The Primacy of the Intellect in Saving Faith

Saving faith or saving belief is an intellectual assent to understood propositions of the Gospel.

We first hear, think and understand what the doctrines of the Gospel are. Secondly, we agree or assent to the understood doctrines of the Gospel (in other words, we say yes to the teachings of the Gospel we heard, thought and understood). These are the only two core essentials of saving faith or belief.

 

It’s all in the mind. The Holy Spirit works in our mind to believe.

 

Most people reading this would be asking “we also must trust in the Lord Jesus with our heart, isn’t it?”

 

Legitimate question.

 

Intellectual assent to understood propositions of the Gospel has no difference from a common saying: I put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart.

Why?

Mind (the intellect, thinking) = heart

Heart ≠ emotion

The heart ≠ a mindless aspect of the soul.

The heart is also ≠ the very centre of a person’s being, where fundamental direction – God-glorifying or God-defying – of one’s life is established, pre-cognitive, pre-affect, pre-volitional aspect of the soul (this definition was given by a theologian called Richard Mouw when I asked him on Facebook what the definition of heart is)

 

Trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ ≠ emotional, mindless, wordless or propositionless act of belief

 

You cannot trust in a person apart from the content of his mind.

Likewise, you cannot trust in the Lord Jesus apart from His Words. When you truly assent or agree to the propositions of Gospel which you have heard, thought, and understood, you have arrived at saving faith. You are saved! You have trusted the Lord! There is no need for this extra step of mindlessness (which people wrongly call “trust”) that accepts Christ apart from His words.

 

Proverbs 23:7 says that the heart thinks and there is never a time that a heart is mindless, pre-cognitive, or pre-volitional:

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he

 

Trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ with your heart = Intellectual assent or agreement to understood propositions, doctrines or words of the Christian Gospel

 

Romans 10:9-10 supports the primacy of the intellect in saving faith i.e. you must hear, think, understand and agree on the propositions that Christ died for me and was raised on the third day for my justification. Without understanding and assenting to those propositions there can be no salvation.  

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness” = for with the mind a man believeth unto righteousness = Trusting the Lord Jesus

 

Once again, Proverbs 23:7

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:

 

You are based on what you think in your heart or mind.

Repentance is also part of the act of assenting. It is the thinking heart (mind) that repents. It is the thinking heart (mind) that agrees (another common word: convicted) that ungodly propositions in the mind must be replaced with godly propositions (i.e. the Word of God). Romans 12:1-2 calls it the renewing of the mind which then comes transformation of life.

 

 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

 

An assent to understood propositions of the Gospel inevitably leads to transformation of life. If a man says that he assents to the propositions or doctrines of the Gospel, but he lives in sin unrepentantly and consistently, it is certain that he never assents to the Gospel at all. His mouth says the propositions of the Gospel well in front of others, but his mind is thinking the opposite way. He is in unbelief and hypocrisy; James calls it dead faith.

 

In most extreme case, that man may not even understand the Gospel at all like Simon the magician in Acts 8:9-24. Simon misunderstood the Gospel and unsurprisingly he assents to the wrong things (“for thy heart is not right in the sight of God):

 

Act 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:

Act 8:10  To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

Act 8:11  And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

Act 8:12  But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Act 8:13  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Act 8:14  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Act 8:15  Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Act 8:16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 8:17  Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Act 8:18  And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Act 8:19  Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Act 8:20  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Act 8:21  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Act 8:22  Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Act 8:23  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

Act 8:24  Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

 

2 Corinthians 7:10 also calls that intellectual act of repenting a godly sorrow. It is nothing about crying, tearing, or dopamine-filled or charismatic experience. A godly sorrow is not mindlessness. It is about the mind that thinks first. My mind must think that I am a filthy sinner and using my intellect I must repent of my sins (these sins include all the known sins that I have thought about using my mind).  

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

 

Mind or intellect > emotions

There is nothing mindless in Christianity. Yes, even when you are tearing or crying towards the Lord in the closet.

 

We worship God with our mind at all times.

 

No propositions, doctrines or words of the Gospel = no saving faith or saving belief.

 

Philippians 4:8 insists that Christianity is a thinking religion, not an emotional and mindless religion:

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

 

 

In this modern age of false doctrineless, mindless, irrational Christianity, we must defend Christianity as a true, rational religion.

 

Romans 15:6 

That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

1Corinthians 2:16 

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

1 Peter 1:13 

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

 

 

Opponents often cite against the primacy of the intellect in saving faith using James 2:18-19

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

 

An article titled “The Demons Believe and Tremble!” by Tim Shaughnessy states the objection clearly and gives an answer to it:

https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=347

 

The views espoused by Webster, Sproul, and Barnes would logically imply that if demons had trust then they too would be saved. To conclude that belief, understanding, and assenting to the propositions of the Gospel, is not enough to save, from the fact that this does not save the demons, and that a third element of trust is required, logically implies that if the demons had this third element of trust, then they too would be saved. But that simply is not the case, and therefore the whole argument falls apart. The reason the demons are not saved is because they have no Savior. It is not because they don’t have the right kind of faith. It is invalid to deduce from this verse that belief (assenting to understood propositions) in the Gospel is insufficient to save because James says nothing about demons believing the Gospel. We have to remember that it is a basic rule of logical deduction that the content in the conclusion must be derived from one or more of the premises. Since James 2:19 makes no mention of the demons assenting to understood propositions of the Gospel, we cannot logically deduce that understanding with assent to the propositions of the Gospel is insufficient to save. All of these conclusions are logically absurd. Therefore, the difference cannot be in a belief that is distinct from faith or trust. There are multiple reasons to reject this understanding of James 2:19, which is influenced by the imposition of a Latin definition and suggests that belief alone is insufficient to save:

1.   The Bible was not written in Latin, and the words faith and belief are both translated from the same Greek word pistis. There is therefore no Biblical precedent for defining them differently when we arrive at James 2:19.

