Saving Faith

[Poimen]

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[MW]

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.
II. That a child of God may have this assurance.
III. The nature of it, and how a saint comes to be assured.
IV. The fruits of it, whereby it may be discerned from presumption.
V. The necessity of it.
VI. Deduce an inference or two.

I. I am to shew the kinds of assurance. They are two.
1. Objective assurance, whereby the special love of God to a saint, and his eternal salvation, are sure in themselves, 2 Tim. ii. 19. 'The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.' - This is never wanting, whether the child of God know it or not. Though they raze foundations of hope at some times, yet God never razes his.
2. Subjective assurance, whereby a child of God is assured that God loves him with a special love, and that he shall certainly partake of eternal glory, Gal. ii. 20. 'Who loved me, and gave himself for me,' says Paul. This is not a wavering hope, or conjecture, but an infallible certainty. This is the assurance we treat of.

II. I shall shew that a child of God may have this assurance.
1. A believer may know that he has relative grace, that he is justified and therefore shall never come into condemnation, Rom. v. 1, &c. Though he cannot ascend to heaven, and at first read his name in the book of God's decrees; yet by comparing the book of God and the book of his own soul, he may know that he is called and elected, 2 Pet. i. 10. and therefore shall certainly be saved.
2. He may be assured that he has inherent grace, that he believes as sure as he breathes, 2 Tim. i. 12. that he has love to the Lord unfeigned, and can appeal to Omniscience on the head, John xxi. 15. as Peter did when he said, 'Thou who knowest all things, knowest that I love thee.' And believing that such are loved of God, and shall certainly persevere, for which he has the testimony of the word, he may be assured that he is the happy man.
3. It is the office of the Spirit of God to assure believers of this. He has given us the word for this end: He is given to lead his people into all truth, particularly to discover the grace of God to them, and in them, 1 Cor. ii. 12. to witness with their spirits to their adoption, Rom. viii. 16. to be a seal, which is properly to ensure an evidence, Eph. iv. 30. and an earnest, a part of the price and pledge of the whole, 2 Cor. v. 5.
Lastly, Many of the saints have attained it; as Job, chap. xix. 25. 'For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth,' Psal. xxiii. ult. 'Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever,' 2 Tim. iv. 8. 'Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.' And others too, besides scripture-saints.

III. I shall shew the nature of this assurance, and how a saint comes to be assured. By what is said, ye may perceive that this is a work of the Spirit, in the hearts of the saints, without whose efficacy no man can attain it. We may take it up in these three things.
1. The Spirit shining on his own word, particularly the promises, in the Bible, the child of God firmly believes them, Heb. vi. 11, 12. The Lord has testified in his word, that such and such persons, for instance, that love him, Prov. viii. 17. are universal in obedience; are poor in spirit, Matt. v. 3. are beloved of him, and shall certainly be saved. The Spirit says in effect, by the light he gives the believer into the divine authority of that word, This is my word. And as such the child of God is firmly persuaded of the certainty of it, as if a voice from the throne of God would make these promises and declarations. This is the ground-work of assurance.
2. The Spirit shining on his own work of grace in the believer's heart, the believer discerns it, 1 Cor. ii. 12. The Spirit of God clears up to the man the truth of grace in him; lets him see that he, for instance, loves God, &c. and so says in effect, This is my work. Hence he is enabled to conclude assuredly, that the Lord loves him, he shall not be ashamed, and that the kingdom of God is his. This assurance is stronger or weaker according to the degree of light that shines upon the work of grace in the heart to discover it.
3. Lastly, The Spirit of the Lord sometimes gives a joint testimony with the spirits of the saints, to the truth of that conclusion, Rom. viii. 16. that they are the children of God. The testimony of the believer's own spirit is weak in itself, and Satan can find many ways to invalidate it; therefore the Spirit witnesses to them the truth of the conclusion, whereby they are raised to a full persuasion of it.

