Paul Helm has posted his assessment of Religious Affections. Here is a longish excerpt:
In order to get where he wants to go, to establish that true religion, in great part, consists in holy affections, I think it is fair to say that Edwards is forced to considerably widen the scope of what ‘affection’ means. An affection is, after all, nothing more or less than an affect. In the text, there is a contrast between faith and sight, and references to love, and faith (or belief) and joy. Belief is obviously the key. Christians believe in one whom they do not see, and they love him, rejoicing in him with great joy. Their belief affects them in certain ways, for they feel intense love and joy, and perhaps publicly express these feelings. The joy that they feel is the expression of, perhaps a public expression of, being affected by what and who is believed and loved.
Faith and love are virtues, theological virtues, as they used to be called, the fruit of the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Gal. 5 22-3) An overlapping list is also provided by Paul in Colossians. ‘Put on, then, as God’s chosen people, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another…forgiving each other….above all these put on love…’ (Col. 3. 12-4) Here we must remember that such virtues may lead to expressions of affection, in the sense of passions of emotions, but they may also be present, strongly present, in the absence of ‘sensible’ affection. The emotions or affections that express patience, or kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self-control may be very varied, as varied as the circumstances in which they are called forth. One can easily conceive of situations in which , for example, kindness, is expressed in dogged determination. Think of a daughter whose life is consumed with the care of an invalid mother, or the behaviour of caring parents with an autistic child.
In fact, some of these virtues listed by Paul – kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, patience or self-control, seem to be the exact opposite of affections as Edwards would have us understand them, in which ‘the blood and animal spirits are sensibly altered’. They are, or similar to, what Edwards’s contemporary David Hume referred to as the ‘calm passions’. It may even seem that the Apostle is contrasting these virtues, the calm ones, with those that are often publicly expressed in an agitated way, for the lists we have noted have a distinctly ‘calm’ feel to them. A person may be affected by the work of the Holy Spirit, possessing his fruit, in ways that are focused and undemonstrative, which lead to restraint and constraint, which lead to the development of an undeviating routine. They need not be ‘raised’ as Edwards puts it. In his definition and his defence of affection and its place in true religion Edwards fails to remind us of this, but appropriates the term for his own political purposes. Putting the matter bluntly, his definition is an attempt to press the hysteria button.
So when he writes of ‘the religious affections of love and joy’ (95) he is, I suggest, taking liberties with these central Christian virtues in order to advance his thesis. In telling us that ‘the affections are no other, than the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclinations and will of the soul’, he is equating vigour and sensibility with self-consciousness and exhibitionism. That is a mistake. Paul tells us that true virtue may consist in self-forgetfulness. It is impossibly hard to derive Edwards’s claims about true religion, that it in great part consists in holy affections, from Galatians 5 or Colossians 3 without requiring that every effect of the work of the Holy Spirit in the promotion of virtue is ‘vigorous and sensible’. Had he taken these other passages of Paul as his text Edwards would have been forced to write a different book.
Vigor and sensibility are essential to Edwards’s basic idea of an affection. Having established, in a way that will be familiar to readers of his work The Freedom of the Will, that the inclination or will is moved by either pleasedness or aversion, he goes on to claim that there are degrees of such aversion or pleasedness, rising to such a height ‘till the soul comes to act vigorously and sensibly, and the actings of the soul are with that strength that (through the laws of the union which the Creator has fixed between soul and body) the motion of the blood and animal spirits begins to be sensibly altered; whence often time arises some bodily sensation, especially about the heart and vitals, that are the fountain of the fluids of the body…..and it is to be noted, that they are these more vigorous and sensible exercises of this faculty, that are called the affections’. (95-6) But Edwards cannot have it both ways. A holy affection cannot both be a vigorous and sensible affect in this sense and it also be the case that true religion consists in them, not at least according to Paul, or James.
Conclusion
The Religious Affections is an important book, but in my view it would be unwise to take its teaching on what true religion consists in very seriously. It is a book about the importance of emotion, expressed in a public, visible way, being the measure of true religion. Its significance lies in its influence upon the evolving character of Protestant evangelicalism, as a phenomenon that identified itself (as David Bebbington has pointed out) partly by activism and conversionism: revivalism, massed choirs, large gatherings of people, the penitent bench, the centrality of the public testimony, and so on. Edwards’s Protestantism was of an older kind, but it nevertheless contained elements which, in other hands, contributed to developing the distinctive features of modern evangelicalism.
