fail to understand your meanings and I don’t want to be wrong. I would like to point out that from my understanding ‘meaning’ IS propositional: we build knowledge from units of information that we analyze and put together.

Hence, when you say ‘they don't even reach to the point of being meaningful until they're received by a person’ I am tempted to say that they become meaningful to the receiver when that person adds a predicate to the subject.

To me it's who you are related to that distinguished the believer from the unbeliever, not what you know.

I agree with one half of your statement here: it’s who you are related to. Now, who is it? Can you that to me without facts? So you even know to Whom you are related, or is that irrelevant?

I don't think it's reducible to propositions. When truth is reduced to propositions it ceases to be truth because it has been reduced.

Would you say this statement is true: “Propositions are false”.

 

[mlqurgw]

The fact that his relationship with them is different than with His own does not mean that the relationship He has with believers is somehow a different species of term. I would like to reiterate this again:

Gods has a direct relationship with all men, believers and unbelievers. There is a correspondence between them. The terms of the relationship differ, but just because you do not believe the words of the gospel does not mean you do not have a relationship with God. It may be a negative relationship; detrimental to your eternal health, but it is a relationship nonetheless.

Moreover, there is no biblical precedence for denying that relationships are propositional. Just because we may not be fully capable of verbalizing the terms does not mean that God’s knowledge of us is more than truth. Or that truth is something more than a function of propositions. God is truth. God is spirit, and knows all things. Anything else is a form of Gnostic mysticism.

It doesn’t mean more than a propositional knowledge: it means exactly a propositional knowledge – there is no other definition of knowledge! Even a ‘close’ relationship is one where more is known about between the two partners. You can’t have a close relationship with someone without knowing more facts about them than most, if not all, other people. You cannot be intimate without knowledge: you must ‘know’ what pleases the other person, and then do those things. While John 17:3 is somewhat of a definition of eternal life (it’s more of a description,) I would like to say that it is a wonderful one. I would say it is an indicative statement: those who know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent are partaking in eternal life.

Just to point this out: I have never argued that knowledge is assent to facts. That is the definition of faith. Faith and knowledge is not the same thing. Knowledge is the intellectual collection of propositions. Faith is volitional assent to those facts. Faith is not knowledge, nor is knowledge faith.

Proverbs 1:7 ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...’ Fear is not the emotion of terror here: it is proper respect. And the knowledge referred to here is the truth, as opposed to an acceptance of falsehoods. Hence, this verse is directly in line with my argument: To volitionally assent to various understood facts about God is the path to learning truth: God is truth.

Paul’s version of Proverbs 1:7 - “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

Please understand that I am not disputing your premises. I am just not smart enough or educated enough to have any hope of standing up to your obvious education and intelligence. I am thinking that you seem to be limiting the connotation and therefore the Biblical understanding of the word. I am no Hebrew scholar, I know nothing of Hebrew, but we do have in the Scriptures the concept of knowledge as union. Adam knew Eve. His knowledge of her wasn't a collection of intellectual propostions but a becoming one with her. I believe that is the way the Scriptures speak of our knowledge of Christ and His of us. I apply that thinking to the Prov. passage.