“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past…”
Rom. 3:25
“And He said, ‘I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.'”
Dt. 32:20
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God”
Eph. 2:8
.
.
Subsections
Relation of Repentance to Faith & Justification
Can Infants have Faith?
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 10+
Books 3
Latin 6+
Historical 3+
Faith is Grounded in Evidence contra Fideism & Implicit Faith 10
Saving Faith 6+
Assent vs. Trust 1
Sandemanianism 5
Distinction Between Express & Habitual Faith 1
Need for Faith in All Natural Actions 1
.
Articles
See also ‘Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed’ on ‘I believe’.
.
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip – The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… tr. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944)
17. ‘On Justification & Faith’ 171
18. ’On the Efficacy of Faith’ 202
20. ‘Summation: Law, Gospel, Faith’ 215
Though Melanchthon (1497–1560) was a Lutheran, this work of his was the first ‘systematic theology’ of the Reformation, and, as it was very influential on reformed systematic theologies following shortly thereafter.
11. ‘Of the Word ‘Faith’’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 158-60
Hamilton, Patrick – Patrick’s Places… (d. 1528; London: White, 1598)
‘The Doctrine of Faith’
‘A Comparison of Faith & Incredulity’
Hamilton (1504–1528) was a proto-reformer and martyr in Scotland.
Calvin, John
Instruction in Faith (1537) tr. Paul T. Fuhrman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949)
12. ‘We apprehend Christ through Faith’ 35-36
14. ‘What true faith is’ 38-39
15. ‘Faith is a gift of God’ 39-40
16. ‘We are justified in Christ through Faith’ 40-41
19. ‘How the righteousness through good deeds and the righteousness through faith fit and harmonize together’ 44-45
4. ‘Of Faith, Where the Apostles’ Creed is Explained’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 176-271
Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 2, bk. 3
1. ‘The Benefits of Christ made available to us by the Secret Operation of the Spirit’ 85
2. ‘Of Faith. The Definition of it. Its peculiar properties’ 92
3. ‘Regeneration by Faith. Of Repentance’ 149
20. ‘Of Prayer—a perpetual exercise of Faith. The daily benefits derived from it’ 446
Bullinger, Henry
The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1849), vol. 1, 1st Decade
4th Sermon, ‘Of True Faith; from whence it Comes; that it is an assured belief of the mind, whose only stay is upon God and his Word’ 81-97
5th Sermon, ‘That there is one only true faith, and what the virtue thereof is’ 97-104
ch. 5. ‘Of Faith & Good Works’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (London, 1572), pp. 46-58
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3
3. ‘Of Faith & the Certainty thereof; & how Faith may agree with Fear’ 63
‘Of Security’ 67
‘Whether True Faith may be Separated from Charity’ 69
‘Whether Charity may be called the Form of Faith’ 74
‘How Faith Excels Charity, & the Contrary’ 75
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Faith’ 195.a
What faith is 195.a
What be the parts of faith 196.a
How necessary faith is 197.a
Of whence faith is attained 198.a
How faith is given from God 199.b
Unto whom faith is given from God 200.b
When faith is given by God 201.b
Of the nourishments of faith 202.b
Of the increases of faith 203.a
Whereby the increase of faith is known 203.b
What is the end and measure of growing in faith 204.a
Of the efficacy of faith 204.b
How efficacy is attributed unto faith 204.b
The parts of this efficacy 205.a
Beza, Theodore
‘Faith & Justification’ no source info
A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), ch. 4
3. The Holy Ghost makes us partakers of Jesus Christ by faith only
4. What means the Holy Ghost uses to create and maintain faith in us
5. How necessary faith is, and what faith is
6. What is the object of the true faith and of what force it is
7. How this is to be understand, which we say, as St. Paul says, that we be justified by only faith
8. To be assured of our salvation by faith in Jesus Christ is not arrogancy or presumption
9. Faith finds in Jesus Christ all that is necessary to salvation
10. Of the remedy which faith finds in Jesus Christ only against the first assault of the first temptation, grounded upon the multitude of our sins and what assurance there is in this case, either upon the saints or upon ourselves
11. The remedy which only faith finds in Jesus Christ only against the second assault of the first temptation, grounded upon this, that we be unfurnished of the righteousness which God requires of us
12. The third assault of the same temptation, grounded upon the natural corruption or original sin which is within us
13. The remedy against the second temptation, whether we have faith or not
21. Of two instruments wherewith the Holy Ghost is served to create faith in the hearts of his elect, to wit, the Word of God and the sacraments
pp. 23-24 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
Becon, Thomas – Prayers & Other Pieces by Thomas Becon (d. 1567; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1844)
The Common Places of Holy Scripture
10. ‘Of Faith’ 331-335
The Principles of Christian Religion
1. ‘Of Faith’ 482–89
Becon (c. 1511-1567) was an Anglican reformer, clergyman and a chaplain to Thomas Cranmer. He was initially significantly influenced by Luther, and then Zwingli.
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
1. How needful it is that all Christians do well know what faith is whereby they are made Christians, and what things she does comprehend 1-2
…
21. Of the Faith in Jesus Christ 19
23. Of the Mean by the which God gives Faith to men, and of the manifestation of the Word of God and of the true use of the same 21
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism
1st Dialogue, Of the Difference of the True & False Faith
2nd Dialogue
Of the Faith towards God
Of the Testifying & Declaring of faith, and of the parts thereof
4th Dialogue, Of the Faith in Jesus Christ & of the Justification thereby
5th Dialogue: Of Faith in God
Of the True foundation of Faith, & of the difference that it makes between the Christian religion and all other religions
How that all religion is without God, saving the Christian religion
Of the Summary of the Christian faith, and for what cause it is called the Symbol of the Apostles
The Symbol of the Apostles
Of the General division of the principal points contained in the Symbol of the Apostles
Of the Faith that a Christian man ought to have in God
Of the Unity and trinity that is in the essence of God
Of the Difficulty that is in this matter
Of the Principal works of God whereof mention is made in the Symbol of the Apostles
Of the Union that is between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in their works
Of the Moderation and measure that ought to be holden in this matter
6th Dialogue
Of the Cause of Unbelief, and of Faith
Of the Renewing of man, and of the gift of faith
14th Dialogue
How that True Repentance cannot be without faith
Of the True & False faith and repentance
19th Dialogue, What Difference there is between true & perfect repentance, faith and charity
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine
Of the Faith
Of the Faith towards God
Olevian, Caspar – An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed (London, 1581), pt. 1
Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).