Does this make Helm a high-church Calvinist? Or is it simply the case of someone spotting the difference between the quest for visible and outward piety and the inward and less showy sort that attends faith?
Another possibility — the date. Do the Brits observe April 1?
(Thanks to our southern correspondent.)
132 Comments
Let me answer that after I’m done with the re-read.
While we’re thinking about it, would you consider Owens to be pietistic in the same sense?
Jeff, I missed your question about your church’s wording for children and the unbaptized. No, I’ve no problem with it.
But you also indicate you are both pleased and surprised that I affirm the volitional and emotional nature of love because it is closer to Edwards than you’d think I’d be willing to admit. But I fail to see why conceding the volitional and emotional aspects of love would make me more sympathetic to Christian hedonism, anymore than it would make me sympathetic to marital romanticism. I cringe when those who have committed themselves to each other in marriage also think they must emphasize their romantic impulses and relate to one another as much as adolescents as adults. Yes, my love for my wife is certainly emotional since to be human is to be an emotional creature, but why would that mean I think it’s ok to relate to her like a fifteen-year-old? With apologies to those Edwards-Piperians (better than “pietists”?) amongst us, this is how I assess Christian hedonism: it’s the Christian version of those married but embarrassing adults who think they have to behave like teenagers. I don’t get it. Isn’t it a good thing to grow up and mature, as in when I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me? But I fear that just our culture as embraced a sophomoric understanding of human relations, Christian hedonism reflects it. To add insult to injury, one can often hear Edwards-Piperians talking a lot about being counter-cultural, etc., etc.
Umm… Dr. Hart, in my neck of the woods, we make a distinction between piety and pietism with pietism carrying a negative connotation. The term is used for describing Arndt, Spener, and their heirs. We joke about it, but also see it as incompatible with our orthodoxy. A strong stand is taken against it in our confessional circles. Is this another difference between our traditions? Would it be better if I did not comment on pietism?
Hi Jeff,
Nope, you didn’t make me feel judged but you sure frustrated the heck out that little legalist in me and I’m glad you did – twas quite good for me!
Re: scientifically describe the inner psyche and experiential
Generally, I see the science part as natural law until it’s application to salvation and trying to pull back the curtain where God’s hidden work is and trying to see how natural law applies to salvation. Not to be confusing, but in my neck of the woods, the experiential component is not only pietistic (in the negative sense) but falls under a theology of glory. A simple rule of thumb may be to remember that a theology of glory is man’s attempt to apply the rules in the kingdom of man to the kingdom of God. Finney? The trajectory line makes good sense to me.
Lily, in OPC circles pietism is not a word that comes up a lot and if it does it usually takes some definition. I was using it more in the way that church historians do.
In American Presbyterian circles revivalism is the word that is used. I myself consider revivalism to be the Anglo-American world’s equivalent of pietism. And in our circles, contrary to my best efforts, revivalism is not a bad word. The most nuance you find is Iain Murray’s distinction between revival (good) and revivalism (Finney).
Thanks, Dr. Hart, I appreciate your explanation.
Paul Helm again – http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2011/04/dr-sean-lucass-friendly-correction.html
Cath, Thanks for keeping us abreast of matters British. Loved Helm’s remark that Edwards wrote a long book in defense of a short definition of true religion:
Dr. Hart,
Am I smelling the winds of vindication blowing your way?
This was in my RSS this morning:
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/04/12/evangelicalism-and-pietism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+geneveith+%28Cranach%3A+The+Blog+of+Veith%29
Dr. Hart,
Dr.Veith did not have a link to his source. I think this may be the source.
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2011/marapr/historyevangelicalism.html?paging=off
Lily, tip of my cap to the Lutherans who understand pietism for what it is, and so are wary of evangelicalism. I my small way I am trying to kindle this sense among the Reformed along with folks like Clark. But we are dealing with almost four centuries of practical divinity, first nurtured by the Puritans and then picked up by the Dutch.
Guys, here’s my assessment of Religious Affections.
DGH, I would say that Edwards has to be cleared of the charge of pietism. He’s remarkably unclear about some things, but Spener he’s not. There’s just a historical problem with trying to conflate Puritans and pietists.
