Last to Know, Part 4

“…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” — Matthew 16:18

As we noted in our previous entry, it is assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus promised to build His Church upon “this rock,” Peter. When that invalid assumption is allowed, Jesus’ next words — “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” — are infused with Petrine significance, as if the perseverance of the Church rested upon the shoulders of Peter and his successors.  And when that assumption is allowed, His next words about “the keys of the kingdom” and binding and loosing, are infused with Magisterial authority. However, as we demonstrated in our harmonization of the Loaves Narratives, Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession was made in the context of Isaiah 54, a context established by the Johannine account: “It is written in the prophets [Isaiah 54:13), ‘And they shall be all taught of God'” (John 6:45). In Matthew, Jesus confirms that context, explaining that Peter had converted because the Father had taught him (Matthew 16:17). The benefit of harmonizing the Loaves Narratives is that we need not wonder what Jesus was thinking when He responded to Peter’s confession. He was thinking about the preaching ministry described Isaiah 54. Isaiah 54 not only identifies upon which “rock” Jesus  would build His church, but also why the the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And when we see that the Apostles were commissioned, as Jesus had been, to preach the Word of the Father, we see plainly what Jesus meant by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is in Isaiah 54 that the Lord promises to lay the “stone” and foundation of His Church, and that “stone” foundation was His own teaching—”they shall be all taught of God.” Once it is understood that “this rock” refers neither to Peter, nor to his confession, but rather to the Word of the Father, it becomes clear that the subsequent phrase—”the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”—refers not to Peter’s infallibility, nor to that of his successors, but rather to the covenant promise of the Father, a context that Isaiah 54 also bears out. His promise to lay the foundation of the Church was as significant to Him as His covenant with Noah:

“For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. … And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. …  No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.” (Isaiah 54:9,13, 17)

The security of the Church therefore rests not on the infallibility of Peter but upon the Father’s promises. It is in that context that we may fully understand how it is that “the gates of hell” will never overcome the Church.

The Gates of Hell

The term “gates of hell” in the New Testament simply refers to “death” as evidenced by the references to the “gates of Sheol” in Job and the Psalms of the Old Testament:

Have the gates of death been opened unto thee?
or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?  (Job 38:17)

Have mercy upon me, O LORD; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death: (Psalms 9:13)

Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat;
and they draw near unto the gates of death. (Psalms 107:18)

While Roman Catholicism believes that the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail” must mean that Peter and his successors cannot fall into error, in truth Jesus’ promise simply means that Jesus had overcome death and hell (Revelation 1:18), and therefore His people would not succumb to them. Indeed, there is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” for “Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2). This is borne out repeatedly in the preaching of the Gospel:

“… he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24)

“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” (John 10:28)

“I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25-26)

“Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:54-55)

“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power…”   (Revelation 20:6)

In view of this pervasive theme of overcoming death by faith—which is another way of saying that “the gates of hell” or “the gates of death” will not prevail over those who believe—we also take note that Satan is “the accuser of our brethren … which accused them before our God day and night” (Revelation 12:10). We are promised in Isaiah 54 that such accusations will fall flat, emptied of their power by our victory in Christ:

“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.” Isaiah 54:17)

The devil’s accusations are empty of power because our righteousness is of Christ, not of ourselves. Therefore, no weapon formed against us can condemn, no not even the accusations of the devil. And that is the context in which Christ promises that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” His Church. Death shall not prevail for the very simple reason that “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me … is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). Therefore, hell and death shall not prevail over him who hears and believes. We are assured of this not because of Peter’s administrative authority but because the Word of the Father simply cannot fail:

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

The Keys of the Kingdom

Jesus’ next words, after promising that death would not overcome His people, were to say that He who knows and believes the Father’s words has access to the kingdom of God: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven …” (Matthew 16:19). There is no puzzle here, though men have tried for centuries to invent one. But before we identify the keys Peter received, we must first eliminate those he did not.

The Key of David

The Roman Catholic apologist camps on Isaiah’s reference to “the key of the house of David” which the Lord lays upon the shoulder of Eliakim. “So he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isaiah 22:22). For example, Catholic Answers claims,

Just as King Hezekiah gave Eli’akim authority to oversee the kingdom of Israel, Christ gave Peter authority to oversee his Church (i.e., the “keys to the kingdom”), which included the authority to “bind and loose”—in other words, to determine official doctrine and practice.  (Defending the Papacy, Trent Horn)

However, the “key of the house of David” cannot be a key Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16:19 because a key is not needed for a door that is already open and which Peter himself could not shut even if he wanted to. A key to an open door that “no man can shut” is not a key that any of us need to access the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said,

These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.” (Revelation 3:7-8)