Prime, John – ‘How only faith does justify and save’ in A Fruitful & Brief Discourse in Two Books: the One of Nature, the Other of Grace, with Convenient Answer to the Enemies of Grace, upon Incident Occasions Offered by the Late Rhemish Notes in their New Translation of the New Testament, & Others (London, 1583), bk. 2
Prime (c.1549-1596) was a reformed Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar.
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 136-41 & 326-27
ch. 17, ’Of Faith, Hope & Charity’
. On Aphorism 1
. On Aphorism 2
Ursinus, Zachary
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)
1. What Faith is
2. What are the kinds of faith
[sic] 4. How faith and hope differ and agree
5. What are the causes of Faith
6. What are the effects of faith
7. Unto whom faith is given
Conclusions comprising the sum of the doctrine of Faith
12. Of Faith in Rules & Axions of Certain Chief Points of Christianity in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
Finch, Henry – 11. Of Faith in The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 3
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591)
22. ‘Of Faith’ 47
23. ‘Of the Causes & Effects of Faith’ 49
Virel, Matthew – Intro to ch. 4. Of Faith, by the which we are made one with Christ, and so be partakers of all his gifts in A Learned & Excellent Treatise Containing All the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion (London, 1594), bk. 1
Virel (1561-1595)
Rollock, Robert – A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) in Select Works of Robert Rollock… (d. 1599; Edinburgh, 1849), vol. 1
29. ‘Justifying Faith’
30. ‘Improper Significations of Faith’ 203-12
31. ‘Popish Doctrine of Faith’ 212-23
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 29. ‘Of Faith’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 287
Whence is faith derived?
What differs faith from opinion and knowledge?
What are the significations of ‘faith’ in the Scripture?
Is the name of ‘faith’ spoken absolutely, or by relation?
What is the object of faith?
How many integral parts are there that do make faith?
What is faith?
Is that description of faith, Heb. 11:1, differing from the rest?
How many sorts of faith are there?
What is the efficient cause of faith?
Cannot God by inward inspiration beget faith in his servants without preaching of the Word or the ministry of the Church?
Does God create in our hearts full and perfect faith in one instant?
Is faith given in one and the same measure to all believers?
Is not that the object of faith, whatsoever the Church does command?
Seeing implicit faith is no faith, is it necessary that every man have that faith that is in all respects explicit and unfolded?
But are there not still many things hidden and folded up in the Scriptures, which notwithstanding we must believe?
Seeing it is said of Abraham, Rom. 4:20, that he did not doubt, ought not we therefore without all judgment and inquiry simply to believe all things which are delivered unto us to be spoken by God?
What is the subject of faith, wherein it is?
What is the subject of faith, to whom faith is given?
Have infants actual faith?
Is there one faith without form and another formed?
But seeing it is said, Gal. 5:6, ‘Faith working by charity,’ is not charity the form of faith?
What is the form of justifying faith?
Which be the adjuncts or properties of faith?
How prove you that certainty belongs unto faith?
Is not then the faith of the elect assaulted with any uncertainty, unquietness and distrust?
Cannot that faith fail?
But shall not faith once have an end?
But is a faint faith in Christ a true faith?
Which is the third adjunct of faith?
Whence is it that it is called lively and effectual?
What be the effects and fruits of faith?
What is the end of faith?
By what experiment is faith tried?
What is the use of faith?
Are we called faithful of faith chiefly in regard of the working power of faith, or passively in regard of our sufferance?
What things have affinity with faith?
What do they differ from faith?
What are the contraries of faith?
Ames, William – The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997)
bk. 1, ch. 3, ‘Faith’, pp. 80-83
bk. 2, ch. 5, ‘Faith’, pp. 240-45
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Rivet, Andrew – 31. ‘On Faith & the Perseverance of the Saints’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 228-76
Rutherford, Samuel – Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019)
ch. 3, section 12, ‘Whether Faith is both a Condition & Promised? [Yes]’, pp. 72-73
ch. 12, section 3, ‘Whether the act of believing is imputed to the believer properly, so that it is therefore his righteousness formally before God? We deny against the Remonstrants and Jesuits.’, pp. 103-5
Rijssen, Leonard – ch. 13, ‘Conversion & Faith’ in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary tr. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), pp. 144-59
Rijssen (1636?-1700?) was a prominent Dutch reformed minister and theologian, active in theological controversies.
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 15th Topic
7. ‘In how many ways may faith be taken and how many kinds of it are enumerated?’ 558
8. ‘How many acts does justifying faith include in its formal conception?’ 560
9. ‘Is faith assent without knowledge and can it be defined better by ignorance than by knowledge? We deny against the Romanists.’ 564
10. ‘Is faith trust? We affirm against the Romanists.’ 568
11. ‘What is the object of faith in general and can what is false come under it? We deny.’ 571
12. ‘Whether the proper and specific object of justifying faith is the special promise of mercy in Christ. We affirm against the Romanists.’ 575
13. ‘Whether the form of justifying faith is love or obedience to God’s commands. We deny against the Romanists and Socinians.’ 580
14. ‘Do infants have faith? We distinguish.’ 583
15. ‘Does temporary faith differ only in degree and duration or also in kind from justifying faith? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Remonstrants.’ 587
16. ‘Whether the true believer can ever totally or finally fall from faith. We deny against the Romanists, Socinians, Remonstrants and others who favor the apostasy of the saints.’ 593
17. ‘Whether the believer can and ought to be certain of his faith and justification by a divine and not merely conjectural certainty. We affirm against the Romanists and Remonstrants.’ 616
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999)
ch. 32, ‘Concerning Faith’, pp. 261-307
ch. 33, ‘Distinguishing Marks of Saving Faith’, pp. 307-41
ch. 42, ‘The Life of Faith in Reference to the Promises’, pp. 601-39
ch. 43, Proposition 5, ‘A Christian continually avails himself of faith’, pp. 664-71
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
.
1800’s
Buchanan, James – ‘New Birth Repentance & Faith’ (1847) 10 paragraphs, from The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit
Cunningham, William – ‘Faith Unites us to Christ’ Buy from Sermons 1828-1860 (1872) 8 paragraphs
Hodge, Charles – ‘Faith & Repentance’ from his Way of Life, chs. 6 & 7
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 4, ‘Faith’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 4, ‘Soteriology’, pp. 682-743
.