Jeff, thanks for the link. I don’t see anything in your posts with which to take exception, except perhaps for the historical judgments you make at the end. What I would say, though, is that you don’t need to follow Spener to be a pietist. A pietist, as I see it, is someone who elevates personal and informal piety over churchly and corporate piety, someone who puts their own experience above an experience regulated by the corporate piety of a communion of saints. It is hard to see how Edwards avoids that pitfall.
Well, OK, let’s explore this a bit.
Personal piety? Given that Edwards is a congregationalist, I would say No. He rather tends to uphold the authority of the minister of the church. He affirms the means of grace. In Thoughts on Revival, he sharply criticizes the tendency to make personal judgments about the salvation of individuals or of ministers (Tennent, anyone?).
He can fairly be charged with being experimentalist, along with most Puritans. But for Edwards, experimentalism is connected with (a) postmillennial hopes about the church, and (b) a delight in empiricism in general.
His concern about expressed piety has to do with questions like “Who is qualified to take communion?”
For Edwards, the axis is not personal v. corporate piety, but outwardly visible v outwardly not visible piety. You and I both have some problems with that still, but he’s not taking his piety outside the church. When Whitefield shows up in Northhampton in 1740, he preaches in Edwards’ church.
Informal piety? Somewhat, but not very. Edwards in Thoughts is very critical of those whose expressions of piety are not decent and in order (see the section on Singing, for example). He does allow for groups to sing praises to God out in public, but this is no more than Paul allows, or the Confession even.
…but God is to be worshipped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies…
Notice that “in private families daily and in secret” is not the full extent of “everywhere”, but special examples of it (“as”).
So what do you have in mind saying that Edwards elevates personal and informal piety over churchly and corporate piety?
Jeff, Edwards wrote Religious Affections, not a Treatise on the Lord’s Supper. The 600 pound gorilla is in the room (outside the church). And I’m not all that persuaded by Whitefield’s preaching in E’s church. Whitefield had been preaching indiscriminately. It’s like letting Billy Graham preach in your church. That doesn’t reveal something? Remember too, that the Puritans weren’t wild about Anglicans, which is what Whitefield was. But again the piety of revival washes away ecclesiastical identities.
Yes, Edwards is following in the tradition of practical divinity. Maybe it’s time we think about the pietistic tendency of practical divinity. Maybe it’s also time for proponents of practical divinity to step up and defend pietism.
DGH: Maybe it’s time we think about the pietistic tendency of practical divinity. Maybe it’s also time for proponents of practical divinity to step up and defend pietism.
OK, start the ball rolling. In what way does practical divinity have a pietistic tendency?
DGH: not a Treatise on the Lord’s Supper.
Don’t forget his treatise on qualifications for the Lord’s Supper.
But the point I’m trying to make in the articles is this. Edwards marks an important turning point: a friend to the good in revivals is nevertheless willing to say that much of what revivalists value is of no importance. I think that ought to count for something.
Jeff, there is plenty in Philip Benedict’s history of Calvinism to chew on this regard. Here’s part of one comment I made at Old Life a while back:
Jeff, but this is precisely my point. A treatise on qualifications for the Lord’s Supper is some distance from one on the benefits of the sacrament.
Look, Edwards was a friend of Tennent and Whitefield. Yes, he criticized their personal excesses. But he did not critique their ecclesiology.
Ok – I’m the dumb Lutheran here, but what if this argument over pietism has become distorted and we aren’t seeing it straight anymore? I’m not saying I have the answers, but the disagreement of pietism versus confessionalism is beginning to seem strange.
1. Pietism = me-ism. It’s all about me: what I think, feel, do – turned inward and wallowing in self. It’s a perfect match for the narcissistic therapeutic culture we live in.
2. Confessional Christianity = what we confess. It’s all about Who Christ IS and What Christ DID – turned outward to God and away from self. (eg: we confess the Nicene Creed and that it’s radical claims are true). It is antithetical to a me-ism culture.
Lutherette rant: on
I really don’t give a d*mn about exploring religious affections and me-ism. That is useless self-indulgent BS. My neighbor and I need to hear the church confess Christ. We need the Christ who died on Good Friday. Who wasn’t merely dead, but most completely and sincerely dead. Deader than a doornail. We don’t need docetists who give lip-service to Christ’s death, where he’s dead, but he’s well, not so really dead since he is about to be raised. No, Christ was a dead corpse on Good Friday and his corpse was not a shell that was no longer needed. The Resurrection is not some story of some guy overcoming great adversity that gives us inspiration to be good people doing good works with the right affections. It is the earth shattering news of God raising the truly dead corpse of the God-man and the utter defeat of sin, death, and the devil. It is God’s triumph over our hopeless sinful condition and our death sentence for being sinners. It is God giving us the inexplicable good news of Who He IS and What He DID.
