For Those Professing Christians Who Struggle with Assurance of Salvation

 

Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.  John Calvin, Institutes  III:2:8.

 

Assurance of Salvation

As the Bible and the Westminster Standards affirm, there are sometimes new believers or even those who have believed for a significant length of time who struggle with assurance of salvation.  This is because no one is omniscient like God is omniscient.  For Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the technical definition of knowledge is that knowledge must be an absolute truth that is either a universal principle or an inspired revelation from God in Holy Scripture.  So if the Bible says that our Lord Jesus Christ was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, then that is an absolute truth and constitutes knowledge.

However, since our individual names are not written in the canonical Scriptures, we cannot "know" that we are saved or regenerate on the same level of knowledge as it is theologically and philosophically defined by Clark.  This is not to say that we know nothing at all in the sense of commonly accepted experience and facts.  Carpenters and block layers learn their job skills through years of accumulated experience but this is different from making experience the basis for an epistemological theory of knowledge itself.  Experiences vary from one person to another and such a  theory of knowledge would result in relativism, not dogmatism.  A presuppositional view of knowledge must begin with the Holy Scriptures, not with empiricism or commonly accepted views of knowledge as a system of constantly growing and learned skills.  In fact, Dr. Clark held the view that we are not born with a blank slate as empiricism or a Thomistic view of epistemology would affirm.  For Clark there can be no two-fold view of truth where only God knows His truth and we know only an analogical truth revealed as merely human truth.  This would negate the Bible as univocal truth from God and instead would replace the Bible with a neo-orthodox theory of Scripture as a framework of God's revelation and not revelation itself.

So in a pastoral sense, how are pastors to help the members of their congregation understand how to be assured of their salvation, especially when they are struggling with sins in their lives?  Is assurance merely a state of psychological certainty?  Or is assurance based on a change of habits?  Or is assurance based on an objective evaluation of the propositions of Scripture in tandem with an objective self examination of one's progress in sanctification?

Obviously there must be an adherence to the principle of justification by faith alone as the objective basis for any assurance of salvation and any progress in the process of sanctification.  Although justification and sanctification are distinct from one another, they cannot be divorced from one another either.  The Westminster Larger Catechism makes this clear:

WLC 70  What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners,1 in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;2 not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,3 but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,4 and received by faith alone.5

WLC 71  How is justification an act of God's free grace? A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified,1 yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them and did provide this surety, his own only Son,2 imputing his righteousness to them,3 and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,4 which also is his gift,5 their justification is to them of free grace.6

WLC 72  What is justifying faith? A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,1 wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit2 and word of God,3 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,4 not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,5 but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,6 and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.7

WLC 73  How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,1 not as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;2 but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.3 (WLC 1:70-73 WCS)

***

WLC 75  What is sanctification? A. Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit1 applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them,2 renewed in their whole man after the image of God;3 having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts,4 and those graces so stirred up, increased and strengthened,5 as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.6

WLC 76  What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace,1 wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit2 and word of God,3 whereby out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger,4 but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins,5 and upon the apprehension of God's mercy in Christ to such as are penitent,6 he so grieves for7 and hates his sins,8 as that he turns from them all to God,9 purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.10

WLC 77  Wherein do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification,1 yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ,2 in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof;3 in the former, sin is pardoned;4 in the other, it is subdued:5 the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation;6 the other is neither equal in all,7 nor in this life perfect in any,8 but growing up to perfection.9

WLC 78  Whence ariseth the imperfection of sanctification in believers? A. The imperfection of sanctification in believers ariseth from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins,1 are hindered in all their spiritual services,2 and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.3

WLC 79  May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace? A. True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God,1 and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance,2 their inseparable union with Christ,3 his continual intercession for them,4 and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them,5 can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace,6 but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.7

WLC 80  Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation? A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,1 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,2 and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,3 be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.4

WLC 81  Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved? A. Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith,1 true believers may wait long before they obtain it;2 and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions;3 yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.4
 (WLC 1:75-81 WCS)

I will leave it to the reader to consult the proof texts from the Edinburgh edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  If you do not have this edition, I highly recommend it as the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church have both edited the confessional standards so that they fit with a more American view of civil government and other issues.  Also, the proof texts for certain doctrinal areas have been edited by both of these denominations.  I am quoting the entire series of questions for a reason and that reason is that there is a progression of thought from one question to another.  Anyone who reads the questions and answers in context and looks up the proof texts can see that the Westminster divines were concerned not to confuse justification with sanctification yet they were also concerned not to promote hypocrisy or false assurance by means of a lawless or antinomian faith.  Just as good works cannot justify anyone so lawlessness cannot sanctify anyone or give any assurance of salvation.  In short, it is better to have saving faith and not have assurance than to have a false assurance of salvation based on works righteousness or a false security while living a life of licentiousness.

After conversion we must begin somewhere.  That beginning is to study the Bible and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  (2 Peter 3:18).  For a genuinely converted Christian to struggle with assurance there must be either past sins or a continuining struggle with current habitual sins interfering with that person's assurance.  An objective knowledge of the Bible must be the starting point for our study.  Dr. Clark referred to the book of Romans and to 1 John as the basis for attaining assurance of salvation.  I highly recommend Dr. Clark's chapter on assurance in the book, What Do Presbyterians Believe? The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today, 1965, (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001), second edition.  Also:  First John.   

According to Dr. Clark, saving faith is an intellectual assent to the Gospel message and a subsequent turning away from sin and turning to our Lord Jesus Christ.   For Clark saving faith is not a bare assent but a pious assent to the propositions of Holy Scripture.  Unfortunately I think Clark misunderstood Calvin when he cites Calvin's remarks in Institutes III:2:8 as a reference to emotion:

. . . Yet Calvin in just another line seems to require assent, for he says, “The assent which we give to the Divine word…is from the heart rather than the head, and from the affections rather than from the understanding. For which reason it is called ‘the obedience of faith,’… It is an absurdity to say that faith is formed by the addition of a pious affection to an assent of the mind; whereas even this assent consists in a pious affection.... Faith consists in a knowledge of Christ.” 

In this quotation from Calvin, note the emphasis on assent. Very good; and both against the late Arminians and with Calvin against the Romanists, this assent and faith are not products of our unaided efforts. The Spirit must make us willing. But the willing is assent. 

I regret that Calvin, a giant among pygmies, said that assent comes from the heart and not from the head. This distinction is unscriptural; the Bible nowhere opposes heart to head, for it does not mention this “head.” Naturally assent comes from the heart because all psychological actions of a person come from the heart. There is nothing else for them to come from. 

Aside from this unfortunate slip, Calvin proceeds to say that assent is the obedience of faith. Clearly obedience is a matter of volition. Assent then is an act of will. No pious additions are necessary, for the assent itself is already pious.

