# Saving Faith



## sotzo (Nov 25, 2007)

Is it possible for a person to want/desire to know Christ as his/her Savior and not be among the elect?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 25, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Is it possible for a person to want/desire to know Christ as his/her Savior and not be among the elect?



True desire to know Christ for the right reasons is given as the gift of God, through the Spirit. I don't think there can be any doubt about that. Nobody is sent to hell against their will.

However, there are lots of reasons one might want to know Christ as his/her Savior but do so in a way that is self-serving or merely "hell-insurance". Most people don't want to go to hell if you ask them - and I suspect that 
many might profess some sort of desire to know Christ (I can think of one person who is in the family of some folks at our church who I think is probably under this kind of a misapprehension). Such folks could be said to "want" or "desire" to know Christ - but their desire, their aimed-for end, is misplaced... and thus they'll not truly know him in a saving way.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 25, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible for a person to want/desire to know Christ as his/her Savior and not be among the elect?
> ...



You mean, they don't want redemption from sin necessarily...they want to live how they please and then say they knew Jesus to stay out of hell? Is that the kind of non-salvifiv desire to which you refer?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 25, 2007)

This passage would seem to indicate that some will be self-deceived in this manner.

[bible]Matthew 7:21-23[/bible]


----------



## sotzo (Nov 25, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> This passage would seem to indicate that some will be self-deceived in this manner.
> 
> [bible]Matthew 7:21-23[/bible]



Then can there really be any such thing as assurance of faith? I John gives evidences of saving faith, but my real question in the OP is that how can we really know we are His if there is the possibility we are being self-deceived?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 25, 2007)

No, one is not saved by the right desires, this confuses means with ends…cause and effect. In fact when God comes to a man, dead in sins and trespasses, we might add utterly and totally dead, He finds NO faith or repentance whatsoever. He speaks the Gospel and it is a “Let there be light” or “Lazarus come forth”. One is saved by Christ’s work alone, trusting in that is the breathing and heartbeat of the elect.

Secondly, one is no more saved by being self-serving than by pretending to be unself-serving, which is in fact self serving. No one can produce an unselfserving first cause. In fact man fallen cannot be anything but utterly self serving, either as an open sinner or pious false saint.

Do not let your ‘desires’ become a new work for you. Look and trust in Christ alone, nakedly, and do not look at your looking (faith in faith or trust in trust) which is to say stop not trusting in Him, which is to say don’t try to trust or not not trust in Him but LOOK to Him alone and then suddenly you are doing it. The life comes from His end not yours.

Do not look to election, the Father is to high for us. Look to Christ who is the revelation of the revealed God perfectly, listen to Him. One’s election is not found in election but in the Cross of Christ alone. If election was to be sought some other way then Christ need not be incarnate nor would we have need of the sacraments. To put it yet another way, the elect are not fixing their gaze upon election but Christ crucified and risen…all other “looking” is utterly vain and no peace (a fruit of the Spirit) can be had.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 25, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Then can there really be any such thing as assurance of faith? I John gives evidences of saving faith, but my real question in the OP is that how can we really know we are His if there is the possibility we are being self-deceived?





> WCF - CHAPTER XVIII.
> Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.​I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
> ...



I would also look to Scripture passages such as Galatians 5:16-25. The fruits of The Spirit are not produced in the lives of unbleivers. Remeber, Jesus said that "the tree will be known by it's fruit."


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 26, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> No, one is not saved by the right desires, this confuses means with ends…cause and effect. In fact when God comes to a man, dead in sins and trespasses, we might add utterly and totally dead, He finds NO faith or repentance whatsoever. He speaks the Gospel and it is a “Let there be light” or “Lazarus come forth”. One is saved by Christ’s work alone, trusting in that is the breathing and heartbeat of the elect.



I gather my intent was confused in the reading. I hope you didn't take my meaning to be that one can "desire" onsself into the kingdom. My point was to answer the original question - which is to say that there are some who say "Lord, Lord" who claim a desire to know Christ, and even think they do, who are not of the elect, and will be disclaimed by Christ. 

Most certainly salvation is fully of the Lord, and of Him alone, but there is a distinction between "true" and "false" faith, which is what the original question was getting at.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 26, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Is it possible for a person to want/desire to know Christ as his/her Savior and not be among the elect?



Yes. The parable of the soils speaks of this. They do not endure to the end. There are many of people as this. THe wheat and the tares also...


----------



## sotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible for a person to want/desire to know Christ as his/her Savior and not be among the elect?
> ...



So how is assurance possible if we could simply be self-deceived our entire lives? 

If one truly wants to know Christ as Saviour, does not the Saviour save?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2007)

Assurance is that subjective sense of confidence. From where does it arise? If from oneself, it is false. If he is trusting in the Word of God, something objective, that same Word promises him "peace" with God through the Lord Jesus Christ, strength through the means of grace to be sustained, the eternal love of God which cannot be taken away, the abiding presence of the Spirit (that also witnesses), the perils of sinful indulgence of the flesh, and the possibility of false-faith which is really self-satisfaction.

Self-deceived people do not really believe all that God has to say. They don't grow in grace. They do not, in fact, bear fruit unto righteousness. They sometimes grow up in the field (as tares) or alongside it (among the weeds).

If our assurance ebbs and flows, that is a more sure sign of its reality than its falsity. It gives evidence that we are living in between the ages--but we are ALIVE. We _feel_ the effects of sin. Is it not a worrisome sign, if one has few incentives to self-examination, just invincible confidence (that is never shaken) of God's love? How shall one know the difference between that, and a faith of *brass*, stiff and lifeless?

Assurance is possible because the Word says it is. It is possible because it is a product of our relationship with God, and not some "element" of our lives, or pulsating corner of our hearts that we have "access" to. We have assurance of God's love after the same fashion that we have assurance of the love of our mothers, or of our spouses--by our _mutual_ words and actions.

But what if there is deception? In human relations, that is possible. But I'm not responsible for the other person's deception, only my own, if I am the liar. Now. can God be a liar? Not at all, if we are to believe the Bible, if we are to believe him. Can I be a liar in that relationship? Yes. And if I am, only God can show me my falseness, if I refuse to question myself.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Assurance is that subjective sense of confidence. From where does it arise? If from oneself, it is false. If he is trusting in the Word of God, something objective, that same Word promises him "peace" with God through the Lord Jesus Christ, strength through the means of grace to be sustained, the eternal love of God which cannot be taken away, the abiding presence of the Spirit (that also witnesses), the perils of sinful indulgence of the flesh, and the possibility of false-faith which is really self-satisfaction.
> 
> Self-deceived people do not really believe all that God has to say. They don't grow in grace. They do not, in fact, bear fruit unto righteousness. They sometimes grow up in the field (as tares) or alongside it (among the weeds).
> 
> ...



I very much appreciate your post. 

The possibility of being self-deceived about my salvation, finding out that I misunderstood the Scriptures, did not really put all my trust in Christ, etc. haunts me. I want to be bold knowing my King is faithful and live confidently, but this constant wrestling needs to be banished.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 26, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > sotzo said:
> ...