The Roman Catholic apologist argues that even though Jesus claims to be in possession of the key in Revelation 3:7, He doesn’t really hold it because Peter does; and besides, how can Peter not hold this key if he has the power to “bind and loose,” which (by the Roman reading) necessarily means that Peter has the power to “open, and none shall shut” and to “shut, and none shall open.” But as we have noted, if Jesus has opened a door that Peter cannot shut, what is Peter supposed to do with that key? And why do we need to turn to Peter to access it? The truth is, Peter does not have the Key of the House of David, and Isaiah 22:22 was not a foreshadowing of Peter’s ecclesiastical authority. If Jesus says He has the key of David, it means He has it. Thus, we can rule out the “key of David” in our analysis of Matthew 16:19. Peter does not have it, and could do nothing with it if he did.

The Keys of Hell and Death

We make a similar observation regarding the keys of hell and death. After His resurrection victory, Jesus claims to have them in His possession:

“I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:18)

These keys are clearly and irrevocably tied to His victory over hell and death, and Paul writes that His victory will be ours at the resurrection: “then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Since Jesus has the keys, and that victory over hell and death “shall be brought to pass” at the resurrection of the dead, we can safely say that Jesus remains in possession of them. By the time John wrote Revelation 1:18, decades had passed since Jesus’ promise to give Peter “the keys of the kingdom.” Years later, Peter still did not have them. We may conclude therefore, as with the Key of David, that Jesus did not give Peter the keys of hell and death, either.

Though Peter was not given the Key of David or the Keys of Hell and Death, he did eventually come into possession of “the keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:19) as did the other disciples who, with Peter, were commissioned to “bind and loose” (Mathew 18:18). But what are the keys?

The Key of Knowledge

It is important to remember that this conversation came about in the context of the Loaves Narratives in which Jesus reveals to the Pharisees that the success of His preaching ministry was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, “all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” (John 6:45 [Isaiah 54:13]). When Peter finally confessed Christ to be the Son of God, Jesus quickly revealed to him that he, too, had been taught by the Lord. After all, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:45). Peter had finally realized Who Jesus was, but had not learned it from men: “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). The narrative was about knowledge conveyed by preaching, and preaching that knowledge remained ever the focus of it, right up to moment Peter confessed Christ to be “the Holy One of God” (John 6:69).

With that in mind we are not surprised that one of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is Knowledge. Jesus’ criticism of the Scribes and Pharisees was that they had “shut up” the Kingdom of Heaven by taking away the “key of knowledge,” preventing people from entering. This is evident by comparing the Matthew and Luke accounts of the conversation:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up (κλείετε, kleiete g2808) the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Matthew 23:13)

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key (κλεῖδα, kleida, g2807) of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:52)

We highlight the original Greek to emphasize the fact that “key” (kleida) in Luke and “shut up” (kleiete) in Matthew share a common root and are successive words in the Greek concordance—g2807 and g2808, respectively. They are so closely related that we may say that to shut someone out of the kingdom of heaven is to withhold the key. The meaning is the same. When these two verses—clearly spoken on the same occasion—are thus harmonized, it is clear that knowledge is one of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). Jesus had come preaching the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven. Knowledge was delivered “by the foolishness of preaching” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and by that knowledge men gain entrance. Delivering His Father’s Words was the chief objective of His preaching ministry, and knowledge of the Father was the substance of it. But Knowledge is only one of the keys. There is another.

The Key of Faith

True Knowledge of the Father is always accompanied by Faith, but Faith is not Knowledge, and both are necessary. Although the Scriptures do not explicitly identify faith as a Key of the Kingdom, it is implicitly identified as such because all men are imprisoned, and can only be released by faith. God has “locked up” (συνέκλεισεν, synekleisen—note that common root again) all in unbelief (Romans 11:32) and in sin (Galatians 3:22), and in both passages “faith” is the means by which one is set free. Without the Key of Knowledge men cannot “escape the damnation of hell” (Matthew 23:33), but neither can they escape it without Faith. As Jesus said, “And if any man hear my words, and believe not” He cannot obtain entrance (John 12:47-50). Both Knowledge and Faith are required. One cannot believe what one does not know.

We are not surprised therefore to find Knowledge and Faith together when entrance into the Kingdom is in view. A few examples will illustrate, but there are many others:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word [Knowledge], and believeth on him that sent me [Faith], hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life [Knowledge]. And we believe and are sure [Faith] that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:68-69)

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee [Knowledge], and they have believed that thou didst send me [Faith]. (John 17:8)

… if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus [Knowledge], and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead [Faith], thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth [Faith] unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made [Knowledge] unto salvation. (Romans 10:8-11)

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him [Faith] of whom they have not heard [Knowledge]? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:13-14)

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth [Knowledge], the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed [Faith], ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise… (Ephesians 1:13)

Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus [Faith], and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel [Knowledge]; (Colossians 1:4-5)

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of [Knowledge], knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus [Faith]. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

Accordingly, one is translated from the “power of darkness” into the kingdom of Christ—from death to life—by Belief in the Gospel. By Faith and Knowledge, conveyed in the preaching of the Good News.