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 3228-3238). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

 

Calvin's argument with the papist Roman Catholics is that the papists were accusing the Protestants of antinomianism due to the emphasis on justification by faith alone apart from good works.  The papists said that the Protestants were impious antinomians who had no obedience of faith and no love.  In other words, they accused Protestants of having a bare intellectual assent to propositions in the Scriptures with no subsequent piety or sanctification.  The Protestant critique of the papists, on the other hand, was that they conflated justification with sanctification thereby making justification and sanctification the same thing.  The papists insisted on justification by faith alone in regards to baptism but from that point on the papists insisted that faith that justifies must produce good works in order to continuously restore justification that is lost when a believer sins.  The papists denied that justification is a forensic and legal declaration instead of an infused righteousness that can be lost every time the believer sinned.  Calvin's argument is that saving faith is an intellectual assent that comes from the heart, not merely a bare assent without the involvement of the total person, including the mind, the will, and the affections.   By affections, Calvin does not mean the emotions but the totality of the soul much like Jonathan Edwards' definition of the affections.  Calvin's remarks show that he is rejecting the papist accusation that justification by faith alone is a mere or bare intellectual assent to the Gospel:

8. But before I proceed farther, it will be necessary to make some preliminary observations for the purpose of removing difficulties which might otherwise obstruct the reader. And first, I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen as to formed and unformed faith.285 For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary to be known for salvation; as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith. Still, however, though the whole Scripture is against them, they dogmatically give the name of faith to a persuasion devoid of the fear of God. It is unnecessary to go farther in refuting their definition, than simply to state the nature of faith as declared in the word of God. From this it will clearly appear how unskillfully and absurdly they babble, rather than discourse, on this subject. I have already done this in part, and will afterwards add the remainder in its proper place. At present, I say that nothing can be imagined more absurd than their fiction. They insist that faith is an assent with which any despiser of God may receive what is delivered by Scripture. But we must first see whether any one can by his own strength acquire faith, or whether the Holy Spirit, by means of it, becomes the witness of adoption. Hence it is childish trifling in them to inquire whether the faith formed by the supervening quality of love be the same, or a different and new faith. By talking in this style, they show plainly that they have never thought of the special gift of the Spirit; since one of the first elements of faith is reconciliation implied in man’s drawing near to God. Did they duly ponder the saying of Paul, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” (Rom. 10:10), they would cease to dream of that frigid quality. There is one consideration which ought at once to put an end to the debate, viz., that assent itself (as I have already observed, and will afterwards more fully illustrate) is more a matter of the heart than the head, of the affection than the intellect. For this reason, it is termed “the obedience of faith,” (Rom. 1:5), which the Lord prefers to all other service, and justly, since nothing is more precious to him than his truth, which, as John Baptist declares, is in a manner signed and sealed by believers (John 3:33). As there can be no doubt on the matter, we in one word conclude, that they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such at least as the Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection. But we are furnished with a still clearer argument. Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.  (III:2:8).

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997. Print.  Beveridge edition.

But I digress here.  The original purpose of this post was pastoral.  How does the pastor encourage new believers and long time believers who are struggling with assurance.  He must emphasize that no amount of spiritual growth could ever justify the believer.  Without this foundation there can be no true sanctification and no assurance.  Although sinful habits must be overcome, the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the beginning point for true assurance for without it there can be no assurance  attained.  That applies to Arminians and especially to papists:

Having the opinion that assurance is rare, Ryle extends its possibility to every Christian (103). He allows that Rome denies this possibility. True. And also, “the vast majority of the worldly and thoughtless Christians among ourselves oppose the doctrine.” Possibly true then, but very likely false now. However, Job 19:25-27, Psalm 23:4, 6, Isaiah 26:3, and 32:17, Romans 8:39 on to 1 John 5:19 insist that assurance is possible. Not only was assurance possible in apostolic times, but “many have attained to such an assured hope…even in modern times” (105). This certainly seems to be what the Bible teaches; but Ryle, at least so far, has not told us how to attain such assurance and how to distinguish it from careless presumption or from what Louis Berkhof calls “temporary faith,” so little temporary as to last a lifetime.

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 738-745). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

One subhead under the general title of Sanctification or Holiness is Assurance. Calvin and the first generation of Reformers seem to have held that assurance is inseparable from faith. Whoever is not assured of his salvation is simply not saved. This view may have been encouraged by the severity of Romish persecution, the exuberance of a newly found faith, and the utter impossibility of finding assurance in penance and good works. But as the persecutions diminished and as calmer study could be undertaken, the Westminster divines, a full century later, wrote, “This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he is partaker of it” (XVIII, 3). 

 

I must confess I do not like the word infallible in this context. The Pope claims infallibility, but if this is a false claim, it seems strange that it can be asserted of a thousand or a million Protestants. One of the older divines, whose name I have forgotten, illustrated infallibility by the knowledge of a ship captain’s guiding his ship into a harbor. Though the captain was ignorant of many things, and mistaken about many others, he infallibly knew the channel. But is it not possible, as it actually happened in 1983 when a naval vessel struck a sand bar in San Francisco Bay, that a storm could have closed the previous channel? Scripture is infallible; nothing else is. We all can and we all do make mistakes. 

 

Ryle does not seem to realize this. Nor do many others. Those who are so assured about assurance do not seem to understand the difficulties. Once I had a very friendly conversation with a college professor who was strongly Arminian. I remarked that one difference between Calvinism and Arminianism was that the latter denied the possibility of assurance. “Not so,” he replied, “I’m right now completely assured of my salvation. If I should die this moment, I know I would go to Heaven. Of course,” he continued, “if I should live until tomorrow or next week, I do not know whether I shall be saved or not.” This raises the question of the value of assurance. Assurance of salvation does not mean that you will get to Heaven. Assurance that a good restaurant serves good food does not guarantee that it serves good food. My major professor in graduate school took his wife out one Saturday night to a restaurant which he had often patronized. Before the night was over, he had died of food poisoning. His assurance had been misplaced. Many people are assured of all sorts of things. Some are sure that drinking vinegar will cure warts. But assurance guarantees nothing.

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 712-731). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

 

Perhaps someone will say that it is wrong to seek for a method of achieving assurance. It is a gift of God, we cannot earn it; there is nothing for us to do except to hope that God favors us. Well, it is true that assurance, like faith, is a gift of God, but though regeneration and faith can have no preparation on our part, assurance or at least sanctification requires certain actions by us. Perhaps method is not the proper term, but John tells us that “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” The usual exegesis of “these things” that John wrote is that faith, love, and obedience, while they do not automatically produce assurance, are nonetheless requirements for being a candidate, so to speak, to receive it. Actually love is one form of obedience, since it is commanded, and hence belief and overt obedience are the two prerequisites. 

 

There is, however, a difficulty. It is the same one Luther struggled with before he discovered the doctrine of justification. In Romanism he was supposed to earn his salvation by good works, penance, flagellation, and various monkish practices. But, being very sincere, he was troubled because he could never be sure that he had done enough. A similar difficulty arises here. If we wish to distinguish a valid assurance from a false assurance, how can we know that we have a sufficient theological knowledge and a sufficient degree of obedience to have met the requirements? Do we love deeply enough? Have we satisfied John’s criteria? Is there any devotional writer who has forthrightly faced this problem? It is hard to believe that none of them has thought of it. If as previously stated, Louis Berkhof’s temporary faith can last a lifetime, how can the true be identified in contrast with the false?

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 754-768). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Dr. Clark rightly points out that assurance is problematic.  So if there is no absolute infallibility in regards to our assurance of salvation, where does that leave us?  The only place I know of is Scripture.  The words of comfort quoted just after the absolution in the communion service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer say:

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all that truly turn to him:

Come unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.

Matthew 11:28–29 (KJV 1900)

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest .

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Also, at the point of regeneration and conversion God forgets all of our past sins and declares us righteous at that point:

Micah 7:18–20 (KJV 1900)

18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, And passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, Because he delighteth in mercy.

19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; And thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, Which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Romans 5:1–9 (KJV 1900)

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

In closing, it should be noted that Clark does not stop with his remarks above but transitions over into a discussion of the doctrine of perseverance in faith to the end.  Furthermore, Clark asserts that saving faith is not a temporary faith but God imparts to the believer eternal life which never ends.  Of course, all of this is the gift of God, including the antecedent irresistible and effectual grace of regeneration.  Those who struggle with assurance are encouraged to study the Bible more closely and to study the system of theology outlined from the Bible in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism.  There are also additional articles in the Edinburgh edition of the doctrinal standards.  In particular, there is an article in the Edinburgh edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith called, "The Sum of Saving Knowledge."  That article outlines what saving faith is and the evidences of true saving faith.  I highly recommend reading, "The Sum of Saving Knowledge," especially the last section, "The Evidences of True Faith."  While this is challenging given the looseness of the modern Evangelical churches, it is completely within the doctrinal standards of the Bible and the Westminster confessional standards. 

Gordon H. Clark: Saving Faith Results in Loving God and Obeying God

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, . . . and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.  WCF 14:2

Here is the key to the paradoxes, the seeming contradictions, that arise from this chapter:  love or obedience is a good work that is inseparably connected with faith and regeneration.  It is neither the basis nor the means of justification; but a faith or an alleged faith that does not evidence itself in love or good works is not saving faith.  --Dr. Gordon H. Clark

. . . Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.  Article VII, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion  --Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

In several Facebook discussion groups and other places on the internet I have encountered those who claim to follow the Scripturalism of Dr. Gordon H. Clark or that they are Calvinists but who also deny that sanctification is a process that follows after conversion.  But all the parts of Scripture are related to all the other parts and none of the Scriptures can be broken off from the whole of the Bible.  John 10:35.  Some hold that justification by faith means that the Christian is not under the law whatsoever.   But the truth is that Christians are not free from the moral law.  They are free from the penalty of the law and the requirements of the covenant of works as a means of justification.  No one could possibly meet the conditions to fulfull all the moral law as a covenant of works.  This is why justification is an objective and finished work of Christ on the cross as well as an eternal decree.

There are others who try to isolate Dr. Gordon H. Clark's explanation and definition of saving faith as knowledge plus intellectual assent from the rest of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  As I said in an earlier post, this would be a mistake since Dr. Clark viewed propositions as a part of a larger logical system.  Scripture can be summarized in a logical system and that logical system is the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Saving faith is not alone but is instead a part of the entire system of theological and biblical truth summarized in several of the Reformed confessions.

But just to be clear, Dr. Clark also said that love is not an emotion. He viewed love as obedience to the commands of Christ and the moral law of God.  Love cannot tell someone whether to side with the Russians or ISIS.  Love cannot tell someone right from wrong.  The only way to give the word love any meaning is to relate it to the commandments of God.  The following quote from Dr. Clark removes any confusion about justification by faith, what saving faith is, and what love is:

As a preliminary step in specifying the meaning of love, one may cite John 14:15, 21, and John 15:10, 14, where love, if not formally defined as obedience, is so closely connected with it that there seems to be no room for anything else.  1 John 2:3-5 supports this, and 1 John 5:2 says, "By this we know that we love (agapomen) the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments."  It would seem therefore that the visible characteristic of love is obedience, and love itself is a desire to obey.  Is there any reason to suppose that Paul disagreed with John's concept of love?

2  "And if I have prophecy and know all the secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to change the position of the mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

Again, Paul uses subjunctives in present general conditions, nothing implied:  a person without love, one who habitually refuses to obey the commandments, does not have knowledge and faith.  Surely Paul would not write a chapter to deny justification by faith alone and assert justification by obedience.  Here is the key to the paradoxes, the seeming contradictions, that arise from this chapter:  love or obedience is a good work that is inseparably connected with faith and regeneration.  It is neither the basis nor the means of justification; but a faith or an alleged faith that does not evidence itself in love or good works is not saving faith.   (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:1-2).

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  First Corinthians:  A Contemporary Commentary.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1975).  P. 208

So for all those hyper-Calvinists and antinomians out there who deny that Christians have an obligation to obey God, it would seem that Scripture and the Westminster Confession disagree.  (Romans 6:1-2).  Saving faith results in a changed life, not a life that habitually and deliberately turns the grace of God into lasciviousness and disobedience.  (Jude 1:3-4; 1 John 3:4-6).  This is not to say that Christians reach sinless perfection.  They do not.  But ironically the antinomians believe they are sinless because they are no longer under the law and it is the law alone that can reveal that Christians and everyone else sins (Romans 3:19-20; 7:7).  Christians are not under the law as a covenant of works.  But they are under the law as their duty to live and love by faith in obedience to Christ and His Gospel.  (Romans 10:16; Isaiah 53:1; John 12:38; Romans 3:3).

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 14  Of Saving Faith

2.      By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; (John 4:42, 1 Thess. 2:13, 1 John 5:10, Acts 24:14) and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, (Rom. 16:26) trembling at the threatenings, (Isa. 66:2) and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. (Heb. 11:13, 1 Tim. 4:8) But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (John 1:12, Acts 16:31, Gal. 2:20, Acts 15:11)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Even Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who was the English Reformer who was burned at the stake by Bloody Mary or Mary Tudor, said the following in the revised Articles of Religion:

VII. Of the Old Testament. THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.   Thirty-nine Articles of Religion

Gordon H. Clark: Of Saving Faith

 "That the Spirit of God can in fact operate on our minds and cause us to turn to God has already been discussed in the previous chapters, from which we can now repeat Psalm 65:4..." 

"...the objective difficulty reduces to the question whether the unity of truth can be preserved or whether data, precisely because they are data, must be disconnected and unsystematic."

Dr. Gordon H. Clark

There are many antinomians on the internet who like to quote Dr. Gordon H. Clark out of context as if his view of saving faith as knowledge plus intellectual assent supports their blatant hyper-Calvinism.  However, Dr. Clark held that the Bible is propositional revelation and that all the parts of Scripture fit together into a logical system of theological truth that can be summarized.  The Westminster Confession of Faith is the best summary of the system of propositional truth in the Bible according to Dr. Clark.  Saving faith cannot be divorced from the whole Bible or from the rest of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Saving Faith is in chapter 14 of the WCF, which is listed in order of priority according to Dr. Clark.  The most important doctrine according to the Westminster divines is Scripture.   The Trinity is chapter 2 and predestination is in chapter 3.   

From the article on saving faith posted at the Trinity website we learn that Dr. Clark rejected the threefold view of saving faith as knowledge, assent, and trust.  This is because the Greek word for faith is pisteuo.  The Greek language is used in the Bible, not the Latin Vulgate translation.   The Greek word means faith, assent, belief, trust.  All four terms are precise synonyms and mean the same thing.  So according to Dr. Clark you are saying that if saving faith is knowledge, assent, and trust you are just repeating yourself.  You would be saying that saving faith is knowledge, faith and faith.  Or to put it another way, saving faith is knowledge, belief and belief.  But this is utter nonsense:

The usual evangelical analysis of belief separates it into three parts: notitia, assensus, and fiducia-or understanding, assent, and trust. Perhaps even theologians who use this analysis might omit fiducia if they confined themselves to belief as such; for in a colloquial manner a person who believes that Columbus discovered America in 1492, or in 1374, is not taken as an example of trust. Yet is he not actually an example of confidence?