Scripture does not record many instances of spurious faith examples individually. Those in Matt 7, Simon Magus could be the only 2 that I can think of in the NT. 

John 6:66 

And my fav in 1 john

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

I also believe certain elect will never reach full assurance of salvation. 



ASSURANCE --J C Ryle

I like the above article with footnotes

and

"Faith and Assurance" by J.C. Ryle


----------



## KMK (Nov 26, 2007)

The Bible promises that those the Lord loves are chastened.
The Bible promises that those the Lord loves are persecuted for righteousness' sake.
The Bible promises that those the Lord loves struggle with sin.

These are three of the biggies that I point people toward for assurance. 

Many say they are believers but go on in rebellion and they seem to prosper because of it. Where is the chastening? 

Many say they are believers yet are loved by the world. Where is the persecution?

Many say they are believers but they do not struggle with sin. They rationalize it, they ignore it, they disguise it, but they do not struggle with it. They have no desire to actually repent of it. They never say, "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Where is the struggle?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 26, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> This passage would seem to indicate that some will be self-deceived in this manner.
> 
> [bible]Matthew 7:21-23[/bible]



Looking closely at this verse, which causes so many to wonder about assurance, shows their folly of looking to their works.

have we not prophesied in thy name?

And in thy name have cast out devils?

And in thy name done many wonderful works?

The whole assurance of their salvation is in what THEY have done. Not what Christ has done. This is how one can be assured. By leaving all self works behind and looking to Christ Alone.. What a glroious truth...

The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name." He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, *do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (Lk. 10:17-20).*


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > This passage would seem to indicate that some will be self-deceived in this manner.
> ...



Excellent point! 

It is so easy to get discouraged and mislead when we take our eyes off the Savior and look too much to ourselves.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 26, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Presbyterian said:
> ...


----------



## sotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

> It is so easy to get discouraged and mislead when we take our eyes off the Savior and look too much to ourselves.



The problem, however, is that it is impossible to not look at ourselves to some degree as we exercise faith, because it is we whose eyes need to be on Jesus. In other words,, the subjective self is bound up in the act of faith and because of that it is impossible to crawl out of myself and objectively *know* I am saved rather than to subjectively waver. I long for that objectivity. 

Oh that the following words would comfort such a soul as mine!

HE (and not me) has hushed the law's loud thunder,
HE (and not me) has quenched Mount Sinai's flame.
HE (and not me) who washed us with His blood
Has secured our way to God.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2007)

HC 21:

21. What is true faith?

True faith is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word;1 but also a hearty trust,2 which the Holy Spirit 3 works in me by the Gospel,4 that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God,5 merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.6

1 James 1:6. 2 Rom 4:16-18. 3 2 Cor 4:13. Phil 1:19, 20. 4 Rom 1:16. Rom 10:17. 5 Heb 11:1, 2. Rom 1:17. 6 Eph 2:7-9. Rom 3:24, 25. Gal 2:16. * Acts 10:43.​____

Yes, you and all Christians can and should have assurance. How? Trust the gospel promises of Christ! "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." 

Do you trust in Christ as your righteousness alone?

I didn't ask if you trust _enough_ but only if you trust him.

When it comes to assurance, faith is a binary operation. It either exists or it doesn't. Full stop. There's no degree or faith, when it comes to justification and assurance.

Does faith grow? Yes, it does, day by day, but that is the _fruit_ of justification not the ground of assurance. Yes, there is a _secondary_ place for reflecting upon fruit. HC 86 does this:

86. Since then we are redeemed from our misery by grace through Christ, without any merit of ours, why should we do good works?

Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image, that with our whole life we show ourselves thankful to God for His blessing,1 and also that He be glorified through us;2 then also, that we ourselves may be assured of our faith by the fruits thereof;3 and by our godly walk win also others to Christ.4

1 Rom 6:13. Rom 12:1, 2. 1 Pet 2:5,9,10. 1 Cor 6:20. 2 Matt 5:16. 1 Pet 2:12. 3 Matt 7:17,18. Gal 5:6, 22, 23. 4 Rom 14:19. 1 Pet 3:1, 2. * 2 Pet 1:10​.

The fruit of faith strengthens our assurance but it is not the basis of it. The sole basis/ground of assurance is Christ's righteousness _for us_ and his unshakeable promises _to us_.

To refuse to have assurance on the ground that one is not sufficiently sanctified is a form of unbelief. Stop it. Repent of it. Of course you are not sanctified enough! You're a wretch. Jesus didn't obey and die for nice, sanctified people. He obeyed and died for you and me.

Will your assurance always be perfect and equally strong? No. The Westminster Confession ch 14 (as quoted above) deals with that question brilliantly. Our assurance ebbs and flows. We learn more and more to stop looking at ourselves -- just as we learn to stop looking at garbage heaps -- and we learn more and more to look at Christ and his promises. 

rsc


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > It is so easy to get discouraged and mislead when we take our eyes off the Savior and look too much to ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I too had no assurance as an independent fundamental dispensational baptist. I could never get over the thought that if even only 1% of my salvation depended on me I was still in big trouble because I knew/know how untrustworthy and inconsistent I am. It was only in being granted an understanding of the DoG and CT that assurance finally came. Do I still doubt? Yes. But knowing that salvation has nothing to do with me and my abilities forces me to focus upon Christ and His promise to keep His sheep. When I meditate upon Him and His promises I always find peace. Sometimes immediately but often only after wallowing around in the pit of self-pity and doubt for awhile. But as the WCF says, I no longer come to utter despair. God is most gracious to His children, and especially to those who ask for needed grace. in my opinion.

Look to the Spirit for guidance and comfort, [NASB]Romans 8:26-27[/NASB]. Honestly and earnestly search your heart for the true fruits of the Spirit. And ask yourself, "Do I truly love Jesus?", for He said "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." - John 8.42.

I don't know if any of that helps, but I hope so. I also offer my sincere prayers on your behalf that the Lord will quickly return to you the joy and assurance of His salvation or grant you true repentance, if that be the need.

Blessings!


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 26, 2007)

Joel -

Dr. Clark has some excellent points there... and to piggy back on his words. The ONLY sure ground for justification - the ONLY source of assurance that is possible for us is Christ's full and complete righteousness imputed to us. We cannot satisfy, no matter how well we try, God's just and righteous requirements - we'll never do it. Christ alone is just in and of himself - we fall miserably short, and if there is ANY sense in which we are looking at ourselves, looking for reason for assurance, we'll find that our assurance is less than reassuring. Our standing before God is now and ever shall be grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ. You CAN find assurance before God, if you are looking at the right person, Christ Jesus, the spotless Lamb, slain for us. 

Todd


----------



## sotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks for the encouragement brothers .


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 26, 2007)

Faith is that poor trembling woman who came behind Jesus in the press and touched the hem of His garment (Mark 5:27). Assurance is Stephen standing calmly in the midst of his murderers, and saving, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God!”

