Yes, I may be OCD but my apparent fixation on Edwards has as much to do with current writing projects as taking the pulse of experimental Calvinists. Edwards’ biography David Brainerd has occupied a few mornings this week for a chapter on Calvinism and foreign missions. So sue me.
If Edwards’ defenders are still reading, and if they still think the First Pretty Good Awakening great, then perhaps they could help us all figure out what Edwards was thinking when he wrote this about Brainerd’s conversion and piety:
His first discovery of God, of Christ, at his conversion, was not any strong idea of any external glory or brightness, or majesty and beauty of countenance, or pleasant voice; nor was it any supposed immediate manifestation of God’s love to him in particular; nor any imagination of Christ’s smiling face, arms open, or words immediately spoken to him, as by name, revealing Christ’s love to him; either words of Scripture or any other: but a manifestation of God’s glory, and the beauty of his nature, as supremely excellent in itself; powerfully drawing, and sweetly captivating the heart; bringing him to a hearty desire to exalt God, set him on the throne, and give him supreme honor and glory, as the king and sovereign of the universe; and also a new sense of the infinite wisdom, suitableness, and excellency of the way of salvation by Christ; powerfully engaging his whole soul to embrace this way of salvation, and to delight in it.
Okay, so this is the standard starting point of Christian hedonism. Genuine faith begins with the convert being enraptured with God. Self-interest is forbidden. The aim of faith is to glorify and exalt God, and to deny the self and renounce pride. This description is, for that matter, close to Edwards’ own account of his own conversion.
But Edwards goes on to contrast Brainerd’s conversion with either an inferior or illegitimate kind:
His first faith did not consist in believing that Christ loved him, and died for him in particular. His first comfort was not from any secret suggestion of God’s eternal love to him, or that God was reconciled to him, or intended great mercy for him; by any such texts as these, “Son be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee. Fear not I am thy God,” &c. or in any such way. On the contrary, when God’s glory was first discovered to him, it was without any thought of salvation as his own. His first experience of the sanctifying and comforting power of God’s Spirit did not begin in some bodily sensation, any pleasant warm feeling in his breast, that he (as some others) called the feeling of the love of Christ in him, and being full of the Spirit. How exceeding far were his experiences at his first conversion from things of such a nature! (Life of David Brainered, (1835], 249)
Hence, the question “what must I do to be saved” is the wrong question to ask for someone seeking salvation. Instead, Edwards seems to prefer “how must I glorify and hedonistically enjoy God?” But as close as that question is to the start of the Shorter Catechism, it is several steps removed from “What is effectual calling?” “Effectual calling is the work of God’s spirit whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he enables us to embrace Christ freely offered to us in the gospel.”
The Shorter Catechism would appear to be describing something close to the beginning of genuine belief in a Christian, and it says very little about the glory of God. It says much about the sinner’s need, and Christ’s remedy for sin, not to mention the work of the Spirit.
So I wonder what Edwards was thinking, and why so many evangelical Calvinists find his devotion appealing.
Old Life 
That second quote is worrisome.
LikeLike
I (a) amn’t an Evangelical, (b) have no special insight into Edwards’ thoughts and (c) am on the point of piping down and bowing out altogether, but if I may, I’m not sure that you’re reading these excerpts right.
1) There’s a difference between describing and prescribing. There’s also a difference between identifying one alternative from a set of options, as a matter of describing with precision vs dismissing the other possible options.
2) The contrast in the second excerpt is (I would think) between “knowing that Christ is MY Saviour” and “knowing that Christ is THE Saviour”. This is the pastoral issue addressed in LC81, that someone might be genuinely trusting in Christ for salvation without knowing that they’re doing so. In the context of limited atonement it’s also the difference between trusting in Christ as the Saviour who died for sinners (indefinitely) and the Saviour who died for me (specifically).
3) It seems to me that Edwards’ descriptions here are not intended to discourage believers into thinking their experience is inferior, but on the contrary to say something like, “You don’t need to have assurance in order to believe. You don’t need a word from heaven addressed to you by name. You don’t need to expect bodily sensations when you believe. Look at this godly man – his first experiences didn’t consist in either of these things, and neither need yours.”