Pietism is the useless confession of self and my experiences. The church confesses Christ and the power of salvation. If you hear and believe the Truth – it will change you because the Truth does that and the Holy Spirit is at work in us. Pietistic confessions of self have no power to do anything and merely muddies the water on what it means to be a Christian. It is the slow unglamorous growth in the mercy of God for me in Christ alone that changes me not pietistic sojourns in the la-la land of me-ism.
Lutherette rant: off
DGH: his tradition was particularly concerned with making one’s election sure and called for marks of salvation such as assurance, sincerity, sound regeneration and sanctification, inward peace, perseverence. It could go in anti-nomian and neo-nomian directions…
I think this is much more likely to be fruitful. Trying to make Puritanism a sub-species of pietism seems doomed to failure; it’s like trying to explore the “fish-like tendencies” of dolphins.
What both seem to have in common, though is neo-nomianism: Get in by faith, stay in by works.
Don’t get me wrong. I consider experimental theology a huge mistake, perhaps the mistake that accounts for about half of New England’s spiritual deadness today (the other half being the rise of Unitarianism). So I would never try to defend it.
But I don’t think we should try to wed it to a movement in a different denomination on a different continent motivated by different concerns. Right?
Lily: I think we agree on rejecting me-ism.
A trio of questions, though.
(1) I wonder where you are going with the seeming dismissal of the Resurrection? The resurrection seems to loom large in Paul’s theology, in particular with the Christian’s uniting with Christ in His power over sin and death. Take a look at Rom 8.1-17, esp. v. 11.
I don’t think you deny this; it’s just that you seem a bit one-sidedly “crucio-centric”, which is usually a more Catholic thing to do. So what’s up with that?
(2) What *is* the Lutheran understanding of the third use of the Law? Let’s grant that we never get past being sinners. I’m not talking about “getting justified, then moving past that.”
But the fact remains that being justified is not the sum total of our salvation. We might (DGH, for example) call it the center of our salvation; but it is not the entirety of it. Do you agree?
(3) And if so, then how would you characterize the Christian’s relationship to God’s commands? You wake up in the morning. You go about your day. How does God’s law figure in to your day?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
If we agree on me-ism – we would agree on Edwards?
1) I’m not dismissing the Resurrection (perhaps it would be good to examine your beliefs to see if you have some doecism trying to sneak under your radar?) – I’m trying to point out the dismissal of the crucifixion. Have we died and been buried with Christ in baptism or not? If not, Edwards pietism is fine. If yes, we die to self daily and live in Christ who is our justification, sanctification, wisdom, and so forth (present tense) with the certain hope of being resurrected with him with all of those benefits (future tense). We have been justified, given a deposit in this temporal life, and the Holy Spirit is at work in us (present tense). Important distinctions when dealing with the road you want to approve. Self indulgence in Edwards’ sophisticated me-ism is not death to self. A little self-indulgence is like saying I want to be a little pregnant – t’aint no such thing. There is enough law in the Bible to kill that Old Adam in us without excursions into self-indulgent speculations. Old Adam is not trainable – that why he has to be put to death – he resuscitates himself when he’s fed me-ism and would love to cloak himself with the “right” affections.
2) I don’t have time to do a proper explanation of the Lutheran view of the third use of the law. I will try to look into that at another time or you can google for one. As for justification (grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone), this is our center and it’s unwise to not keep it central – much of what salvation means is inexplicable and future tense. If you want to pull back the curtain with Edwards and want to try to see God’s hidden work in yourself or in others – all I can say is wrong (nasty buzzer signaling wrong answer in the background) and tell you to get your eyes off of yourself – die! to self and get your eyes on serving the people around you. God had promised you salvation and he is sanctifying you. Trust him and resist the temptation to speculate on things you cannot know.
3) What do I focus on each day? I certainly don’t try to figure out how to not sin or rely on how I feel. I put my whole trust into the objective truth of God’s mercy for me in Christ. I deal with the work that is set before me each day and the denial of my pietistic nature’s desire to focus on me (or make it all about me) instead of what the people around me need (other focused). Do I flunk? Sure, but it’s a life of daily denial of self, repentance, and faith in Christ. For I have died and been buried with Christ in baptism. Until my body is a corpse, Judgment day arrives, and I am resurrected from the dead (the sum of my salvation) – I have to deal with dying daily and living in a temporal world.