2.    Belief and faith are synonymous with trust, and it is therefore wrong to suggest that one can believe and not trust.

3.    Fiducia comes from the same root as fides (faith). Hence this popular analysis reduces to the obviously absurd definition that faith consists of understanding, assent, and faith. This is a tautology.

4.    It is an invalid inference to conclude that belief in the Gospel is not sufficient to save because James says the demons believe in monotheism.

5.    This leads to an absurd contradiction that some who believe the Gospel will perish.

6.    To argue that understanding and assent are not enough to save because it doesn’t save the demons, and that one needs the extra element of trust, logically implies that if the demons had this then they too would be saved.

 

Why then does James bring up their belief that God is one and reference the demons? We have to remember the context of the passage and the broader context of the letter of James. This letter was written by James, the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55) and leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15). It was written around ad 40–45 to Jewish Christians living outside Palestine. James is speaking to Jewish converts and the immediate context of this passage shows that he is addressing a specific type of hypocrisy – religious hypocrisy.

 

Both Paul and James confront different issues with members from the same congregation of Jewish converts in Jerusalem. In Galatians Paul confronts the Judaizers over the issue of legalism, and he identifies them as the circumcision party that came from James in Galatians 2:12. This was the same group that he and Barnabas contended with over the Gospel in Acts 15, and it is the same group he anathematized in Galatians 1:6-9. James, however, is confronting the issue of antinomianism with members from the same congregation in Jerusalem. At first this may seem odd because we tend to think of legalism and antinomianism as antithetical to one another. But they are not so much antithetical to each other as they are antithetical to the Gospel. Apart from the light of the Gospel, legalism will produce antinomianism and vice versa.

 

This is because the natural man who rejects the Gospel must attempt to establish his own righteousness by the law and therefore become a legalist. But because he is unable to keep the law, and yet is self-righteous, he is an antinomian. This is why Jesus refers to the legalists who profess their good works to him at the last judgement as “workers of lawlessness” (Matthew 7:21-23).

 

The antinomianism James now confronts is made manifest by a form of religious hypocrisy amongst the members of this Jewish congregation. Therefore, he references the Shema when he acknowledges, “You believe that God is one.”

 

The Shema was the most important prayer in Israel, and it served as the centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. “The first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One’, found in Deuteronomy 6:4. Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer service in Judaism.” These Jewish converts would have immediately recognized James’ reference, and they would have understood his point.

 

He was not saying that belief alone, understanding with assent, in the Gospel is not enough to save, as some modern English-speaking Christians tend to think. Instead, he was confronting their religious hypocrisy, and the sting of comparing their piety to that of the demons would have been understood as a clear indictment against them. It could even be said that the demons had a more proper response than these hypocrites because at least they trembled.

 

This is the key to understanding James’ point in this verse. Religious hypocrites that are in the visible church will tend to believe some measure of truth revealed in Scripture. They therefore have a form of religious piety but not a transformed life, because in spite of the fact that they believe certain propositions to be true, they do not believe the Gospel (“having a form of godliness, but denying its power” – 2 Timothy 3:5). There is a type of religious faith which does not produce works because it is not a faith gifted by God and regeneration has not taken place. The difference however is not in the type of faith or belief, but in the propositions believed.

 

Sean Gerety draws out further valuable insights from the demons’ trembling that helps us to understand the nature of religious hypocrisy in the visible church. Not only can false converts or religious hypocrites believe true propositions revealed in Scripture, but they can also experience heartfelt passion or emotion from these beliefs. Gerety writes,

 “Another overlooked aspect of James is not only what the demons believe (God is one), but their reaction in response to this belief (trembling). James is teaching us that not only is belief in God and monotheism not enough to make someone a Christian, but the sincerity and “heartfelt” nature of that belief also isn’t something which saves a person — nor should we be fooled by such displays. Of course, this would put most Televangelists out of business. You might say James is providing an interesting refutation of the Kierkegaardian idea of “infinite passion,” and the idea that it is the “passion” or conviction one brings to the objects of their beliefs that saves and not the propositions believed.

Gerety’s insight is extremely valuable in helping us to understand the nature and deception of false converts. Many people are deceived into thinking they are genuine believers precisely because they believe some measure of truth, and they often display heartfelt emotions. Unfortunately, this insight is lost on most theologians today because they have not taken the time to understand James. What’s worse is that they have insisted on perpetuating false notions of faith, and eisegete their wrong views into the text. This, no doubt, has plagued and will continue to plague the church with much confusion.