Jesus attests to the inverse of this principle in the Parable of the Sower when He talks about the seed cast by the wayside. Here, one does not possess Knowledge if he cannot understand it, and one cannot believe what he does not understand:

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not [Knowledge], then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. (Matthew 13:19)

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe [Faith] and be saved. Luke 8:12

When taken together, these two recitations of the Parable demonstrate that without Knowledge, there is nothing to be Believed. As Knowledge is already declared to be one key to the Kingdom of Heaven, Faith, by inference must be the other. Knowledge must be believed, and Faith must have truth as its object. Faith, therefore, must also be one of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is true that other passages mention faith with “works” (James 2:14) or knowledge and faith with fruitfulness (Luke 8:15), “charity” (1 Corinthians 13:2) or “virtue,” “patience” and “godliness” (2 Peter 1:5-8), but in such passages, the context is clear that fruit, works, charity, patience and virtue, etc., refer to the sanctifying effects of having believed the truth. If one “bears fruit” from the preaching of the Word, it is because one has believed what was preached. If one is a “hearer of the word [Knowledge], and not a doer” (James 1:23), it is because he has not really believed it [Faith] (James 2:14). Additionally, if one has “all knowledge” and “all faith” but not “love,” it is evident that one’s “knowledge” and “faith” are imperfect and incomplete, for they exist in continuous violation of the Law (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). “Virtue,” “patience” and “godliness” are the sanctifying effects of having believed the truth (2 Peter 1:8). These are the fruits of having entered the Kingdom of Heaven, but they are not the “keys” of entrance. Thus, while Faith and Knowledge are frequently listed with other virtues, those virtues are the fruit of the Faith and Knowledge. They are not themselves additional keys.

Both Keys are Necessary

So closely associated are Faith and Knowledge that we may say Faith comes by the preaching of Knowledge. So Paul has declared to us:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? … So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:14-17)

Neither Key alone is sufficient. If one hears the preaching [Knowledge], but does not believe [Faith], it is not sufficient, for Knowledge must be Believed:

… the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Hebrews 4:2)

Likewise Faith is not sufficient unless it has Knowledge as its object. The Luke and Matthew accounts of the Parable of the Sower again bear this out. In Luke, Jesus says that the third type of soil—the stony ground—”for a while believe,” but fall away:

They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luke 8:13)

Upon a first reading this appears to suggest that one may possess both Knowledge and Faith without entering the Kingdom. But when we see Matthew’s account of the same soil, we find that what was “believed” was not Knowledge, because the one who “believed” fell away when “persecution ariseth because of the word”:

But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. (Matthew 13:20-21)

As Peter explains elsewhere, to “stumble at the word” is unbelief (1 Peter 2:7-8). Someone therefore who “for a while believe[d]” but fell away when he was offended “because of the word,” did not believe the Word. He may have believed in the church, or in the accompanying fellowship, or in the benefits of agape meals, but he did not believe the Gospel. His Faith did not have Knowledge as its object.

Thus, neither Knowledge nor Faith are individually sufficient. Faith without Knowledge is mere superstition, and Knowledge without Faith yields judgment, not salvation. Faith and Knowledge gain entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven. The absence of either one prevents it.

But Didn’t Peter Already Have Both?

At the time of his confession, Peter clearly had believed the truth. In his own words, “Thou hast the words of eternal life [Knowledge]. And we believe [Faith]” (John 6:68-69). Yet in response, Jesus promises that “I will give unto thee the keys” (Matthew 16:19). Why would Jesus promise to give the Keys of the Kingdom in the future after Peter had just demonstrated that was already in possession of them?

The answer lies in the substance of Christ’s preaching ministry and His commission to the apostles to continue it after His departure. Jesus affirmed that through His preaching, men are set free by both Faith and Knowledge (John 8:31-47). In fact, as the Spirit wills, He elicits both understanding and belief in the hearer of the Word. As such, preaching results in both knowledge and faith in them that hear, but only when the Spirit produces them. Jesus’ words to Peter simply refer to the preaching ministry He had received from His Father, and which He would soon confer on the Apostles (E.g., “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. … Receive ye the Holy Ghost)” (John 20:21-22)).