1900’s
Warfield, B.B. – ‘Faith in its Psychological Aspects’ in The Princeton Review Theological Review ix (1911), p. 537, also in Studies in Theology (New York, 1932) & in Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia, 1952)
Berkhof, Louis – ‘Faith’ in Systematic Theology (1950) 42 paragraphs
Murray, John
“Faith… is a whole-souled movement of self-commitment to Christ for salvation from sin and its consequences.”
‘From Faith to Faith’ on Rom. 3:22
19. ‘Faith’ & 20. ‘The Assurance of Faith’ in Collected Writings 2.235
In the first of these articles Murray discusses three things: “Faith as a Psychological State, Fides Generalis [general faith], and Fides Specialis [special faith].”
.
2000’s
Isbell, Sherman – ‘Temporary Faith’ (2005) 5 pp.
Isbell Biblically describes and distinguishes temporary faith from saving faith.
.
Books
1600’s
Pemble, William – Vindiciæ gratiæ. = A Plea for Grace, More especially the Grace of Faith… (London: 1627) 162 pp. ToC Index
.
1800’s
Bavinck, Herman – The Certainty of Faith Buy (1980) 92 pp.
.
1900’s
Machen, J. Gresham – What is Faith? (1925) 260 pp.
.
Latin
Articles
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H.
ch. 22, ‘Faith’ in Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626), pp. 97-100
ch. 11, ‘On Faith’ in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630), pp. 61-65
Voet, Gisbert
Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
6. ‘Faith’
On the Origin of Faith
Of the Form or Essence of Faith
Of the Receiving Subject of Faith
. What, or of Those Having Faith
. By Which
Of the Occupying Subject of Faith, or of the
. Object
Of the Properties & Effects of Faith
Of the Perseverance of Faith & of the Saints
Of the Acts of Faith (Internal & External, or of
. Confession)
Of the Effects & Opposites of Faith
On Faith & the Gift of Miracles
Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1655)
vol. 2, 33. ‘Of the Practice of Faith’, pp. 496-511
vol. 4, ‘Of faith & its opposites’ in 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 1st Commandment’, p. 773
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 15. Internal Calling & Faith in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 54-56
.
Book
1600’s
van Mastricht, Peter – A Theoretical-Practical System on Saving Faith… (Duisburg, 1671) 670 pp. ToC
.
Historical
.
The Early Church on By Faith Alone
A Collection
Armchair Theologian – ‘Church Fathers on Sola Fide’ (2016)
The author is a layman in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. He gives excerpts from Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Epiphanios, Nanzianzus, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria & Peter Chrysologus.
.
.
On the Reformation
On Beza
Articles
Rosenthal, Shane – ‘Faith & Assurance in the Theology of Theodore Beza’ (2001) at Reformation Ink
Mallinson, Jeffrey – ch. 7, ‘Beza’s Doctrine of Faith’ in Faith, Reason & Revelation in Theodore Beza, 1519-1605 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 207-35
.
.
On the 1800’s
Anderson, Owen – Reason & Faith at Early Princeton: Piety & the Knowledge of God (Palgrave, 2014)
Anderson has been a professor of religion and philosophy at Arizona State University.
.
Faith is Grounded in God-given Reason & Evidence, Contra Fideism & Implicit Faith
See also, ‘On Implicit, or Blind Faith & Obedience’.
.
Intro
All of the material below illustrates the Reformation’s teaching that Scripture is autopistis, or self-evidencing. That is, the reason and evidence for belief (which is necessary for rational creatures), is supplied by God in the Scriptural revelation itself. Such reason and evidence leads us to receive the Scripture as the Word of God as it is recognized to be the Word of God, God having given it.
The methodology of apologetics that seeks to argue for a certain divine faith from anything less, namely from external evidence to the Bible and natural or moral reason (as though this were sufficient, despite whatever help it may be), is a serious error (see Owen), as well as the methodology that wholly disclaims or ignores the evidence and reason provided by God and insists on an a-rational dogmatism alone.
Regarding saving faith in Christ, the characteristics of the issue are the same. Christ’s message and the Scripture’s witness to Him provide sufficient and compelling evidence and reason, upon God’s own authority, to the human heart to trust in Him as one’s Savior. To be oblivious to these rational grounds in ignorance is not helpful; to ignore them in preaching is detrimental to rational, human souls.
For a definition of faith, see especially John Murray below. Owen gives a faithful expounding of the doctrine contained in WCF 1.4-5.
.
Quotes
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London, 1647), p. 280
“It’s all the reason in the world that a sinner be drawn to Christ. For Christ is the most rational object that is, He being the wisdom of God. And man is led and taken with reason. Christ is a convincing thing and invincibly binds reason:
So the forlorne Son, before he return to his Father, argues… and the wise merchant must discourse, Mt. 13:45-46… So Mt. 9:21, the diseased woman has heart-logic within herself… and the unjust steward cast syllogisms thus… Yea, a fool’s paradise, a wedge of gold, is a strong reason, Prov. 7:21… Faith is the deepest and soundest understanding, the gold, the flower of reason…”
.
John Owen
p. 612-3 of ‘The Testimony of the Church is not the Only, nor the Chief Reason of our Believing the Scripture to be the Word of God’ in Puritan Sermons, 5.606-648 & in Works, 8.495-543
“We affirm on the other side [from the Papists], that the testimony of the Spirit of God in the Word itself–witnessing it to be of God, by that stamp and impress, or, which comes to the same, by those notes and marks of divinity, which everywhere appear in it–is the immediate and principal, and a sufficient, reason of our believing it to be the Word of God, and the medium [which] the Spirit, working inwardly in our hearts, moves as the efficient of our faith, so the Scripture itself, in its own intrinsical beauty, luster, power and excellency, is that which moves us, in the way of an object or medium, to yield our assent to its being of God.