Faith is the penitent thief, crying, “Lord, remember me” (Luke 23:42). Assurance is Job, sitting in the dust, covered with sores, and saying, “I know that my Redeemer liveth” (Job 19:25). “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him” (Job 13:15).

Faith is Peter’s drowning cry, as he began to sink: Lord, save me” (Matt 14:30). Assurance is that same Peter declaring before the Council in after times, “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”(Acts 4:11-12).

Faith is the anxious, trembling voice, “Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). Assurance is the confident challenge, Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? . . . Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom 8:33,34). Faith is Saul praying in the house of Judas at Damascus, sorrowful, blind, and alone (Acts 9:11). Assurance is Paul, the aged prisoner, looking calmly into the grave, and saying, “I know whom I have believed . . . There is a crown laid up for me” (2 Tim 1:12, 4:8).

Faith is life. How great the blessing! Who can tell the gulf between life and death? And yet life may be weak, sickly, unhealthy, painful, trying, anxious, worn, burdensome, joyless, smileless to the very end.

Assurance is more than life. It is health, strength, power, vigor, activity, energy, manliness, beauty.

Reader, it is not a question of saved or not saved that lies before us, but of privilege or no privilege. It is not a question of peace or no peace, but of great peace or little peace. It is not a question between the wanderers of this world and the school of Christ: it is one that belongs only to the school: — it is between the first form and the last.

He that has faith does well. Happy should I be, if I thought all readers of this article had it. Blessed, thrice blessed are they that believe. They are safe. They are washed. They are justified. They are beyond the power of hell. Satan, with all his malice, shall never pluck them out of Christ’s hand.

But he that has assurance does far better, — sees more, feels more, knows more, enjoys more, has more days like those spoken of in Deuteronomy 11:21, even “as the days of heaven upon the earth.


From the article of Ryle.


----------



## KMK (Nov 26, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> When it comes to assurance, faith is a binary operation. It either exists or it doesn't. Full stop. There's no degree or faith, when it comes to justification and assurance.



I love it!!! The parable of the sower says that the good soil people bring forth fruit, some hundredfold, some sixty and some thirty. There is no assurance in the *amount* of fruit, only in its existance at all.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2007)

If I can take issue with some of the advice here.

"Do I truly love Jesus?"

That's not the gospel. That's law.

Should we love Jesus? Yes. Will we, by the grace of God, come to love Jesus more truly and fully than we do now. Do we now love Jesus as we ought? No.

Substitute: "Do I love the Lord with all my faculties?" (Matt 22:37-40) The honest answer is no! We're sinners. We don't any of us love God as we ought. Thus, to ask, "do I love Jesus?" as part of the grounds for justification or assurance is the path to doubt and despair.

We start with the objective work of Christ.

Secondarily, we can ask if we have any fruit. 

Look to the Spirit for guidance and comfort, [NASB]Romans 8:26-27[/NASB]. Honestly and earnestly search your heart for the true fruits of the Spirit. And ask yourself, "Do I truly love Jesus?", for He said "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." - John 8.42.​
Yes, we look to the Spirit and we ask him to operate, as he has promised to do, through the preaching of the gospel. We should be careful about an overly subjective approach to this question.

rsc


----------



## sotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Dr. Clark:



> We start with the objective work of Christ.



The objective work of Christ is the oasis in the desert. But since faith is the means by which Christ's objective work is appropriated, how can one escape the subjectivity of it?

For example, Christ's work is only appropriated to some and in Reformed circles we say those "some" are the elect. In the works of the Puritans and others, there is a seemingly constant introspection about whether or not one is truly resting in Christ or is it Christ + something else and that the latter are damned because they are not trusting Christ alone.

That's where it gets difficult because on the one hand, as Reformed believers, we want to say that Christ alone saves and we believe that those trusting in something else cannot be saved. Yet, on the other hand, as you've clearly stated, all of us struggle with putting other gods before God and trusting in other things. 

And that is where it gets to be shades of gray rather than "this folks are elect" and "those folks aren't". As Bavinck has said, certainty of faith needs something firmer than these shades of gray (he didn't exactly speak of shades of gray, but alluded to the necessity to ground certainty properly).

What I do see happening in my life outside of these doubts causes me to give thanks to God. Sin in general, materialism, pride...they are all increasingly abhorrent to me. I crave to know God and serve Him in this world more and more. But the reality of such things cause me all the more to wonder why I can't just rest in assurance and serve Him without wondering if I'm in a fairy tale.


----------



## regener8ed (Nov 26, 2007)

I always doubt my salvation when I look at myself. I am assured of it when I look at my perfect Savior.


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

I, too, have never understood how one can be completely objective. I can look at Christ and his work for sinners and believe that he truly died for the elect and yet doubt that I am one of them. How do you get from looking at Christ to knowing that you are in Christ? It seems like it has to be subjective to some extent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Dr. Clark:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, imagine if it were not a struggle, would you be crying out to Christ to save you from the body of death?

It is interesting that this thread should arise because I've been reading a bunch of Puritan biographies and I was struck by the fact that nearly every biography lists a date of a "conversion experience". I don't think it's a mistake that, even though the systematics was generally sound, this focus was probably the seedbed for revivalism.

This is not a terribly difficult thing but it does lead us to seesaw in the recesses of our mind where doubts of assurance can strike.

I really don't think, after studying James or Paul, that they had the struggling Christian in mind when they challenged men on the genuineness of their faith. If you read James, for instance, there is the sense of a callous disregard for fruit and the insistence, it seems, that I have faith and fruit is optional. James proceeds to show that such men and women have _no_ love for the things of God and not _some_ love. In fact, the "faith" of the hypocrite is the perfect example of something that looks back upon itself instead of outwardly to what its object ought to be and the gratitude that flows out of it.

Look, it's been said so many times already and you just need to believe this: You are a beggar when it comes to Christ. Look to His work and grab on to His feet. When the others are pushing you away saying: "The master is too busy, don't bother Him" then ignore the fact that you're the leper and cry out: "Jesus! Master! Have mercy upon me a sinner!" When Christ asks you: "Do you believe in Me." Then answer like the father of the epileptic: "Lord I believe, help though my unbelief."

As Dr. Clark noted, you either have faith or you do not. Don't look at the strength of your faith. There is no faith too weak, if it lays hold of Christ, that does not unite to Him. That doesn't mean that it's a faith that looks upon itself and is content to say that no growth is necessary but the necessity of growth and the presence of abiding sin ought not to be used as a reason to focus back inward. The focus ought NOT to be on the quality of your faith but whether or not you believe in what Christ has done.

So, if you're struggling with sin then welcome to the club! I'm not saying you're supposed to delight in your sin. In fact, it brings us all great sorrow. But you ought not constantly get into a "do loop" to wonder if God still has kind intentions toward you. Election is not introduced in the Scriptures to get us to sit back and wonder about the elect status of anyone including ourselves. It is meant to comfort believers. Do you believe? Then be comforted that He who began a good work in you will complete it to the very end.


