The Doctrine Of Assurance – Part 9

WILLIAM PERKINS

William Perkins (1558-1602) was probably the best known and most widely read divine of the Elizabethan period. By the time of his death, Perkins writings were outselling Calvin and Beza. A large part of Perkins studies was taken up with showing men that they must make their calling and election sure to themselves (2 Peter 1:10). Perkins own thinking and theology was heavily influenced by Theodore Beza, who was Calvin’s successor at Geneva (see appendix).

In his exposition of Galatians, Perkins clearly lays out his understanding of the grounds for assurance; first came the general promise of the gospel, by which faith becomes a particular personal promise; secondly the testimony  of the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are the children of God; and third, the syllogism which rests partly on the gospel and partly on experience. This was patterned on Beza’s views.

There are a number of important areas of Perkins understanding which need clarifying. Firstly Perkins believed in Works of Preparation preceding the Work of Grace. A Christian goes through a process of preparation before he is saved. We shall see how this functions in Perkins understanding in a moment.

Secondly, Perkins definition of assurance needs to be established. It would appear that in his Works 1:125 & 564 Perkins blatantly contradicts himself.

Firstly he says: Whereas some are of the opinion that faith is assurance or confidence, that seems to be otherwise; for it is a fruit of faith…

Then later he writes; True faith is both an unfallible assurance, and a particular assurance of the remission of sins, and of life everlasting…

The problem is that Perkins has divided assurance into two areas, objective and subjective assurance.  This is similar to Calvin’s view of the “knowledge of God’s word” and the “work of the Holy Spirit” as two separate stages.

The first usage (…objective assurance) enables the sinner to view the “pardonable-ness” or “forgivable-ness” of his sins apart from the personal realization of such forgiveness, while the second (…subjective assurance) refers to “full’ assurance received in the wake of the personal application of redemption which enables the sinner to believe that God for Christ’s sake personally forgive all his sins. [1]

---

[1] A N S Lane, Calvin’s Doctrine Of Assurance, Vox Evangelica 1979 No 11 pg44

Exegesis Of Romans 2:14-15 – Part 5

They are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. The second half of this verse merely repeats what has gone before. However the phrase, a law to themselves needs to be looked at. It can be taken in two ways. If the gentiles are non-christians, then by doing what the law requires they are attesting to knowledge of the divine moral standards. Murray writes that by reason of what is implanted in their nature, they are confronted with the law of God. He says three things are true:

1. The law of God confronts  non-christians and registers itself in their consciences by reason of what they natively and constitutionally are
2. They do things which this law prescribes
3. This doing is not by extraneous constraint but by natural impulse [1]

Moo and others basically agree that this is talking of gentiles attesting knowledge of divine moral standards.

However, if the gentiles are indeed Christians, a different view is necessary. Cranfield writes:

Although they [the gentile Christians] have not been brought up by virtue of their birth in possession of God’s law, they now know it and actually have in their hearts the earnest desire to obey. [2]

V15 They Show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. The main question here is does this refer to a parallel with Jeremiah 31:33? Objections to the parallel are two fold:

1. Jeremiah talks of the laws being written on their hearts and a complete knowledge of God that results from it. This result is an eschatological work of God wrought upon Israel. The present passage (Rom 2:14-15), however, is concerned with a non-eschatological fact of gentile life.
2. V15 in most translations miss out the word ‘work’, hence the work of the law written upon their hearts. Murray says that there is a big difference from the requirement of the law written upon hearts than the law itself. If this refers merely to the requirement of the law, then it would be acceptable to equate this phrase with the equivalence of the things of the law. So there are innate moral laws written upon the hearts of every unregenerate person. Moo also comments that while in Jeremiah the final judgment of the people is not in doubt, here it is.

Cranfield, however, sees this as a deliberate reminiscence of Jeremiah. Cranfield has no problem with the eschatological element. Paul clearly believed that God’s eschatological promises were already beginning to be fulfilled through the gospel in believers lives.  In this he is in agreement with the Already…not yet paradox which Moo so heavily emphasizes in his commentary. Therefore, for Cranfield, the eschatological objection is removed. He writes:

Here ‘the work which the law requires’ means not the required work as accomplished but the required work in the sense of the commandments contained in the law. [3]

Also, Cranfield points out that the LXX version of Jeremiah 31:33 is so close to v15 that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul has Jeremiah in mind. 2 Cor 3:2-3 says You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone, revealing that you are a letter of Christ, delivered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts.

