I'm finding that we shouldn't use words like "obvious," "clearly," etc. in discussion. I've been extremely guilty of that, and I'm doing what I can to clean it up. Now, I see nothing "obvious" about the idea that belief and doubt can coexist on the same idea. They can coexist in the same person. I can believe one thing and doubt another. But I cannot believe a proposition and doubt it at the same time.Jac, I am inclined to believe that you refuse to accept the obvious (that one can believe and doubt at the same time) b/c you think that it is a vital plank in your free grace platform, but at the same time I must recognize that there could be other reasons and so I also possess a certain level of doubt as to whether that is your motivation. Further, I am inclined to believe that you will accuse me again of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, but at the same time I must recognize that you might be able to see FFC's point and so I also possess a certain level of doubt as to whether that will be your reaction.
Let's use your example. You said that you are inclined to believe that I refuse your position based on a particular motivation, but you actually doubt that proposition because you know there could be other motives. Therefore, you do not actually believe that I am refusing to see your position based on any presupposition in mine. You could be suspicious that it is a reality. I am suspicious that several things are a reality, but I won't go so far as to say that I believe them!
And again, you were inclined to believe that I would accuse you of disagreement for disagreement's sake, but you don't actually believe it. You doubt it, because I could possibly see FFC's point. Yet again, we see that you are suspicious of a reality, but that in no way constitutes a belief.
As I said to FFC, remember my basic argument: to believe means to regard something as true, whereas to doubt something is to be undecided as to belief. These are logical opposites. The law of noncontradiction says that you cannot believe something and doubt it at the same time. I don't see how this is all that difficult . . .
"Measured" . . . bad word, but I couldn't find a better one. "Verify," maybe? To measure something implies taking a things dimensions or other such specifications. You can't "measure" belief in this sense of the word. I was referring to the ability to recognize the thing's existence as true or false.measured? and how exactly do you measure your belief? What is your yardstick? What is your unit of measurement? Your own words display the problem with your claim...how does one know what one believes? One asks oneself. You can't get more subjective than that.
Now, I have already said that the word "subjective," when used in the nominative sense, applies to belief. However, I am using "subjective" in the personal sense. In this usage of the word, something is subjective if it is an interpretive idea. Let's use a very simple example. I believe that 1+1=2. Is that a subjective fact? In the nominative sense, yes. But in the personal sense, no, it is not. It is subective in that it deals with the subject of the sentence - me. However, in this case, it is subjective to say that the last letter of the alphabet is "z," because that deals with subject of the sentence! However, this is an objective fact. It is objective because its reality exists independantly of our interpretation of any given fact.
My belief works in the same way, as does yours. You do not believe the Gospel as I present it. That is an objective fact. It is subjective in that it deals with the subject of the sentence - you. But it is objective in that it is an independant reality.
Again, there is no such thing as "how strongly it is believed." Can the number "one" be any more "one" than it already is? Can I be any more human than I already am? Can a tree be more or less of a tree? In the same way, belief cannot be anything more or less than belief. You can't believe something more or less strongly. You either believe something or you don't. Now, you may believe more things about a subject, and thus, a particular belief may be locked into place by other beliefs. In that sense, a particular belief is strongly substantiated, but that doesn't mean you believe something more strongly than another. It means that you have a greater belief system built on this particular proposition, and thus, it is harder to change your mind on this particular idea."If it were possible..." Here again your own words display the problem with your claim. Just as soon as that belief-o-meter is invented we will be able to determine objectively what is believed and how strongly it is believed....but you know what, at the exact same time they will have developed the heart-o-meter and I would be able to use it to objectively determine who is saved (has that circumcised heart) and who isn't.
As for you idea of determining who is saved and who is not, we have that already in John 3:16. All I have to do is ask a person whether or not they either now or have ever trusted Jesus Christ for everlasting life. All I have to do is make sure they understand the terms in the same way I do. If they have believed it at some point, then they are saved. If they have not, then they are not saved. You could argue that these people are lying to me. But that is an entirely different issue. They would know that they are lying.
Now, ttoews - I just want you to see how dangerous the position you are advocating is:
1) You reject the Gospel in that you reject the terms, which is faith alone apart from any repentance, commitment, or works,
2) You reject the Gospel in that you reject the basis of the claim, which is that people cannot merit their salvation via works,
3) You reject the Gospel in that you reject the nature of the gift, which is assurance of everlasting life received free of charge.
These are three MAJOR problems with your soteriology. I realize that you don't believe any of the above three statements are true, but what you have to recognize is that they are true from a Free Grace perspective, and if the Free Grace Gospel is, in fact, the Gospel of Christ, then you have rejected that Gospel! Further, from our discussions, it seems that you have a tendancy to "front load" the Gospel, and further, I wonder what you believe the Gospel is in terms of the specific gift received . . . your understanding of propitation seems very different from my own. That will have a major impact on what you think you are receiving.
So, I come back to my basic, overall point: salvation is everlasting life, and it must be received by simple trust alone in Jesus Christ and His offer. Any addition to this is a damnable heresy. Assurance, as Calvin noted, is of the essense of saving faith. If you do not have assurance, then you have not believed, and thus, as Chesterton said, "If you are 99% sure, you are 100% lost."
God bless