----------



## regener8ed (Nov 26, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I can look at Christ and his work for sinners and believe that he truly died for the elect and yet doubt that I am one of them.



I struggle with exactly the same thought. I always come to the conclusion that whether I am elect or not has nothing to do with me. That's His business and I will just have to trust that He has paid the price for those that are His. 

If my faith is genuine, and I belong to Him, then the price has been paid. If I am self deceived and not among the elect, then there is nothing I can do about it anyways... 

Either way He will be glorified. I just pray that He glorifies Himself in me according to His mercy rather than His justice. I am thankful that He has revealed Himself in His word to be merciful.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 26, 2007)

John Rogers made this excellent statement concerning the strength of faith:

"If it never proves great, yet weak faith shall save; for it interests us in Christ, and makes Him and all His benefits ours. For it is not the strength of our faith that saves, but the truth of our faith-not the weakness of our faith that condemns, but the want of faith; for the least faith layeth hold on Christ, and so will save us. Neither are we saved by the worth or quantity of our faith, but by Christ, who is laid hold on by a weak faith as well as a strong. Just as a weak hand that can put meat into the mouth shall feed and nourish the body as well as if it were a strong hand; seeing the body is not nourished by the strength of the hand, but by the goodness of the meat."
-John Rogers "The Doctrine of Faith"


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Dr. Clark:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your definition of faith is too subjective. 

It's not MY believing that makes faith efficacious. What makes faith, in the act of justification and relative to assurance, efficacious is the OBJECT of faith. Christ and his righteousness makes faith what it is: the sole instrument of justification and the sole means of resting in and receiving Christ and his finished work.

Thus, there is nothing, relative to justification or assurance, inherent to faith itself that makes it one thing or another. It either exists or it doesn't. 



> For example, Christ's work is only appropriated to some and in Reformed circles we say those "some" are the elect.



Some believe and some do not. Both of those are in the visible church and most all of those outside the visible church do not believe (there may be some extraordinary case where one is outside the visible church and yet believes).

We don't decide for whom Christ died or who is elect _a priori_. We do it after the fact (_a posteriori_. We never ask, "Am I elect?" or "Did Christ die for me?" We only ask, "Do I believe?" If I believe, it is because I am elect and Christ died for me etc. 

Never, ever try to guess the secret will and providence and decree of God. It is forbidden in Deut 29:29.



> In the works of the Puritans and others, there is a seemingly constant introspection about whether or not one is truly resting in Christ or is it Christ + something else and that the latter are damned because they are not trusting Christ alone.



Yes, but not in the better Reformed writers (whether they were English speaking or not). There were subjectivists on the continent too. So what? What do we confess as churches? 

Just because we sin doesn't mean we're not justified.

We are simultaneously sinners AND justified.

We're not papists. We don't confess that only the sanctified can be justified.

Am I a sinner? Yes! Do I, _sola gratia_ trust that Christ is my righteousness? Yes. 

When it comes to assurance, the equation stops with Christ. Did he finish the work? Is he enough? You will NEVER (yes, I'm yelling) achieve the sanctity you want without first trusting in the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ. 

Must we die to self? Yes. We must die daily. Does my lack of mortification mean I am not justified? No. It means I'm not yet glorified.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2007)

David,

Faith isn't completely objective. 

The ground/basis of our justification and of our assurance is completely objective. Faith apprehends that ground: Christ and his righteousness FOR ME. 

Is faith perfect? No, but it is sufficient. That's why it's the sole instrument. It looks away from self and to Christ. 

Faith doesn't do it. Christ does it and we receive his benefits through faith.

rsc



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I, too, have never understood how one can be completely objective. I can look at Christ and his work for sinners and believe that he truly died for the elect and yet doubt that I am one of them. How do you get from looking at Christ to knowing that you are in Christ? It seems like it has to be subjective to some extent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Just because we sin doesn't mean we're not justified.
> 
> We are simultaneously sinners AND justified.
> 
> ...



Preach it brother! {Yes, I'm yelling}


----------



## MW (Nov 26, 2007)

The following may help to clarify some of the discussion on assurance. It is from the Works of Thomas Boston, Vol. 2. Please note the clear distinction between objective and subjective assurance. There is an assurance which arises from the direct act of faith, whereby we know objectively that something is true because God has said so. There is also an assurance which arises as a reflex act of faith, whereby we know that something is true of us, the subject, because the marks of it are clearly seen in us through the Holy Spirit bearing witness to His own work in our lives. Blessings!



> I. OF ASSURANCE.
> 
> In speaking to the first, namely, assurance, I will shew,
> I. The kinds of it.
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Nov 26, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> David,
> 
> Faith isn't completely objective.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your help, Dr. Clark.


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 27, 2007)

*Lutheran Perspective*

For what it is worth the Lutheran view is that like our justification our assurance must be "extra nos". Therefore, any assurance we have comes from resting upon Christ and his promises - in other words resting on Word and Sacrament, particular one's baptism. Why Baptism, because there God does a work to us and makes a promise that is entirely void of our doing. As such, we merely have to ask ourselves if Christ keeps his promise.

To put it another way here is what is often put forth as the syllogism of assurance:

a) All those who truly believe will be saved
b) I know I truly believe
c) Therefore I know I am saved.

The Lutheran position is something more like this:

a) In my Baptism Christ promised I was united to his death and resurrection and my sins were forgiven
b) Christ does not lie
c) Therefore in my Baptism I was united to his death and resurrection and my sins ARE forgiven.

The problem of course with the first syllogism is that it is inherently reflexive and focus the attention of the believer back upon themselves. From the Lutheran perspective that is a hopeless place to look, our gaze should be firmly focused instead on Christ and His promises. As you can see the second syllogism (which is the logic behind the cliche "Remember Your Baptism!") focuses attention on Christ and his pro me work ("for me").

Interestingly I am reading the excellent Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer. In there he spends a good deal of time dealing with the puritans, their view of death, etc. He comments that to many at the time, feeling "assured" of your salvation was actually indication that you WERE NOT saved. Interesting.

Finally, I've heard it put this way by Carl Trueman:

In the Scottish presbyterian tradition your assurance was derived from an internal testimony of the spirit
In the Continental reformed tradition your assurance was derived from the testimony of your good works. 

For what its worth, I prefer to derive my assurance on the "extra nos" Word and Sacrament - otherwise I would have no assurance at all.


----------



## KMK (Nov 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The following may help to clarify some of the discussion on assurance. It is from the Works of Thomas Boston, Vol. 2.



Does anyone know if this is available online somewhere?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 27, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> For what it is worth the Lutheran view is that like our justification our assurance must be "extra nos". Therefore, any assurance we have comes from resting upon Christ and his promises - in other words resting on Word and Sacrament, particular one's baptism. Why Baptism, because there God does a work to us and makes a promise that is entirely void of our doing. As such, we merely have to ask ourselves if Christ keeps his promise.
> 
> To put it another way here is what is often put forth as the syllogism of assurance:
> 
> ...