By this the Spirit of God; and, by an internal application of this to our minds, induceth us to assent to its so being…. This they [the Papists] deny; and this we shall first, though more briefly prove…”
.
pp. 28-30 of The Reason of Faith... (Glasgow, 1801), ch. 3, ‘Sundry convincing external Arguments for Divine Revelation’ also in Works, vol. 4
“There are sundry cogent arguments which are taken
from external considerations of the Scripture, that evince
it on rational grounds to be from God. All these are motives of credibility, or effectual persuasives to account and esteem it to be the word of God. And although they neither are, nor is it possible they ever should be, the ground and reason whereon we believe it so to be with faith divine and supernateral; yet are they necessary unto the confirmation of our faith herein against temptations, oppositions, and objections. These arguments have been pleaded by many and that usefully, and therefore it is not needful for me to insist upon them. And they are the same for the substance of them in ancient and modern writers, however managed by some with more learning, dexterity, and force of reasoning than by others.
…although we plead that no man can believe the Scriptures to be the word of God with faith divine, supernatural, and infallible, but upon its own internal divine evidence and efficacy, yet we allow and make use of all those external arguments of its sacred truth and divine original which are pleaded by others, ascribing unto them as much weight and cogency as they can do, acknowledging the persuasion which they beget and effect: to be as firm as they can pretend it to be:
Only we do not judge them to contain the whole of the evidence which we have for faith to rest in, or to be resolved into; yea not that at all, which renders it divine, supernatural and infallible. The rational arguments we say which are, or may be used in this matter, with the human testimonies whereby they are corroborated, may and ought to be made use of and insisted on; and it is but vainly pretended that their use is superseded by our other assertions; as though where faith is required, all the subservient use of reason were absolutely discarded, and our faith thereby rendered irrational; and the assent unto the divine original and authority of the Scriptures, which the mind ought to give upon them, we grant to be of as high a nature as is pretended to be, namely, a moral certainty.
Moreover, the conclusion which unprejudiced reason will make upon these arguments, is more firm, better grounded, and more pleadable, than that which is built merely on the sole authority of any church whatever…”
.
1800’s
Cunningham, William
III. ‘What are the Scriptures’ on Jn. 5:39 in Sermons from 1828-1860 (rep. Still Waters Revival, n.d.), pp. 43-44
“But there is not wanting evidence, and rational evidence, by means of which the great body of the people may be convinced that the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God. There is an evidence to this important truth contained within the Bible itself–and evidence for the full understanding of which, nothing more is necessary than just a natural conscience, and a susceptibility of emotions–which requires nothing more in the way of mental cultivation and acquired knowledge, in order to be understood and felt, than what is not only within the reach, but actually within the possession, of almost, if not altogether, every individual of the human race.
This evidence consists chiefly in the correspondence between the principles and wants and desires of our nature, and the scriptural statements in regard to the Gospel scheme of salvation–a correspondence which is so complete and so striking, that it furnishes to all who feel and perceive it an abundant proof that the Bible comes from Him who made the heart, and who knows it best.
But this evidence for the Divine origin and authority of the Scriptures, drawn from the correspondence between its statements and the principles and feelings of our hearts, rises to the highest degree of clearness and certainty in Believers. ‘He that believeth, hath this witness in himself.’ [1 Jn. 5:10] From the changes which he has experienced in his own heart and character, he has the firmest ground for believing that the Bible, whose statements were the immediate cause of those changes, must proceed from a higher than human source , must have come down from the Father of his spirit.”
.
Robert Dabney
‘The Bible its Own Witness’ in Discussions, vol. 1 (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890), p. 116
“But we reply unanswerably, that from the very nature of the human mind, belief cannot possibly arise without evidence…”
.
1900’s
B.B. Warfield
‘Faith in its Psychological Aspects’ in The Princeton Review Theological Review ix, 1911, p. 537, also in Studies in Theology (New York, 1932), p. 313 & in Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia, 1952), p. 375, and as quoted by John Murray, Collected Writings, 2.238
“The conception embodied in the terms, ‘belief’, ‘faith’, is not that of an arbitrary act of the subject, it is that of a mental state or act which is determined by sufficient reasons.”
.
John Murray
‘Faith’ in Collected Writings 2.235-6, 237, 241
“When we use the word faith strictly and properly we mean that for certain reasons apprehended by us we are satisfied as to the reality, reliability or truth of a certain event, object or person… When it has respect to a person we mean that we credit him as trustworthy in respect of that character which is under consideration…
…
To sum up, faith is trust. Trust presupposes an object. An object evokes our trust when there is an antecedent judgment of the mind that the object is trustworthy. This judgment is formed by the evaluation of evidence as sufficient. It is a state of mind induced by considerations objective to ourselves though always apprehended by our minds.
…
In this case it is useless or futile to try to ground this conviction [that the Scripture is the Word of God] upon rational argumentation based upon evidence extraneous to the sum total of the data with which the Christian revelation confronts us. It might seem that such argumentation is necessary in order to avoid the charge of arguing in a circle. But it will become apparent how impossible it is to produce by evidence extraneous to the Scripture the faith which has as its object the Scripture itself. The Reformers were aware of the fallacy attaching to argumentation on the basis of extrinsic evidence, and so they laid down the principle that Scripture is autopistic, that is, self-authenticating, and this means that the evidence validating the faith of Scripture as the Word of God is the Scripture itself. This is to say that it contains within itself the evidence of its divine origin, character, and authority.”
.
Articles
1500’s
Rollock, Robert – ‘Scripture is Autopistos‘ Select Works, 1.68-73
.
1600’s
Owen, John – Book 6, pt. 1, The Reason of Faith; or, an Answer unto that inquiry, ‘Wherefore we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God;’ with the causes and nature of that faith wherewith we do so: wherein the grounds whereon the Holy Scripture is believed to be the Word of God with faith divine and supernatural are declared and vindicated in Pneumatologia: or, A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, Continued in Works, vol. 4, pp. 1-115
See especially Ch. 5, ‘Divine Revelation itself the only foundation and reason of faith’, p. 69 ff.
“What is the work of the Holy Ghost with respect unto the objective evidence which we have concerning the Scripture, that it is the word of God, which is the formal reason of our faith, and whereinto it is resolved?…
…
These things being supposed , we do affirm, That it is the authority and truth of God, as manifesting themselves in the supernatural revelation made in the Scripture [emphasis added], that our faith arises from and is resolved into.
…
As the issue of this whole discourse, it is affirmed that our faith is built on and resolved into the Scripture itself, which carries with it its own evidence of being a divine revelation; and therefore doth that faith ultimately rest on the truth and authority of God alone, and not on any human testimony, such as is that of the church, nor on any rational arguments or motive that are absolutely fallible.” – pp. 69, 72, 81
On the necessary role of natural and rational evidence in faith, contra Fideism, see the first half of ch. 6, ‘The Nature of Divine Revelations. Their Self-Evidencing Power Considered…’ The opening paragraph of the chapter states the objection of Fideism (below); Owen then proceeds in the rest of the chapter to refute it in a very careful, meticulous and helpful way.