Thus, while Peter indeed displayed the keys of the kingdom at His confession (Knowledge and Faith), he could not continue Christ’s ministry of preaching until he himself had received the Spirit. Only then would the life-giving water flow out of his belly (John 7:38-39), and only then could he offer the Keys of the Kingdom to his hearers. Only by the Spirit do men receive Knowledge and Faith in the preaching of the Gospel. But how shall they preach, Paul asks, except they be sent? (Romans 10:15). Yet how can they be sent unless the Spirit is given? (Luke 24:46-49). And how can men believe unless they have heard, and how can they hear unless someone preach? (Romans 10:14). And how can they understand and believe unless the Spirit “beareth witness” (1 John 5:6). And how can faith come except by the Word? (Romans 10:17). The success of the propagation of the Gospel depends entirely on the Spirit’s volition, and unless the Spirit attended Peter’s preaching, neither Knowledge could be conveyed, nor Faith engendered.

Peter Testified of His Use of the Keys

After Peter had responded to Jesus’ preaching, Jesus promised that Peter, too, would himself preach the life giving message of the Gospel: “I will give unto thee the keys” (Matthew 16:19). Peter’s preaching ministry, too, would fulfill Isaiah 54:13, for through his preaching, men would be taught the Father’s words, and the Spirit would open the ears of the hearers to believe.

That Peter grasped the significance of the Keys of Knowledge and Faith is clear enough by his interjection at the Council of Jerusalem:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel [Knowledge], and believe [Faith]. (Acts 15:7)

Indeed, this is exactly what Peter had experienced in Caesarea. When Cornelius was directed by an angel (Acts 10:1-6) to summon Peter from Joppa in order “to hear words” (Acts 10:22), Peter “opened his mouth” and preached “the word” (Acts 10:34-36). “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word” (Acts 10:44), and they believed (Acts 11:17). This was exactly what Christ had asked of His Father the night before He died:

I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known [Knowledge] … and have believed [Faith] … Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe [Faith] on me through their word [Knowledge]. (John 17:8,20)

And it was exactly what Christ foretold at Peter’s confession. “I will give unto thee the keys” was simply a promise that Peter would be commissioned to open the Kingdom of Heaven by Knowledge and Faith through his preaching. This is what Peter had done in Caesarea, and when he testified at the council of Jerusalem he affirmed that the events in Caesarea fulfilled Jesus’ promise that “by my mouth” the Gentiles “should hear the word of the gospel [Knowledge], and believe [Faith].” (Acts 15:7). Peter indeed had the keys of the kingdom. But so does every person who engages in “the foolishness of preaching.”

The “Foolish” Ministry Peter Received from Christ

It is evident, therefore, that in Matthew 16:19 Jesus had not bestowed upon Peter the Magisterial authority to grant or deny access to the Kingdom of Heaven and had not made him Chief Steward of the Kingdom of God. Neither had He institutionalized the forgiveness of sins or the dispensation of mercy and grace. Rather Jesus had come to deliver the Words of the Father (John 12:49), and having succeeded, commissioned His disciples to do the same (John 20:21). This is “the Rock” upon which Christ built His Church—the Word of the Father. The Apostles would receive from Christ that “foolish” ministry of preaching His Father’s Words: “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Only one thing remained before they were commissioned: the sending of the Spirit. The Spirit would “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26) and would prosper their preaching unto faith in the hearers, for “faith cometh by hearing” the Word of God (Romans 10:17). The Keys of the Kingdom were thus granted to Peter not as the chief of an earthly institution but in the context of a Gospel ministry of preaching—a ministry that he and the rest of the apostles, and every disciple after them would one day receive (Matthew 28:19). The Keys of the Kingdom are Knowledge and Faith. Knowledge is preached, and Faith comes by preached Knowledge. But none of this can happen “except they be sent” (Romans 10:15), and they could not be sent until the Spirit was given.

Because Matthew 16:18-19 has for centuries been interpreted to mean that Christ established His Church on Peter, it obscured the truth that Jesus had already established Isaiah 54 as the context of His statement. The focus thus being taken off of the Words of the Father as the Rock upon which Christ would build by preaching, the subsequent phrases about “the gates of hell” and “the keys of the kingdom” were likewise emptied of their Gospel preaching significance. Both statements were instead used to establish an earthly, ungodly institution that made merchandise of the souls of men (Revelation 18:11-13). But when understood in the context of Jesus’ own words, and with the Scriptural evidence that the Kingdom of Heaven is accessed by Knowledge and Faith, it is clear that the gates of hell cannot prevail because one is translated from death to everlasting life by hearing and believing (John 5:24). Which is to say, the Keys of the Kingdom are distributed to God’s people by the foolishness of preaching.