****

The crux of the difficulty with the popular analysis of faith into notitia (understanding), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust), is that fiducia comes from the same root as fides (faith). Hence this popular analysis reduces to the obviously absurd definition that faith consists of understanding, assent, and faith. Something better than this tautology must be found.

Gordon H. Clark.  "Saving Faith," in the Trinity Review.  December 1979. 

The Van Tilians and other neo-Calvinists accuse Scripturalists of antinomianism because they reject the tautological definition of saving faith as knowledge plus faith plus trust.  Unfortunately, some so-called Clarkians are antinomians and it is not because they reject Clark's definition of saving faith in this article.  But it is because they isolate this one article by Clark which is right on the mark and then ignore the system of theology that Clark advocated.  Clark held that propositions cannot be isolated from one another but must fit into an epistemological and logical system in order for there to be knowledge:

These two difficulties concern the function of the human mid [sic] in its obtaining truth, and may therefore be called subjective. One should also distinguish certain objective considerations, for the two questions, What is truth? and How do we know?, although related, are not identical. Further use of this distinction will be made later; so far as empiricism goes, the objective difficulty reduces to the question whether the unity of truth can be preserved or whether data, precisely because they are data, must be disconnected and unsystematic. A mere mention of this objective difficulty must suffice at this point in view of the contention that the subjective difficulties with empiricism seem to be insuperable.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark in "The Nature of Truth," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation.   (Should say "human mind" where you see sic).


What Clark argued in the above article should be compared with what he also said in his other writings in regards to faith and to the other parts of the system of theological truth deduced from Scripture.


One foolish supporter of Scripturalism stupidly said that assurance of salvation is a feeling of confidence.  But that goes against the theology and philosophy of Dr. Clark who said that truth is not based on feelings but on logical consistency and propositional knowledge.  All knowledge is propositional.  In Dr. Clark's commentary on chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith he rejects both antinomianism and psychology as elements of saving faith.  By implication that would likewise mean that assurance of salvation is not based on emotional or psychological feelings but on a knowledge of one's own personal propositions that he or she thinks:

CHAPTER XIV—Of Saving Faith

  1.      The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, (Heb. 10:39) is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, (2 Cor. 4:13, Eph. 1:17–19, Eph. 2:8) and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, (Rom. 10:14,17) by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened. (1 Pet. 2:2, Acts 20:32, Rom. 4:11, Luke 17:5, Rom. 1:16–17)
  2.      By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; (John 4:42, 1 Thess. 2:13, 1 John 5:10, Acts 24:14) and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, (Rom. 16:26) trembling at the threatenings, (Isa. 66:2) and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. (Heb. 11:13, 1 Tim. 4:8) But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (John 1:12, Acts 16:31, Gal. 2:20, Acts 15:11)
  3.      This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; (Heb. 5:13–14, Rom. 4:19–20, Matt. 6:30, Matt. 8:10) may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: (Luke 22:31–32, Eph. 6:16, 1 John 5:4–5) growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, (Heb. 6:11–12, Heb. 10:22) who is both the author and finisher of our faith. (Heb. 12:2)


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

In commenting on section 1, Dr. Clark says:

The first section of this chapter contains two main ideas: (1) faith is the work of Christ's Spirit within us, and (2) faith is ordinarily produced through the Word of God.

Point one involves the relationship and cooperation between the Spirit and our minds.  Many people are puzzled by the idea that the Spirit of God and the mind of man can cooperate in one and the same mental act.  A theory of free will has led these people to suppose that the human mind is impervious to the control of the Spirit.  But this is not what the Bible says.  That the Spirit can in fact operate on our minds and cause us to turn to God has already been discussed in the previous chapters, from which we may now repeat Psalm 65:4, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee."  Here in this chapter it is more explicitly said that faith is produced in the souls of the elect by the Holy Spirit.  Faith is indeed something that we do; it is our own mental activity; but it is an activity that could not have been initiated by any decision of a free will, nor produced by ordinary human striving.  Faith is the gift of God.  We do indeed work out our own salvation [Philippians 2:11-12]; we are the actors; but we work it out in fear and trembling because it is God who works in us so as to cause us not only to do something, but to will to do it in the first place.  And all of this is according to God's good pleasure.  If therefore the Spirit works faith in us, we have faith; if he does does not, we don't.

....Thus it is that wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and faith are produced in our souls by the power of God.  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  (1965.  Second Edition.  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001).  Pp. 143-144.

As anyone can plainly see, Dr. Clark was correcting a logical error that the neo-Calvinists make in asserting that faith and trust are two different aspects of saving faith.  They cannot be two different things if the two terms are synonymous.  But that is not to say that Clark was teaching antinomianism as both the Van Tilian detractors and the misinformed "Scripturalists", who isolate one article by Dr. Clark from the rest of his writings, propose.  Obviously all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, not just the passages that teach justification by the instrumental means of faith and faith alone.  The quote above clearly indicates that saving faith involves knowledge and assent but that saving faith also results in conversion, repentance and sanctification.  Do I really need to quote from other chapters of Dr. Clark's commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith to demonstrate my point?


Charlie

CHAPTER XIII—Of Sanctification

  1.      They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, (1 Cor. 6:11, Acts 20:32, Phil. 3:10, Rom. 6:5–6) by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them, (John 17:17, Eph. 5:26, 2 Thess. 2:13) the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, (Rom. 6:6,14) and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; (Gal. 5:24, Rom. 8:13) and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, (Col. 1:11, Eph. 3:16–19) to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. (2 Cor. 7:1, Heb. 12:14)


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Further Disputations on the Doctrine of Assurance

If now a person wants the basic answer to the question, Why does one man have faith and another not, or, Why does one man accept the Koran and another the Bible, this is it. God causes the one to believe. But if a person asks some other question or raises an objection, he will have to read the argument over again.  -- Dr. Gordon H. Clark

As a continuing comment on the blog post on assurance over at God's Hammer blog, I want to point out that I am not an opponent of Gordon H. Clark's Scripturalism.  In fact I affirm it, though I would qualify that statement by saying that I might disagree with Clark here and there on minor points.  The issue of saving faith as defined by Clark as knowledge plus belief can be controversial because many of the early Reformers asserted that assurance and saving faith were essentially the same thing.  However, they were not always consistent on this point since obviously new believers can and often do struggle for a long time against known habitual sins before they overcome those sins.  Also, as King David in the Bible proves, Christians can and do fall into grievous sins that cause them to question or doubt their salvation.  And this is well deserved since most Reformed churches require discipline such as exclusion from the Lord's table until the person has repented of their sins.  The doctrine of self examination prior to coming to the Lord's table for communion applies here as well.  (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

As noted in my previous post, Dr. Gordon H. Clark interacted with other Reformed sources in articulating his position on assurance, which he sharply distinguishes from both justification and sanctification.  Since faith must begin somewhere, it logically follows that assurance is not identical to faith.  Faith and assurance must be distinguished on this point for the consequent of faith cannot be identical to it.  This does not mean, however, that every new believer must struggle long and hard for assurance since not everyone is saved from out of grossly and grievously sinful lifestyles.  