“It may be said that if the Scripture thus evidence itself
to be the word of God, as the sun manifests itself by
light… or as the first principles of reason are evident in themselves without further proof or testimony, then every one and all men, upon the proposal of the Scripture unto them, and its own bare assertion that it is the word of God, would necessarily on that evidence alone, assent thereunto, and believe it so to be.
But this is not so: all experience Iies against it, nor is there any pleadable ground of reason that so it is, or that so it ought to be.”
.
Turretin, Francis – Q. 11, ‘Is there any use of the Testimony of the Senses in Mysteries of Faith, or Ought it to be entirely Rejected? We Affirm the Former & Deny the Latter.’ in Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 1st Topic, ‘Theology’, ‘The Genus of Theology’, pp. 34-37
.
On Saving or Justifying Faith
Articles
1500’s
Rollock, Robert – 29. ‘Justifying Faith’ in A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) in Select Works of Robert Rollock… (d. 1599; Edinburgh, 1849), vol. 1, pp. 194-203
.
1600’s
Wolleb, Johannes – 29. ‘Saving Faith’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 161-64
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Davenant, John – The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846) bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2 These articles argue against Romanism.
Question 37, ‘Justifying Faith is Confidence in Christ as Mediator’, pp. 408-15
Question 38, ‘Justifying Faith Cannot be Disunited From Charity’, pp. 415-21
Leigh, Edward – ch. 4. Of Saving Faith in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 7, pp. 499-510
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 15th Topic
12. ‘Whether the proper and specific object of justifying faith is the special promise of mercy in Christ. We affirm against the Romanists.’ 575
13. ‘Whether the form of justifying faith is love or obedience to God’s commands. We deny against the Romanists and Socinians.’ 580
15. ‘Does temporary faith differ only in degree and duration or also in kind from justifying faith? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Remonstrants.’ 587
.
van Mastricht, Peter – ch. 1, ‘Saving Faith’ in Theoretical-Practical Theology ed. Joel Beeke, tr: Todd Rester (RHB, 2018), vol. 2, Faith in the Triune God, pt. 1, bk. 2, pp. 3-42
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 33, ‘Distinguishing Marks of Saving Faith’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 307-41
.
2000’s
Isbell, Sherman – ‘Temporary Faith’ (2005) 5 pp.
Isbell Biblically describes and distinguishes temporary faith from saving faith.
.
Book
Goodwin, Thomas – Works, vol. 8
.
Westminster
Confession of Faith, ch. 14, ‘Of Saving Faith’
.
Rutherford’s Assertions
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647), pp. 449-[sic]23
“What sort of faith it is that God requires of all within the visible Church, for the want [lack] whereof reprobates are condemned?
Assertion 1. Saving faith required of all within the visible Church is not as Antinomians conceive, the apprehension of God’s everlasting love of election to glory of all and every one that are charged to believe. Saltmarsh, in an ignorant and confused treatise tells us:
‘To believe now is the only work of the Gospel—that is, that ye be persuaded of such a thing that Christ was crucified for sins, and for your sins—so as salvation is not a business of our working and doing, it was done by Christ with the Father—all our work is no work of salvation, but in sa∣vation we receive all, not doing anything, that we may receive more; but doing because we receive so much, and because we are saved, and yet we are to work as much, as if we were to be saved by what we do, because we should do as much by what is done already for us, and to our hands, as if we were to receive it, for what we did ourselves: So here is short work’ (says the man) ‘Believe and be saved—there are yet these grounds why salvation is so soon done: 1. Because it was done before by Christ, but not believed on before by thee till now. 2. Because it is the Gospel-way of dispensation to assure and pass over salvation in Christ to any that will believe it. 3. There needs no more on our sides to work or warrant salvation to us, but to be persuaded that Jesus Christ died for us, because Christ has suffered and God is satisfied; now suffering and satisfaction is that great work of salvation.’
And the man taking on him to determine controversies of Arminians touching the extent of free grace, whether Christ died for all (in which questions I dare make apology for his innocency, that he is not guilty of wading too deep in them) he would father on the Reformed Churches of Protestant divines that we make this a rational way of justice, that God will merely and arbitrarily damn men because He will, so as God has put every one under a state of redemption and power of salvation; and they are damned not from their own will, but from God’s. The opinion by Arminians is fathered upon that apostolic light of the Church of Christ, eminent and divine Calvin, and Saltmarsh will but second them, that he may appear a star in the firmament with others of some great magnitude.
‘But’ (says he) ‘the other way is, Christ died only for his, but is offered to all, that his who are amongst this all might believe, and though he died not for all, yet none are excepted’ (that is as he says, all and every one to whom Christ is preached, elect or reprobate, are to be persuaded that Christ died for them in particular) ‘and yet none are accepted but they that believe, and none believe, but they to whom it is given:’ And having shown some dreams of his own touching these controversies, he concludes with a truth, I believe, easily: ‘Thus have I opened, though weakly the mystery;’ Weakly, but willfully and daringly.
But faith is formally no such persuasion as to be persuaded, ‘Every man is loved with an everlasting love, chosen and redeemed in Christ,’ for:
[1.] It changes the whole Gospel in a lie, Christ obliges no man to believe an untruth: Now all are charged to believe in the Son of God, and elect and reprobate (as there be of both sorts within the net of the Kingdom) are not loved with an everlasting love, nor did Christ die for them all.
2. It’s mere presumption, not faith, that all hypocrites, fleshly men slaves to their lusts, idolaters, covetous men, remaining such, never broken with any law-work, should immediately believe Christ is their Savior, died for them and the Father loved them to salvation before the world was. True it is, before a sinner believe, he is an unpardoned, an ungodly and guilty sinner; but that he is unbroken, yea, or unconverted before he believe (I speak of order of nature), it’s as unpossible as that a thistle can bring forth figs, for then he should believe having no new heart in him, which is the only principle of faith.
3. It’s a more ingenuous opinion that Christ died for all and every one, though it have no truth in itself, than to hold that He died for the elect only, and yet oblige men (as Antinomians do) against their conscience to believe He died for all and every one that are engaged in the practice of believing.