As we shall demonstrate in our next entry, Jesus’ words about binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19; 18:18) refer not to a Magisterial administrative function, but rather to a Gospel ministry of preaching the Words of the Father. When Matthew 16:19 is interpreted through the lens of Peter being the Rock, it is inappropriately infused with the carnal, administrative conjecture of Petrine authority “to determine official doctrine and practice,” and thereby to open and shut the gates of the kingdom. But according to Jesus, to “bind” and to “loose” refer to nothing other than the Gospel preaching ministry He had received from His Father, and the very same ministry that He would entrust to all those who would believe on His word.

30 thoughts on “Last to Know, Part 4”

  1. Tim, im watching your Film about the Massacer of the Hugenots. Apart from the extraordinary content, its nice so SEE you talking. 😀

    1. “Film about the Massacer of the Huguenots” …

      Do you have a link to that film Alessandro? Thx.

  2. Tim,
    Is faith something that is imparted by the spirit or is it something within us? Your use of the word “elicit” indicates the later:
    ‘In fact, as the Spirit wills, He ELICITS both understanding and belief in the hearer of the Word.’

    Can you provide us with a concise definition for faith? The same sentence indicates that understanding is separate from belief (faith).

    1. Thank you, David.

      Faith is assent to an understood proposition. In this article, knowledge refers to understanding propositions that are the Word of God, and thus, Faith is assent to knowledge, or Faith = Assent to the Knowledge revealed in the Word of God.

      Since the natural man is able to know and understand and therefore believe propositions (Romans 1:19-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:11), belief is not something that is imparted but in fact is something that comes naturally to man. Were that not the case, the natural man could not believe a lie or believe in the Father’s “eternal power and Godhead”. Yet the unregenerate man can clearly know, understand and believe these. In other words, a natural man can have belief. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12). The way “seemed right” because he believed the way to be correct. He was wrong, but he had belief in the error.

      What the natural man cannot have or produce in himself is belief in the knowledge revealed in the Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). That requires a work of the Spirit, not only to understand the propositions, but also to assent to them.

      Elicit means to draw something forth that is latent or potential. A natural man, though sinful, is capable of logical thought. That capability, though imperfect in his fallen estate, is nevertheless present within him, as he is made in the image of God. He can understand a proposition (e.g., “there is no God.” (Psalms 14:1)). The natural man, though sinful, is capable of assent. That capability, too, is present within him. The natural man spends his entire life assenting to various understood propositions (e.g., “there is no God,” “this way seemeth right.”)

      What he cannot do, however, is understand the logical propositions of the Gospel and believe the logical propositions of the Gospel to be true unless the Spirit produces understanding and belief in him.

      It is not incorrect therefore to say that the Spirit elicits in a man both the understanding of the proposition and assent to the understood propositions of the Word. To elicit understanding and belief in the propositions of the Gospel is to impart saving faith. Without the Spirit he could not have understood the propositions, and without the Spirit he could not have assented to the understood propositions. I want to be very careful not to make all faith “imparted faith,” because clearly the natural man is quite capable of assent to understood propositions without saving faith. He is not, however, capable of assenting to propositions that he does not understand, and thus, the understanding and assent must be granted to him.

      You concluded with an observation that my wording “indicates that understanding is separate from belief (faith).” Please let me know if my definition of faith helps make sense of the statement.

      1. Tim,
        Your definition for faith is helpful. Do you consider faith and knowledge synonyms? If not, what is your definition for knowledge?

        Also, the word elicit (‘to draw forth something that is latent or potential’) indicates something coming from within us. The word impart indicates something coming from outside of us. How can saving faith be both elicited and imparted (‘To elicit understanding and belief in the propositions of the Gospel is to impart saving faith’)?

        1. Thank you David.

          So that we do not speak past each other, may I ask if you hold that the natural man is capable of belief?

  3. Tim,
    Are you asking if man can believe something, a non- salvific proposition for example, apart from God?

    1. No, I’m only asking if the natural man, the unregenerate man, is capable of assent to a proposition.

        1. Thank you, David.

          I believe as well that an unregenerate man, the “natural man,” can assent to a proposition. And to the degree that he can assent to an understood proposition, he is capable of belief. For the purposes of this discussion, faith or belief is “assent to an understood proposition.”

          The natural man is made in the image of God, and if I may appeal to Gordon Clark’s definition, “the image of God must be reason because God is truth, and fellowship with Him … requires thinking and understanding.” Therefore, the natural man is able to reason. To think. To consider a proposition and assent to it. Clark continues, God “created man with the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristic.” (The Image of God in Man)

          When we think of the image of God as “reason” or “logic,” or “intellect,” then the capability to consider, understand and assent to a proposition is intrinsic to the man. This is the case whether the man is unregenerate or regenerate and whether the proposition is salvific or not. To believe a proposition one must understand it, and assent to that understood proposition, contemplating that proposition with one’s intellect.

