tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2368563274057355386..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Thor's hammerRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47379218160850540912014-09-26T23:47:05.556-04:002014-09-26T23:47:05.556-04:00I have a correction to a post:
I originally wrot...I have a correction to a post: <br /><br />I originally wrote: It’s not a question of “how much love” but rather whether love is a necessary condition for being in a state of pardon. It is. If one is justified, then he has love for the Lord. (“If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed…” 1 Corinthians 16:22) You should agree that a son’s love for a father who pays the son’s debt is not a necessary condition for the state of affairs that includes assent to the proposition that contemplates the father’s payment of the debt. Therefore, we may also say that assent to such a proposition is not a sufficient condition for loving gratitude. This common experience obviously does not comport with the alleged sufficiency of “assent alone” for salvific pardon since pardon in Christ must be <b>accomplished</b> by love for the Lord. So, why should we believe that one cannot assent to the gospel in ingratitude and consequently apart from regeneration and pardon? Certainly the parable of the sower makes room for such as these.{emphasis new}<br /><br />"Accomplished" should have been "accompanied". Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36811868917311500712014-09-26T18:36:46.658-04:002014-09-26T18:36:46.658-04:00It was just brought to my attention that Sean does...It was just brought to my attention that Sean doesn't grasp logical conditions, preconditions and states of affairs. It was also recently brought to my attention hat Sean doesn't grasp that repentance and faith can occur at the same time, apart from temporal order. I dealt with the latter sort of confusion several years ago but thought I'd publish it again on my site. Given the relevance, I'll link to it here too. http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-elaboration-on-conditions.htmlReformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68630640026491963222014-09-19T09:19:08.097-04:002014-09-19T09:19:08.097-04:00Good work, Steve. Before pressing "publish&qu...Good work, Steve. Before pressing "publish" last night I took out "Humphrey" (in quotes). I also took out a sentence asking why I hadn't seen him at SG's site.There is little doubt in my mind that he is using alias. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41003719473145254182014-09-19T00:13:08.976-04:002014-09-19T00:13:08.976-04:00BTW, "humphrey," is there a reason you p...BTW, "humphrey," is there a reason you post under multiple aliases? Since they all have the same IP address, why do you go to such lengths to impersonate different commenters? Is that to conceal a hidden agenda? We have better things to do with our time than play cat-and-mouse with a troll. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23005619195986395972014-09-18T22:51:57.260-04:002014-09-18T22:51:57.260-04:00If a doctor tells you that you are cured of cancer...<i>If a doctor tells you that you are cured of cancer, is repenting necessary to trust the doctor that you’re cured?</i><br /><br />Aside from confusing the metaphor, there are other problems that Steve probably didn't want to waste time on. I'm not so wise as to quit wasting my time with Clarkians.<br /><br />With respect to repentance, certainly there would be a change of mind about being cured.The bigger problem is that to "trust" the doctor is to agree with with he says. Yet both in common parlance and philosophy people distinguish between assent and reliance upon the truth (often called "acceptance"). Only Clarkians don't as far as I know.<br /><br />To trust as answer is true is not the same thing as to place one's trust in what is believed. For one thing, to trust in that sense will result in rest. Assent is merely agreement; yet the standards speak of resting in Christ, which Clarkians suggest is the same thing as assenting (just to different propositions.) I know what it means to assent to all men are mortal but what is to rest in all men are mortal?<br /><br />No, assent is not rest. Isn't there a vast difference between trusting the doctor is telling the truth, which is assent, and placing one's trust in the doctor's assessment, which would be accompanied by the disposition of receiving and resting in the news(!), resulting in external acts like that of cancelling the insurance policy and planning a celebratory vacation? For the Clarkian receiving and resting is the same thing as assent, but obviously one need not receive the news as being all that good let alone find rest in it. Even if one says that assent is always accompanied by these things, these things can still be distinguished from assent, which would underscore they're not the same things.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48208549125800242392014-09-18T22:16:54.295-04:002014-09-18T22:16:54.295-04:00If you take somebody at their word, you think they...<i>If you take somebody at their word, you think they are trustworthy. How much love is necessary for justification?</i><br /><br />It’s not a question of “how much love” but rather whether love is a necessary condition for being in a state of pardon. It is. If one is justified, then he has love for the Lord. (“If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed…” 1 Corinthians 16:22) You should agree that a son’s love for a father who pays the son’s debt is not a necessary condition for the state of affairs that includes assent to the proposition that contemplates the father’s payment of the debt. Therefore, we may also say that assent to such a proposition is not a sufficient condition for loving gratitude. This common experience obviously does not comport with the alleged sufficiency of “assent alone” for salvific pardon since pardon in Christ must be accomplished by love for the Lord. So, why should we believe that one cannot assent to the gospel in <i>ingratitude</i> and consequently apart from regeneration and pardon? Certainly the parable of the sower makes room for such as these. <br /><br /><i>Steve already chided somebody for conflating salvation and justification.