Not to digress, but is this not becasue of Luther's belief in baptismal regeneration? I do not know how this can be divorced.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> spicedparrot said:
> 
> 
> > For what it is worth the Lutheran view is that like our justification our assurance must be "extra nos". Therefore, any assurance we have comes from resting upon Christ and his promises - in other words resting on Word and Sacrament, particular one's baptism. Why Baptism, because there God does a work to us and makes a promise that is entirely void of our doing. As such, we merely have to ask ourselves if Christ keeps his promise.
> ...



I do think it's a digresion as well from the Reformed understanding of baptism. One does not have to obsesively "navel gaze" to have confidence in your baptism but the confidence is not from the act itself but the promise and what it signifies.

I have a problem with the above schema because it conflates the sign with the thing signified in the same way that the Federal Vision does. Baptism is not the instrument that unites a person to Christ, _faith_ is that instrument. Baptism signifies union with Christ but it is not union with Christ.

Remember, this is a _Reformed_ board. If we agreed with the Lutherans on the nature of the Sacraments then this would be a Lutheran board.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 28, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> For what it is worth the Lutheran view is that like our justification our assurance must be "extra nos". Therefore, any assurance we have comes from resting upon Christ and his promises - in other words resting on Word and Sacrament, particular one's baptism. Why Baptism, because there God does a work to us and makes a promise that is entirely void of our doing. As such, we merely have to ask ourselves if Christ keeps his promise.
> 
> To put it another way here is what is often put forth as the syllogism of assurance:
> 
> ...



The difference between the Lutheran and Reformed Christian is a good example of what I meant in a previous post in this thread when I said "as Reformed believers, we want to say that Christ alone saves and we believe that those trusting in something else cannot be saved". WCF XIV states "The principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification and eternal life by virtue of the covenant of grace." If this is true, then the Lutheran trusting in baptismal regeneration cannot be saved. This seems to be too drastic a position to take, yet the WCF seems to be saying that.

This goes back to my OP, because clearly on the one hand the WCF is narrowly defining saving faith, yet it does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone (ie, "I believe, help my unbelief!" nor does it leave much room for those whose confessions of faith include clear statements of the vital role of the sacraments in bringing salvation to the Christian (as Spiced Parrot articulated and as the RC church articulates).

Perhaps the answer is in the next line of the WCF in the same chapter, to wit:

"This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong..."

Would that statement be the qualifier that allows us as Reformed believers to disagree with other believers on issues such as baptismal regeneration, yet firmly believe they are saved? Perhaps I am not interpreting that part of the WCF correctly.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 28, 2007)

sotzo said:


> The difference between the Lutheran and Reformed Christian is a good example of what I meant in a previous post in this thread when I said "as Reformed believers, we want to say that Christ alone saves and we believe that those trusting in something else cannot be saved". WCF XIV states "The principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification and eternal life by virtue of the covenant of grace." If this is true, then the Lutheran trusting in baptismal regeneration cannot be saved. This seems to be too drastic a position to take, yet the WCF seems to be saying that.
> 
> This goes back to my OP, because clearly on the one hand the WCF is narrowly defining saving faith, yet it does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone (ie, "I believe, help my unbelief!" nor does it leave much room for those whose confessions of faith include clear statements of the vital role of the sacraments in bringing salvation to the Christian (as Spiced Parrot articulated and as the RC church articulates).
> 
> ...



Well, to be fair, I would not say that the Lutherans are trusting in their baptism for salvation. They are trusting in Christ. I simply believe that kind of language gives a false sense of what _lays hold_ of Christ. The act of baptism, by its administration alone, does not unite to Christ. It does, however, serve as a certain and sure declaration of a Promise: as surely as this water is washes your flesh so will your sins be washed away if you believe upon Christ. Thus, truly, we _can_ look to our baptism for strength but not because it alone unites to Christ but because, in it, a promise was made by God through His minister that God saves those who trust in Him. 

Now, after what I wrote and what you read from the Confession I am baffled that you would say that the WCF "...does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone..." when you follow with the clause that "..."This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong...." That is exactly what we've been saying is that your faith does not have to be perfect or strong in order to lay hold of Christ for salvation. The clause is not intended to be inclusive of other expressions of what faith signifies but is meant to answer your own concerns about how your faith seems to wax and wane.

A faith that lays truly lays hold of Christ, weak or strong, is a saving faith.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 28, 2007)

> Now, after what I wrote and what you read from the Confession I am baffled that you would say that the WCF "...does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone..." when you follow with the clause that "..."This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong...." That is exactly what we've been saying is that your faith does not have to be perfect or strong in order to lay hold of Christ for salvation. The clause is not intended to be inclusive of other expressions of what faith signifies but is meant to answer your own concerns about how your faith seems to wax and wane.
> 
> A faith that lays truly lays hold of Christ, weak or strong, is a saving faith.



Yeah, I admit to not being clear in how I explained myself in the previous post. 

I understand the WCF is teaching (as you, Dr. Clark and others have well-marshalled and greatly helped me here) that faith is binary and, whether weak or strong, is saving faith becuase its object is Christ. My questioning is now shifting to perhaps a more ecumenical line of thinking...that is to say, if laying hold of Christ in faith is the _conditio sine qua non_ of justification, then can we rest in the fact that divergent views on the way in which the sacraments benefit us or imputation vs. infusion does not separate us from the body of Christ at large? In other words,, that we can say a theology outside of our circles (for example in the RC church) may be heterodox, but that people in those in such heterodoxy can still lay hold of Christ "salvifically"?

What I am trying to reckon with is the idea that in the simple "laying hold of Christ" (as you've put it) we can rest knowing the eternal "weightiness" of justification does not hang in the balance of sorting out how the sacraments work, etc. Not that these matters are not of great importance, but that they are, in a true sense, ancillary to the GREAT matter of how one is made right with God.


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 28, 2007)

*Baptismal Regeneration*

You are correct in that the above syllogism presupposes some sort of "baptismal regeneration". What that term means though seems to vary depending on who is using it.

If by Baptismal Regeneration you mean that Christ has a promise connected with BAptism and what he promises is true than - yes. Of course, even Luther's Small Catechism points out that the person receiving the baptism must still BELIEVE the promise. That's a distinction from the ex opre operato view.

For what its worth - if you read the Calvin's institutes on Baptism I think you'll find a great deal of commonality between him and this position. In fact, as I've read some modern scholars (i.e. Horton) on Baptismal efficacy I haven't been able to find much of a distinction between his view and the lutheran view. I suspect that most would agree that he is "reformed" so maybe there is not as much of a separation here as some suppose.

Point being - the Calvinian and Lutheran views of baptism lead to a very different perspective on assurance than other paradigms. Even the FV folks miss this distinction with their talk of baptismal regeneration because they turn right around and peek again at the works.

Of course - if one believes that Baptism places one in the Covenant of Grace, and that somehow later that person because of their faith is indeed one of the elect, than they should still be able to look to their Baptism for assurance. 