P.S. Please don’t nitpick – this is a rough outline – ok? Pax.
P.S. Jeff – can’t spell today – that’s docetism and guess where my brain is today since it’s Good Friday?
Jeff, I don’t know the origins of German pietism. But why can’t we call Edwards and English pietist? There was a lot of transferrence among anti-broad church Protestants in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Either way, Edwards fits the definition of pietism in several ways.
Lily: If we agree on me-ism – we would agree on Edwards?
Not if we disagree on the facts. I don’t consider Edwards nearly as me-ist as you do, apparently. But if we agreed on the facts, we would certainly agree on the diagnosis. Out with me-ism!
Lily: perhaps it would be good to examine your beliefs to see if you have some doecism trying to sneak under your radar?
Why would I try to identify my own theological faults when others do it for me so readily?
Hi Jeff,
Yeah, shuffle, shuffle of feet with red face… you are right about the docetism – definitely went too far. May I plead Good Friday brain, not meaning it as an accusation but well-intentioned stupidity, offer an apology, and eat crow?
I am thankful for what we agree on, but Edwards is still an area we don’t see eye-to-eye. I can’t see myself changing my view of his work as feeding the Old Adam with sophisticated me-ism. And seeing Edwards as being not nearly as me-ist reminds me of an alcoholic switching from Scottish whiskey to 3.2 beer because it doesn’t have as much alcohol. If it was a secular work, I wouldn’t have such strong objections to it – if that makes sense.
Lily, it does. We expect poison bits in secular works and therefore digest them carefully.
I would suggest that we should actually do the same with Christian works. There’s much to criticize about Edwards’ Religious Affections (I did!), but there’s something there of value there, too.
Here are two such things:
(1) Edwards’ method is to “be a friend to the good and an opponent of the bad.”
I find that method to be more in keeping with the method of Scripture, than to define a group of “theological heroes” around whom one rallies. (I’m speaking generally here, not at you).
(2) If we understand “true religion” as “the fruit of salvation”, then Edwards appears to be correct that the fruit of salvation includes a change in our affections. From a Scriptural point of view, who can argue that the fruit of the Spirit includes love, joy, peace, patience, etc.? Or as the Confession says,
1. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
2. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.
3. Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. — WCoF 15.1-3.
or again,
All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. — WCoF 10.1
Now, you and I agree (I think) that these things are works of God that we cannot create in ourselves, and that it is no use to try. But we should also agree, should we not, that these works of God are *real* and do accompany salvation?
There is an analogy here with following the Law. We agree that law-keeping is non-salvific, and that attempting to keep the law out of the power of the flesh is to betray the Gospel.
But we also agree, do we not, that the work of God in our lives is to make our hearts more desirous of following His law through the Spirit?
That desire to follow God’s law (which Luther taught (Concord VI.11), borrowing from Augustine, borrowing from Paul) is precisely the same as Edwards’ “holy affections.”
So where’s the complaint with that?!
In fact, Luther even taught a bit of self-examination:
Let every one, then, see to it that he esteem this commandment great and high above all things, and do not regard it as a joke. Ask and examine your heart diligently, and you will find whether it cleaves to God alone or not. If you have a heart that can expect of Him nothing but what is good, especially in want and distress, and that, moreover, renounces and forsakes everything that is not God, then you have the only true God. If, on the contrary, it cleaves to anything else, of which it expects more good and help than of God, and does not take refuge in Him, but in adversity flees from Him, then you have an idol, another god. — Larger Catechism, 1st Commandment
Now, Edwards falters greatly when it comes to carefully distinguishing law and gospel in his treatment of affections. But that there *are* affections, caused by God, which are evidences of faith? I think he’s right.
Lily, I’m sorry — I didn’t mean to be churlish about your apology. I forgive you.
Have a great Sunday!
Jeff
Jeff – you were not churlish and many thanks for being forgiven. I was really out-of-line.
We most certainly agree about being careful in any kind of reading. I think I get rowdy about Christian books because not everyone has enough catechesis to sift them like you can. You did give good criticisms of Edwards and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Here are my responses to your outline (I put them in the order presented):
1) Sigh… I still prefer cleaner wells and solid theologians who don’t need so much sifting to find the wheat.
