Faith and Emotions and Assent

But although the emotions are sometimes referred to, the term heart more often signifies the intellect. It is the heart that speaks, meditates, thinks and understands. At the same time, it cannot be uniformly translated intellect as distinguished from the will or the emotions. This is not because it excludes or is antithetical to the mind, the understanding, or the intellect, but because it includes them all and signifies the total personality. The term heart in reality means the self, or, with some colloquial emphasis, one's deepest self. And as the self acts emotionally, volitionally, and intellectually, the three activities are each represented in the several occurrences of the term. Although the term heart includes the emotions and therefore cannot be translated intellect, still the intellectual reference occurs much more frequently than any other; and this preponderance of the intellectual references shows the preponderance of the intellect in the personality.
- Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation

Hebrews 11:6 and Faith

To return for a moment to Hebrews 11:6, we see that faith in God is impossible without a creed. The first article of this necessary creed is that God exists. And how obvious! Can a man come to God if he believes that God does not exist? To turn an illustration back upon its originators, can you take your money to a bank which you believe does not exist? It is not even necessary to put the matter ...so strongly. The blatant atheist who believes that God does not exist will not come, of course. But what of a man, not a blatant atheist, who merely fails to believe that God does exist? Can such a man any more easily come to God? Hebrews says, No; he who comes to God must believe that he is.
This creed has also a second article which must be believed before one can come to God. If a man believes merely that God exists, he will not come; God in this case might be an indifferent deity with no concern for man; he might even be annoyed at a man's bothering him; or possibly this god might be some impersonal force. Therefore, before a man comes to God, he must believe that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him. This, of course, implies that God is personal. What an extensive theology we are getting into! And how intellectual we have already become, for we are now using the logical form of implication.

 

 

 

 - Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation

Faith is Intellectual and Assent

The thing is justification and sanctification are to be viewed together. It is not like we become justified by faith and then our sanctification is now done through the law by the Spirit. Many people have grown out of the gospel when it comes to sanctification.
All of this bulks on the fact that Believers are Justified by faith in Christ alone. Faith is in itself rational. It is indeed intellectual. As I have said elsewhere the Hebrew writer says that Faith is creedal.
Gordon Clark says, In his vivid style Kierkegaard describes two men in prayer. The one is in a Lutheran church, and he entertains a true conception of God; but because he prays in a false spirit, he is in truth praying to an idol. the other is actually in a heathen temple praying to idols; but since he prays with an infinite passion, he is in truth praying to God. For the truth lies in the inward HOW, not in the external WHAT. Or, again, Kierkegaard says, 'An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual.'

The issue is here that many concern themselves more with the HOW than the WHAT. Scripture tells us to concern ourselves with the What and not necessarily with the How. It does not mean that the How does not matter. The how does matter. But in reality we are speaking of Faith alone and that Christians are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Faith is concerned with the what for it deals with the mind of Christians. Romans 12 says that it is by the renewing of our mind that we may understand the will of God which is good and perfect and pleasing. Many would want to say that the Mind and Heart are two different things in Scripture. Perhaps, but then they say that heart is more emotions, some would say heart is the seat of the WILL. However, that is not necessarily the case. Here the heart stands for minds. The Christian faith has to do more with the Mind, the intellect.

With that said Gordon Clark has said: The distinction between believing that a chair is comfortable and the act of sitting in it is perfectly obvious. But in the spiritual realm there is no physical action; there is mental action only: Hence the act of sitting down, if it means anything at all, must refer to something completely internal and yet different from belief. Belief in the chair has been made to stand for belief in Christ, and according to the illustration belief in Christ does not save. Something else is needed. But what is this something else that corresponds to the physical act of sitting down? This is the question that is seldom if ever answered. The evangelist put all their stress on sitting down, but never identify its analogue.

James 2 Speaks of those who merely knew that there was one God - from this knowledge (true) they shuddered. However, it was an issue with the content of their faith. These demons did not assent to the truth that God exist and that he is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Faith = Belief That and Belief In.

