Primitive/Predestinarian/Reformed Baptist Churches

[mlqurgw]

I have heard many contemporary evangelicals use this phrase, but I have never quite understood it. Perhaps you can help me. What is the difference between the head and the heart? Is this distinction biblical? Thanks.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

A man can change his mind without ever having his heart changed. Fully realizing that we cannot reach the heart of men apart from the power of the Spirit we do desire to speak to the heart. Repentance is not so much a change of mind as it is a change of heart. I preach what Christ has touched my heart with not just my mind. If it has touched my heart there is an excellent probability that it will touch others.

Jay Adams wrote a pamphlet called "Preaching to the Heart" It is very good. I will send it to you if you would like. BTW, it was published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. He deals with the Biblical reasons for preaching to the heart.


The whole purpose of preaching is to reach the heart. Man looks on the outward appearence but God looks on the heart. If we do not reach the heart of eternity bound sinners we have done them no good.

 

[Jon_]

A man can change his mind without ever having his heart changed. Fully realizing that we cannot reach the heart of men apart from the power of the Spirit we do desire to speak to the heart. Repentance is not so much a change of mind as it is a change of heart. I preach what Christ has touched my heart with not just my mind. If it has touched my heart there is an excellent probability that it will touch others.

Jay Adams wrote a pamphlet called "Preaching to the Heart" It is very good. I will send it to you if you would like. BTW, it was published by the Presbyterian and reformed Publishing Company. He deals with the Biblical reasons for preaching to the heart.

The whole purpose of preaching is to reach the heart. Man looks on the outward appearence but God looks on the heart. If we do not reach the heart of eternity bound sinners we have done them no good.

Yes, I've heard of Preaching to the Heart. I think I might have a copy of it. I will have a read.

I'm still struggling with what the heart precisely is, though. Can you think of an example that illustrates how the heart is affected in a different way or in a deeper meaning than the mind? For instance, what is the defining characteristic that makes something affect the heart instead of the mind or instead of just the mind? Also, what faculties do you ascribe to the heart? Does the heart think and will just like the mind or something different? Thanks again.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

Yes, I've heard of Preaching to the Heart. I think I might have a copy of it. I will have a read.

I'm still struggling with what the heart precisely is, though. Can you think of an example that illustrates how the heart is affected in a different way or in a deeper meaning than the mind? For instance, what is the defining characteristic that makes something affect the heart instead of the mind or instead of just the mind? Also, what faculties do you ascribe to the heart? Does the heart think and will just like the mind or something different? Thanks again.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

The heart is what makes a man what he is. Certainly it includes the mind and the emotions but it is more the core of his being. His character is shaped by his heart. He may be one sort of man in the presence of others but when it is only him and God the heart is what shows. When the Gospel is preached in the power of the Spirit and reaches the heart of a man it changes who he is not just what he thinks, feels and does. Mere dicpline of mind and body can change those things. When the Apostles preached people were not pricked in their minds but in their hearts. Acts 2:37; 7:51, 54; 16:14

 

[Jon_]

The heart is what makes a man what he is. Certainly it includes the mind and the emotions but it is more the core of his being. His character is shaped by his heart.

When I think of the character of someone, I tend to think of how he acts and what he believes. These two things seem to be more properly equated to the mind, as (1) to act, one must first cognate the thought to act, and (2) to believe, one must first understand the proposition to be believed. If we say the heart is the mind and the emotions, then we are essentially saying the heart is the person. But since emotions are simply a function of the mind—they are the physical manifestation of the thought to emote—this really results in the person being identified with his mind. That is, a person is his thoughts, as his thoughts are centric to everything he is and does. In that sense, do you mean the heart is the mind? I think that would be correct, but it does not seem to fit into a head/heart distinction.

He may be one sort of man in the presence of others but when it is only him and God the heart is what shows. When the Gospel is preached in the power of the Spirit and reaches the heart of a man it changes who he is not just what he thinks, feels and does.

Who is a person is he is not what he thinks, feels, and does? Are there any other functions of a person that are not emcompassed in these verbs?

Mere dicpline of mind and body can change those things. When the Apostles preached people were not pricked in their minds but in their hearts. Acts 2:37; 7:51, 54; 16:14

It is also written,

(Jeremiah 17:9 KJV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
​

And,

(1 John 3:20 KJV) For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
​

Even more, is not the response to the Gospel cognative? To respond to the Gospel, one must (1) understand the message, (2) believe the message, (3) choose to respond. At each point, intellectual operations are required (and volitional at step (3)).