4) Self-interest isn’t forbidden here, just not mentioned. The God-ward direction of these descriptions is I think in line with the “objective” aspect of faith that we discussed on the other post – faith goes out to God outside of itself, as opposed to bringing anything (including emotions) to God. Often in this kind of genre, although I’m not especially familiar with David Brainerd, these God-centred experiences come late in the day, after some miserable experience of failed attempts to do something, or be something, or have something in relation to God in the matter of salvation – what a relief then, and who would not worship God, when he shows them the actual way of free salvation by Christ. Not that this is the only possible kind of experience, let me add, as they usually do, but it does happen to some people.
5) Effectual calling is definitely the right place to look for the SC’s description of the beginnings of genuine belief. The experiences described here would probably fit under the clause “enlightening the mind in the knowledge of Christ” and possibly “embracing” Christ offered in the gospel. I wouldn’t be so ready to say so, mind you, if it wasn’t already very clear that Edwards was an orthodox, well-catechised kind of man.
On Christian hedonism, it’s an uncomfortable idea because it purports to glorify God while your own interests are centre-stage. By contrast, a puritan says, “God would have his people serve him for himself, and not for comfort only. Such as serve God only for comfort do not so much serve God, as serve themselves of him.” Thomas Watson on the Beatitudes. The line from Edwards(ianism) to Piper isn’t quite as direct as you’re making out.
LikeLike
I’d be interested to year your gloss on the following from Vos:
“To do the good and reject the evil from a reasoned insight into their respective natures is a noble thing, but it is a still nobler thing to do so out of regard for the nature of God, and the noblest thing of all is the ethical strength, which, when required, will act from personal attachment to God, without for the moment enquiring into these more abstruse reasons. The pure delight in obedience adds to the ethical value of a choice.”
It’s true that he isn’t talking about conversion here, but there’s still something vaguely Edwardsian about it, i.e. some kind of preference for actions based on “personal attachment,” something which could, I think, be fairly described as one’s “affections.”
I happen to think Vos is dead on here, which is why some of this stuff coming from Edwards doesn’t trouble me as much as it otherwise would. The interplay between intellect and emotion isn’t something I think we’re ever going to be able to adequately explain.
LikeLike
Cath: 3) It seems to me that Edwards’ descriptions here are not intended to discourage believers into thinking their experience is inferior, but on the contrary to say something like, “You don’t need to have assurance in order to believe.
Good catch. I think it’s important read Edwards in light of his context and not ours.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, even if that’s as basic as the difference in the expectations of the intended audience. When people are brought up in a doctrinal atmosphere where ‘tulip’ isn’t a dirty word, their difficulties in understanding faith and salvation are different from people who aren’t really familiar with any of the basics of the gospel.
From that perspective, things which in Edwards’ or anyone else’s accounts of conversion sound nauseating in today’s ears, are often describing something which isn’t really meant to be anything other than very ordinary. Well, it’s extraordinary in the sense that their affections have a new (ie divine) object, and hopefully a divine origin (regeneration), but it’s meant to be stated in terms which very unassuming believers are actually meant to be able to follow along with.
Often it’s not much more than describing how, to the soul being effectually called, the doctrines of grace, or the gospel promises, somehow have a new way of catching your attention and raising your appreciation of things you knew by rote from your earliest days (everyone *knows* that God has mercy on sinners, but wait, really? God actually has mercy? on actual sinners? like me? can this be true?) Forget angelic visitations and voices from heaven – make it as basic as where your thoughts like to turn, or the fact that you have a good opinion of God’s way of salvation.
And there was of course always the added concern that if you’re only meant to believe some true thing, how can you possibly exercise faith on the proposition “Christ died for me,” when you don’t know yet whether Christ died for you. You can’t. All sorts of turmoils and confusions for poor souls newly blinking in the light of the growing realisation of the personal significance of questions like, ‘how shall a man be just with God.’ Edwards, Doddridge, Shepard, Matthew Henry, … – it was a pastor’s heart that led these men to publish a lot of what they did. And see also the ‘objections’ and ‘uses’ in weighty theological treatises like Thomas Goodwin on Justifying Faith or Owen’s Christologia, or for that matter Pneumatologia – they were just as concerned about the effects of doctrine in personal experience as they were about accuracy in establishing the doctrine itself, as all our best theologians always have been. Edwards is really neither as unique nor as blameworthy as it’s become trendy to think.
LikeLike
I’m glad Edwards may not be advocating some sort of emotional me-focused conversion experience, and is perhaps pointing to a more objective understanding of salvation. Nevertheless, it seems that Brainerd’s “conversion” in Edwards’ description (particularly the first sentence of the second quotation) is lacking several key components as described in WLC 72.
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
While Edwards may be trying to correct an inappropriate type of subjective experience, the WLC indicates that there must be conviction of one’s sin and understanding that the work of Christ is the solution. If he’s not denying these things, it’s at least unclear from the passages quoted above whether he affirms them.
Whether Edwards is denying this here or not, personally, I’d rather not approach God apart from Christ. That sounds like hell to me.
LikeLike
Cath,
Re: And there was of course always the added concern that if you’re only meant to believe some true thing, how can you possibly exercise faith on the proposition “Christ died for me,” when you don’t know yet whether Christ died for you. You can’t”
Why are you so sure that Christ died for me is not enough? Does a person have to understand the body of work beneath that confession of faith to believe and receive salvation? Do you allow for growth in grace? Do you consider the bruised reed and flickering wick? Or is someone to be judged as lacking faith if they do not fit the full-blown criteria of a mature believer? Have mustard seeds ceased to count? Have you forgotten Richard Sibbes work in your litany of authors?
LikeLike
Cath,
If Christ died for me is not enough…. what on earth did the Christians believe in order to be saved before there were Bibles, the WCF, Dordts’ TULIP answer to the Armenians, and the Puritans to explore every nook and cranny and tell us their opinion on everything from A to Z. Were they nominal Christians too?
LikeLike
Cath,
Re: “Edwards’ or anyone else’s accounts of conversion sound nauseating”
Isn’t that why we eschew personal testimonies and stick to testifying to what Christ has done: his suffering, death, and resurrection on our behalf? Is it not the Holy Spirits work in someone that gives them the faith to believe Christ died for me?
LikeLike
Why are you using an obsure version to which few have access? Why not cite it in the Banner of Truth, Hendrickson, or Yale (free online) version? It would allow us Edwardsites to interact with it better.
On a side not, those descriptions remind me of the first time I met J.H. 😉 awwwwww
(Sorry couldn’t resist that. yes I know i’m an *&*(- but I know you would see it)
LikeLike
Are there Calvinists who are not evangelical? And how is that possible?
LikeLike
Aw man.
Lily, it’s not that believing “Christ died for me” is not enough, it’s actually too much. Saving faith lays hold of certainties. It is not a certainty that Christ died for *me* unless I have evidence of being regenerated and effectually called. The evidence of my regeneration and effectual calling and part in Christ’s atonement is my faith. Therefore, I cannot be called to believe that Christ died *for me* as the starting point. Believing “that Christ died for me” is otherwise known as assurance of salvation. It is different from believing that Christ died “for sinners just like me” which is in fact the true starting point, the rock solid certainty on which every single gospel hearer is obliged to exercise faith here and now.
Lily, if your confession is different from my confession on this point, then we’re never going to agree. Furthermore, agreement between you and me on this point is not going to change the fact that this precise controversy is the crucial explanatory context for vast swathes of otherwise complicated-to-incomprehensible pastoral literature. So if we can avoid debating the truth or falsity of this set of propositions right now, that would probably be a good thing, as I raised the issue only to provide background for the quotes in the original post.
I think that this point will also address Tim T’s concerns. The Westminster catechisms do not incorporate “died *for me*” into their definitions of saving faith. The “for me” bit belongs strictly speaking to assurance, and not to the essence of saving faith. (This is specifically stated in WCF 18.3 and LC 81.) Note again that even if you disagree with this teaching, it is essential to understand it in order to understand where so much of Edwards and his likeminded colleagues is coming from.
On Calvinism and Evangelicalism, providentially I can safely leave that one to DGH or someone to pick up.
LikeLike
BJ, you’re kidding, right? Pentecostals are evangelical. So if Calvinists are evangelical then Calvinists are Pentecostal?
LikeLike
Oops, Cath! I am so sorry I missed your comment. I just saw it and have yet to read it – I will reply as soon as possible, but it may be tomorrow. Thanks!
LikeLike
Hi Cath,
Re: Saving faith lays hold of certainties. It is not a certainty that Christ died for *me* unless I have evidence of being regenerated and effectually called. The evidence of my regeneration and effectual calling and part in Christ’s atonement is my faith. Therefore, I cannot be called to believe that Christ died *for me* as the starting point. Believing “that Christ died for me” is otherwise known as assurance of salvation. It is different from believing that Christ died “for sinners just like me” which is in fact the true starting point, the rock solid certainty on which every single gospel hearer is obliged to exercise faith here and now.
Thanks Cath, I appreciate you reminding me that this is a Reformed distinctive. I try to avoid our tradition’s distinctives, but I had a senior moment and forgot it. I’d ask to drop the subject and hope you will accept my apology for going all Lutheran on you?
Re: Furthermore, agreement between you and me on this point is not going to change the fact that this precise controversy is the crucial explanatory context for vast swathes of otherwise complicated-to-incomprehensible pastoral literature.
Please don’t talk down to me. I’ve read more than you may realize and know why I disagree.
Re: Edwards and his likeminded colleagues
My concerns about pietism still stand. Pietism is not unique to any one tradition.
LikeLike
Cath’s first post says just about all that needs saying.Thank you.
LikeLike
Ryan, like much of what Vos writes, I am not sure how clear this is, especially not seeing it in context. But I’m not particularly bothered by it the way that Edwards contrasts salvation for me vs. the glory of God, as if Heidelberg Q&A 1 is self-interested. Edwards’ idea of disinterested benevolence gets the better of him I think.
LikeLike
Cath and Lily,
Before we take the Assembly’s views on assurance as THE Reformed view, it’s not bad to keep in mind how skimpy the 16th c. Reformed creeds were on the labyrinth of internal developments in the life of the believer.
For instance, here is the Second Helvetic Confession on Repentance (chap. 14):
There is plenty here (look at all those adverbs) for the pietistically inclined, but not the search internally for assurance.
Or consider Heidelberg on faith:
Or Heidelberg on Conversion:
Again, plenty here to invite self-examination, but not the kind of detail that might produce Christian hedonism. Which suggests to me the effects of Puritan practical divinity on the Westminster Confession, and an inward movement from the 16th to the 17th centuries in Reformed circles.
The point, though, is that Cath’s take on assurance is not THE Reformed tradition.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If I promise, swear, cross my heart and hope to die, that I’m not plugging Christian hedonism, will you believe me?
I think it’s fairly well accepted that problems of assurance didn’t really arise in the Reformed church until after the first wave of reformation.
I also happen to think that once these problems did arise, the Westminster way of addressing them is the best we have (most consistent with scripture, and most pastorally sensitive).
Be that as it may, it remains inappropriate to read people from that background without respect to the context they were operating in.
If you want ANOTHER Reformed tradition, it might be interesting to demonstrate exactly how far it could possibly diverge from Westminster while still remaining Reformed.
LikeLike
Many, many thanks for the clarification, Dr. Hart. I greatly appreciate it. I also appreciated the historical time frame. Bishop FitzSimons Allison wrote a book on the history of the Anglican tradition and, if I remember correctly, he saw the gospel starting to be drowned out by the law after Thomas Cranmer died. I tend to associate the inward movement mainly with a loss or muting of the gospel. Is that a fair way to view it or is that faulty?
LikeLike
Cath, are you sure your fingers aren’t crossed? Kidding. I believe you. But is the Westminster approach the only solution to the problem of assurance? BTW, what exactly was the problem? Could it be that the problem started with some of the introspective piety that developed with the likes of Baxter and Bayly (the original, not the Twin Towers Bayly Bros)? After all, Reformed churches existed outside the UK and they did not take positions like those of the Divines.
At the same time, just shooting from the hip, I wonder if the best pastoral way to address a believer’s doubts is through a confessional document. Wouldn’t pastoral counsel be a better approach? After all, given the variety of human experiences and backgrounds, can one creedal statement fit all pious sizes?
LikeLike
Lily, I hesitate answering the question since I’ve been dressed down for not knowing what I’m talking about when it comes to Presbyterians and Puritans. I’ll stand my ground when it comes to North America. Either way, I think the law-gospel distinction could have worked wonders for Edwards and Brainerd.
LikeLike
DGH: Cath, are you sure your fingers aren’t crossed? Kidding. I believe you. But is the Westminster approach the only solution to the problem of assurance? BTW, what exactly was the problem?…
(1) You may correct my ignorance, but I thought the assurance problem has its origins in the early church, leading to the so-called sacrament of penance, and addressed by the so-called remedy of indulgences, which led to the reformation because of the decided lack of assurance on the part of one M. Luther. *Poof* 1.5 centuries in one sentence.
If this is correct, then we ought to see teachings on assurance as refutations of Catholic teachings on assurance.
And in particular, I would point to the articles of Trent on assurance as one of the doctrines being refuted in the Confession; which would possibly explain why the Confession is more detailed than other, earlier documents.
(2) Wouldn’t it make sense to compare apples to apples here? Heidelberg Q1, 69, 75, 81, 82, 90 seem more relevant to assurance than the definition of saving faith. Some of those questions-and-answers are quite objective; some quite subjective.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Big ouch on the dressing down and I appreciate your courage in standing your ground. As you well know, contending for a clear gospel is not easy, but well worth it. Kyrie eleison and chairo to you (KJV 2 Jn 1:10-11).
LikeLike
P.S. For some who might misunderstand, I’m applying KJV 2 Jn 1:10-11 in it’s positive (or opposite) meaning of the command.
LikeLike
Speaking of 2nd Helvetic, this strikes me as just right: Let Christ, therefore be the looking glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination. We shall have a sufficiently clear and sure testimony that we are inscribed in the Book of Life if we have fellowship with Christ, and he is ours and we are his in true faith.
LikeLike
Rev. Chris Gordon had an interesting post a while back on the differences in the Reformed tradition on the relationship between saving faith and assurance:
http://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2010/10/william-perkins-versus-westminster.html
LikeLike
As a follow-up, Perkins’ position seems to make assurance more objective while Westminster seems to make it more subjective.
I could be way off on that, so please correct me if I am.
LikeLike
And the interesting thing is that Calvin is *highly* objective in his view of assurance. And *still* he makes room for “religious affections.”
I think we could do the same, no?
—
(Teaser for the ANS Lane article: For Calvin the ground of assurance does not lie within ourselves. It is not our faith or our works or our experience of the Holy Spirit. These can play a secondary role as a confirmation of or an aid to our assurance. But the primary ground of assurance is objective. It is the Gospel, the mercy of God, the free promise of justification in Christ.)
LikeLike
Jeff,
I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that we do not have religious affections. Is this another pendulum swing?
LikeLike
The problem of assurance – on the one hand it presumably does include the dispute with Catholic teachings on whether assurance of salvation was possible at all, but on the other hand, it’s the problem of how to deal with unassured believers.
That is obviously an apparent contradiction in terms, “unassured believer”, and it’s true that it doesn’t seem to have bothered the earliest Reformers, who seem to have been given faith and assurance simultaneously (and uninterruptedly?). But faith and assurance are indeed distinct, eg as per the first epistle of John, where he’s writing to believers with the specific purpose of showing them how they could *know* they were believers and get the comfort of it.
Distinguishing faith from assurance does actually help to keep the objective and the subjective in their proper place … bear with me … faith lays hold of Christ, who is certainly revealed in Scripture and who is utterly trust-worthy, but assurance is the self-perception of the soul exercising faith that it has indeed exercised faith. So by safeguarding the “bareness” of faith, that to be saved you *only* need to lay hold of Christ regardless of how you might feel about yourself, the Westminster position is meant to actually clear up a lot of unnecessary soulsearching. They present assurance as a great benefit and definitely something to aspire to, but you can be a weak believer with minimal comfort about yourself and still be saved. It’s meant to be a corrective, not an invitation, to undue introspection.
On pastoral counsel, well, I’m no pastor, but surely pastoral counsel has to come from clear biblical truth, and that truth needs to be formulated somehow. The benefit of counselling from Westminster is that the “long wait” and the “many difficulties” which some believers may be troubled by, needn’t flummox anyone – the certainty is all about Christ, not about me, which fixes the gospel firmly and yet allows scope for uncertainty about myself. (Not that uncertainty about yourself is a good thing, but where it does exist, it doesn’t mean the situation is hopeless, that spiritual life is nonexistent.) See even LC 172.
The constant refrain though is that the Christian’s comfort comes from Christ *for* us and not the Spirit *in* us. The work of the Spirit in us is the evidence of the work of Christ for us, and on that basis it needs to be recognised or discerned (and it is both reconisable and discernible), but first and foremost it’s a question of receiving and resting on Christ alone for everything.
LikeLike
I think maybe the point of including assurance in the essence of faith is to make assurance itself objective. So, it is not that one must believe and then FEEL assured in order to know that they are reconciled to God; rather, if one believes, he IS ASSURED (notice the indicative) of God favor to him through Christ. As Dr. Horton put it, “You don’t feel assured? That’s not what I asked. I ASSURE YOU, if you believe you are reconciled to God.”
LikeLike
The distinction between Christ for us (outside) and Christ in me (inside) is important. The two different locations show the difference between orthodoxy’s and pietism’s emphases. Think about it – the orthodox position keeps our eyes looking outward because salvation always comes to us from outside of us. Christ crucified is outside of us. The imputation of righteousness comes from outside of us. Sanctification comes from outside of us. The means of grace come to us from outside of us. The Holy Spirit takes what is Christ’s and gives it to us – it comes from outside of us. We look outside of ourselves for our help comes from the Lord: Christ for us. The Bible continually teaches that salvation comes from outside of us. If it doesn’t come to us from outside of us – it isn’t the gospel.
The pietist position keeps our eyes looking inward towards Christ in me. Yes, we have the Holy Spirit, but the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit will point us to Christ not to himself. If the Holy Spirit is pointing to Christ, we should be looking outside of ourselves for our help comes from outside of us. Pietism keeps our eyes on the law and looking inside to see what we are doing, how we are feeling, and measuring our spiritual temperature for progress.
The weight of having to examine ourself like this all the time is a far heavier law than Moses. Yet, we put on the yoke of the law and persist with each new method or book to improve our spiritual lives. So… we find ourselves thinking… I need to contemplate Christ and experience him more, pray more, volunteer more, feel the right emotions more, or whatever other religious activity. But our thinking keeps missing the sufficiency of grace because we are looking inward instead of outward.
With a law heavier than Moses on us, we will not be able to keep up the level of religious intensity that is demanded by an inward focus. Fallen men, even regenerated men, cannot keep up that level of commitment and energy for long periods of time. That is why grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone is sufficient for us and why it comes to us from outside of us.
Our only hope of having the strength to live the Christian life is to look outside of ourselves and see: Christ for us – the crucified Christ who said – it is finished. And to attend to the means of grace. Our strength comes from outside of us. And guess what? Our assurance comes from outside of us too. 😉
LikeLike
Nate,
Re: I ASSURE YOU, if you believe you are reconciled to God.
Amen.
LikeLike
Lily: I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that we do not have religious affections.
Well, perhaps it was a misunderstanding. As I was experiencing the conversation, it went something like this:
DGH/Zrim/Lily: Talk of religious affections is pietistic!
Me: But some non-pietists talk about religious affections. So can’t we qualify this?
D/Z/L: More pietism!
…
Clearly I missed something!
JRC
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Re: Pietism – Clearly I missed something!
Hang in there. It takes time to start seeing the differences between orthodoxy and pietism, but you will begin to see the differences like the blind man that Jesus used his spittle and dirt from the earth to give him sight – it’s blurry at first – and we all go through it to one degree or another (regarding understanding pietism).
Please do not ask me to explain it for I am not competent. I’m better at addressing it where I see it – it may be helpful to look at a couple of my long comments where I’m trying to make contrasts between the two and the ‘You might be a pietist if… list’ at the beginning of this thread – I think it’s this thread (can’t remember for sure). Be aware that it is mainly 1) in the teaching and 2) in the focus (eg: inward or outward). God will show you, teach you, and work in you his way and in his time. Trust him – he will do it.
LikeLike
Lily: Thanks, but I wasn’t saying that I missed the difference between orthodoxy and pietism. I was saying that I must have missed something with regard to what you were saying.
It seems that you are not saying, then, that all talk of religious affection is out of court?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not convinced you are seeing the differences… it’s not a matter of having religious affections or not – we all have them. Nor is it a matter of whether we have daily prayer and devotions. For lack of a better way to put it: it’s not about our good works, spiritual experiences, or our affections (we all have them).
There is a difference in focus. There is a difference in teaching. We are all pietists by nature and have a theology that wants to make it all about me. The work of the cross is in the past and the essence of christian life becomes seeing improvement in ourselves and it should be empirically verifiable. The focus is on me and my sanctification, and working out my salvation by moving from vice to virtue (moralism) instead of seeing the cross and Christ crucified and receiving the Lord’s Supper as the power and joy of the Christian life.
Pietism wants heartfelt, animated, lively Christians and is willing to use almost any means or teaching to produce those results – the means are normally manipulative and the teaching used is the law to drive Christians to good works instead of Christ. The cross is in the past and I am here to do the Christian life and I have a lot of work to do on myself. Until we are convinced we cannot keep the law, we will not abandon pietism’s moralism and until we are convinced that Christ crucified and the means of grace are enough, we will not abandon our attempts to seek to improve ourselves by man-made methods designed to increase our spiritual experiences and will not abandon trying to use religious activities as a means of grace to improve our spiritual lives – see the recurring theme – me, me, me.
Ever see the sappy nice evangelical Christian who is so servile that you want to gag? That’s a pretty obvious example of how we misshape ourselves when using our means instead of letting God do what he wants to do. A more subtle way is using Edwards’ Affections to shape and form you by letting them be a guide. I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth is best served straight-up – we’re dealing with a ton of speculation on what makes a Christian a Christian via affections and other such criteria in Edwards’ book and we start judging ourselves and others by his criteria instead of God’s. God is trustworthy – let the Bible, good dogma, and the Holy Spirit shape you. Not some self-help book and it’s criteria or methods to produce or improve the latest attribute that you’re trying to see change in.
Whew, that’s a long one, but please consider the fact that you are a born-bred pietist like the rest of us and there are two general paths: orthodoxy and pietism
LikeLike
Lily, I’m currently re-reading Edwards, so I’ll have to withhold comment on him until I’m finished. Have you read On Religious Affections recently?
—
I’m glad that we agree that Christ crucified and the means of grace are enough.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I always love it when we agree. 🙂
As for Edwards’ Affections, I’ll look forward to the book report. And, no I have not read it recently. I read it around 6-7 years ago because of a Presby friend’s insistence and once was enough for me.
LikeLike
Good job Lily- you make me proud to be a Lutheran. I’m out of the loop here- I guess I’m too much of a sinner to be considered anymore. It’s refreshing to hear you stick to your guns. I think the root of the issue is between pietism and orthodoxy and never the twain shall meet; even though we keep trying to reconcile them (the objective and subjective work of the Holy Spirit). Lutherans are a stubborn bunch on that issue- thank God for that.
I’m not sure that Darryl’s take on repentance from the earlier Reformed confessions is a way the Lutherans would frame repentance either. Our repentance is always incomplete, imperfect and mingled with our sin as Korey Mass’s paper explained. The gift seems to get mangled by and with our sin. As I have stated on numerous occasions it is a Lutheran I would turn to when struggling with sin and especially when I have fallen into an egregious sin.
LikeLike
Did not mean to come across in a negative way about Calvinists. I know we have our differences and that is why our traditions veered from one another. The scriptures do not seem to give us any easy answers to our differences either. The discussion certainly has been a good one again. It is not easy to wrestle with these issues.
LikeLike
However, John the Baptist certainly did not mince his words about repentance and bringing forth the fruits therein.
LikeLike
Darryl, I thought of this Old Life post & discussion while at church today. In his sermon this evening Dr. Tim Keller cited Jonathan Edwards approvingly as having taught that it was possible for non-regenerate folk to be attracted to God’s love or his power “for selfish reasons,” but not to God holiness. With that comment and so much buzz over Edwards this week all in various Reformed quarters, I had to wonder if Keller had been following the discussion.
LikeLike
Thanks, John, the praise embarrasses me – a couple of times, I have wondered if I’m caused harm rather than good – it’s hard to navigate the distinctives – I keep finding myself unexpectedly stepping into them even though I try hard to avoid them.
I would guess that if you jump in, you will find yourself in the loop. At this point, I’m looking forward to stepping out when these threads die down. You are so right about the difference a theology of the cross makes for sinners. None of the expectations that a theology of glory wants to impose, but instead we are pointed to Christ alone. I will not say anymore since your later comment apologized for sounding harsh on Calvinism and I fear I may be in the same boat for my approach to some things. But, hey, we cuss more and sing bad rap – isn’t that the way the joke goes? 😉
LikeLike
Joseph, So you think Keller was responsible for shutting down DeYoung’s post?
LikeLike
Darryl, No I don’t think so. Do you?
LikeLike
This is a bit belated but can I go back to what Nate said about faith and assurance.
Including assurance in the essence of faith doesn’t make either of them any more or less objective. Although they do often go together, they are different things with different objects and different effects. Faith is believing on Christ for salvation. Assurance is believing that I’ve believed on Christ for salvation. Faith unites the believer to Christ. Assurance gives the believer comfort and encouragement.
It’s completely true to say that when someone exercises faith in Christ, then they are saved, and their salvation is sure. If you believe, then it is sure and certain that you are reconciled to God and that you have God’s favour – all the benefits of Christ’s mediation belong to the believer, whether they realise it or not (although really, what believer does grasp the hugeness of these benefits).
On the other hand, although “you don’t feel assured?” isn’t always the right question to ask, there is a time and place for asking it, because believers sometimes don’t feel assured, as scripture demonstrates. It’s a perfectly valid question to ask, ‘What grounds do I have for believing that I have believed?’ and sometimes people might not be able to discern any such grounds. So when believers don’t feel assured, there is a place for working out why this is, and for seeking to be given assurance. It could be because of lack of understanding of the freeness and completeness of forgiveness in the gospel scheme of redemption, or it could be because of “manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions,” LC81.
Whatever the case may be, “such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the chldren of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation,” LC80.
Assurance is a gift from the Holy Spirit in the same way as saving faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit. When he gives them both simultaneously, it’s something to be very, very thankful for. When he doesn’t give them both simultaneously, it will ultimately work out for good, but it is very confusing and difficult at the time.
(The LC phrase ‘walking in all good conscience before him’ reminds me that I read somewhere that the problem of assurance in the C17th was not only the problem of unassured believers but also the problem of people claiming to be true believers without a corresponding Christian walk.)
The main point of agreement between the Reformers and the Westminster divines on the nature of saving faith revolves around the question of what it is about faith that saves. In the disputes on the nature of saving faith at the time of the Reformation, it was the element of trust which was stressed. It wasn’t ‘knowledge, assent, trust, plus assurance,’ but just knowledge, assent, and trust.
It always calls for caution when people try to drive a wedge between the Reformers and the Puritans – history, and the Puritans themselves, see them as following very much in the footsteps of the Reformers, with the continuities much more significant than any discontinuities.
LikeLike
Cath, if part of the problem of assurance in the 17thc. was the gap between Christian profession and Christian walk, don’t you think an established church only contributed to the problem? So now that we in the States don’t have established churches, why the need for making faith genuine?
BTW, don’t you think it must look a little insulting from God’s perspective for his children, for whom he gave his only begotten son, to be asking always if God really, really loves them. After all he’s done? That kind of behavior in a spouse does not lead to a healthy marriage.
LikeLike
So, assurance is believing that you believe? And you find out that you really believe by looking at your works? Yikes. I think I’ll take Christ’s absolution of sinners from the liturgy, receive Christ through the preaching of the Gospel, and feed on Christ in the Supper for my assurance.
No one was driving a wedge between the Reformers and the Puritans. I was only pointing out that there seems to be a variety of views on the subject.
LikeLike