An issue for the Lordship Camp

I might as well just say it since I have already been in some sort of dog house so far. But, if it is first essential to believe the objective principles of doctrine first and foremost before one can actually begin to consider 'good' works then why do we then tell someone that they must focus upon the cart before the horse? It seems almost as if existentially we are focusing on our own self-improvement then on the Gospel which saves the elect by faith.
I mean that from our faith growing more and more into the knowledge of the Gospel does our 'good works' flourish. It is not through the law we become good workers.
many will formally agree that gospel is first, but then they spend 98% of time on the Christian life, using it as a means of assurance. This shows where their heart is. And the gospel they start with is a false gospel.

On God's purpose in commands on ethical beings.

"unless you also clarify that the only way He could do that and still be just is if man were not made in the Image of God, which is the reason it is sin in the first place. God is not bound by His commands per se, as I said above. However, every command has a reasoned causal chain that goes back to God’s character and desires, and these are essential to Him as primal manifestation/expression/revelation of Himself both to Himself and to conditional creatures."It is because Man is made in the image of God that they are responsible to Him. God could have commanded anything - with that said His laws are said to be just, holy, and good because God commands them. However, God is not bound by those laws. Even if man obeyed the law of God completely (scripture says in Romans 3 and 10 that it is impossible due to His depravity and fallen nature) he would still be doing that which was his job as a creature. Luke says that they would be unprofitable servants because they did what they were told and what they were responsible for. All men are responsible to God because of the fact that they are creatures of God made in the image of God. This is why I say you should not imply from this that all of God's creatures deserve salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God and not something that is to be inferred on the creature.

Gordon H. Clark says, "In Christianity . . . God is supreme, and any ideas that may be required are dependent upon what God wills to think. God is the legislator, and piety is determined by his preceptive decree." - Religion, Reason and Revelation Indeed to say that God must honor his law is to subject him to a law above him. Clark also says elsewhere "Responsiblility presupposes a superior authority that rewards and punishes. The highest authority is God. Therefore responsibility is ultimately dependent on the power and authority of God. Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God himself 'determined before to be done'? Was God just in punishing Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others? The Scriptures answer in the affirmative and explain why. Not only is God the creator of the physical universe, not only is he the governor and judge of men, he is also the moral legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between right and wrong, between justice and injustice; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct." From this I inferr that man is responsible to God because He is created in His image. One may also say that Paul says this in Romans 9 when he says that God is the potter we are the clay. The potter has supreme rights.

Two wills of God discussion.

Josh said: God is more complex than for us to limit Him to only one emotional disposition towards individuals. He can desire every human to be saved and at the same only desire to unconditionally save the elect.


Me (Kirk said): if you say God is complex then we in fact cannot know Him. Scripture does not say that God is complex but that God is one. Scripture does not say that God is unknowable, but that He is inexhaustible. This is why Scripture says that what has been revealed is for the purpose that you should follow. God has not revealed to us everything about Himself, but only that which we should know. What God knows as Creatures we to can know. The difference in our knowledge is quantitative and not qualitative. Jesus says that we worship what we know. What we know that is what we speak.


Josh: Well, the idea is not that there are two wills, but two things that He wills. One more than the other. Massive difference. One is confusing and nonsensical, the other is very relatable and understandable.



Me: God wills two things? No one disagrees with that statement. Obviously the command is based upon God's will. You have not clarified the issue. The issue is not whether or not God wills two things. The issue is whether or not God desires in the same sense the salvation of the reprobate that He does the salvation of the elect. Does he at the same time desire to save all when in fact he does not save all? I'd say you should read the Van Til/Clark Controversy which speaks on this issue. 



I (Kirk) asked him: would it not be better to say that God COMMANDS that all would repent and believe the gospel, but only WILLS that the elect should repent and believe the gospel?


Josh: My response is that the idea of a command, if it has any real significance, is that it accords with God’s desires at some level.