4. He that believes not, makes God a liar; then that which is to be believed must be an evangelic truth.
5. Faith lays bands on all within the visible Church to be knit together in love unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God and of the Father, and of Christ, Col. 2:1-2, to be persuaded that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, Rom. 8:37-39, to full assurance, Heb. 10, without wavering or declining, or bowing like a tottering wall. Now sure all and every one within the visible Church to whom the command of believing comes, reprobate or elect, are not holden to have a full assurance that they are chosen in Christ to salvation and redeemed in his blood.
Assertion 2. The object of saving faith, required of all within the visible Church is:
1. Christ’s faithfulness to save believers, Heb. 10:23, ‘Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;’ and the apostle backs it with an argument, that saving faith must lean upon (‘for He is faithful that has promised’), and Paul, 1 Cor. 1:9, presses the same: ‘God is faithful, by whom ye were called, unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.’
2. We do not read in the Old or New Testament that the decree, purpose or intention of God to save and redeem persons in particular is the object of that saving faith required in the Gospel. For the second object of this faith is the truth and goodness of that mother promise of the Gospel, Jn. 3:16 and 5:25, that Gospel-record, 1 Jn. 5:10-12, ‘He that believeth hath life eternal,’ and ‘Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,’ 1 Tim. 1:15, ‘to seek and to save the lost,’ Lk. 19:1•; That He came to save me in particular is apprehended by sense, not by faith; for the election of me by name to glory and the Lord’s intention to die for me, is neither promise, nor precept, nor threatening; if it be a history that I must believe, it’s good, show me histories of particular men now to be believed, except of the Antichrist, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to judge the world. Election to glory is not held forth as a promise: ‘If ye do this, ye shall be elected to glory,’ nor is the contrary holden forth as a threatening: ‘If ye believe not, ye shall be reprobated,’ nor does the Lord command me to be chosen in Christ to salvation before the foundation of the world, nor does He command all men within the visible Church to believe they are chosen to salvation or that any one elect person should believe a thing as revealed which is not revealed; when He is pleased to give to any elect person the white stone and the new name and to give him faith by which he chooses Christ for his portion, he is then, and never till then to believe, or rather by spiritual sense to apprehend that he is chosen to salvation from eternity; so election is neither precept, nor promise, but a truth of God’s gracious goodwill and pleasure hid in God’s mind till He be pleased to reveal it by the fruits thereof.
There can be no such imaginable double dealing in the world as Arminians lay upon God: For they make the Lord to say thus as, imagine a king should speak to twenty thousand captives: I have a good will, purpose, hearty intention and earnest desire to make you all and every one free princes, and pray, wish, obtest and beseech you subscribe such a writ of grace for that end, but I only can lead your hand at the pen and give you eyes to see and a willing heart to consent to your own happiness, and if you refuse to sign the bill of grace you shall be tormented forever and ever in a river of fire and brimstone: Again, I have a like good will to my own justice and purpose so to carry on the design as that sixteen thousand of you shall not have the benefit of my hand, or of one finger to lead your hand at the pen, nor any efficacious motion to act upon your will to obtain your consent to subscribe the writ; yea by the contrary though, I of exceeding great free love will, intend, decree and purpose you be all princes of glory, yet I purpose that these sixteen thousand whose salvation and happiness I extremely desire shall for their former rebellion, which I with the like desire of spirit could and I only might have removed, never be moved to consent to this bill of grace. Now were not this the outside of a good will, and should not this prince be said rather to will and desire the destruction of these sixteen thousand and not their honor and happiness?
Assertion 3. This is the mystery of the Gospel, in which I must profess ignorance and that the Lord’s thoughts are not as our thoughts nor his ways as our ways: He has by the preaching of the gospel engaged thousand thousands within the visible Church to the duty of their fiducial adherence and heart resting on Christ, as they would be saved, and yet has the Lord never purposed to work their hearts (and He only can do it) to this heart-resting on Christ by faith, nor has He purchased either remission of sins or pardon for them.
If any object, How can Christ in equity judge and condemn them for not believing pardon and salvation in his blood when as neither pardon nor salvation are purchased in this blood to them, nor purposes He to give them faith? Yet we may plead for the Lord: we conceive of the decree of God as of a deep policy and a stratagem and snare laid for us: whereas the Lord lies not in wait for our ruin, nor carries He on a secret design in the gospel to destroy men: If Christ should say in the Gospel-precepts, promises or threatenings, ‘I decree purpose and intend to redeem all and every man, but I purpose to carry on the designs so, as the far greatest part of mankind inevitably shall be lost,’ it should be a stratagem; but the gospel as the gospel reveals not any decree or intention of God touching the salvation or damnation of men intended from eternity: Indeed the gospel as obeyed or disobeyed reveals Gods intentions and decrees; the gospel reveals nothing but the Lord’s complacency, approbation and good-liking of the sweet connection between faith and salvation, the just concatenation between unbelief, disobedience and eternal damnation: so the gospel reveals duties, but not the persons saved or damned; the Lord’s working with the gospel, or the efficacy of the gospel (which is a far other thing), reveals the persons.
Now the difficulty is, how the Lord can command the reprobate to believe life and salvation in Christ when there is no life and salvation either intended to them or purchased for them? To which I answer:
1. God gave a law to all the angels created in the truth, ‘If ye abide in the truth, ye shall be eternally happy.’ Ye cannot say that the devils in that instant were to believe that God intended and decreed them for eternal happiness and to give them efficacious grace by which they should abide in the truth as their fellow angels did: God’s command and promise did reveal no such intention of God. So the Lord said to Adam and to all his seed, ‘If ye keep the law perfectly, ye shall have life eternal,’ according to that, ‘Do this and live:’ yet was not Adam then, far less these that are now under the Law, to believe that God ordained them from eternity to eternal life legally purchased or that any flesh should be justified by the works of the Law.