          Saving faith—assent to an understood salvific proposition—is the gift of God: “by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). The natural man being unable to receive (1 Corinthians 2:14) or understand (Luke 8:10) salvific propositions, is unable to assent to them. He has faith, but not saving faith. The regenerate man, however, is given understanding of the proposition, and is moved by the Spirit to assent. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Psalms 110:3). That saving faith is a gift, however, does not mean that the understanding and the assent are exercised apart from “the light of logic” that is intrinsic to the man. It is his intellect—the image of God in him—that assents to the understood proposition. As Gordon Clark would say, the difference between the faith of the unregenerate man and the faith of the regenerate man “is not in the mental function involved”. The mental function is the same in both persons, for both exercise the intellectual act of assent to a proposition. To the degree that “the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristic” is sufficiently awakened in the regenerated man to understand, and to assent to the proposition, belief is elicited, for the image of God is not given at the moment of belief, and it is that image of God in him that contemplates the salvific proposition. To the degree that understanding is granted and the Spirit moves the man irresistibly to assent, belief is imparted, for the man had not the understanding within him until it was given to him. I do not say that saving faith is imparted in the same way it is elicited.

          You asked as well whether I consider faith and knowledge to be synonymous. As you saw in the article, I stated “Faith is not Knowledge.” You also asked “what is your definition for knowledge?” As you saw earlier in our conversation, I stated that “In this article, knowledge refers to understanding propositions that are the Word of God.”

          Thank you for your patience. I was unable to respond until today.

  4. Tim, for me you are a true legend. I have never red better things than your stuff. i have no words. Since 5-6 months i am every single day our after our on this blog, and it gets every day better

  5. Hi Tim,

    Your comments on Isaiah 22 are spot on. I’ve been studying that for a couple years, now, and have noted all sorts of inconsistencies. Even so, you pointed out something I’ve missed in the phrase “no man can shut.”

    When I started investigating the claim that Eliakim foreshadowed (or whatever the description du jour) Peter, I was curious to know where that claim originated. I spent months researching it. Most Roman Catholic apologetics either don’t cite sources or at best, allude to secondary sources. Looking for the claim in the early church doesn’t turn up anything. The apologists will jump at a chance to draw parallels in any way then can imagine, hence they say things like: “binding and loosing” equates to “opening and shutting” when, in reality, the phrases have nothing to do with each other. And you won’t find any of them reading up on the Mishnaic age and the development of Judaism to even attempt an understanding of the ancient Jewish context of “binding and loosing.” If it fits their foredrawn conclusions, they weave it into their storyline, then someone else comes along and adds to it. Before long, you have an entire legend and nobody knows how it started.

    Such is the case with the Eliakim-Peter typology claim. It appears to have seeds in the counter-Reformation but it is nowhere near the level of development it has now. Scott Hahn picks it up around 1990, with only a vague allusion to having “discovered” that defenders of old believed it. Of course, he didn’t cite them, so researching the history was not very easy. It’s truly sad how many people are being led astray by the tale, now. It’s a Catholic Answers special that not even Rome lays any claims to, as far as I can tell.

    About a month ago, I wrote up two posts walking through what I found. I am hoping to finish up a third post that’s half-written, soon. I hope it’s OK to post a link to these here:

    https://threepillarsblog.org/

    Anyway, I’ve written up the history

  6. Tim,

    Am I correct in understanding you to interpret saving faith as equivalent to intellectual assent to the words of the Father? How would that paradigm (especially given your Calvinism) handle apostates such as Scott Hahn, who clearly have intellectual understanding of what Protestants believe, and who claim to have once believed it? Or Protestants who claim to believe in the doctrines of Christ but who live as if He is not their Lord, whom Paul warns will be shut out of the Kingdom?

    Since “these things are spiritually discerned,” it makes sense to me that spiritual regeneration is logically prior to forensic justification that happens upon true belief. But it also seems clear that true belief has a distinctively spiritual component to it — spiritual understanding — that goes well beyond merely cognitive assent for unspiritual reasons. To put it another way, a person must first spiritually apprehend the Spirit of Christ, by a work of grace within his own spirit, before he can understand the full meaning of propositions about Him. This unregenerate people can believe sentences like “Christ is Lord” and confess sentences like “Christ has risen from the dead,” but even if all of their biblical and theological knowledge is spot-on, their Christ will be a false Christ, and the propositions expressed by their confessions, and targeted by their beliefs, will not be the word of God.