Me: I'd disagree. Command does not mean that God actually longs for someone to do something or not. By this you are arguing the same line of the Arminian. God is the legislator.  God as the creator of the universe is the governor of His creation. Apart from salvation-history, Adam (Creature of God) does not have the right to salvation because salvation is a prerogative right that God freely does. As a Creature of God however Adam should obey God. This does not mean however that Adam by obeying God should merit eternal life (this is only grounded in Christ alone - which is covenant language).



Josh: This is how the whole distinction between wickedness and righteousness has fundamental distinction: it is rooted in God’s very nature (i.e. what pleases Him) expressed in desires, which is the formal cause of His will. For example, God makes real commands against wickedness and evil, and those commands are rooted in His character which manifests in desires.



Me: Well God commands are different from what God wills to do. God makes a command because He is the creator. This is the responsibility of man. No one denies the fact that the commands are grounded in who God is. But, you must be careful. God is not bound to certain commands. He could have justly commanded that murder is just as righteous as not to murder. The distinction between wickedness and righteousness is found in Christ. However,  the distinction between wickedness and goodness is ground in sin. However, the distinction between the elect and reprobate is based upon God's free elective choice.





Josh: However, He may, and very often does, desire other things more than “everything” happening according to that set of desires. In the case of His moral commands, He desires that all men obey them, but more than that, at the same time, He desires His plan to unfold as He has ordained according to the counsel of His will. The chief example of this is seen in the Cross: God opposing sin at all times, but because of His grater plan, He ordained the sufferings of Christ at the hands of wicked men.



Me: God command is rooted in God's will of election and reprobation. You cannot make the two on the same level. Nor should you condition the will of election and reprobation on the command. You are using desires and commands equivocatively. However, as Calvin says the command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation so that although God commands not to murder, He however wills that a person does murder. The command based upon God's righteousness is stated to serve the doctrine of election in that sin is revealed by it and that the reprobate are destroyed because of sin.



Calvin says, "Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence



In as far as God wills a thing in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God.

 But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. The command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation.



Josh: So it is with Salvation: God desires the salvation of all men, but more than that desire, He desires the salvation of the elect, being part of His eternal plan, so that the purpose of election might stand, and so He intentionally ordains their salvation and ensures that it will happen by His Spirit, knowing, and ordaining, that without His Spirit irrevocably changing people, they will never repent and believe and so be saved.



Me: Actually salvation is rooted in the justice of God. God desires solely the salvation of the elect, if he had not then the reprobate would not be reprobate but also the elect. What the two wills fail to explain is the fact that salvation is established with the elect alone who are in Christ alone. It is not true that because God commands Christians to preach the Gospel that this administering of the Gospel is actually itself the desire. Again the reprobate by hearing the Gospel are condemned more harshly for the light which they have. Further, they even suppress the truth of God clearly revealed. If God supremely desired to save the reprobate then he would have them to be saved, but he does not. Unless of course you are wanting say that natural revelation is in fact genuine and is capable of saving without the special work of the Spirit to reveal to Him the truths.



Josh: So, it is a surface level distinction to say that the difference between the reprobate and the elect, as regards God’s disposition, is that God wills one set to repent while commanding both to repent because commands are rooted in desire and will.



Me: No the command is that all should repent and believe. The command is that all men should glorify God. But not all do so. God however, in the administration of the gospel commands all to repent, but the command is also effectual and so calls the elect unto Christ.


Josh: All people have lesser desires they will forgo for the sake of more deep and abiding desires.



Me: God's desire is perfect and not complex. Human beings whose nature is fallen are complex and may desire anything under the sun.

  

On Grace, Love, and God

Gods grace is an act of God giving himself. Whereas His love is the act of giving Himself. In other words to be saved by grace alone means that God himself gave Himself to one and it is in love that He does so. Tantamount anyone who has not the Son has not the Father. I lay down my life for them the sheep as Jesus said.