This passage was addressed to gentile Christians. The objection that the phrase written on their hearts is a very common one is negligible. It is not common in Paul and surely Paul would have known the significance of using such a phrase.

---

[1] John Murray NICNT To The Romans pg 73

[2] Cranfield pg157

[3] Cranfield pg158

The Doctrine Of Assurance – Part 8

Calvin says that the question “How do I know I am Elect” can cause you to fall into an abyss. It is an unanswerable question for God has not given a list of the elect. Yet Calvin goes on to say…
But if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves, and not even in God the Father if we conceive him as severed from the Son. Christ then is the mirror wherein we must and without self deception may contemplate our own election… We have a sufficiently clear and firm testimony that we have been inscribed in the book of life (Rev 21:27) if we are in communion with Christ.

Assurance is not to be based on anything in ourselves. Here is Calvin’s starting point on assurance. Not even our faith can be used as a ground for assurance for it would mean looking to ourselves. It is only in Christ, by looking to Christ, that assurance is obtained. Lane says that to rely on Christ is to trust him for our salvation and therefore to be confident and have Assurance. Assurance is the fruit of trust, if not synonymous with it.

Exegesis On Romans 2:14-15 – Part 4

Cranfield defies tradition and suggests that nature should be taken with what precedes. This would give the verse the following meaning; gentiles who do not possess the law by virtue of birth.

Romans 11:24 says For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree. Nature here refers to gentile descent. Galatians 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by nature and not gentile sinners. Again, nature is used to denote physical descent. Ephesians 2:3 says And we were by nature children of wrath… and Romans 2:27 says Then those who are by nature uncircumcised. Paul obviously used this word, at least at times,  in a physical and historical sense.

This fits into the argument of chapter 2 better. It is not the having or the hearing of the law that is important – it is the doing of the law. V10 has already established that a Greek / Gentile can be justified and saved by doing good. However, Paul is clear throughout chapters 4 & 5 that we are justified by faith alone, not by human effort. Hence this promise of salvation to those who do good, and who do not have the law cannot contradict with Romans 4 & 5. If these gentiles were not Christians, and they were doing what the law required why are they not saved? Paul is referring to gentile Christians who by their conversion have ‘done the law.’ Romans 13:8 says for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law and Galatians 6:2 bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. The concept that Christians fulfill the law is certainly in Pauline writings. Hence a Christian can say they have done what the law requires through the grace and sacrifice that is in Christ.

The DOctrine of Assurance – Part 7

Calvin writes:

For though only those predestined to salvation receive the light of faith and truly feel the power of the gospel, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes effected by almost the same feeling as the elect, so that in even in their own judgment they do not in any way differ from the elect [c/f Acts 13:48]. Therefore it is not at all absurd that the apostle should attribute to them a taste of the heavenly gifts [Heb 6:4-6] and Christ, faith for a time [Luke 8:13]; not because they firmly grasp the force of the spiritual grace and the sure light of faith, but because the Lord, to render them more convicted and inexcusable, steals into their minds to the extent that his goodness may be tasted without the spirit of adoption. [1]

It would appear that what Calvin is saying is that people may exhibit all the outward signs of being elected, but inwardly they are without the Spirit of God and therefore not a child of God. The vital attribute of faith is the inward working of the Spirit. In talking about faith and knowledge Calvin speaks of both our knowledge of the word of God and acceptance of its promises and the work of the Holy Spirit in opening up our hearts in testimony to those truths. Calvin puts it like this:

Our mind must be otherwise illumined and our heart strengthened that the word of God may obtain full faith among us. Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit. [2]

This is the backbone of Calvin’s understanding of assurance. True faith is a firm and CERTAIN knowledge of God’s mercy towards us, appropriating the sure promises of God in Christ as revealed through the Holy Spirit. Beeke writes:

Thus for Calvin assuring faith compels an indissoluble tie between saving knowledge, the scriptures, Jesus Christ, God’s promises, the work of the Holy Spirit and Election…Calvin is arguing that faith involves something more than fully believing the undoubted promise of God objectively; rather it contains personal, subjective assurance. [3]

There is no dichotomy between saving faith and assurance.