Well - mostly food for thought.
__________________
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 28, 2007)

By the way - it is my understanding that the Reformed hold the sacraments (in this case Baptism) along with the Preaching of the Word as "Means of Grace". Am I mistaken?

If so doesn't that indeed make Baptism an instrument by which God can give the believer faith? In the same manner that it can be given in the preaching of the Word? After all, isn't Baptism just a "visual word" so to speak.

This is my understanding of Calvin - and frankly many current scholars in the continental reformed tradition. Am I missing something?


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 28, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> By the way - it is my understanding that the Reformed hold the sacraments (in this case Baptism) along with the Preaching of the Word as "Means of Grace". Am I mistaken?
> 
> If so doesn't that indeed make Baptism an instrument by which God can give the believer faith? In the same manner that it can be given in the preaching of the Word? After all, isn't Baptism just a "visual word" so to speak.
> 
> This is my understanding of Calvin - and frankly many current scholars in the continental reformed tradition. Am I missing something?



Yes Word and Sacrament are means of grace with one distinction; the Word is a means to salvation, the sacraments are not.

Chapter 14 of the WCF on Saving Faith notes the following:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 28, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> By the way - it is my understanding that the Reformed hold the sacraments (in this case Baptism) along with the Preaching of the Word as "Means of Grace". Am I mistaken?
> 
> If so doesn't that indeed make Baptism an instrument by which God can give the believer faith? In the same manner that it can be given in the preaching of the Word? After all, isn't Baptism just a "visual word" so to speak.
> 
> This is my understanding of Calvin - and frankly many current scholars in the continental reformed tradition. Am I missing something?



Not sure if you caught when I wrote this:


> Thus, truly, we can look to our baptism for strength but not because it alone unites to Christ but because, in it, a promise was made by God through His minister that God saves those who trust in Him.



The main distinction I was making was between whether we see baptism as instrumental to our justification or remember to keep straight that faith, wheter weak or strong, lays hold of Christ. That need not be a torturous process. I think the Lutheran view, in fact, can get too esoteric if it just says: "look to your baptism" and does not explain to the person that the reason one looks to their baptism is that a promise of salvation was made to those who trust in Christ. The confidence the Reformed have maintains the _extra nos_ assurance that the work of Christ is perfect without using language that might confuse the believer about what unites the believer to His savior.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 28, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> By the way - it is my understanding that the Reformed hold the sacraments (in this case Baptism) along with the Preaching of the Word as "Means of Grace". Am I mistaken?
> 
> If so doesn't that indeed make Baptism an instrument by which God can give the believer faith? In the same manner that it can be given in the preaching of the Word? After all, isn't Baptism just a "visual word" so to speak.
> 
> This is my understanding of Calvin - and frankly many current scholars in the continental reformed tradition. Am I missing something?



To extend a bit on what Wayne shared. This was sort of an epiphany for me several months ago:


SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!
> ...


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 28, 2007)

*Would you agree?*

Thank you for the clarification on the reformed position. I'm still sorting through most of what I read. I think it would be helpful if you can tell me if the following statements are either reflective of the continental reformed tradition or not. In the interest of full disclosure, as a lutheran I would agree with all of these. If you'll play along I'll follow up with the author of each of these posts (and citations if needed to view in context).

1) "Christ uses these sacraments, not only to represent and seal, *but also actually to apply, the benefits of his redemption *to believers." [emphasis added]

2) "It is, therefore, astonishing that so many who go by the name "Reformed" in our day seem to deny, at least in the practical treatment of these Sacraments, *the efficacy of these means of grace*. ...the gnosticism (spirit against matter emphasis) of our age seems to pervade evangelical thinking and this has not been without its effect in our own churches. The hidden assumption appears to be that God works immediately and directly, without means, in bringing us to faith and keeping us there. Spirit is set against matter; in this case, the material elements of human preaching, water, bread and wine. The Anabaptistic, pietistic, and then revivalistic strains of evangelicalism eventually triumphed over the Reformation's evangelical stance and to the extent that Reformed churches today follow these general evangelical trends, they lose their Reformed identity." [emphasis added]

3) "Calvin says that Christ's Sacraments are instituted so that "believers, poor and deprived of all goods, should bring nothing to it but begging" (Institutes 4.14.26). The Sacrament's "force and truth" do not depend on "the condition or choice of him who receives it. For what God has ordained remains firm and keeps its own nature, however men may vary" (ibid). So for Calvin, as for Luther, "sacramenta conferunt gratiam" (Sacraments confer grace)."

4) "And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. *No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted*, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls" 

5) "*The sacraments become effectual means of salvation*,not by any power in themselves or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted"

6) In many conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles, it is as if the prescribed forms for Baptism and the Supper were too high in their sacramental theology, so the minister feels compelled to counter its strong "means of grace" emphasis. In this way, the Sacraments die the death of a thousand qualifications. The same is true when we read the biblical passages referring to Baptism as "the washing of regeneration" or to the Supper as "the communion of the body and blood of Christ." Why must we apologize for these passages and attempt to explain them away? Our confessions do not do this. Our liturgical forms (if we still use them) do not do this, but we feel compelled to diminish them these days. "

7) "We hear quasi-gnostic sentiments even in Reformed circles these days, such as the "real baptism" that is spiritual, as opposed to "merely being sprinkled with water," or the "real communion" with Christ in moments of private devotion. How can we truly affirm the union of earthly and heavenly realities in the Incarnation? Or how can we regard the Word of God as a means of salvation if it is but ink and paper or human speech? A subtle Docetism (the ancient gnostic heresy that denied Christ's true humanity) lurks behind our reticence to see these common earthly elements as signs that are linked to the things they signify. Surely the Sacraments can remind us of grace, help us to appreciate grace, and exhort us to walk in grace, but do they actually give us the grace promised in the Gospel? The Reformed and Presbyterian confessions answer "yes" without hesitation: A Sacrament not only consists of the signs (water, bread and wine), but of the things signified (new birth, forgiveness, life everlasting)."

8) "Even if a person had already confessed before his baptism that salvation is in Christ, and even if he were already incorporated into Christ, he makes the real transition only through baptism." He is quite right when he says, "The Reformed stand with Rome, Luther, and Calvin against Zwingli in their adherence to a divine working of grace in the sacrament."

9) "Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we are put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]." 

10) "But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life..'To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure. Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means."

11) "Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ's blood" 

12) "My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name? Yes, my father. How is this known to you? Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." "How did you come into this communion of the church? Through baptism. What is this baptism? It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin." 

Well, that's enough for now - I'm anxious to know if those on this board would consider these statements to be consistent with the reformed/presbyterian confessions. Certainly, any of these statements would be welcome in Lutheran circles.

I really don't want to quibble on whether Baptism is effective (I am lutheran after all) but I mostly just want to understand the reformed position. Frankly - I'm getting mixed messages. One moment it "is" a means of grace and the next moment it isn't. How can something be both "x" and "non x"? 