Where Sean Gerety and I part ways, however, is that he asserts that it is never possible to know that one is saved.  He is equivocating on the word "know" here because he is speaking from the view point of logic and rationalism.  Technically speaking, from a strictly epistemological and rational perspective, it is not possible to know that one is saved because as fallen human beings we are all affected by the noetic effects of original sin.  It would require that we be infallible interpreters of our own conscience if we based our salvation on our subjective change of mind and behavior.  (Jeremiah 17:9-10).  Unregenerate men, both elect and reprobate, suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  (Romans 1:18-21).  The difference is that the elect will be granted regeneration and faith while the reprobate is unable to believe.  (John 1:13; 3:3-8; 6:44, 65; Matthew 22:14).  Furthermore, knowledge of our salvation is possible according to the Bible (1 John 5:13).  Whether this knowledge is infallibly understood is another issue.

Furthermore, we are not only imputed with the guilt of Adam's original sin but we also inherit a sinful soul from our parents.  Dr. Clark affirmed the traducian view of the transmission of the sinful nature from one generation to the next; but, he also affirmed the basis for this curse that is imputed to each new generation and transmitted to the next generation by the soul's being derived spiritually from one's parents is the federal headship of Adam over the whole human race.  (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 5:12-21; Psalm 51:4-5; Psalm 58:3; Exodus 20:5; Jeremiah 32:18).

But if the Bible says that we can know we are saved, then we can know that we are saved.  That is the point of view of Scripturalism.  The way the Bible is using the word "know" is in regards to knowing the information in the system of logical and propositional revelation in the Bible, believing it, and then obeying it.  Dr. Clark says that assurance is the result of belief and obedience as the two prerequisites to attaining it.  Of course, regeneration precedes faith and obedience; and, according to Dr. Clark, the will does not participate in regeneration, which is monergistic, but the will does cooperate with believing and obeying.  Dr. Clark asserts that sanctification is synergistic but this is not the same synergism that Arminians propose with their doctrines of libertarian free will, conditional election, and prevenient grace.  Rather, Dr. Clark means that even our cooperation is produced by the decrees and providence of God.  (Philippians 2:12-13; Proverbs 21:1).

Dr. Clark further disagreed with William Cunningham's approval of assurance as coextensive with faith as a "state of mind" that includes "a necessary constituent element" of assurance or trust:

Other proofs might be adduced that the Reformers, when judged of as they should be, by a deliberate and conjunct view of all they have said upon the subject, did not carry their doctrine of assurance to such extremes as we might be warranted in ascribing to them because of some of their more formal statements, intended to tell upon their controversies with Romanists regarding this matter. And more than this, the real difference between the Reformers and the Romanists upon the subject of assurance, when calmly and deliberately investigated, was not quite so important as the combatants on either side imagined, and did not -really respect the precise questions which persons imperfectly acquainted with the works on both sides might naturally enough regard it as involving. 


With respect to the nature of saving faith the principal ground of controversy was this, that the Romanists held that it had its seat in the intellect, and was properly and fundamentally assent (assensus); while the Reformers in general maintained that it had its seat in the will, and was properly and essentially trust (fiducia). The great majority of eminent Protestant divines have adhered to the views of the Reformers upon this point, though some have taken the opposite side, and have held faith, properly so called, to be the mere assent of the understanding to truth propounded by God in His word; while they represent trust and other graces as the fruits or consequences, and not as constituent parts and elements, of faith. This controversy cannot be held to be of very great importance, so long as the advocates of the position, that faith is in itself the simple belief of the truth, admit that true faith necessarily and invariably produces trust and other graces, - an admission which is cheerfully made by all the Protestant defenders of this view, and which its Popish advocates, though refusing in words, are obliged to make in substance in another form. There is an appearance of greater simplicity and metaphysical accuracy in representing faith as in itself a mere assent to truth, and trust and other graces as its necessary consequences. But the right question is, What is the meaning attached in Scripture to the faith which justifies and saves? Upon this question we agree with the Reformers in thinking, that in Scripture usage faith is applied, in its highest and most important sense, only to a state of mind of which trust in Christ as a Saviour is a necessary constituent element.


William Cunningham (0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00). The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Kindle Locations 2123-2140). Monergism. Kindle Edition. 

[Cunningham's book can be downloaded for free at Monergism.com by clicking here].

Clark disagreed with Cunningham's analysis and opted for faith as knowledge plus assent.  The idea that assurance is a necessary consequence of saving faith also seems to be Clark's view, though he insists on justification which has as its purpose a resulting sanctification.  That sanctification necessarily and consequently results in a change in one's habitual thinking and acting.  The purpose of justification is a resulting sanctification, which in turn produces assurance in the face of one's struggles against sin.  When pushed, however, that we can never be sure if we have enough obedience and knowledge to attain this assurance from the propositions of the infallible Scriptures and how our self examination matches up to that standard, Clark concedes that he agrees with Luther after all.

Perhaps someone will say that it is wrong to seek for a method of achieving assurance. It is a gift of God, we cannot earn it; there is nothing for us to do except to hope that God favors us. Well, it is true that assurance, like faith, is a gift of God, but though regeneration and faith can have no preparation on our part, assurance or at least sanctification requires certain actions by us. Perhaps method is not the proper term, but John tells us that “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” The usual exegesis of “these things” that John wrote is that faith, love, and obedience, while they do not automatically produce assurance, are nonetheless requirements for being a candidate, so to speak, to receive it. Actually love is one form of obedience, since it is commanded, and hence belief and overt obedience are the two prerequisites.

There is, however, a difficulty. It is the same one Luther struggled with before he discovered the doctrine of justification. In Romanism he was supposed to earn his salvation by good works, penance, flagellation, and various monkish practices. But, being very sincere, he was troubled because he could never be sure that he had done enough. A similar difficulty arises here. If we wish to distinguish a valid assurance from a false assurance, how can we know that we have a sufficient theological knowledge and a sufficient degree of obedience to have met the requirements? Do we love deeply enough? Have we satisfied John’s criteria? Is there any devotional writer who has forthrightly faced this problem? It is hard to believe that none of them has thought of it. If as previously stated, Louis Berkhof’s temporary faith can last a lifetime, how can the true be identified in contrast with the false?

Gordon H. Clark (2013-03-04T05:00:00+00:00). What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 754-768). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

So it is absolutely wrong for Sean Gerety to agree with William Cunningham's P1 and P2 syllogism while ignoring the complete argument by Dr. Clark.   Here is the relevant quote from Cunningham:

The Reformers, in order to show that the assurance which might be attained without either a special revelation or the testimony of the church was full and perfect, were led to identify it with our belief in the doctrines of God’s word, and to represent it as necessarily included or implied in the act or exercise of justifying and saving faith; nay, even sometimes to give it as the very definition of saving faith, that it is a belief that our own sins have been forgiven, and that we have been brought into a state of grace. This seemed to be an obvious and ready method of giving to the belief of our personal safety for eternity the very highest degree of certainty, and hence many of the Reformers were tempted to adopt it.