However, one problem still exists. If the reprobate can have all the outward signs of the elect, how can the elect know that they are saved?

---

[1] Ibid pg 555

[2] Ibid pg 551

[3] Beeke pg 49

Romans 2 v14-15 – part 3

C Cranfield and Karl Barth are almost alone in connecting v14 of Romans chapter 2 with v13b. Cranfield writes:

“The most natural explanation of the “For” (at the beginning of v14) would seem to be that these verses are thought of as confirming v13b…. v13b, which might at first sight appear to conflict with “And also for the Greek” of v10, does not in fact do so, since those Gentiles who do the things the law requires stand in a real positive relation to the law (v14b & v15a) and so may be regarded as included in the reference of the “doers of the law” in v13b” .

In other words, Cranfield sees a continuing between v10 and v13. The greek can do good and receive honor and glory and peace (which is salvation), v10, and therefore the doers of the law who will be justified can also be greeks. V13 refers to separate groups of people, those who hear the law (and so have the law physically – the jews) and those who do the law (anybody, Jew or Greek). To connect v14 to v12a would imply that v12b-13 is a form of parenthesis or explanation. I do not see such a division. Paul is merely establishing the fact that to have the law, to hear the law, does not mean you are saved.

The word ‘Gentiles’ is without the definite article, which suggests that it refers to some gentiles, not all gentiles. As we have said, Moo et al see this as referring to gentiles who are not converted while Cranfield / Barth sees these gentiles as Christians.

The next part of the verse: who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires has some difficulties. Traditionally the word nature has been taken with what follows. This means the verse would say the gentiles, as a result of their possession of natural law, do some of the things required by God’s law instinctively.

This is what Moo argues. He says that Paul is almost certainly referring to a greek / stoic tradition that all human beings possess as unwritten law, an innate sense of right and wrong. Hence, we do the law by nature. Moo says that for this reason, this cannot refer to believing gentiles, because believers do the law by grace, and not by nature.

Romans 2:14ff – Part 1

For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend31 them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus. (NET Bible)

Douglas Moo, in his detailed commentary, lists three possible interpretations of who the gentiles are referred to in this passage:

1. Gentiles who fulfill the law and are saved apart from explicit faith in Christ
2. Gentiles who do some part of the law but who are not saved
3. Gentile Christians who fulfill the law by virtue of their relationship with God.

If we take for granted that option one is immediately ruled out as un-biblical, most commentators opt for option two. Paul is referring to non-christian gentiles who are not saved. Indeed, so wide spread is this understanding that there are only two scholars who opt for option three – Karl Barth and C Cranfield (who is massively influenced by Barth anyway).

SOME BACKGROUND:
Chapter two of Romans is typically thought to be addressed to Jews. Although it is not until v17 that the Jew is directly addressed, the language throughout v1-16 is consistent with having Jews in mind. Leon Morris argues that the way ‘Jew’ is used in v17 does not look like the introduction of a new topic.

If indeed the Jew is being addressed here, the charge from Paul is quite condemning. Paul’s argument is that the Jew is storing up wrath for himself by judging others. In fact the things the Jews judge others for, are the very things that they themselves do! Yet it would appear that the Jews believed they would not be judged for doing such things (2:3).

By their actions and their complete apathy towards any judgment Paul asks his readers a rhetorical question, “Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience…” (v4). He is saying that the very fact that you are not judged right at this moment is because of God’s patience and kindness. It is this patience and kindness which should lead one to repentance (v5). It is not by covenant or birth that judgment is deferred. In fact He (God) will repay according to each ones deeds (v6). Hence a Jew will be judged by what he does not who he is. The question then becomes ‘what is it that we should do.’ The answer is ‘by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality.’ You can only seek glory, honor and immortality through and by a living relationship with God. The negative side of this equation is not that if you are not a jew you are in trouble but the emphasis is on action, for those who are self seeking and who do not obey the truth there will be wrath and fury (v8), anguish and distress, first for the jew then for the gentile (v9).

HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? 6th and Final Part

In 1544, Calvin was asked to intervene in the dispute between the two parties. Calvin responded by saying that he could not because he did not have all the written materials at his disposal. But he did say that Luther should be the one called to stop the fighting. Although Luther should make greater effort to check himself and fight the true enemies of Christ, he must be remembered as one to whom ‘we owe a great deal’ . Calvin, despite his rebuke, still held a great respect for what Luther had done for the reformation.

Calvin did place his name on a document that tried to reconcile the two sides. Along with Zwingli’s successor, Henrich Bullinger, Calvin signed the ‘Consensus Tigurinus’ in 1549. It had twenty six articles, in which both the Lutheran and Catholic views of the eucharist were rejected.

So what can we say about the theology of Bucer and Calvin? Leonard Hunter, a Lutheran writes, “Bucer’s name would never have been famous had he not, proteus like, transformed himself into all shapes… and so craftily and disingenuously turned himself and all his counsels, words and actions that it could never be perfectly discovered which party he favoured” . This is countered by David Wright who says “It goes without saying that Bucer never contemplated any compromise in the essentials of the reformation gospel” .

This compares with McGrath’s comment that “Calvin was clearly aware of the divergences between Luther and Zwingli, and he attempted to steer a middle course between their rival points” .

I would like to suggest that it would indeed be possible to call Martin Bucer’s theology a mediating theology, while on the other hand, it would not be appropriate to say this of Calvin.

Both men were concerned for the Reformation and its survival. Both men were eager for unity, especially between Luther and Zwingli. But it was Bucer who tried to walk the fine line between the two sides. Bucer’s earlier views on the eucharist lead the Zwinglians to believe he could be accommodated, yet in 1530 and 1536, Bucer signs two documents with the Lutherans (without the Zwinglians) confirming the real and substantial presence of Christ at the eucharist. Bucer tried to hold together the two parties together with his theology, although his motive was for the good of the gospel and the reformation.

I do not believe that Calvin did this. Yes, he was concerned for unity and as we have seen, he condemned both sides for their attitudes and actions. Yet, he always maintained his view on the eucharist and never tried to adopt a mediating theology. His view was one which he believed the scripture taught. Bucer’s driving force was the unity and preservation of the reformation., and it was this that lead him towards a mediating theology.

Even so, it has to be said that for both Bucer and Calvin, Christ and the Gospel was central. Bucer wrote ‘Commit to the Lord any further inessential questions, and zealously guard oneself against all inappropriate contention, the bearer of estrangement and even bitterness of spirit, which cannot be suffered by true Christian faith which works through love’ , while Calvin said ‘so as not to diminish the efficacy of the sacraments, we must remember, that we partake of Christ by the secret and incomprehensible power of God.’

Doctrine of Assurance – Part 6

With the coming of the Reformers the idea of Assurance began to develop theologically. Martin Luther based his doctrine of assurance almost entirely upon the complete and sole trust in Christ and His atoning work. In other words, saving faith and assurance go hand in hand . Huldrych Zwingli took Luther’s view further. He agreed that assuring faith was a complete surrender of ones self to God. However, Zwingli based his assurance upon election. Election is a work of God and assuring faith is a result of God’s work. Hence a believer, through assuring faith, can see his election and calling. It is a certain sign. Assuring faith was not passive. Therefore good works, although holding no influence in terms of one’s salvation, are; (i) necessary for faith, (ii) an assuring sign of faith (iii) a valuable support for assurance. Zwingli underscores all this by insisting that all evidences are ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit. However, it is the reformer john Calvin who really developed a detailed understanding of the doctrine of assurance.

JOHN CALVIN
Calvin believed that faith was founded upon knowledge. This knowledge was the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the word of God. Faith based on anything else would “lead miserable souls astray rather than direct them to a definite goal” .
However, Calvin goes on to define further both faith and knowledge. To merely know something of God’s will is not be accounted faith:
“We hold faith to be knowledge of God’s will towards us, perceived from his word. But the foundation of this is a preconceived conviction of God’s truth. As for certainty, so long as your mind is at war with itself, the word will be of doubtful and weak authority, or rather of none. And it is not even enough to believe that God is trustworthy, who can neither deceive nor lie unless you hold to be beyond doubt that whatever proceeds from him is sacred and inviolable truth” .