</i><br /><br />Rightly so. Salvation is not by assent alone. Justification is. Yet this does not preclude us talking about saving faith. <br /><br /><i>Does God justify the ungodly or those that love Him?</i><br /><br />The verse teaches that God justifies those who believes in the One who justifies the ungodly. It doesn’t teach that Christians are ungodly. In any case, it doesn’t matter either way because whether you think Christians are godly or not the fact of the matter is love for God is a necessary condition for being in a state of pardon.<br /><br /><i>Notice that taking God at his word is now “cold indifference” toward God.</i><br /><br />The position before you is that cold indifference is possible for those who assent to good news, which does not mean that taking God at his word is cold indifference toward God. <br /><br />I wrote: “Can't one agree with no real reflection and even without repentance?”<br /><br />You responded with: “You have to understand something in order to agree that it is true.”<br /><br />You didn’t address the point of the question. One can understand something and also agree yet without any serious reflection and disposition of gratitude. As one poster already suggested, it even can be done with a spirit of contempt. One can assent and not repent – agree without counting the cost. Your task is to show that assent to gospel good news is different from assent to other kinds of good news that should be accompanied by an about face and gratitude but often times it is not. <br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7864004406232938512014-09-18T16:37:16.428-04:002014-09-18T16:37:16.428-04:00That confuse a metaphor with the reality it was me...That confuse a metaphor with the reality it was meant to illustrate. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49941022486507179562014-09-18T16:31:47.189-04:002014-09-18T16:31:47.189-04:00“Can someone believe his father has paid his finan...“Can someone believe his father has paid his financial debt yet have no love for his father?” <br />If you take somebody at their word, you think they are trustworthy. How much love is necessary for justification?<br /><br />“Can one not love the Lord and be saved?”<br />Steve already chided somebody for conflating salvation and justification. Does God justify the ungodly or those that love Him?<br /><br />“Why can't one have the same sort of cold indifference toward God?” <br />Notice that taking God at his word is now “cold indifference” toward God.<br /><br />“Can't one agree with no real reflection and even without repentance?”<br />You have to understand something in order to agree that it is true.<br />Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88503036527004892912014-09-18T16:29:19.851-04:002014-09-18T16:29:19.851-04:00If a doctor tells you that you are cured of cancer...If a doctor tells you that you are cured of cancer, is repenting necessary to trust the doctor that you’re cured?Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34144403847555207692014-09-17T19:48:33.149-04:002014-09-17T19:48:33.149-04:00Can someone believe his father has paid his financ...Can someone believe his father has paid his financial debt yet have no love for his father? Can one not love the Lord and be saved? Why can't one have the same sort of cold indifference toward God? Can't one agree with no real reflection and even without repentance? Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15394644821907905992014-09-17T16:38:59.181-04:002014-09-17T16:38:59.181-04:00In Reformed theology, justification is a once for ...In Reformed theology, justification is a once for all time event.<br /><br />BTW, unless you repent, you're not trusting in Jesus. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29603077098402443112014-09-17T16:26:42.236-04:002014-09-17T16:26:42.236-04:00How about if the proposition is, “Jesus Christ and...How about if the proposition is, “Jesus Christ and His work alone has justified me before God, is justifying me before God, and will justify me before God.” Am I trusting Jesus Christ for justification if I believe that proposition is true?Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75225221663460467402014-09-17T14:46:12.829-04:002014-09-17T14:46:12.829-04:00And to add, "will" sounds like you'r...And to add, "will" sounds like you're looking for a justification that is not yet present, one dependent upon works possibly. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82129276474434072932014-09-17T13:35:57.014-04:002014-09-17T13:35:57.014-04:00No, that's not trusting in Jesus to justify yo...No, that's not trusting in Jesus to justify you. That's just hypothetical. <br /><br />One of the things conspicuously absent from Sean's definition is repentance. There is, for instance, a crucial different between believing that *if* I repent of my sins and trust in Christ for salvation, God will save me–and actually repenting of my sins.<br /><br />There are people who can believe that Christ is able to save them from their sins, but they don't want to be saved. They want to sin. Christianity cramps their lifestyle.<br /><br />Likewise, there are people who can't stand the idea of being accountable to someone else. They refuse to submit to the Lordship of Christ. They wish to do whatever they chose to do with their life. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27016368551134981022014-09-17T13:28:46.284-04:002014-09-17T13:28:46.284-04:00That depends.
