to the testimony of God is 'greater'.  And further, unbelief makes God a

liar, which is the practical reverse to saying Amen to all that God has said.

A.  I see very clearly that my view of faith would never have allowed the

argument from men that is used in verse 9, and that the emphasis upon

believing a testimony is very strong indeed.  I confess that the subject is

clearer and simpler and makes faith and belief the more real to me than I

could have credited.  Perhaps we shall have an opportunity of looking at the

subject from another angle.

A.  While I admit that there is much more in the Word as to faith being the

belief of a testimony than I had thought, yet I am conscious that there is

something not quite satisfactory, to my mind.  You will remember that James

'Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils

(demons) also believe, and tremble' (Jas. 2:19).

This is what I call 'historic faith' as distinct from 'saving faith'.

Yet 'faith that believes a testimony' is historic faith, and I am therefore

left rather perplexed.

B.  Your perplexity arises out of confusing things that differ.  For the

moment let us step outside the scope of Scripture and use some everyday

illustration.  We both believe the testimony of historians as to the date of

the Norman Conquest -- '1066 William the Conqueror'.  Do you call such belief

'historic faith'?

A.  Yes, I should, and moreover it is a good illustration that 'historic

faith' differs from 'saving faith', for no one can be the better for

believing '1066 William the Conqueror'.

B.  Let us try again.  Demons believe that there is one God, some men do the

same, but their belief saves neither demons nor men.  Why is this?

A.

I cannot quite see.

B.  Well, I think the most obvious reason is that nowhere in Scripture does

salvation depend upon believing that there is one God.  It is not the 'faith'

but the object of faith that makes the difference.  If I believe that 'Jesus

died and rose again', that is 'historic faith', and you will remember that

throughout the Acts and in many of the epistles evidences and witnesses are

brought forward to prove death and resurrection to be an historic fact.  Now

how is it that if I really believe that 'Jesus died and rose again' such

faith brings salvation, whereas believing another historic fact of Scripture,

viz.  'there is one God', does no such thing?

A.  Is there not more than mere history in the death and resurrection of

B.  There you touch upon the difference, though possibly you do not mean just

what I see.  When I believe the historic fact that 'Jesus died and rose

again', it is impossible to believe that and to deny that when He died He

died for our sins, or that when He rose He rose because of our justifying.

So far as the 'faith' is concerned there is no difference, but so far as the