Arminians tell us that there be numbers judicially blinded and hardened within the visible Church who cannot believe and whom the Lord hath destined for destruction, yet the Word is preached to them; they hear and read the promises of the gospel, and the precepts; Whither are they to believe that God intended from eternity to them salvation and grace to believe? I think not, for they teach that Christ neither prays for, nor intends to die for the unbelieving and obstinate world as such, nor decreed their salvation, and except men may fancy senses on the words of God’s Spirit: where learned they to expound the word ‘world’ (when it makes for them) for all and every one of mankind; and when it makes against them, for the least part of mankind, and that either within the visible Church only or yet without the visible Church? For in both, Satan’s world of disobedient ones is the far greatest part, seeing the whole world lies in sin, as John says. Let it be also remembered when Arminians say, ‘The Lamb of God taketh away the sins of the world,’ that is of all and every mortal man, they mean Christ takes not away, nor sheds He his blood for the sins of the rebellious world; so the world’s rebellion, contumacy and infidelity against Christ must be pardoned without shedding of blood, and if Christ did bear all the sins of the world on the cross conditionally and none of them absolutely: then our act of believing must be the only nearest cause of satisfaction for sins: but why then, if Christ satisfied on the cross for the final impenitency and unbelief of the rebellious world conditionally, so they believe and be not rebellious, but Arminians should say right down Christ died for the rebellious and contumacious world, and He prays for the contumacious world as such, but conditionally; for He prays and dies for the not-rebellious-world of all mortal men, not absolutely, but conditionally, so they believe in Christ; if they believe not, neither the prayers of Christ nor his death are more effectual for them than for devils.
To all these we may add that the Lord in commanding reprobates to rest on Christ for salvation, though no salvation be purchased for them, deals sincerely and candidly with them, for:
First, He commands them to believe no intention in God to save them by the death of his Son, nor says He any such thing to them, but only commands them to rely on Christ as an all-sufficient Savior.
Secondly, God commands all the reprobate, even by their [Arminian] way, to believe that Christ in his death intended their salvation, justification, conversion, and yet whereas God takes ways effectual and such as He foresees shall be effectual for the efficacious working of justification and conversion and actual glorification of some few, yet He takes ways which He knows shall be utterly ineffectual for the salvation, justification and conversion of all these reprobates, and yet commands them to believe that He decree and intends their salvation and conversion with no less ardency and vehemency of serious affection than He does intend the salvation and conversion of all that shall be glorified. Sure this we would call double dealing in men, and the Scripture says he is a God of truth, Dt. 32, and the Lord who cannot lie.
Objection: If a rich innkeeper should dig a fountain in his field for all passengers, thirsty and diseased, which were able to cure them and quench their thirst, and invite them all to come and drink and be cured, upon condition they come and believe the virtue of the water to be such, and yet should intend and decree absolutely and irresistibly the tenth man invited should never be cured, this innkeeper should not deal sincerely with them. So you [the reformed] make God to deal with sinners in the Gospel. He does all, in inviting sick sinners to come and drink life and salvation at Christ the Fountain of life, which expresses with men who speak as they think their sincere intention, but He intends no such thing.
Answer: Make the comparison run as it should do and it makes more against Arminians: say that this Innkeeper had dominion over the heart and will, as the Lord has, Prov. 21:1; Ps. 119:36-37; Heb. 13:20-21; Mt. 6:13, and that He could and does without straining of the heart work in all the passengers a sense of their disease, grace actually to come and drink, and yet He takes a dealing with the souls of some few and causes them come to the waters and drink and heals them, and He uses such means and so acts upon the will of the far most part that they shall never come, never be sensible of their disease, and yet He invites them to come to the waters and drink; it’s clear this Innkeeper never intended the health of all and every one of the passengers, but only of these few that come and drink; nor do invitations with men upon condition, which the party invited is obliged to perform, but does never perform, and which the inviter only of grace can work in the invited, but does not work them, as being not obliged thereunto, speak any such intention.
Again, let it be considered that here:
1. God lies in wait for no man’s destruction.
2. God is not obliged to reveal his eternal purpose and intentions touching men’s salvation and damnation but in the way and manner seems best to Him.
3. God never says in all the Gospel that from eternity He has passed a resolve to save all mankind, if they will, and to yield them the bridle on their own necks that they may be indifferent and absolute Lords of Heaven and Hell.
4. Nor should the Gospel be framed in such wisdom if the Lord had set down particularly the names of all the elect and reprobate in the world and have proponed salvation upon condition of obedience and faith to some few: it should evidently have raised a hard opinion in the minds of thousands touching Christ.
Assertion 4. The third object of faith is the sufficiency and power of Christ to save.
1. The Scripture makes the object of coming, which is believing, Jn. 5:40; Jn. 6:35; Mt. 11:27, to be Christ’s ability and power, Heb. 7:25, ‘to save them to the uttermost,’ that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. What the Scripture presses us to believe savingly, that we must be inclined to misbelieve, and for the misbelieving thereof the reprobates are condemned, and not because they believe not the Lord’s intention to save all, or his decrees of election and reprobation. But the Scripture presses faith in the power of mercy, Rom. 4:21, Abraham staggered not, but was strong in the faith, giving glory to God, being fully persuaded that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Now Abraham is commended for that he savingly and for his justification believed the power of God in the Gospel promise that God was able of his mercy to give him the son of promise in his old age; otherwise to believe simply the power of God to give a child to a mother who is passed the natural date of bearing children is but the faith of miracles, which of itself is not saving and may be in workers of iniquity, Mt. 7:21-22; so this power then is the power of saving conjoined with the mercy and good will of Christ.
2. The Scripture holds forth to our faith the power of God to graft in the Jews again in Christ, Rom. 11:23, to make a weak believer stand, Rom. 14:4, to keep the saints from falling and to present them faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, Jude v. 24.
3. The good Land was a type of the heavenly rest, Heb 4:1 and Heb. 3:19, some entered not in through unbelief: why, what unbelief? The story shows us, Ps. 93:7; Num. 14:9; 13:28, they doubted of the power of God and believed the report of the unbelieving spies, who said, ‘The people be strong that dwell in the land, the cities are walled and very great, and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.’ Joshua and Caleb, ch. 14:9, said they should not be bread for them and their strength was gone; then the question was, whether God was able to give them that good Land. So then men enter not into the heavenly rest because they believe not that Jesus is able to save to the uttermost those that come through him to God, Heb. 7:23.