This view was certainly exaggerated and erroneous. It is very evident that no man can be legitimately assured of his own salvation simply by understanding and believing what is contained or implied in the actual statements of Scripture. Some additional element of a different kind must be brought in, in order to warrant such an assurance; something in the state or condition of the man himself must be in some way ascertained and known in order to this result. It may not, indeed, always require any lengthened or elaborate process of self-examination to ascertain what is needful to be known about men themselves, in order to their being assured that they have been brought into a state of grace. The circumstances that preceded and accompanied their conversion may have been such as to leave them in no doubt about their having passed from darkness to light. Their present consciousness may testify at once and explicitly to the existence in them of those things which the Bible informs us accompany salvation. But still it is true, that another element than anything contained in Scripture must be brought in as a part of the foundation of their assurance. And when they are called upon to state and vindicate to themselves or to others the grounds of their assurance, they must of necessity proceed in substance in the line of the familiar syllogism, “Whosoever believeth in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved; I believe, and therefore,” etc.

There is no possibility of avoiding in substance some such process as this; and while the major proposition is proved by Scripture, the minor can be established only by some use of materials derived from consciousness and self-examination. There are no positions connected with religion which can be so certain as those which are directly and immediately taught in Scripture, and which are usually said to be believed with the certainty of faith or of divine faith. The introduction of an element, as necessary to the conclusion, derived from a different source, viz. from the knowledge of what we ourselves are, must be admitted in fairness to complicate the evidence, and to affect the kind if not the degree of the certainty or assurance that may result from it. It is unwarrantable to give as the definition of saving faith, the belief that my sins are forgiven; for it is not true that my sins are forgiven until I believe, and it holds true universally, that God requires us to believe nothing which is not true before we believe it, and which may not be propounded to us to be believed, accompanied at the same time with satisfactory evidence of its truth; and if so, the belief that our sins are forgiven, and that we have been brought into a state of grace, must be posterior in the order of nature,

William Cunningham (0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00). The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Kindle Locations 2058-2082). Monergism. Kindle Edition.

Clark agreed with the distinction between P1 and P2.  But his answer to the problem was sanctification.  Sanctification is based on the knowledge of Scripture (John 17:17).   If there is a total disconnect between an intellectual apprehension, understanding of the information in Scripture and one's personal knowledge of himself--as Sean Gerety proposes--then it is impossible to know if one is sanctified or not.  It would further be pointless to examine one's self prior to communion because one cannot know anything whatsoever about one's self.  Worse, as Dr. Clark finally admits above, even conceding that belief and obedience are necessary prerequisites for assurance, how would one know if one has known enough of the information in the Bible to attain saving faith or obeyed enough of the commands in the Bible to attain to an acceptable level in the process of sanctification?  Sanctification lasts a lifetime.  (Philippians 3:13-16).  So if we take Sean Gerety's skeptical point of view, the entire epistemological system espoused by Dr. Gordon H. Clark's Scripturalism collapses.  The necessary consequence is therefore agnosticism.

Even Dr. Clark admitted that his view has a problem.  How do you know if you have believed enough or obeyed enough to have assurance?  In the end, Clark had to admit that both Luther and Calvin were right in regards to justification.  Justification by faith alone is the root and ground of assurance, though it is not inseparably connected with or coextensive with assurance.  While the purpose of justification is to produce sanctification and assurance, this assurance would be absolutely impossible without the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  Though faith and assurance are not inseparably connected, they are intimately related and assurance could not be possible whatsoever without justification by faith alone and by the doctrine of saving faith, which Dr. Clark defined as notitia (knowledge) plus assensus (belief).  (See:  Gordon H. Clark, "Saving Faith," December 1979, Trinity Review).

When the rubber meets the road, then, assurance is a necessary consequence of saving faith somewhere in the system.  This is where Gerety gets it wrong.  He thinks that particular points are in isolation from other points and in his blog posts Gerety fails to place his remarks within the context of the system of theology in Scripture and summarized by the Westminster Standards.

Dr. Clark contended that the Westminster Confession was slightly off when it says that the elect believer can have an "infallible assurance" of salvation because a subjective assurance is not infallible.  Only Scripture is an infallible revelation from God, not one's subjective apprehension of it.  Also, assurance needs no extra-biblical revelation from God as the papists and the Catabaptists contended.

There is, however, an additional problem that Dr. Clark never addresses.  If there is no additional special revelation, how would regeneration produce faith in the Bible?  According to Dr. Clark, in the end the only way a person can know the Bible is the Word of God and not the Koran is by regeneration:

All of this, naturally, depends on the acceptance of Biblical revelation. The secularists will have none of it. How can you prove, they ask, that the Bible is a divine revelation? Well, of course, a Dogmatist does not try to prove it. The question ignores the preceding argument concerning skepticism, first principles, and suicide. There is, however, another question that secularists can ask and do. It is not an impertinent question. It raises an important issue, the answer to which helps to clarify the dogmatic position. The question is: Granted that one must choose a first indemonstrable principle, how does one decide between two incompatible principles? . . .

. . . The religious form of this philosophical question, the form that occurs in many a volume on religious types, the question hardly anyone fails to ask, is, "Since several religions and several documents claim to be divinely revealed, how does one choose the Bible rather than the Koran?" This question properly understood and seriously put is not impertinent, as the first one was. Sometimes the difference is not understood, in which case it is taken as an objection to Dogmatism. But it is not an objection. Nor should it be directed against Dogmatism alone. Every non-skeptical position, as was made clear earlier, must have a first principle. Rationalists are well aware of this; Empiricists usually ignore or deny it and claim presuppositionless objectivity. But it applies to them with equal force. They too must answer why they assign so basic a position to sensation. Hence there is a perfectly legitimate question, applicable to all types of philosophy, concerning the choice of a first principle.

Dogmatic Christianity has its answer, a clear-cut answer, to this impressive question.  . . .

Gordon H. Clark (2013-08-12T04:00:00+00:00). Three Types of Religious Philosophy (Kindle Locations 1922-1938). Kindle Edition.

Even the Lutheran evidentialist John Warwick Montgomery questions Dr. Clark's Dogmatism with this silly question:

Rejecting this as “fuddled reasoning,” Professor Montgomery, among other things, asks, “How would the presuppositionalist distinguish the Bible he claims to start with a priori from Playboy magazine?”

Gordon H. Clark (2013-08-12T04:00:00+00:00). Three Types of Religious Philosophy (Kindle Locations 2004-2005). Kindle Edition.


And what is Dr. Clark's answer?  I will not quote the rest of his response.  You can read the book yourself by purchasing it at the Trinity Foundation in either paperback or e-book format.  Here is his clincher or zinger:

What now is the question to be answered? It is not, Shall we choose? Or, is it permissible to choose? We must choose; since we are alive we have chosen – either a dogmatic principle or empirical insanity. The question therefore, urged by atheist, evangelical Christian, and evangelistic Moslem, is, Why does anyone choose the Bible rather than the Koran? The answer to this question will also explain how a Christian can present the Gospel to a non-Christian without depending on any logically common proposition in their two systems.

Since all possible knowledge must be contained within the system and deduced from its principles, the dogmatic answer must be found in the Bible itself. The answer is that faith is the gift of God. As Psalm 65:4 says, God chooses a man and causes him to accept Christian Dogmatism. Conversely, the Apostle John informs us that the Pharisees could not believe because God had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.  [John 12:39-40; John 10:26].

The initiation of spiritual life, called regeneration, is the immediate work of the Holy Spirit. It is not produced by Abrahamic blood, nor by natural desire, nor by any act of human will. In particular, it is not produced by arguments based on secular and empirical presuppositions. Even if there were a common truth in secularism and Christianity, arguments based on it would not produce faith. What empirical evangelicals think is most necessary, is most useless.