    But perhaps you have a different explanation?

    1. Yes, your understanding is correct—faith is intellectual assent to the Word of the Father. It is worth visiting the Mark and Luke representations of the parable of the sower, in which the soil initially “believes” but falls away when the implications of the Word become apparent:

      “And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended” (Mark 4:17)

      “They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” (Luke 8:13)

      Upon a close, harmonized, reading whatever it is that this soil “believes,” it is not “the word,” for it is “the word” that offended them. Scott Hahn clearly falls into this category, as he appears to have received “the word with joy,” and “for a while believe[d]”, but when you study his testimony, it was the Word that he found to be insufficient. It wasn’t enough for there to be “the Word” without an external authority vouching for it.

      The simple faith of a believer is in “the Word” for the Word’s sake. Scott could not countenance that for very long, and when presented with the need for an “external authority” (the Church), he immediately received the Roman Catholic Church with joy. But we are nowhere in the gospels implored to believe the Church (though Scott Hahn very much believes we are).

      For Scott, the gospel is transactional: he received salvation in exchange for something. From his testimony, “I gave Him my sins and I received the gift of forgiveness and salvation. … in the Bible, you just accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and that’s all it takes. … When you have a covenant with God, it’s the same as having a contract. You give God your sin; He gives you Christ, and everything is a faith-deal for salvation.” (The Scott Hahn Conversion Story)

      There is much to be unpacked in Scott Hahn’s “conversion” testimony, but when he was was faced with a choice between the Scripture or Tradition, he became offended and opted for an authoritarian substitute for the Revelation of God.

      More on Scott Hahn here: The Lost Soul of Scott Hahn.

      1. Thanks, Tim. That Trinity Review piece is spot-on. I remember reading Rome Sweet Home and leaving depressed about the state of Protestant higher education. It shocked me that, if Hahn’s account is accurate, he searched in vain for Reformed professors who would not crumple in the face of utterly basic Romanist apologetics.

        If faith is assent to a set of propositions, what would you say is the difference between the saving intellectual faith of the believer and the demonic intellectual faith of the unfruitful professing Christian and of the fallen angels? I assume the demons believe all of our correct theology and even understand subtleties in which we have erred, yet their “faith” does not proceed from love of the Father, and so is “dead.”

        I’m trying to get a better grasp of these most central things. For a long time I believed that MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation was obviously correct, and when opposed to the hyper-grace teachings with which he was engaging, it is obviously*closer* to being correct. But now I am seeing that it is subtly different from the traditional Reformed formulation of the mechanism by which justification is imputed, although perhaps the difference is linguistic.

  7. Tim, along with Josh’s question its my understanding that faith in Roman Catholicism is intellectual assent as Josh defined it above, but my understanding is that the Reformed view was faith was belief not just some intellectual acknowledgement, so trust an assent of the mind and soul. Is this your understanding as well? Thx K

    1. Yes, something like that. Intuitively, (not that my opinion is worth anything in itself, but based on what I see in the scriptures), I would define faith as the miraculous disposition to believe the Word of God. In the presence of the Word, faith always *produces* belief, but is not identical to it.

      1. Note: the “miraculous” qualifier prevents this definition from including James’s false faith or the disposition of demons (and maybe also of angels) to believe the Word simply because they intellectually understand that whatever God speaks is true. True faith is a consequence of regeneration.

        1. Hi, Kevin,

          I think part of the problem comes from the latinization of the greek pistis (faith). The latinization yields fides, which some of the Reformers defined as notitia (understanding), assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust). But fiducia and fides share a common root and are often defined in the same terms. Fides is sometimes translated as faith, confidence or trust, and fiducia is also translated as confidence or trust. This reduces to “confidence = understanding, assent and confidence” or “trust = understanding, assent and trust” which is another way of saying “faith = understanding, assent and faith.” That awkwardly includes “faith” in the definition of faith.

          In reality, fiducia is the trust that is the essence of assenting to a proposition, and there is nothing added to the definition of faith to say that it also must include trust. Faith is trust. If you don’t trust someone, you don’t believe their propositions, which means you don’t have faith in what they say, which is to say that you don’t think that their propositions are true, and therefore you do not assent to them. To say that you assent to a proposition but do not trust that it is true is to say that you do not assent to it. To say that you assent to a proposition, and that you trust that the proposition is worthy of assent is simply redundant.

          When viewed this way, faith really does come down to assent to an understood proposition, or “notitia” and “assensus”. To understand and assent to Christ’s words is to trust that what He says is true. It makes no sense to say that you believe Him when He says He came from the Father but that you don’t trust what He is saying.