In other words one can have knowledge of God’s word, but not believe it to be absolute truth. This renders the knowledge doubtful and weak. This raises the question of the place of such people.

The Doctrine of Assurance – Part 5

It was the Puritans for whom assurance was a major theme. However it would be a mistake to think that it was the Puritans, or indeed the Reformers, who first thought of the Doctrine of Assurance. Beeke writes that some form of certainty or assurance has been taught throughout the Church’s history in various forms. Robert Letham writes that a lack of theological reflection on the issue of Assurance was due to a preoccupation of other issues such as Christology and Trinitarianism. In other words, assurance was not a foreign concept to the early church, it merely lacked any theological development. Beeke gives a number of reasons why assurance was not addressed with any theological precision in the early church:

1. An unbiblical underscoring of good works in relation to salvation, including an unwholesome attitude towards and desire for martyrdom; and a search for gnosis or knowledge which surpassed ordinary faith
2. Augustine never tackled adequately the area of assurance
3. There was no fertile soil for the doctrine of assurance in the Medieval Church. Certainty came through ecclesiastical and sacramental means rather than Christological and pneumatological means. Hence your assurance was based on whether you took the sacraments.

HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? Part 5

John Calvin was relatively quiet. Alistair McGrath writes that “Calvin was clearly aware of the divergences between Luther and Zwingli, and he attempted to steer a middle course between their rival points.” Euan Cameron says that Calvin took the positive elements of both Luther and Zwingli and reconciled it into a complete system. Calvin often referred to the formula “ideas may be distinguished but not separated”. Therefore “in the case of the sacraments, the sign signified may be distinguished, but not separated from each other.”

Calvin’s view of the Eucharist contained ‘three truths’. Firstly, it had a meaning. Believers are to be reassured because it confirms the promises of God. The second truth refers to the substance of matter. By receiving the sign, we are receiving at the same time the body of Christ itself. The third and final truth refers to virtue and effect. The believer participates by faith in all the benefits of Christ imparted to us spiritually. What Calvin is saying is this; Yes, Christ is definitely present during communion. This is because the sign, that is the bread and the wine, symbolizes the real and true presence of Christ. However, he also agreed with Zwingli in that the words “This is my body” is a figure of speech. Christ’s body was not physically present in the ‘gross sense.’

Calvin appears to remove himself from the dispute between Luther and Zwingli. Unlike Bucer, who was actively involved in bringing the parties together, Calvin remained in the background, if not silent. In 1540 Calvin wrote a treatise for the person in the pew on the basic meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Calling the dispute between Luther and Zwingli ‘unfavorable’ he goes on to say, ‘the devil has stirred this controversy to impede the advance of the gospel or even to obstruct it all together.’ Calvin comments on both the positive side of their arguments as well as the weaknesses. He rebukes Luther for not stating how his position differs from the roman catholic conception, while Zwingli is rebuked for not making an association between the sign and the truth signified “thereby leaving the impression that they intended to push real communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper into the background.” Both sides erred, according to Calvin, in that they did not listen to each other patiently and were not really committed to finding the truth together.

Doctrine of Assurance – Part 4

Dr R.T. Kendall rejects the Reformed teaching concerning temporary faith; those who fall away were never saved in the first place. Kendall holds that a man can be truly saved and yet backslide into apostasy. By taking passages such as 2 Peter 2:21, Galatians 5:4, Hebrews 6:6 &10:26 to refer not to salvation but to rewards in heaven, Kendall claims that the scriptures clearly teach once saved always saved.

Such an interpretation has been widely rejected. We shall look at those who claim that Kendall’s thesis is wrong. Perhaps the most direct attack comes from Paul Helm’s book Calvin and The Calvinists in which he argues that Kendall has misread the puritans completely. The foundation of assurance was indeed faith in Christ and his promises and that saving faith did by saving faith, by its very definition, contains assurance. Helm argues that to say that the puritans separated faith and assurance in not correct. Helm also rejects Kendall’s view that Puritan assurance was a departure from Calvin’s teaching. Helm argues that Perkins and co merely filled in the gaps in Calvin’s thought and developed his (Calvin’s) understanding. We shall examine Don Carson’s important article on assurance, where he examines the biblical and theological importance of this doctrine.

We will analyze the differences between these two positions. We will examine both their weakness and strengths, to see if a conclusion can be reached. Also and more importantly, we shall briefly examine the effects that the doctrine of assurance has had on the church and the effect it should have.

HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? – Part 4

It was not until 1529 that the two sides where brought together.. Philip of Hesse, a vigorous supporter of the reformation, brought both Luther and Zwingli to Marburg to try and sort out their division. Bucer attended the meeting and urged the two of them to settle their differences, suggesting that differences should be tolerated among evangelicals provided they agreed to recognize the Bible alone as the normative source of faith. Agreement was reached on everything… other than the Eucharist. The meeting failed. Bucer continued to walk the fine line between the two parties.

In 1530 the “four cities” confession was produced by the ‘Zwinglian’ cities of Strasbourg, Contance, Lindau and Memmingen. It affirmed that the “true body and true blood were truly eaten and drunk”, not mere bread and wine. Between March and May of 1536 Bucer and Luther, Melanchthon and Bugenhagen drew up the Wittenburg Accord. Regarding the Eucharist, the accord stated that body and blood were “truly and substantially present” and received during communion.

Now, this was clearly moving away from a Zwinglian position. Yet in Bucer’s explanation of the articles of the accord he defends his agreement with the statement that the body and blood are truly and substantially present. He affirms that “these things take place truly, essentially and effectually, not merely figuratively or in imagination.”[1] However, he goes on to say that the actual bread in itself cannot be the Lord’s body (as Luther does). In other words Bucer believed that the truly and substantial presence of Christ could be a Spiritual presence. It was as valid as a bodily presence. Does this agree with Calvin’s position?

 

---

[1] Ibid pg367

HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? – Part 3

Martin Bucer’s first attempt at reconciling the two sides comes in his 1526 Apology. This was a response to charges laid against him and other reformers of Strasbourg, as well as Zwingli, in the Swabian Syngramma. This was a document made up by Lutheran clergy who adopted a formula devised by Johannes Brenz[1] defending the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Luther was in such agreement with this document that he wrote a preface in German. Bucer in his Apology gives a straight forward account of his beliefs. Bucer’s intention in clear when he recounts his first letter to Brenz writing, “I strongly urged harmony concerning the eucharist, since it is intrinsically most unworthy for the symbol of supreme unity and concord to be made the focus of dissensions and the see-plot of animosities.”[2] Later, Bucer directly asks Brenz and the other Lutheran clergy to consider the “merits of Oecolampadius and Zwingli, lest the Christ in them be despised, and the churches disturbed.” He goes on to say that Zwingli’s teaching on the eucharist does not “conflict with the scriptures.”[3]

Bucer’s own theology of the eucharist does appear to try and balance Luther and Zwingli. Bucer (as Luther does) sees two realities in the eucharist; an earthly one, the bread and the wine which remain unaltered in their mature substance… and a heavenly one, the true body and blood of Christ, that is the Lord himself. But Bucer goes further. He says that Christ does not leave heaven, neither is he naturally mingled with the bread and wine, but, “gives himself to us there after a heavenly manner,” which is very close to Zwingli’s view of a spiritual presence of Christ.

 

---

[1] It was claimed that the document was published without Brenz knowledge

[2] D Wright Martin Bucer (Sutton Press 1972) pg316

[3] Ibid pg 317

Doctrine Of Assurance – Part 2

Assurance for the Puritans, was something separate from saving faith. Full assurance must be regarded as a fruit of the spirit rather than the essence of faith, although by definition saving faith does contain assurance. The Puritan tradition would teach that one can be saved and not have full assurance. However, a consistently inactive faith was seen as false or temporary faith.