Gordon H. Clark (2013-08-12T04:00:00+00:00). Three Types of Religious Philosophy (Kindle Locations 2130-2140). Kindle Edition.

Clark goes on to say that there is no common ground with the unbeliever.  Reason or logic standing alone is rationalism and rationalism, according to Dr. Clark, always leads to skepticism.  Gerety's error, then is rationalism, and rejecting Clark's Dogmatism as the source for defining the doctrine of assurance.  That is because faith itself is impossible without regeneration:

Even the preaching of the Gospel does not produce faith. However, the preaching of the Gospel does one thing that a fallacious argument from a non-existent common ground cannot do: It provides the propositions that must be believed.

But the belief comes from God: God causes a man to believe; faith is a divine gift. In evangelistic work there can be no appeal to secular, non-Christian material. There is an appeal – it is the appeal of prayer to the Holy Spirit to cause the sinner to accept the truths of the Gospel. Any other appeal is useless.

If now a person wants the basic answer to the question, Why does one man have faith and another not, or, Why does one man accept the Koran and another the Bible, this is it. God causes the one to believe. But if a person asks some other question or raises an objection, he will have to read the argument over again.

Gordon H. Clark (2013-08-12T04:00:00+00:00). Three Types of Religious Philosophy (Kindle Locations 2140-2146). Kindle Edition.

The difficulty here is not that I disagree with Clark's conclusion.  The difficulty is that regeneration is something different from the information in the Bible.  It is not something caused by knowledge.  Assent to the information in the Bible can only be caused by a subjective change in the mind of the person and this change, like sanctification and assurance, is caused by God in the mind or soul of the elect person.  (Titus 3:5; John 3:3-8).  So following the logic of Sean Gerety, if it is impossible to know one is saved, then he is in disagreement with the doctrine of regeneration and with the doctrine of justifying faith.  He is also in disagreement with the doctrine of sanctification and with the doctrine of assurance.  The system of doctrine in the Bible must be accepted as the whole counsel of God.  (Acts 20:27).  Regeneration would appear to be a form of special revelation directly given to the individually elect person, namely that the mind of the elect person is given regeneration and the illumination of the Scriptures so that he or she is enabled to believe that information, be justified, sanctified and obtain a consequent assurance of salvation.

6.      The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) . . .

Chapter 1, Of the Holy Scriptures.

The Westminster confession of faith. (1996). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

And finally, against Gerety's implied view that every elect person must always struggle long and hard to obtain assurance of salvation, the Westminster Larger Catechism puts that to rest:

Question 80

Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him, (1 John 2:3) 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, (1 Cor. 2:12, 1 John 3:14,18–19,21,24, 1 John 4:13,16, Heb. 6:11–12) and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, (Rom. 8:16) be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation. (1 John 5:13)


The Westminster larger catechism: with scripture proofs. (1996). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Notice that there are conditional results of saving faith prerequisite to attaining an "infallible" assurance.   Election itself is unconditional and is the result of God's eternal and unchanging decrees.  But in the temporal order of the falling out of the decrees according to God's providence, there are conditions that are met by God's irresistible graces in the mind and soul of the elect.  Is it impossible for God to grant an infallible assurance?  If so, then maybe it is impossible for God to regenerate the elect as well?  The infallible assurance is based on the infallible promises of God and the self examination of the elect person as to how his or her thoughts, words and deeds line up with the revealed propositions and commands in the Holy Scriptures.  This question and answer follows immediately after Question 79 dealing with the possibility that elect persons can fall into sin yet are not lost.  Even perseverance does not depend upon the will of the elect because it is God who causes them to persevere.  (See WCF 17:2).

Not everyone has this infallible assurance but that is not to say that everyone must struggle with assurance from their initial conversion.   (See WLC 81).  As stated above, Dr. Clark disagreed with the WCF and WLC on the issue of an infallible assurance.  But since WCF 80 and the 18th chapter of the WCF adequately explain this assurance as being conditioned on saving faith and self examination, it follows that Dr. Clark's concerns are inconsistent with his views on regeneration and illumination as stated in WCF 1:6.  Rejecting extraordinary revelation as the basis for assurance does not entail rejecting infallible assurance since both regeneration and illumination cannot be information in the Bible either.  It is interesting that Dr. Clark only refers to WCF chapter 18 and never mentions question 80 in the WLC. This is the problem Clark never addressed; so as I see it, Dr. Clark was inconsistent in rejecting infallible assurance while accepting regeneration and illumination. And, worse, some of Clark's followers have gone way beyond what Clark intended and have instead opted for an implicit agnosticism which Clark himself rejected on the basis of Dogmatism and regeneration.  So concludes my rambling response to Sean Gerety.

Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

As proof that Sean Gerety accepts assurance as an emotion or feeling of confidence and not a logical deduction made from Scripture in regards to how your life lines up with the commands of obedience in the Bible, you can read this irrational piece:  Assurance and Knowledge.

Lordship Salvation According to Dr. Gordon H. Clark

Excerpt from the Homily on Good Works

Let no man therefore,” saith he, “reckon upon his good works before his faith: where as faith was not, good works were not. The intent,” saith he, “maketh the good works; but faith must guide and order the intent of man.” And Christ saith, [Matt. 6:23.] If thinel eye be naught, thy whole body is full of darkness. “The eye doth signify the intent,” saith St. Augustine,2 “wherewith a man doeth a thing.” So that he which doeth not his good works with a godly intent and a true faith that worketh by love," the whole body beside (that is to say, all the whole number of his works) is dark, and there is no light in it.m For good deeds be not measured by the facts themselves, and so dissevered from vices, but by the ends and intents for the which they be done.o3 If a heathen man clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and do such other like works; yet, because he doeth them not in faith for the honour and love of God, they be but dead, vain, and fruitless works to him.4 Faith is it that doth commend the work to God: “for,” as St. Augustine saith,5 “whether thou wilt or no, that work that cometh not of faith is naught.” Where the faith of Christ is not the foundation, there is no good work, what building soever we make. [Page 2].

Excerpt from the Homily on Good Works

Ecstatic Religion or Propositional Truth? Dr. Michael Horton - Faith & Experience - Listen to Free Online White Horse Inn Christian Radio Broadcasts

This broadcast of The White Horse Inn is just as pertinent today as ever. Too many Christians look to a mystical, ecstatic religious experience instead of looking to the objective work of Christ on the cross 2,000 years ago. Many Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics today derogatorily call this "head knowledge" or "dead orthodoxy". They emphasize the emotional side of the human being or human nature above all else. Indirectly what they are saying is that knowledge and understanding of Holy Scripture is irrelevant and only a direct encounter or intuition of the divine is all that matters. John Wesley felt his heart strangely warmed when he heard Luther's introduction to the Epistle to the Romans read at Aldersgate Chapel in 1738. (See Wesley's Aldersgate Experience). What folks miss is that Wesley was "thinking" about what he had heard read. In short, it was both an intellectual event and an emotional event. The propositional truth claims made by Luther in his introduction to Romans so captured Wesley's mind that he was moved both cognitively and emotionally to understand that he could never perfectly keep the moral law of God. Unfortunately, Wesley was inconsistent logically. As the late Gordon H. Clark once said, "If Arminians were more logical they wouldn't be Arminians!"

