Humble Calvinism > Part 19 > What is Faith? Pt. 1 (3.2)

02spurgeonhumcalvinism.jpg

Part 19: What is Faith? Pt. 1 (3.2)

What is faith? Maybe because it sounds elementary, this is not a question we ask much anymore. But church history reminds us of the dangers of an improperly defined (or undefined) answer to this question. Often this question has been wrongly answered by the fruit of faith – like peace, patience, joy, love, etc. — without first coming to understand the object of that faith. The nature of saving faith can never be assumed.01spurgeoncalvin3.jpg

Jonathan Gresham Machen in his classic book, What is Faith? (1925), addressed this problem in his own day.

“Many men, as has already been observed, are telling us that we should not seek to know Him (God) at all; theology, we are told, is the death of religion. We do not know God, then – such deems to be the logical implication of this view – but simply feel Him. In its consistent form such a view is mysticism; religion is reduced to a state of the soul in which the mind and the will are in abeyance. Whatever may be thought of such a religion, I cannot see that it possesses any moral quality at all; pure feeling is non-moral, and so is religion that is not founded upon theology. What makes our love for a true friend, for example, such an ennobling thing is the recognition by our mind of the character of our friend. Human affection, so beautiful in its apparent simplicity, really depends upon a treasured host of observations of the actions of our friend. So it is also in the case of our relation to God. It is because we know certain things about Him, it is because we know that He is mighty and holy and loving, that our communion with Him obtains its peculiar quality. The devout man cannot be indifferent to doctrine, in the sense in which many modern preachers would have us be indifferent, any more than he can listen with equanimity [unmoved] to misrepresentations of an earthly friend. Our faith in God, despite all that is said, is indissolubly connected with what we think of Him” (74-75).

This emphasis on theology in understanding faith (and the impossibility of faith without theology) shows that Machen walked in the tracks left by John Calvin. For Machen and Calvin, What is Faith? is an important question worthy of consideration. Faith must center around an object, and only true faith will prove to be saving faith and bear the ripe fruit of godliness. [Faith and theology always pointed towards godly fruit (see Machen, pp. 183-218)].

This saving faith is an amazing work of a sovereign God in the heart of a spiritually dead sinner. However, as we understand the application of the Gospel to the sinner’s soul, Calvin is concerned that we not misunderstand faith as a subjective emotion bypassing the mind, but rather a faith flowing through the mind as the truth of Christ (theology) is pondered in serious thought and then clutched tightly by the affections. So what is faith?

What faith is NOT (3.2.1-5)

Like Machen, Calvin begins a chapter on faith with a restatement of the Gospel. So before we talk about faith, the object of faith (Christ in the Gospel) needs to be placed on the table. Saving faith is never separated from the Gospel; that God has stated His Law and expects perfect obedience, promises death to all who fail, that as sinners we are utterly unable to achieve perfect obedience to the Law, we have “no trace of good hope,” because we look forward only to eternal death and being cast away from the presence of a holy God. But God. By His grace there is one perfect Mediator, the savior Jesus Christ, sent by the Father in love. He will save sinners if “with a firm faith we embrace this mercy and rest in it with steadfast hope” (542-543). So as we pull a chair up to the table to learn about faith from Calvin, he first sets out the centerpiece of the Gospel. No conversation about faith can take place but in light of this theology.

Before Calvin defines what faith IS he wants to make clear what faith is NOT.

1. Saving faith is NOT a mere conviction that the Gospel is true. The centerpiece of the Gospel sits in the middle of the table. But looking at the Gospel message is not faith. This is a grave danger in Calvin’s mind. He writes “we must scrutinize and investigate the true character of faith with greater care and zeal because many are dangerously deluded today in this respect. Indeed, most people, when they hear this term, understand nothing deeper than a common assent to the gospel history” (543). It is dangerous, Calvin says, to be content with a faith that simply believes the “gospel history” is true.

Several chapters later Calvin returns to this concept in detail,

“Of course, most people believe that there is a God, and they consider that the gospel history and the remaining parts of the Scripture are true. Such a judgment is on a par with the judgment we ordinarily make concerning those things which are either narrated as having once taken place, or which we have seen as eyewitnesses. There are, also, those who go beyond this, holding the Word of God to be an indisputable oracle; they do not utterly neglect his precepts, and are somewhat moved by his threats and promises. To such persons an ascription of faith is made, but by misapplication, because they do not impugn the Word of God with open impiety, or refuse or despise it, but rather pretend a certain show of obedience” (554).

Sinners’ hearts are deceptive and this craftiness is revealed by sinners who are content with a “common assent to the gospel history.” It is one thing for the Cross to be true, still yet another altogether to say the Cross was intended to fulfill MY Law requirements, and give ME the perfect righteousness of Christ. He died for ME! A sinner may continue under the condemnation of the Law even though he believes in the historical accuracy of the Cross. It is possible to believe in truth and only shudder under greater condemnation (Jam. 2:19).

2. Saving faith is NOT a mere faith in God. God dwells in an unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16) and we need One (Christ) to come and reveal the Father to us. That Paul called sinners to believe in Christ is proof enough that saving faith in God is to be found by saving faith in Jesus Christ (Luke 10:22; John 8:12, 14:6; Acts 20:21, 26:17-18; 1 Cor. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:6). We know God through the One He has sent (John 17:3) because Christ “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb. 1:3). Peter writes, “He (Christ) was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1 Pet. 1:20-21). Calvin concludes, “we must be warned that the invisible Father is to be sought solely in this image” (544). Knowing Jesus Christ, the Word of God (God’s very self-disclosure), matters to faith. Vague faith in a deity will not suffice.

3. Saving faith is NOT ignorance cloaked in religious humility. Calvin goes straight after the Roman Catholic Scholastic community here. The Scholastics promoted an “implicit faith,” that sinners could remain ignorant of the details of theology but saved because they were submitted under the authority of Rome’s teachings. Thus faith becomes more about ignorance cloaked in empty humility rather than true faith in the Gospel. Faith in the specific truth of the gospel was not necessary. Calvin responded that, “this fiction not only buries but utterly destroys true faith” (545). At length Calvin wrote,

“Faith rests not on ignorance, but on knowledge. And this is, indeed, knowledge not only of God but of the divine will. We do not obtain salvation either because we are prepared to embrace as true whatever the church has prescribed, or because we turn over to it the task of enquiring and knowing. But we do so when we know that God is our merciful Father, because of reconciliation effected through Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-19), and that Christ has been given to us as righteousness, sanctification, and life. By this knowledge, I say, not by submission of our feeling, do we obtain entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. For when the apostle says, ‘With the heart a man believes unto righteousness, with the mouth makes confession unto salvation’ (Rom. 10:10), he indicates that it is not enough for a man implicitly to believe what he does not understand or even investigate. But he requires explicit recognition of the divine goodness upon which our righteousness rests. … But on this pretext it would be the height of absurdity to label ignorance tempered by humility ‘faith’!” (545).

Genuine and saving faith is an explicit (though imperfect) trust in Jesus Christ. That is, the Gospel must be clear so that sinners can see their sinfulness, see the beauty of the Savior and rest in His sufficient work by faith alone. Telling ignorant sinners to simply submit implicitly to the beliefs of the church without concern for individual clarity agitated Calvin (as is should agitate us). One of the most beautiful biblical pictures of this truth is the meeting between Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. The Gospel expects personal and explicit faith.

But is it not true in our day that belief in the Gospel applied to the soul is substituted for a ‘faith’ that rests content in ignorance and religious ‘humility’? Is not the “gospel” of our day peace and unity over clarity and doctrine? Likewise, we are never saved because we belong to the right church. We are not saved because we rest our ignorance under those who are educated and knowledgeable of the Gospel. We are not saved because we listen to excellent Gospel sermons. We are saved when God uses Scripture to reveal that we are wicked and sinful and our salvation can be found only in clinging to Christ as our righteousness. We must understand this. If Paul condemns those who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth,” how condemned are sinners ignorant of the Gospel (2 Tim. 3:7)?

Never does church membership, affiliations or religious humility overcome ignorance of the Gospel message. Saving faith is explicit.

4. Saving faith is NOT perfect faith. Calvin understands that all faith is “implicit” to some degree. Francis Turretin writes, “as sanctification is imperfect, so faith has its degrees by which it increases and grows, both as to knowledge and as to trust” (IET, 9.15.1). Saving faith is not a perfect and fully explicit faith. Many things are yet hidden from our eyes and we are surrounded by “clouds of errors” (546). The disciples are a perfect example that even the redeemed child of God needs to walk humbly in a pursuit of further wisdom. God’s children believe and will always – in this life — struggle with unbelief. God assigns to each of His children a level of faith but none have perfect faith (Rom. 12:3).

Next time Calvin explains what saving faith IS.

———————–

This post is one in a series titled Humble Calvinism, a study through John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. For more information see the Humble Calvinism series index.

3 thoughts on “Humble Calvinism > Part 19 > What is Faith? Pt. 1 (3.2)

  1. Is this the final post in the “Humble Calvinism” series? I am hoping that the index is not complete and that there are more that I just am not finding.

    Thanks!

  2. Calvinism versus freewill is a battle which has raged in the church for hundreds of years. The first thing to be clear about is what do we mean by Calvinism. I am defining Calvinism as the following beliefs: 1 God has predetermined who will be saved, 2 man is incapable on his own of responding to God’s offer of salvation by grace, 3 God gives irresistible grace to those whom He has predetermined, 4 the predetermined must say yes to God, 5 the predetermined are saved eternally and cannot lose their salvation, 6 God predetermines some to eternal damnation and they can do nothing to change their fate.

    I started by proposing that Calvinism is against freewill. Calvinist’s will argue that Calvinism does not deny man’s freewill. They say that man has many choices and these choices, especially those of the predetermined have eternal consequences- that is heavenly rewards. This is like arguing bulls in the pasture have freewill as they are awaiting the farmers decision as to which will be castrated and butchered and which selected to be breeders. They can decide where to go within the pasture confines but have no say about their fate. If they could understand their situation and communicate with us and we explained to them our view that they have freewill, surely their response would be, ‘what a cruel joke you play on me’. The Calvinist is in the same position, arguing man has freewill while at the same time maintaining man’s eternal fate is entirely outside of his control. They turn freewill into a cruel joke on God’s part.

    I believe we play for much bigger stakes than the Calvinists suggest. We are playing the game of life for our eternal souls. From the parable of the sower to Christ’s warnings to the churches in revelation, the scriptures are full of warnings and admonitions of the eternal importance of the choices we make. We cannot save ourselves. But we cannot be saved except by our response to the saviour and this must a continued response of obedience to Him. It is this paradox expressed so well in philippians, ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for God is working in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure’, over which so many stumble. This seeming contradiction frustrates the human mind. We want a clear systematic theology and Calvinism seems to give it to us. It closes the circle and we can find many scriptures which support its conclusions. The Calvinist loves to say, ‘tell me where I am wrong and argue the minutae of his individual scriptural interpretations. It is like a picture that has been shaded so that at one viewing it is a face and with a change in viewpoint becomes a bird in flight. The Calvinist has seen the face for so long, he is unable to alter his viewpoint and see anything else.

    The argument cannot be won by trading scriptures. The viewpoint must be altered. I challenge the Calvinist to take a hard look not at the pieces of their argument, but at the God which their argument implies. How does a loving merciful God establish a universe and set forth a history of pain and suffering by man including the death of His own Son, when He has already decided to save some and damn others. Does it not make a charade of the whole thing? All through the old testament God pleads with His people to do the right thing. Is it not a hollow joke when He knows the decision has already been made?

    I am not saying God doesn’t have foreknowledge. He most certainly does. I am saying that just because an infinite, all knowing God knows which choices we are going to make it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained these choices. Nor am I saying that God does not have a plan, He most definitely does have a plan and He acts within the scope of human activities to bring His plan about. I believe however that His actions are consistent with man’s freewill not overriding it. I think the story of Esther is an excellent example of this. Mordecai called upon Esther to save the jews by risking her own life. When Esther protested, Mordecai’s

    response is instructive of how God deals with man in accomplishing His purposes. ‘ if you (Esther) remain silent, deliverance will come from another place and you will die. Who knows but that you have attained royalty for this moment.’ God will accomplish His purposes. We are given an opportunity to participate in the divine plan, but whether we do or whether we don’t, it will not stop God from accomplishing His purposes. Again it is a paradox and no matter how we try to box God in with our theology, we will find that He eludes us. This should not surprise us. It would be much more surprising to find that our finite minds had been able to capture the divine plan and the divine mind. We only get glimpses, we see though a glass darkly as the apostle reminded us.

    So I reject Calvinism, not by arguing the individual verses but by stepping away from the verses to look at the whole book and by examining the God which their interpretation of the scriptures leads us to. They are like one of the five blind men in the story of the elephant who insisted that it was tree based upon his examination of the leg. You can’t convince him that his examination of the leg is wrong. It is not. The problem is not that what he “sees” is incorrect, the problem is in what he does not see. It is not that his view of the elephant is wrong, it is that his view is too small. He focuses on something to the exclusion of everything else. The only way out is not to argue about his view of the leg but to get him to go outside of his world

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s