The Puritan tradition is the foundation and framework of the classic Reformed position on Assurance. This teaches that  true Christian, justified by faith alone, is known by his works. Hence, those who fall away were not saved in the first place. A true Christian will continue to grow in faith and assurance as well as in his good works. Works are NOT the foundation of salvation, but they are a necessary fruit of faith [1]. It is this Puritan and Reformed tradition of assurance which was challenged by Dr R.T Kendall of Westminster Chapel, London.

My paper will compare this tradition with the conclusions of Dr R.T Kendall. There are a number of reasons for such a comparison.

1. Dr Kendall published his Ph.D thesis on this subject, Calvin, English Calvinism to 1649. He has also written two popular books, Once Saved Aways Saved which deals explicitly with assurance and Are You Stone deaf To The Spirit which tackles Hebrews 6. He is also a popular author and speaker who has had and continues to have influence in many believers lives. His conclusions are controversial and they have been challenged vigorously by other scholars, not least Paul Helm.
2. Dr Kendall has challenged the traditional Puritan/Reformed tradition in a number of areas. Firstly he claims that Calvin was not a believer in limited atonement but in universal atonement. Secondly, Calvin’s  belief in temporary faith was wrong and thirdly The Westminster Confession of Faith reflected NOT Calvin’s doctrine but was influenced by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor. Additionally, Kendall argues that the focus upon Syllogism and Reflex Act is an error, as is distinguishing between saving faith and developed assurance. All this pushes the Puritan teaching on assurance, in Kendalls view, to within a hairs breath of justification by works. Kendall also strongly challenges the teaching that someone who has fallen away was never saved in the first place. He claims that the Puritan/Reformed tradition of assurance is no assurance at all!

---

[1] Ibid pg161

 

HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? – Part 2

Why was the Eucharist and its practice responsible for the near breakdown of the reformation? Cameron says that this issue involved more mutual misunderstandings, clashes of character and fixed exegesis of scripture than almost any other issue of the reformation.[1] Before we concentrate on the differences let us just mention some of the agreements over the eucharist. Basically all agreed that there should be no catholic mass. They all rejected its claims to be a sacrifice and a good work. Also the adoration of the elements was also condemned by the reformers. The problem that arose revolved around the sense (if any) in which Christ’s body was present in the Eucharist, and the significance surrounding the words “This is my body”. These issues caused Luther anxiety. He resolved it by concluding that real bread and wine remained on the alter in which Christ’s real flesh and real blood are present. In other words, for Luther, two realities existed at the same time. Luther illustrated this by using a red hot iron. Both iron and fire are present at the same time, thus with the Eucharist,  the bread and body, the wine and blood are together. Beyond this Luther was unwilling to speculate or develop his theology claiming that we should not dabble in too much philosophy.

Huldrych Zwingli developed a distinctly new view on the Eucharist, which could not be further from Luther. The words “this is my body” must be figurative, just as “I am the vine” was a figure of speech. The sacrament is only a sign and the sign and the thing signified cannot be the same [2]. The Eucharist enables you to feed spiritually from Christ by faith. The wine and the bread are merely symbolic and so Christ is present merely in a spiritual sense, through the faith of the believer.

Thus were the battle lines drawn between Luther and Zwingli and their adherents.

---

[1] Cameron pg 163

 

[2] W P Stephens The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (OUP 1986) pg236

HOW FAR IS IT CORRECT TO DESCRIBE THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN BUCER AND JOHN CALVIN AS A MEDIATING THEOLOGY? Part 1

Alistair McGrath writes that the European Reformation is often interpreted as a homogeneous phenomenon. In other words, it is presented as being consistent in terms of its underlying ideas and emphasis. In fact, this is an inaccurate view. [1] The reason for this is primarily laid at the door of two reformers, Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. The issue was not that they disagreed; it was how they disagreed. The heart of their disagreement lay at the interpretation of the Lord’s Supper [2].  Cameron writes that by the mid 1520’s the issue aroused a violent pamphlet dispute between Luther and Zwingli and their respective partisans [3] . The consequence of this dispute caused both theological and political problems. McGrath comments that at a theological level it raised the gravest doubts concerning the principle of the clarity of scripture that appeared far from easy to interpret [4], while at a political level, there was a permanent division between two evangelical factions of the reformation. It is within this context that our question is relevant. Did John Calvin or Martin Bucer develop a theology that was deliberately aimed at bringing Luther and Zwingli together? Was the unity of the reformers and the reformation their main priority which had to be achieved at any price? One thing was certain. Unless Luther and Zwingli attempted some sort of reconciliation, then the reformation would be damaged, possibly even losing some gains it had made. There was most certainly a good motive for a unifying theology. We shall look at each of the reformers positions on the Eucharist, and see if indeed either one, or both men used a mediating theology, or were they simply expressing their personal belief in what the scriptures said.