IV. I shall shew the fruit of this assurance, whereby it may be discerned from presumption.
1. It inflames the soul with love to the Lord. As one flame begets another, so the assurance of God's love to us will add new vigour to our love to the Lord, 1 John iv. 19. Luke vii. 47. He sits in the warm sunshine, that cannot fail to melt the heart, who sits under evidence of the Lord's love.
2. It is humbling, Gal. ii. 20. None so vile in their own eyes as those who are lifted up in the manifestations of the Lord's love to them, Gen. xviii. 27. 2 Sam. vii. 18. 2 Cor. xii. 4 and 11 compared. Delusion puffs up, but true assurance humbles.
3. It makes one tender in heart and life, and is a most powerful motive to sanctification, 2 Cor. vii. 1. It is followed with great care to please God in all things, and watchfulness against every sin. While the empty traveller walks at random, fearing nothing, because he has nothing to lose, he that has precious things about him looks well to himself, Cant. iii. 5. One may be persuaded, that the confidence which makes not one tender in his duty to God and man, is presumption.
4. Establishment in the good ways of the Lord, 2 Pet. i. 10. Faith is the provisor of all other graces, it brings in oil into the lamp; and the more evidence it has, it can do its office the better. A doubting Christian will be a staggering and weak Christian; as the soldier who has little hope of the victory will readily be faint-hearted, while he that is assured is strengthened and established.
5. Lastly, It fills a man with contempt of the world, Gal. vi. 14. If ye gaze on the shining sun, for a while after ye will scarcely discern the beauty of the earth. And one's solacing himself in contemplation of heaven as his, will sink the value of the world with him.

V. I shall shew the necessity of assurance.
1. It is not necessary to the being of a Christian. One may have true faith, and yet want full assurance, Isa. l. 10. One may go to heaven in a mist, not knowing whither he is going. We read of some, Heb. ii. 16, 'who through fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage.' Our salvation depends on our state, not our knowledge of it.
2. It is necessary to the well-being of a Christian, and therefore we are commanded to seek it, 2 Pet. i. 10, 'Give diligence to make your calling and election sure.' There are none who can live so comfortably for themselves, as the assured Christian, and none are so useful for God as they. It fits a man either to live or die; while others are unfit to live, because of the weakness of grace in a throng of trials and temptations, and unfit to die for want of evidence of grace.
Hence it follows, that assurance may be lost; and they that sometimes have this light, may fall into darkness. And it is careless walking that puts it out, especially sinning against the light, whereby the Spirit is grieved, and withdraws his light, Eph. iv. 29, 30. But if it be lost that way, and darkness come on, it will readily be dreadful darkness; the higher they have been lifted up, the lower readily they are laid, Psal. li. 8.

Inf. l. Unjustified and unsanctified persons can have no true assurance of the Lord's love to them. They may have a false confidence, a delusive hope of heaven; but no assurance, for that is peculiar to the justified.
Inf. 2. Doubts and fears are no friends to holiness of heart and life. It is little faith that breeds them in the hearts of the people of God, Matth. xiv. 31. And little faith will always make little holiness.
Inf. 3. Lastly, Christians may thank themselves for the uncomfortable lives they lead. What sovereignty may do, we know not: but surely it is sloth and unbelief that the want of assurance is ordinarily owing to. Stir up yourselves then to seek it. Be frequent in self-examination, cry to the Lord for the witness of his spirit. Believe the word, and be habitually tender in your walk, if ever ye would have assurance, Psal. v. ult.

 

[Davidius]

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

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.

Thanks for your help, Dr. Clark.

 

[spicedparrot]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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!

When I think of promise in the Sacraments, I'm thinking along these lines:

WCF Chapter XXVII

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Heidelberg:

Especially in Question 67, the Heidelberg underlines that both word and sacrament ar meant to point us to Christ. I realize that, after reading this, the Heidelberg distinguishes as you do from the teaching of the Gospel and assurance by the Sacraments. I need to be cleaner in my terminology. I won't say they are Gospel but I will say they direct our faith to the same object that the Word does.


In Question 69, I love the way the Heidelberg links the sacrament as a visible sign that can be used to help us remember what was done for us by the sacrifice of Christ for us who have faith:

And to anticipate the objections of those who believe too much is being promised here:

or from those who think that the water is somehow magical...

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (a) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (b)

But yet there is still something fundamentally spiritual going on in the Sacrament.

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (a) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (b)

 

[spicedparrot]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

{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]

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?

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]

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]

I'm not challenging

{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}

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]

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]

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]

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?

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,

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]

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?