I'm just having some trouble because, most of the time, when the distinction between head and heart is asserted, there is no true distinction made. It is said to be the "sum of the person," but the sum of the person can just as simply be shown to be in his mind. I tend to equate the two. In the Bible, the heart is related as an intellectual organ, capable of thinking (Is. 10:7), being unwilling (Ex. 7:22), remembering (Deut. 4:9), considering (Deut. 4:39), and planning (Ps. 140:2). In fact, Gordon Clark did some exegesis on this exact topic and found that 70-75% of occurances of "heart" in the Bible refer to cognition, 15-20% refer to volition, and less than 10% refer to emotions. Since it is impossible to will something that is not first understood, and since, as has been shown, emotions are likewise dependent on the mind, and since the Bible three quarters of the time refers to the heart as the mind (for what else thinks?), it seems right to conclude that the mind (head) and the heart are the same thing.

Am I off-base here?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

You are a challenge aren't you? I love it.

When I think of the character of someone, I tend to think of how he acts and what he believes. These two things seem to be more properly equated to the mind, as (1) to act, one must first cognate the thought to act, and (2) to believe, one must first understand the proposition to be believed. If we say the heart is the mind and the emotions, then we are essentially saying the heart is the person. But since emotions are simply a function of the mind—they are the physical manifestation of the thought to emote—this really results in the person being identified with his mind. That is, a person is his thoughts, as his thoughts are centric to everything he is and does. In that sense, do you mean the heart is the mind? I think that would be correct, but it does not seem to fit into a head/heart distinction.


Who is a person is he is not what he thinks, feels, and does? Are there any other functions of a person that are not emcompassed in these verbs?




It is also written,

(Jeremiah 17:9 KJV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?


​

And,

(1 John 3:20 KJV) For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.


​

Even more, is not the response to the Gospel cognative? To respond to the Gospel, one must (1) understand the message, (2) believe the message, (3) choose to respond. At each point, intellectual operations are required (and volitional at step (3)).


I'm just having some trouble because, most of the time, when the distinction between head and heart is asserted, there is no true distinction made. It is said to be the "sum of the person," but the sum of the person can just as simply be shown to be in his mind. I tend to equate the two. In the Bible, the heart is related as an intellectual organ, capable of thinking (Is. 10:7), being unwilling (Ex. 7:22), remembering (Deut. 4:9), considering (Deut. 4:39), and planning (Ps. 140:2). In fact, Gordon Clark did some exegesis on this exact topic and found that 70-75% of occurances of "heart" in the Bible refer to cognition, 15-20% refer to volition, and less than 10% refer to emotions. Since it is impossible to will something that is not first understood, and since, as has been shown, emotions are likewise dependent on the mind, and since the Bible three quarters of the time refers to the heart as the mind (for what else thinks?), it seems right to conclude that the mind (head) and the heart are the same thing.

Am I off-base here?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I think you may be missing my point. A person may be able to think, feel an do something other than what is in his character. I am not talking about personality but what it is that makes a person who he is. Without doubt the mind, emotions and will are all involved but all can be diciplined to act and do according to outward influence. Weight loss is a prime example. Those who loose weight and keep it off must change the way they think, act and feel about food but the person who is fat is still there. They may dicipline themselves into a different lifestyle but it doesn't change who they are.

The mind is affected by the heart but the heart isn't necessarily affected by the mind. Knowing to do right and doing it are two different things. The heart may know what is right but the mind can influence the will and the emotions so that an excuse can be made for not doing it. Christ said as a man thinks in his heart so is he not in his mind. Evil proceeds from the heart not the mind.

 

[Jon_]

You are a challenge aren't you? I love it.

I think you may be missing my point. A person may be able to think, feel an do something other than what is in his character. I am not talking about personality but what it is that makes a person who he is. Without doubt the mind, emotions and will are all involved but all can be diciplined to act and do according to outward influence. Weight loss is a prime example. Those who loose weight and keep it off must change the way they think, act and feel about food but the person who is fat is still there. They may dicipline themselves into a different lifestyle but it doesn't change who they are.

Yes, I certainly agree with this. My only thought is whether there is a fourth faculty—heart—that changes the mind/emotions/will (I tend to equate these)? Is it necessary to say that it is the heart that chooses to loose weight against the motions of the mind/emotions/will? I rather tend to think not. After all, is it possible to do something one does not will to do? If I will to clamp my hands, but I do not clamp my hands, can it be said that I willed to clamp my hands? Barring that something extrinsic to my will prevents me from doing so, there appears to be no reason to think I did will to clamp my hands because I didn't. So, it just seems from a logical standpoint that the "heart" is the mind/emotions/will because the motions of them all are identical in cause. I think it is rather the effect of the mind that we tend to say is from the "mind," the "will," the "heart," etc. For instance, Jonathan Edwards called the will, "the mind choosing." I think that's a pretty good description. I would define emotion as, "the physical manifestation of an irrational state of mind." We might say the mind is "that from which thought proceeds." And the heart is perhaps, "the sum total of the thoughts of the mind." In any case, I have trouble seeing the distinction in cause between the many.

The mind is affected by the heart but the heart isn't necessarily affected by the mind. Knowing to do right and doing it are two different things.

But doesn't it follow that you must know what is right to do what is right?

The heart may know what is right but the mind can influence the will and the emotions so that an excuse can be made for not doing it. Christ said as a man thinks in his heart so is he not in his mind. Evil proceeds from the heart not the mind.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You said that the mind can influence the will and emotions so that an excuse can be made to not do what is right. Knowing what is right and not doing it is, of course, sinful. But then, you also said that evil proceeds from the heart, not from the mind. In that case, it would follow that the mind knowing the right and making an excuse to not do it would not be a sinful act, but it clearly is. Is it not written, "Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought" (Ezekiel 38:10 KJV)? Here, the Lord indicates that the mind thinks an evil thought. And the Lord also said, "Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?" (Matthew 9:4 KJV). It seems the two are both quite capable of conjuring evil. Now, if they are one in the same, that makes perfect sense.

I suppose what I am having real trouble with is that, so far, I have not seen anything that distinguishes the heart from the mind. That is, all of the operations that are assigned to the heart can also be assigned to the mind. In fact, it seems that the Bible uses the two terms interchangably.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

Yes, I certainly agree with this. My only thought is whether there is a fourth faculty—heart—that changes the mind/emotions/will (I tend to equate these)? Is it necessary to say that it is the heart that chooses to loose weight against the motions of the mind/emotions/will? I rather tend to think not. After all, is it possible to do something one does not will to do? If I will to clamp my hands, but I do not clamp my hands, can it be said that I willed to clamp my hands? Barring that something extrinsic to my will prevents me from doing so, there appears to be no reason to think I did will to clamp my hands because I didn't. So, it just seems from a logical standpoint that the "heart" is the mind/emotions/will because the motions of them all are identical in cause. I think it is rather the effect of the mind that we tend to say is from the "mind," the "will," the "heart," etc. For instance, Jonathan Edwards called the will, "the mind choosing." I think that's a pretty good description. I would define emotion as, "the physical manifestation of an irrational state of mind." We might say the mind is "that from which thought proceeds." And the heart is perhaps, "the sum total of the thoughts of the mind." In any case, I have trouble seeing the distinction in cause between the many.


But doesn't it follow that you must know what is right to do what is right?


There seems to be a contradiction here. You said that the mind can influence the will and emotions so that an excuse can be made to not do what is right. Knowing what is right and not doing it is, of course, sinful. But then, you also said that evil proceeds from the heart, not from the mind. In that case, it would follow that the mind knowing the right and making an excuse to not do it would not be a sinful act, but it clearly is. Is it not written, "Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought" (Ezekiel 38:10 KJV)? Here, the Lord indicates that the mind thinks an evil thought. And the Lord also said, "Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?" (Matthew 9:4 KJV). It seems the two are both quite capable of conjuring evil. Now, if they are one in the same, that makes perfect sense.

I suppose what I am having real trouble with is that, so far, I have not seen anything that distinguishes the heart from the mind. That is, all of the operations that are assigned to the heart can also be assigned to the mind. In fact, it seems that the Bible uses the two terms interchangably.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I am going to have to give some thought as to how to express what I am thinking on the subject. I do appreciate what you are saying and find no fault with it but I can't seem to specify in a simple way how the mind and the heart are different. It is clear to me but I can't seem to put it in such a way as to make it clear to others. My communication skills are lacking I think.

 

[cygnusx1]

I am going to have to give some thought as to how to express what I am thinking on the subject. I do appreciate what you are saying and find no fault with it but I can't seem to specify in a simple way how the mind and the heart are different. It is clear to me but I can't seem to put it in such a way as to make it clear to others. My communication skills are lacking I think.

I think the difference is similar to the distinction between man's will and man's heart .

Arminians aim at the will of man , they think that if only they can persuade the will of man , then the nature of man will change.= 'decisional regeneration'.
But we know (don't we ) that the heart is the priority , the New Birth is the Divine priority for sinners , and from that change comes a change of will.

So I would say there is a difference in aiming at the heart (the seat of all personal being) rather than just aim at the head (intellect) .

A man may be stimulated and even embrace certain truths in a purely academic way , without any reference to practical change .

 

[Imblessed]

You are a challenge aren't you? I love it.

ROTF!!!

Now that's an understatement of the year! and the year's young! LOL

Jon is brilliant, we can all agree on that! I imagine Spurgeon was a bit like Jon when he was young.

Age will temper him, no doubt.....

We love you Jon!!!