---

[1] Alistair McGrath Reformation Thought – An introduction (Blackwell 1993) pg109

 

[2] Other disagreements include baptism and justification by faith although this paper will concentrate only on the eucharist, which was the nucleus of their disagreement.

[3] Euan Cameron The European Reformation (Oxford University Press 1991) pg164

[4] McGrath pg 180

Doctrine of Assurance – Part 1

I am going to be looking at the topic of Assurance. Before we go any further, it is imperative for us to define exactly what we mean by this term. There are two ways in which this term may be used. Berkhof explains this two fold use:

1. The objective assurance of faith, which is the “certain and undoubting conviction that Christ is all he professes to be, and will do all he promises.” It is generally agreed that this assurance is the essence of faith.
2. The subjective assurance of faith, or the assurance of grace and salvation, which consists in a sense  of security and safety, rising in many instances to the height of an “assured conviction that the individual believer has had his sins pardoned and his soul saved.[1]

Therefore one definition of assurance places it at the time a person exercises faith in Christ, the other as a process into which a Christian grows and matures. One of the biggest problems in the understanding of assurance has been the confusion between these definitions. It is the second definition which the puritans used when discussing the Assurance of Faith.

The puritan tradition saw assurance as a fruit of faith which pointed to true election in Christ. This in itself was part of a much larger question which was often asked; “”How do I know that I am saved and one of the elect?” It was not an easy question to answer. The doctrine of limited atonement was dominant as was the doctrine of temporary faith. Temporary faith came from Calvin and was developed through Theodore Beza and William Perkins.[2] It claimed that an unelect reprobate may have all the outward signs of a true Christian, he may even have the desire to believe, but he will always be one of the unelect.

Eventually, maybe after five, ten or twenty years living as a Christian such a man will fall away and thus show he was a reprobate, never truly converted in the first place. This approach does cause a problem. The question, “How Do I Know I am Elect” is almost unanswerable in these circumstances. For this reason, Practical and Mystical Syllogism and the Reflex Act were developed. The Practical Syllogism  worked as follows:

Major premise: According to scripture, only those who possess saving faith will receive the Spirit’s testimony that their lives manifest fruits of sanctification and good works. Minor premise: I cannot deny that by the grace of God I have received the Spirit’s testimony that I may manifest fruits of sanctification and good works. Conclusion: Consequently, I may be assured that I am a partaker of saving faith.

The Mystical Syllogism, on the other hand, worked along the following lines:

Major premise: According to scripture only those who possess saving faith will experience the spirit’s testimony confirming inward grace and godliness, such that self will decrease and Christ will increase. Minor premise: I cannot deny that by the grace of God I may experience the spirit’s testimony confirming inward grace and godliness such that self-decreases and Christ increases. Conclusion: Consequently, I may be assured that I am a partaker of saving faith.[1]

As Beeke explains, the Practical Syllogism was largely based on the believers sanctification and good works as evidenced in practical and daily life while the Mystical Syllogism was based largely on the believers internal exercises and progress in the steps of grace[2].

The role of the Reflex Act was to enable a person to look at their faith to see if such evidences were there [3]. Hence, to know if you are one of the elect, a puritan would tell you to i) believe the promises of God, that is the Gospel and ii) to look at your life and see if the evidences of God’s grace through faith are there.

---

[1] J Beeke Assurance of Faith (Peter Lang 1991) pg160

[2] Ibid pg160

[3] Ibid pg161

---

[1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Trust 1988) pg507

[2] R.T Kendall Calvin And English Calvinism to 1649 (OUP 1979) pg2-9