However, if you believe this propo...That depends. <br /><br />However, if you believe this proposition to be true, but you hate it and refuse to entrust yourself to Christ himself, then you aren't trusting Jesus Christ despite the fact that you believe only Jesus Christ can justify you.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67645582882476253482014-09-17T13:28:21.048-04:002014-09-17T13:28:21.048-04:00I don't think that even fulfills the Clarkian ...I don't think that even fulfills the Clarkian notion of assent. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42314108392544718742014-09-17T13:16:09.083-04:002014-09-17T13:16:09.083-04:00If I believe the following proposition is true, “J...If I believe the following proposition is true, “Jesus Christ and His work alone will justify me before God,” am I trusting Jesus Christ to justify me?Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27286843293424579552014-09-16T23:30:38.090-04:002014-09-16T23:30:38.090-04:00Given how obvious this is, I can't for the lif...<i>Given how obvious this is</i>, I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what the draw is to this rationalist, dehumanizing view of faith. I've felt for sometime now that the Clarkian's confidence is rooted in the writings of Clark. That you would call the collected writings of Clark the Clarkian's axiom is I think fitting.<br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68618034762782192972014-09-16T22:52:17.217-04:002014-09-16T22:52:17.217-04:00"Believing only" is not the same thing a..."Believing only" is not the same thing as trusting, or commitment. And even at the level of "nothing but the internal mental act itself," Clark's definition is defective. <br /><br />i) I may believe that a particular heart surgeon is a trustworthy heart surgeon. And if I needed heart surgery, I'd trust him with my life. But unless I need heart surgery, believing that he's trustworthy is not the same thing as entrusting myself to him. It remains abstract. <br /><br />ii) To take the illustration a step further, he might be the world's best cardiologist. Perhaps I need heart surgery. But there's a catch: he's Jewish and I'm a Neo-Nazi. My anti-Semitism precludes me from placing myself in his hands. I find that repugnant. <br /><br />iii) Dropping the metaphors, there's more to faith and infidelity than bare belief or lack of belief. There's also one's attitude towards the truth. The devil knows the truth. But the devil hates the truth.<br /><br />Belief can be accompanied by animosity. Thats one of the things distinguishing Christianity from Buddhism. In Buddhism, the problem is lack of enlightenment. A lack of knowledge.<br /><br />In Christianity, lack of knowledge can be one part of the problem. But over and above that is the ethics of belief. The reprobate suffer from deep-seated antipathy towards the truth. A moral (or immoral) aversion to the truth. There's an ethical dimension to faith and infidelity. <br /><br />An evil being can know the truth, and thereby believe the truth, yet despise the truth. Evil hates good. An evil being experiences revulsion in the face of virtue. Fear and loathing. <br /><br />iv) Finally, Christians aren't brains in vats. Saving faith isn't confined to "the internal mental act itself." Saving faith involves a life of faith. Acting on God's promises. Trusting God in the darkness.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5290248688201896622014-09-16T21:48:01.206-04:002014-09-16T21:48:01.206-04:00Clark’s point is pedantic. The physical placing of...Clark’s point is pedantic. The physical placing of a bet or making a deposit reveals the non-physical disposition or resolve one possesses relative to the object of trust. These are the evidences of trust. The analogue to faith would be the non-physical confidence one has in the bank or the horse. The analogue to of good works wrought in faith would be placing the bet or making the deposit. The analogies in view demonstrate that assent does not always give way to trust, underscoring that they are distinct and distinguishable. (We can point to Abraham's offering up of Issac to make the point that there is more to faith than assent alone, yet the act only demonstrated Abraham's confidence that God could raise his son.) In any case, this idea of trust (also called acceptance) is not captured by assent. Indeed it cannot be since assent merely means to regard something as true. If trust were a matter of assent alone, then we should expect trust to be proportional to agreement, which often is not the case.Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42826520443332361042014-09-16T20:22:18.498-04:002014-09-16T20:22:18.498-04:00From What is Saving Faith (pp. 157-158), here is h...From What is Saving Faith (pp. 157-158), here is how G. Clark responded to an example similar to your Secretariat and Land Rover examples: <br /><br />“The desire to find a third element in faith, in addition to understanding and assent, seems, if we may judge by popular preaching, to be aided by a psychological illusion. Preachers often use an illustration such as this: You may believe that a bank is sound by having read its financial statement, but you do not and cannot trust it until you deposit your money there. Making the deposit is faith. So, these preachers conclude, belief in Christ is not enough, no matter how much you read the Bible and believe that it is true. In addition to believing you must also trust Christ. That is faith.