Well thanks for indulging me.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Chad,

I won't play this game. Statements taken out of context can be made to say things that, in context, they didn't say. 

Check out these resources:

Westminster Seminary California Bookstore
Westminster Seminary California clark
The Confessional Presbyterian » R. Scott Clark: Baptism and the Benefits of Christ (CPJ 2)

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Chad,
> 
> I won't play this game. Statements taken out of context can be made to say things that, in context, they didn't say.
> 
> ...



I think that states is pretty well.

I'm a bit annoyed Chad that you'll read what I wrote and then say that "sometimes people will say it's a means of grace and sometimes they will say it is not."

They are a means of grace but they're not magic. I have no interest in interacting with a dozen different sentences that can be used as a launchpad to go in 100 different ways.

After that pulling together of a bunch of quotes it seems to me that you have an agenda coming in to this thread to begin with that I don't particularly appreciate. You're just a curious questioner but you pull out a dozen snippets to challenge the Reformed understanding?


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

*My Apologies*

I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to offend - I was sincerely curious. Those quotes were not intending to drive an agenda and I didn't think any of them were taken out of context. For what its worth those quotes range from AA Hodge, to Calvin, to Michael Horton. I think you'll also notice a quote from the Larger Catechism as well as from the Scots Confession. I even quoted Calvin's catechism for small children. None of those things are easy to take out of context. 

My point is this - I've studied a great deal of reformed and lutheran theology. Unfortunately, I've rarely had the opportunity to discuss the theology with a broader spectrum of those claiming loyalty to particularly the reformed confessions. I understand what many "say" is reformed theology but my problem is that when I read large tracts of Calvin, Horton, Hodge, etc. I don't see many distinctions between there views and Lutheran theology.

Of course, reformed/presbyterian is not a monolith. My impression is that most reformed/presbyterian take a more Zwinglian view of the sacraments, particularly Baptism.

What I'm hoping - or seeking - is to see if those on this board would say they agree or disagree with Calvin/Hodge/Horton, etc. I suspect that if any of those three say something different than someone else's view of the confessions that they will disagree. 

So here it is - it seems to me there is a subset of those who are confess the three forms of unity who tend to interpret it with a more Lutheran bent. I think others, particularly those more apt to subscribe to the Westminster standards are more Zwinglian. 

Personally - I would like to try and find ways to seek commonality between the Reformed and Lutheran. I think the above quotes start building a bridge to get there.

Of course - since this isn't a total hijack of the original post. The quote above from Calvin I think buttresses my argument that even he would agree that one can look to his Baptism (as suggested in my initial syllogism) for assurance. I think that is something very different from looking to our works or to the spirit with in us. The White Horse Inn most recently had full program that makes that very point. 

Well - again, sorry to offend. I really thought the quotes would be useful and am disappointed I was not given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 29, 2007)

{MOD ON}

Chad, you need to think long and hard before you start challenging the Reformed Confessions. This is a Reformed Board. 

FYI, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the Westminster Standards and the 3FU. I would suggest you get a copy of each and compare.

{MOD OFF}


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think that states is pretty well.
> 
> I'm a bit annoyed Chad that you'll read what I wrote and then say that "sometimes people will say it's a means of grace and sometimes they will say it is not."
> 
> ...



More specifically - when I read the term "Means of Grace" I take that to be defined as a the "means" by which God gives his grace. If it is not the "means" by which God gives his Grace than it isn't a "Means of Grace". Now if there is another definition out there please let me know.

Also - I am a sincere questioner as I indicated above...and I wasn't trying to challenge the reformed understanding which is why all the above quotes were from as solid a reformed folks as I think you get. If I want to get into polemics I'm smart enough to know that going to a "reformed" board is not the place to do it. 

Frankly, I prefer to go straight to the horses mouth - I find some LUtherans to have a chip on their shoulder against the reformed (and often vice versa) so I was hoping that engaging in this discussion I could find out more about how those here view the doctrine of assurance.

Actually - I was quite surprised that there was resistance to my initial post. I thought this was commonly accepted in reformed circles. I wonder if it would have been taken different had it not been posted by Lutheran. Again, by posting those quotes I was hoping to get people to look at the content of my comments and not the label on the signature line.

----
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado 

With due respect,


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 29, 2007)

There is a lot that Lutherans and Reformed folk have in common and there are things that seriously divide us (otherwise Lutherans would be Calvinists). Just as in Lutheranism, the Reformed Faith is defined by what these respective Churches profess. For Lutherans it is the Book of Concord, for the Reformed its the Westminster Standards or the 3FU. Men such as Hodge, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, etc. were some of the greatest teachers God has graced his church with but they are not the church. It is the church that establishes what the church professes, not any particular theologian. 

A memorialist view of the sacraments is common in the broad evangelical church but for the confessionally reformed this is not the view as defined by our confessions. As I noted in my previous post, yes the sacraments are a means of grace but not for salvation but for the bolstering up of ones faith. Yes we can look back to our baptism and look to improve upon it, but is it a means of assurance? not really. Simon Magus was also baptized.

As Chapter 18 of the WCF notes:

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith *founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation*, *the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made*, *the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God*, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

*I'm not challenging*



wsw201 said:


> {MOD ON}
> 
> Chad, you need to think long and hard before you start challenging the Reformed Confessions. This is a Reformed Board.
> 
> ...


Oh right - of course - I fully understand this and expect the position of this board to be confessional. 

My question is whether or not some of the above quotes are contrary to the Reformed confessions. I'm not questioning the validity of the Reformed confessions themselves. For example, I would expect that many would see Calvin's support of Private Confession and Absolution to be contrary to the reformed confessions.

As for the similarity between the Westminster STandards and the 3FU - I'm quite familiar with both. I guess I see greater distinctions between what the Westminister Divines drafted and what Ursinus wrote in the Heidelberg Catechism. Then again, they had different backgrounds and were operating in different political environments.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

Chad,

two things.

1. The quote below belongs to Rich, not me.

2. I'm sorry that, being new to the discussion, you received some pointed replies. I've been at this (arguing with and about the Federal Vision) since 1999 and the FV boys play this game frequently: take some quotations out of context and say, "See, you disagree with Calvin!" or whatever.

That's why you weren't given the benefit of the doubt.

I've been asked before about the relations between Lutherans and Reformed and why am I "soft" on the Lutherans but so critical of the FV, especially when the FV has such a "Lutheran" view of baptismal union with Christ/baptismal regeneration?

Yes, there are real similarities between the Lutherans and the Reformed, particularly on justification. If you'll read the pamphlet I linked above, you'll see that I deal with the relations between the Lutherans and the Reformed on baptism. There are similarities and genuine differences.

Lutheran orthodoxy abandoned Luther on certain key issues. LO was much clearer on baptism than Luther, so that where Reformed folk could agree with L's small catechism on baptism that agreement was impossible with the Book of Concord.