          An interesting introductory read on this issue can be found here: https://www.douglasdouma.com/2017/03/24/gordon-clarks-view-of-faith/

          Gordon Clark made this interesting observation: “What a man believes, really believes, even if he says the contrary, will show in his living.” This comes out in the life of the rich young ruler. He claimed to believe Moses. But Jesus says, Ok, then follow me. After all, Jesus elsewhere challenged them, saying, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The rich young ruler emphatically claimed to believe Moses. If he had, he would have believed Jesus. What Jesus exposed was that his profession of faith was not genuine. He did not really believe what He was saying.

          It’s important to remember that the regenerate and the reprobate can say the same thing — one of sincere faith, one from a heart of deception, even self-deception (James 1:22). Of the former, Jesus says “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matthew 12:34), and of the latter He says, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” (Matthew 15:8). The flashpoint of Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees was that they professed to believe the word of God but nullified it in their teaching (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:8), and denied it in their actions (John 8:39). In other words, He highlighted the fact that they did not believe what they were saying they believed.

          1. Hi Tim, thanks ” Faith is trust” I completely concur. Faith really does come down to assent to an understood proposition as you said. You know its interesting because visible morality isn’t always a trustworthy indicator of true belief in the Word, the gospel. The rich young ruler gave a list of his righteous deeds which seemed impressive, yet as you aptly point out he didnt believe Moses, and didn’ t believe Jesus. Conversely the one who truly trusts Jesus words will obey him from the heart. Thx K

  8. Well its important to understand ,as my friend John who posts here from time to time pointed out to me last night, that it is assent to the gospel that justifies/saves . The Demons believed things about God enough that they shuttered. They may have understood their condition or many other things about the bible or God, but obviously didn’t assent to the propositions of the gospel.

  9. Tim, Kevin, et al–

    Thank you for the edifying discussion. All of your contributions have been an enormous help to my understanding the scriptures. With that said, please forgive me if the following question is “off-topic.”

    I think I understand now that anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God — which, being a promise of God, is the proper source of assurance of personal salvation. This puts my soul greatly at rest, as opposed to the years I have spent scrutinizing my own conscience and affections in search of the same.

    However, one stumbling block I still encounter is the concept of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Paul says in Romans that if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he doesn’t belong to Him. He writes that “the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Wesley and others with charismatic leanings interpret this verse to mean that the Spirit always produces an indefeasible and supra-rational inner “sense” of personal assurance in the spirit of a believer, just as He produces the same “sense” of the truth of the Word. I have no doubt that God gives this gift to some, but I’ve only known one person who claims to actually have it. Piper and others say that the witness is related to the cry of “Abba! Father!” in the previous verse, and that those who are able to thus heartfeltly cry have the witness because the very presence of that affective cry indicates the Spirit has produced it. Both of these interpretations would leave me in near-despair that I simply don’t have this “witness.” Still others say that the Spirit witnesses not to us, but to the Father, *along with* our own spirits, that we are children of God, thus fulfilling the scriptural principle that two witnesses confirm a matter. But this strikes me, bluntly, as sheer foolishness — God does not need another witness to confirm the Word of His own Spirit, and our own assertion to Him that we are His children is meaningless in itself anyway.

    Looking at how the Spirit bears witness to other truths throughout scripture, it seems to me that a better solution is the following: as the Spirit bears witness to the promises of the Word by sealing its truth in our hearts, so the Spirit bears witness to our adoption by sealing that particular promise — that all who believe in Christ have life in His name — in our hearts through the Word. Thus, “Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.”

    But if this is the correct interpretation, why do none of the commentators see it? And why wouldn’t Paul have said it more plainly? Oh, the frustration of not knowing for certain…

    Complicating all of this further is that the disciples did not receive the Spirit until Pentecost, and John clearly indicates they belonged to Christ beforehand. Then there is the group in Acts who believed in Christ but “had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit!” And David who speaks of the Spirit long before He was given. It seems there are at least three modes or senses of “having the Spirit,” one related to regeneration and belief in the Word (operative since before Christ), one related to the invisible shepherding of the Church (operative continually since Pentecost), and the last a charismatic outpouring of the Spirit predominantly active in the very early church.

    Any help or corrections from anyone will be greatly appreciated!

  10. ” oh, the frustration of not knowing for certain” well John tells his congregation that they can know for certain. 1 John 5:13″ i write these things to you who believe on the name of Jesus that you may know you hafe eternal life” on the contrary ,the word John uses for know implies complete certainty. I think John 5:25 and Romans10:9,10 support that. Thats why Tim’s recent series had such an impact on me, it drills down on the father’s words, his promise, that are the only assurance we can have, and the Spirit points us to his word. Imho. K

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Follow Me