In Acts 8, Philip tells the eunuch that he will baptize him if he believes with all his heart. In Romans 10:9 Paul says confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that he rose from the dead and you'll be saved. In 10:10 Paul says that with the heart a man believes unto righteousness. The heart is symbolic of the seat of our emotions. We don't believe with our literal hearts of course. (The Old Testament equivalent is our kidneys, but how glamorous is that--with our kidneys a man believes unto righteousness.) The use of the heart metaphor suggests that such belief is in some way connected to our emotions. I can identify with that. When the Lord saved me, I got very emotional. But----- Can such belief (and repentance as well) have an intellectual component? It's not the same thing, but Paul told the Roman believers to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. That's an intellectual act. Even though repentance and faith have the emotional element, before one can believe, there has to be an intellectual acceptance as truth certain propositions. Such as Jesus as God, his crucifixion and resurrection, God's acceptance of his sacrifice as satisfactory. The fact that the disciples and 500 other folks saw Jesus alive is quite a lot of evidence which we can mentally accept as true. So, the question for discussion is this: Is there a proper balance between the intellect and emotions in repentance and saving faith? In our current evangelical climate, do any of you see an imbalance (such as more emotion than intellect)? I buy the emotion. I just wonder if the intellectual exercise gets short shrift sometimes.