The Lutherans do have a view of baptism that is similar to the FV, but there are real differences. The Lutheran view of baptism comes in the context of an unequivocal doctrine of depravity and grace (e.g., the LCMS view is quite "Calvinist" in certain respects) and an unequivocal doctrine of justification and clear distinction between law and gospel. All of which is missing from the FV. 

Yes, in the Reformed view, the Lutherans go off the rails when they teach that we can resist grace. The Lutherans were wrong to support Arminius. Their view is just rationalist, which is ironic. They think they can save God from being the author of evil by their doctrine of reprobation. Seems to me that Lutherans ought to rejoice in the paradox of divine sovereignty, including reprobation, and our stout denial that God is not morally liable for sin and evil. How can that be? Ask God. That's more Luther that the Lutherans!

Is baptism efficacious? Yes, for the elect. This is the part that some Lutherans and all Federal Visionists ignore. I have a forthcoming essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination (in a handbook on the Institutes) that works through some of these issues.

Yes, many modern Reformed folk have been more Zwinglian than Calvinist. No question about that, but denying baptismal regeneration does not make one Zwinglian.

I can't repeat all the material from the sources linked about, but the effect of your post is to ask us to re-hash 8-9 years of discussion all over again.

Here are some additional resources:

Westminster Seminary California clark

Westminster Seminary California clark

Westminster Seminary California clark

rsc


----------



## spicedparrot (Nov 29, 2007)

*Thank You*

Dr. Clark,

That is a helpful, interesting and thought provoking reply. I appreciate your time. 

Rather than comment in detail further here I will dig into the resources that you recommend and then post later with further questions. 

I do think it is important to note that I disagree with your assertion that there is a great deal of difference between the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. After all the Small Catechism is just as binding for a confessing Lutheran as the Formula of Concord (both are part of the Book of Concord). I don't see much distinction between the two (or other confessional documents such as the Augsburg confession that Calvin signed) , but then again, I think that depends upon how one defines certain terms in each. 

I also don't think its fair to label confessing lutherans as ARminian any more than when Lutherans labeled all the reformed as Zwinglian or enthusiasts. As I'm digging through these issues, I'm finding that while some terminology might be different there is a greater degree of commonality on some of these issues once one abandon's certain theological terms (such as resisting grace). 

For what it is worth, our opinion of the FV proponents is the same. 

Also - I didn't mean to mis-attribute that quote - I must have clicked the wrong button somehow. 

Thanks again


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

spicedparrot said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I think that states is pretty well.
> ...



Pressed for time right now Chad and was sick this AM. I apologize if I was brutally direct but the posting was a bit "bait and switch" for me. I thought I was interacting with someone who was relatively ignorant of some Reformed positions with some questions and then you pulled out a litany of quotes that would have taken days to research and sift throught and my suspicions arose. I probably could have expressed my concerns in a less frank manner but I went into Admin mode. The sign on the door of this place clearly states what we believe and I was making sure you had read the sign.

More later...

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Chad,
> 
> two things.
> 
> 1. The quote below belongs to Rich, not me.


Dr. Clark,

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. What quote?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 29, 2007)

I fixed the messed up quote box... no good deed goes unpunished

mea culpa, mea culpa, please don' trow me in der brai' patch (whoops, wrong rabbit)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

Oh, I get it now. I hadn't even looked at who the quote was attributed to.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 30, 2007)

Hey Rich...would love to get your final thoughts on my question in post 43 above.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > Now, after what I wrote and what you read from the Confession I am baffled that you would say that the WCF "...does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone..." when you follow with the clause that "..."This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong...." That is exactly what we've been saying is that your faith does not have to be perfect or strong in order to lay hold of Christ for salvation. The clause is not intended to be inclusive of other expressions of what faith signifies but is meant to answer your own concerns about how your faith seems to wax and wane.
> >
> > A faith that lays truly lays hold of Christ, weak or strong, is a saving faith.
> 
> ...



Thanks for reminding me of this, I almost forgot about it.

I don't know Joel. I don't like to go around guessing how people are really apprehending things. I think the favorite past time of many Evangelicals these days is to note that there are probably saved Mormons or saved Roman Catholics or saved "X" out there no matter what the Church teaches. I kind of understand the reason because there might be a tendency (that has been manifested on this board) to have an overweening pride in our comprehension of the truth and consign everyone else to outer darkness.

How one views _a lot_ of things says a great deal about how they view the faith that rests in Christ alone. One of the podcasts that I really look forward too every Sunday is the White Horse Inn because those guys really drive home the nature of the Gospel. If you don't subscribe to it then please do so. Go back and listen to the whole year. You'll be greatly edified by it.

In fact, whenever I teach about Saving Faith I _always_ contrast it with the Roman Catholic view that sees justification as a measure of one's sanctification. You don't even have to listen back very far (just a few weeks back) when Mike interviews Robert Sungenis (an RC) about Justification to get a good idea.

I should be a lot more patient on this stuff because I've been reforming for about 10 years now and it's just over the past couple of years that many different ideas have really come into focus for me.

People can _say_ they are saved by Christ's righteousness but then their lives reflect that they really don't believe that. Maybe that's the kind of doubt that the father of the epileptic had but, I fear, for many of them it's really double-minded unbelief. The problem is that this kind of double-mindedness is _institutionalized_ in the Roman Catholic system as a matter of faith and practice and it is extremely common in "Evangelical" circles.

In fact, as Mike Horton and others have pointed out, many Evangelicals are actually _more_ Pelagian these days than Roman Catholics are.

I was in a Church over the holidays that saddened me. The "Gospel" was basically this: God wants to _help_ us raise G-rated kids in an X-rated world, Sin is not realizing our potential so we need to have God around to help us get back on track. The idea that God is there to kind of add just a little bit extra octane boost to our already put-together lives is extremely common.

We don't need "additional Grace" to help us get to the level of acceptance, we either drink the living Water or we perish. We don't need extra cash to fill up our accounts, we're DESTITUTE BEGGARS with nothing in our hands crying out to the Master to pay our incalculable debt!

The Sacraments then either reinforce that idea or they reveal that we don't really believe the Gospel. If we're walking down the aisle during the Mass to have Christ sacrificed anew to infuse us with more Grace to overcome the grace we lost when we didn't do our part then we've just demonstrated that we don't believe the Gospel. If we're going to the Priest to have the second plank of justification held out because our mortal sins have just killed the saving grace within then we don't believe the Gospel. If we think that there are some sins that only wound the grace within us and others that kill it then we don't believe the Gospel. Finally, if we are walking an aisle on Sunday to re-dedicate our lives to Christ because "...this time I'm really serious about being sold out to Christ..." then, with tears in my eyes, I have to say that such people have not yet believed the Gospel!

This faith thing isn't hard but, in the flesh, it's the hardest thing in the world to really believe. It's why we need a clear Gospel message constantly and we need Sacraments that reinforce the same object. Otherwise, we just goon it all up.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2008)

KMK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The following may help to clarify some of the discussion on assurance. It is from the Works of Thomas Boston, Vol. 2.
> ...



Ken -- See this this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/works-thomas-boston-online-28411/


----------