<br /><br />The psychological illusion arises from the fact that the two cases are not parallel. In the case of the bank, there is the factor of depositing money. I have some dollar bills to be deposited; I go and deposit them in Bank X and not in Bank Y. Therefore I trust Bank X and do not trust Bank Y. But such is not the case. The reason I deposit money in this bank and not another is simply that my financial condition is far from warranting two bank accounts. I believe that Bank Y is quite as sound as Bank X. Both have competent administrators. Then, too, they both insure all depositors up to $10,000 and my account is less than one-tenth of this. I choose Bank X, not because I trust it more, but simply because it is nearer my home. This is a matter of convenience—not of faith. What is more, in the bank illustration there is a physical factor—depositing bills or checks; whereas in saving faith there is no such factor. Thus arises the illusion. Those who use such illustrations import into a spiritual situation something, a physical motion, that cannot be imported into it. There is nothing in the spiritual situation analogous to depositing the currency. There is believing only: nothing but the internal mental act itself. To suppose that there is, is both a materialistic confusion and an inadmissible alteration of the Scriptural requirement.”<br />Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87834759137783663032014-09-16T13:28:37.595-04:002014-09-16T13:28:37.595-04:00Now here's the rub. This regress will go on fo...Now here's the rub. This regress will go on for Roger until he comes to an alleged first chosen-belief, and *that* choice will (for Roger’s position to stand) have to entail understanding without belief.<br /><br />What intrigues me possibly most in all of this that with respect to these choices (not the first choice but the other ones), Roger seems to appreciate that prior beliefs have to be in place in order for there to be intelligible understanding (so that one might allegedly choose to believe the proposition under consideration). Given that the regress stops with a choice void of belief(s), how could the first choice be intelligible (if intelligible understanding of p* presupposes beliefs in m, n and o)? Furthermore, what are we to make of all subsequent choices that are ultimately founded upon a first choice that is, well, uninfluenced?<br /><br />Roger writes,<br /><br />“One cannot believe (i.e., assent to or agree) that proposition p means something different than proposition ~p unless one first understands what propositions p and ~p mean. We can’t believe (i.e., assent to or agree with) any proposition that we don’t first understand. Period. Full stop. End of story.”<br /><br />Roger has stopped the regress by Clarkian fiat. “There’s no infinite regress… Period. Full stop. End of story.” So, whenever that first belief is chosen, no beliefs influence it and no beliefs inform the subject’s understanding We have understanding of something without belief in anything.<br /><br />I would think that the more Christian understanding is that we come into this world with certain <i>a priori beliefs</i>, which presupposes understanding. I would think a Clarkian would be all over that given that we’re created in the likeness of logic, or maybe some of us aren’t?<br /><br />Again, this sad ending is merely one of the trajectories of the Clarkian view of faith. They want to be like the rest of the Reformed community by acknowledging some aspect the will in justifying faith. The traditional view is that we trust in accordance with our assents. Trust being something other than assent. However, the Clarkian view is that all we do is assent. So, to sound Reformed what they must do is smuggle trust in under the heading of assent, but in doing so "trust" is reduced (more like redefined) to assent to specific propositions (regarding the future; regarding something personal....) In the process, they've gone so far as to say that our assents are chosen, which is very much akin to agent causation and the philosophical surd of pure contingency<br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40653317728088758112014-09-16T13:27:56.901-04:002014-09-16T13:27:56.901-04:00Key to the Clarkian position is that our assents a...Key to the Clarkian position is that our assents are chosen. (I won’t get into here why this is key to their position but it is.) This either leads to an infinite regress or else a first choice that is irrational, being void of any beliefs. One Clarkian, Steve M, took a swipe at defending infinite regress on GB. It was a failure. However, Roger and Sean think they’ve found a regress stopper. Roger’s position is: “If beliefs are chosen, then a man’s first belief was obviously an act of his will (i.e., a volitional choice between two or more possibilities of what to believe). There’s no infinite regress.”<br /><br />To avoid an infinite regress conundrum entailed by choosing all our assents the first choice of the first assent needs to be void of any assent whatsoever. (This would get rid of the regress but at the cost of making a choice apart from any beliefs, a bigger monstrosity.) Roger would have us believe that one can choose what he believes yet without any prior beliefs. Right off the bat one might wonder what might influence such a choice. Roger’s point is that we do not believe anything before that first choice. Rather, we understand the meaning of the propositions in view and then choose which one to believe. (But, wouldn’t I want to choose the one I *believe* serves me best?) So, for Roger one can understand something without believing anything. Strangely enough, Roger kept pointing to non-first choices to make this point. Roger kept reminding me that one cannot believe p without understanding p (which has never been a matter of dispute). In that context, I posted Roger,<br /><br />“What you don’t grasp is that to understand what p means requires assents, not to p but to things that make understanding p intelligible. Can you understand the meaning of ‘all men are mortal’ without believing that men are not women or that mortal does not mean immortal? So much for having understanding without belief.”<br /><br />Roger responded with,<br /><br />“No. But I also cannot believe that men are not women or that mortal does not mean immortal without first understanding what the propositions “men are not women” and “mortal does not mean immortal” mean. Again, we cannot believe (i.e., assent to or agree with) any proposition that we don’t first understand; and when we do believe a proposition, we do so voluntarily. Period. Full stop. End of story. So much for having belief without understanding!”<br /><br />Roger answered “no” to the question. He, therefore, agrees that to understand the meaning of “all men are mortal” one must first believe that men are not women (or better yet, men are not ~men (e.g. women, dogs, buildings, etc.) He also wrote, which of course is agreeable to me, that in order to believe that men are not women one must first understand the meaning of “men are not women.” (Again, this is not a matter of dispute, maybe.To assent to proposition p* one must “first” understand the meaning of p* but do we come into this world a blank slate? Or do we come into this human, with certain beliefs and understanding in place (whether propositional, procedural or personal)? Is this order of belief and understanding temporal or logical? If the latter, then one can have both at the same time; the two go together but what is it to choose a belief while believing nothing at all? What is to understand apart from believing anything? <br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48502476514147581342014-09-15T22:14:25.756-04:002014-09-15T22:14:25.756-04:00@Sean Gerety
"If I believe that Jesus died f...@Sean Gerety<br /><br />"If I believe that Jesus died for my sins how is this not trusting that Jesus died for my sins?"<br /><br />1. On a practical note, isn't this putting the cart before the horse? How can someone believe himself to have been saved when he hasn't in fact trusted in that which or rather he who will save him? It'd be trusting the *proposition* "Jesus died for my sins" rather than trusting the *person* of Jesus himself. At a minimum, that'd seem to be a recipe for the lack of assurance of salvation, no? But worse, on my deathbed, I'd rather have Jesus saving me than the idea of Jesus saving me.<br /><br />2. Also, if salvific faith is equivalent to assent, then what happens if one can no longer assent to the proposition "Jesus died for my sins" such as if one has dementia or brain-damaging head trauma or the like?rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81060561474320355732014-09-15T16:28:58.977-04:002014-09-15T16:28:58.977-04:00Appreciate the post, Steve. Very much so.
I’d li...Appreciate the post, Steve. Very much so. <br /><br />I’d like to make one point regarding one quote of Sean’s. He quotes me correctly here: <i>First, DiGiacomo begs the question by asserting that “most things we assent to . . .are not volitional,” i.e., that most of our beliefs don’t involve choice.</i><br /><br />As a point of clarification, I try to communicate <a href="http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/justification-by-belief/#comment-121334" rel="nofollow">here</a> that,<br /><br />"most of the things we assent to, whether a priori or a posteriori, are not volitional. [Implication: some assents have a voluntary “ASPECT.”] One does not will to believe that God exists any more than a child chooses to believe he is being fed by his mother. These are mental assents that are not discursive; they are immediate and without reflection. The will is bypassed…. Assent always pertains to accepting the truth of a proposition, whereas how one might respond in light of assent (e.g. trust, rest, exuberance, etc.) is commonly classified under the philosophical heading of disposition (which is not propositional assent)." end quote<br /><br />So, let me say here most clearly that although some believes involve a voluntary *aspect* I don't believe that *any* belief is chosen. I do believe that choices (and experience) can nurture and quench beliefs (hence there is an *aspect* of choice with respect to beliefs, like when choices are proximate to a new belief) but choosing assents is a non-sequitur as I see it. I see no room for even a moderate form of doxastic voluntarism. <br /><br /><br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com