To place all the emphasis on the emotions or ecstatic religion is to be led astray. The Mormons, who teach doctrines diametrically opposed to orthodox Christianity, emphasize the emotions and having the heart warmed. I suspect they got that from Wesley. The New Age movement, Wicca, paganism, and Sufi Islam all emphasize mystical experiences with the divine. But are they true religions? No. Only a religion that draws its doctrines straight from God's Word written in the Holy Scriptures can claim to be theologically true and logically consistent.  (2 Timothy 3:15, 16, 17; 2 Peter 1:19, 20, 21).

May God's peace be yours today! (Romans 5:1-2)

Charlie

Faith and Experience

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Which is more important, Christ's objective work on the cross 2,000 years ago, or my subjective experience of God today? The good news that the Apostles announced concerned Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and the announcement of that objective fact creates faith and a rich experience of thankfulness and gratitude. But what happens if we preach experience itself, rather than the objective work of Christ? On this special edition of the program recorded live at Grace Lutheran Church in San Diego, Michael Horton and Rod Rosenbladt unpack the relationship between faith and experience.

To hear this edition of The White Horse Inn, click here: Dr. Michael Horton - Faith & Experience - Listen to Free Online White Horse Inn Christian Radio Broadcasts

Addendum:  Rod Rosenbladt's definition of saving faith as knowledge, assent, and trust has been refuted by Gordon H. Clark in his doctrine of saving faith as belief.  Clark said that the word for faith in the Greek New Testament is one word.  (See Strongs Concordance:  Faith).  The idea that Scripture teaches three aspects of faith is wrong since believing is synonymous with knowledge, assent, and trust.  Faith is all three in one and that one word means "believe".  See Clark:  What is Saving Faith?  The short of it is that these psychological categories or faculty psychology are not in the New Testament text.

Reasonable Christian: Saving Faith, by Gordon H. Clark

Reasonable Christian: Saving Faith, by Gordon H. Clark

D. Broughton Knox: Do the Sacraments Save?

. . . The soul feeds on Christ, the living bread. --David Broughton Knox

Do the Sacraments “Justify” or “Save”? Good Question!

Most of us with knee jerk reaction would immediately say that the sacraments do not save. We think that any idea of a sacrament saving anyone must be a Roman Catholic doctrine. At one time I would have denied that baptism and the Lord's supper were anything more than mere ceremonies reminding us of what Christ did in His ministry on earth and in His atoning death for the sins of the whole world. Since then I have become a Calvinist and later a Reformed Anglican.

Recently, I've been reading D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works, Volume III: The Christian Life, Tony Payne and Karen Beilharz, eds., (Kingsford: Matthias Media: 2006). I have major problems with several of D. Broughton Knox's theological positions including his tendency to emphasize following the example of Jesus more than justification by faith alone and his view that faith is more than assent. How can we assent to something we do not believe? I also have a problem with some statements Knox made about the sacraments being unnecessary in which he implied that we ought to throw out the sacraments. I got that feeling from the emphasis of Broughton Knox's son, David Paul Knox. I also strongly disagree with Broughton Knox on the issue of the extent of the atonement. Unfortunately, Knox was an Amyraldian and believed in a general atonement. However, in reading volume three I'm finding that perhaps David Knox has misunderstood or misinterpreted his father's views on the sacraments.

I was pleasantly surprised when I began reading the section on justification by faith only. The trouble with Broughton's theology is that it is often eclectic and disorganized. He never wrote a systematic theology himself and the Selected Works are basically an ad hoc collection of his lectures, radio addresses and papers. One gets the impression that the editors have influenced how Knox is understood and read by the order in which the material is presented and put together as well as what got put into the publication and what did not. What is worthy of note here is that Knox did emphasize the doctrine of justification by faith alone, although at times one has to wonder if Knox confuses Law with Gospel, particularly in the chapter where he says that the Gospel is “news” but not necessarly “good news”. While his exegetical point is well taken that the original language word for Gospel is often only “news” not necessarily “good” news. That's true of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament as well. The trouble is Knox thinks preaching judgment is part of the Gospel. That is in effect to confuse Law with Gospel.

But in reading the section on justification by faith Knox makes it clear that he does have a firm grasp of justification by faith alone. Sometimes I wonder if part of the problem is the way Australian theologians phrase things. At any rate, right in the midst of the chapter on justification by faith alone, Knox makes the astounding claim that the sacraments save! Before you holler, “Heresy!” take a long breath and consider the Reformed view of what a sacrament actually is. It seems that despite Knox's view that the sacraments are not necessary—his remark was in the context of world missions and cross cultural communication of the Gospel—he actually held to a Calvinist and Zwinglian view of the sacraments. In other words, the sacraments do save in one sense and they do not save in another. If we mean that the sacraments have some magical quality inherent within the elements of bread and wine, then that is the Roman Catholic view and is in fact heresy and unbiblical doctrine. However, if we understand that the sacraments are a metaphor for our spiritual union with Christ, then the sacraments do save. Without true faith baptism and the Lord's supper are meaningless and empty signs. For the Christian, however, the spiritual participation in Christ as the way to the Father, the water of life, the bread of heaven, etc., to eat and drink the blood of Christ is to focus on who Jesus Christ is and to feed on Him by faith. It is not the eating of bread and the drinking of wine that nourishes the soul but the spiritual union with Christ by faith that takes places in the sacrament. Bread and wine nourish the body but the sacrament nourishes and builds our faith in Christ because we spiritually eat and drink. It is our union with Christ that makes the sacrament salvific and effectual, not the physical eating and drinking of bread and wine.

Only a direct relation of the sacraments to the doctrine of justification by faith makes the sacraments justify, according to Broughton Knox:

A question suggests itself that, if works have no part in justification, why does the New Testament speak of the sacraments as bringing forgiveness and participation in Christ? For example, St Peter stated that baptism saves. [1 Peter 3:21] By it St Paul washed away his sins. [Acts 22:16] The Corinthians are told that, by partaking of the Lord's Supper, they participate in Christ himself. [1 Corinthians 10:16].

In baptism and the Lord's Supper, God's provision of forgiveness and spiritual sustenance in Christ is plainly depicted in the actions of the service and enunciated in the accompanying words. In these sacraments God holds out for acceptance his promises. They are, in fact, sacraments of the gospel. By them the gospel is preached and by them its benefits are appropriated. As faith takes hold of the promises, so God grants to the believer the promised blessing, as he has covenanted to do. . .

. . . The soul feeds on Christ, the living bread.

Thus the sacraments bring blessing because they are the exercise of faith toward God's promises which are exhibited in them. They only bring blessing so long as they are the expression of faith. As the expression of faith, they may properly be said to save, and are so spoken of in the New Testament. But if performed as merely works which God has enjoined, no promise is attached to them. For the performance of good works is not the way of a sinner's justification.

Selected Works, Volume Three, “Justification”, pp. 82-83.

In light of the this, it would do the reader well to read the entire Selected Works before jumping to any conclusions about the theology of D. B. Knox as a whole. Although I have strong disagreements with Broughton Knox at certain points—as I do as well with W. H. Griffith Thomas—the Selected Works is a necessary part of any Reformed Anglican's theological library. I highly recommend it to all.

May the peace of God be with you!

Charlie

The Selected Works is available at this link:  Selected Works.

--

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer