> I don't think I can concur with Dave P.'s position that intellectual assent
> is not necessary to saving faith. I say it is necessary, but not sufficient.
If you could point at some Scripture that says this, I would appreciate it.
For reasons I give below, I think your assertion is not true.
> Also, the whole heart/head dichotomy is questionable. If you study the
> Hebrew vocabulary, you will find that the heart and mind are used
> synonymously, and that the heart thinks. It is the seat of emotion,
> intellect, and volition.
There is clear distinction between human wisdom and Godly wisdom. It
is not that our ability to reason is suspect, it is how we apply that ability.
When we talk about intellectual assent, what we are referring to is the
need to argue propositionally, based on what *seem* to be objective
observations.
Not only is this unnecessary to faith, it can actually hinder faith.
The Hebrews argued propositionally in Exodus and wound up building a
golden calf. Based on what we know today, their conclusions don't seem
logical, but we have no evidence (other that our own feeling of
superiority) to say that they we would not have come to the same
conclusions given their premises. Otherwise how could what happened
to *them* be an example for *us*? [1 Cor 10]
Intellectual assent also failed the Sadducees (Mark 12:18-27), to
whom Jesus said:
[24] Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken,
that you do not understand the Scriptures, or the power of God?"
This is the issue: what are our premises? To enter into Christianity
we must receive the important premises by faith (the subjective assurance
of things not seen):
And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you,
Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal {this} to you,
but My Father who is in heaven." [Matt 16:16-17]
If we accept this premise as true, then reason dictates that any evidence
which suggests that Jesus is *not* the Son of God is automatically suspect.
But what we usually mean by intellectual assent to Christianity is that
the premise that He is the Son of God must be corroborated by other
evidences. Thus Christianity becomes suspect if the other evidences
don't corroborate it, and our faith is in our premises about our
intellect rather than in Christ.
This approach assumes that what we can perceive about the world and our
ability to reason from our observations is somehow more valuable than
(or at least as important as) the testimony about Christ by the Spirit of God.
`Intellectual assent' is not identical to our ability to reason.
The issues is the premises that our reasoning is based upon.
Believing in Christ is necessary to salvation. Intellectual assent is only
necessary if we really don't believe in Him.
--Dave