2) If we understand “true religion” as “the fruit of salvation”
While it’s true that our hearts are changed and there is the fruit of the Holy Spirit – do you know how weird that sounds to my ears? It doesn’t sit right and I haven’t put my finger on why yet – but I’d bet you a dollar to a donut it’s shifting the emphasis of something that shouldn’t be shifted.
As usual, I can’t comment on your confessions. While we agree that salvation is the work of God, I think we differ on whether we can identify, measure, or quantify it in ourselves or others. Gerhard Forde expresses my sentiments as well as other oldsters:
“But if we are saved and sanctified only by the unconditional grace of God, we ought to be able to become more truthful and lucid about the way things really are with us. Am I making progress? If I am really honest, it seems to me that the question is odd, even a little ridiculous. As I get older and death draws nearer, I don’t seem to be getting better. I get a little more impatient, a little more anxious about having perhaps missed what this life has to offer, a little slower, harder to move, a little more sedentary and set in my ways. Am I making progress? Well, maybe it seems as though I sin less, but that may only be because I’m getting tired! It’s just too hard to keep indulging the lusts of youth. Is that sanctification? I wouldn’t think so! One should not, I expect, mistake encroaching senility for sanctification! But can it be, perhaps, that it is precisely the unconditional gift of grace that helps me to see and admit all that? I hope so. The grace of God should lead us to see the truth about ourselves, and to gain a certain lucidity, a certain humor, a certain down-to-earthness.” (Christian Spirituality)
3) That desire to follow God’s law (which Luther taught (Concord VI.11), borrowing from Augustine, borrowing from Paul) is precisely the same as Edwards’ “holy affections.” So where’s the complaint with that?!
HUGE complaint. Reread the Luther from your previous comment (below). Luther’s focus and emphasis is on faith in Christ there is no mention of affections or fruit production.
Let every one, then, see to it that he esteem this commandment great and high above all things, and do not regard it as a joke. Ask and examine your heart diligently, and you will find whether it cleaves to God alone or not. If you have a heart that can expect of Him nothing but what is good, especially in want and distress, and that, moreover, renounces and forsakes everything that is not God, then you have the only true God. If, on the contrary, it cleaves to anything else, of which it expects more good and help than of God, and does not take refuge in Him, but in adversity flees from Him, then you have an idol, another god. — Larger Catechism, 1st Commandment
See this also from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord
5] 4. Now, as regards the distinction between the works of the Law and the fruits of the Spirit, we believe, teach, and confess that the works which are done according to the Law are and are called works of the Law as long as they are only extorted from man by urging the punishment and threatening of God’s wrath.
6] 5. Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7:25; 8:7; Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2.
You will never find Edwardsean thinking in any of the Lutheran Confessions or Luther’s work. So… we are back to square one on Edwards.
P.S. Jeff – and a blessed Pascha to you!
Hi Jeff,
I think I’m beginning to understand why #2 [If we understand “true religion” as “the fruit of salvation”] does not sit right with me. The term “true religion” is strange because salvation is true religion. The term appears to be more of pietism’s efforts to discern nominal believers from true believers or trying to separate tares and wheat. For what is salvation?
“Salvation is a gift of God by which we come to the right knowledge of Christ as our Redeemer in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him that for the sake of His obedience alone we have, by grace, the forgiveness of sins, are regarded as holy and righteous before God the Father, and eternally saved.”
The newest Christian is just as saved as oldest Christian. It is the confession of faith in Christ for me. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
The term “fruits of salvation” doesn’t sit right either because it is not a synonym for the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is a package deal for if we are saved there will be good works and the fruit of the Holy Spirit. If we want to speak of maturing in what we have received (salvation), then – growth in the grace of God for us in Christ – seems the better expression of what happens over time and avoids the pietistic pitfall of trying to separate believers into hierarchies or trying to determine who are true or false believers by their good works of the fruit of the Holy Spirit which is an exercise in speculative and subjective standards.
There is wisdom in facing the fact that many weaknesses and defects cling to the true believers and truly regenerate, even to the grave, still they must not on that account doubt either their righteousness which has been imputed to them by faith, or the salvation of their souls, but must regard it as certain that for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and [immovable] Word of the holy Gospel, they have a gracious God. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
Does that help clear up my objections to #2?