4. The Scripture is as much in proving the all-sufficiency, power and perfection of Christ our Savior, to save, as in demonstrating his tenderness of mercy and goodwill to save; as in the epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle labors much for to prove the Godhead of Christ, his excellency above angels and that the angels were to adore him, his dignity and greatness above Moses and all the mortal and dying priests, the virtue of his blood above all the bloods of bulls and goats, to purge the conscience from dead works, to expiate sin, to sanctify his people, to open a way, a new and living way to the holy of holiest, by his blood, that we with full assurance may draw near to God, that He with one sacrifice, never to be repeated, did that which all the thousands of reiterated sacrifices were never able to do; that He is no dying priest, but lives forever to intercede for us at the right hand of God. And for what is all this but that we should believe the all-sufficiency of Christ to save? and because we have too low thoughts of Christ, as conceiving Him to be but a man or less than an angel, or a common priest that can do no more by his blood as touching remission of sins than dying priests could do with the blood of beasts, and that He is dead, and now when we sin, He cannot advocate for us at the right hand of God, that his redemption He brings in is not eternal, yea all this says that saving faith rests upon Christ as God, as able and completely perfect and sufficient to save, though sinners do not in the formal act of faith believe his good will, decree and intention to redeem and save them by name.
5. I should think that these who have high and precious thoughts of the grace, tender mercy, perfection and sufficiency of Christ to save all that believe and fiducially rely on Christ as a Savior sealed for the work of redemption, though they know not God’s mind touching their own salvation in particular, have such a faith as the Gospel speaks of, and do savingly believe that Christ came to seek and to save that which is lost, to save sinners, that Christ is the Son of the living God, the Savior of mankind; and this no devil, no temporary believer, no hypocrite can attain unto.”
.
Latin Book
1600’s
van Mastricht, Peter – A Theoretical-Practical System on Saving Faith… (Duisburg, 1671) 670 pp. ToC
.
On the Difference between Assent versus Trust
Quote
William Pemble
Vindiciæ gratiæ. = A Plea for Grace, More especially the Grace of Faith… (London: 1627), pp. 170-71
“Belief was at first defined to be an assent to things known by revelation: but now ye are further to know that all assent is not of the same kind and degree, but differs according to the diversity of the objects assented unto. Therefore we must observe, that of the objects of belief:
1. Some are represented unto us only as true and good in themselves, without any special relation to our benefit and commodity. Unto such things, whether past, present or to come, the understanding and will of man do yield that common assent and approbation whereby they allow of the truth and goodness of everything that is apprehended by them as true and good in what kind soever it be. This is called a bare assent, or credulitas, belief in strict terms, when we only believe tis good and true, and go no further.
2. Some are revealed unto us not only as true and good in themselves, but more specially as containing some excellent truth and goodness that concerns us in regard of some benefit that we shall get thereby. In these things our assent is with adherence, affiance, trust and dependance upon the thing revealed. For as in general all truth and goodness draws the faculties of the soul to an approbation of them when they are known, so much more does the goodness and truth of those things, which are proportionable to our nature and necessities, wherein we may claim special interest and commodity, unite our wills and understanding in strong assent and adherence unto them.
This kind of assent is in strict terms called faith or trust, fides, fiducia, which imply much more than credulitas, belief. Fidere in the property of the word is a degree beyond credere, importing an assent with reliance and confidence.
Now the proper object of this assent is nothing but promises of some good hereafter to befall us. And promises are never believed, unless they be trusted upon: as a captive cannot be said to believe him that promises to ransom him upon a day, unless he trust and depend upon him. In which case we cannot distinguish between belief and trust, fidem and fiduciam, to make them two several acts, which are but one and the same; as is manifest thus, a promise is a revelation of some such truth as shall be beneficial to me in particular. The truth of such a promise consists in the certainty of performance. The goodness of the promise consists in the quality of the thing promised more or less excellent.
But now to trust (fiduciam ponere, fidem habere) upon a promise is not to believe the goodness of the thing promised (for that often is known perfectly enough) but to be believe the certainty of performance of it unto me: as for instance, if a rich man promise to pay a poor man’s debts, the poor man needs not believe the goodness of the promise, for he well knows the benefit thereof. What then must he believe? The truth of it: where in stands that? in the performance that the rich man will certainly do for him what he has said. Now what is this else but to trust him? So that belief and trust or affiance are here essentially one and the same thing.”
.
Contra Sandemanianism
Intro
Named after the Scottish Robert Sandeman (†1771), one tenet of this distinctive system was defining faith as only (1) comprehension and (2) assent, leaving out the vital aspect of (3) trust, making faith to be no more than a historic faith and nominalism.
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan of the old Free Church of Scotland came out of this influence. Gordon Clark was a late, contemporary proponent of it. Many Christians are practical Sandemanians though they know not the name of it.
.
Articles
1600’s
Davenant, John – Question 37, ‘Justifying Faith is Confidence in Christ as Mediator’ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 408-415 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2 The second half of the article argues against Romanists.
Westminster Confession – ch. 14, ‘Of Saving Faith’, section 2
Turretin, Francis – 15th Topic, ‘Calling & Faith’, Q. 10, ‘Is Faith Trust? We Affirm Against the Romanists’ in Institutes (P&R), pp. 569-71
.
1800’s
Fuller, Andrew – Strictures on Sandemanianism, in 12 Letters to a Friend 1811 250 pp. See especially Letters 3-8, pp. 45-175
.
Latin
Tuckney, Anthony – ch. 14, ‘Assent by no means constitutes the rule of justifying faith’ in Theological Lectures, even Determinations of Various Momentous Question... (Amsterdam: Swart, 1679), pt. 2, pp. 128-33
.
Distinction Between Express & Habitual Faith
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government... (London, 1646), pp. 73-4
“2. Express and actual reference and intention to every commandment of God, or to God’s glory in every particular action, I do not urge; a habitual reference and intention I conceive is holden forth to us in Scripture: 1 Cor. 10:31…
Whereas being created according to God’s image, especially, he living in the visible Church, he is to do all his actions deliberate, even natural and moral in faith, and with a warrant from scripture to make good their morality, Ps. 119:9; Prov. 3:23-24; 2 Cor. 5:7.”
.
On the Need for Faith in All Natural Actions
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government… (1646), Intro, Section 5, pp. 79
“…there be some things that the Law of Nature commands, as to move, eat, sleep; and here with leave I distinguish factum, ‘the common practice’ of men, from the jus, what men in conscience ‘ought’ to do;
As concerning the former, moral and natural men’s practice is all resolved in their own carnal will and lusts; and so they eat, move and sleep because nature and carnal will leads them thereinto, not because God in the Law of nature (which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Moral Law, or Decalogue, and so a part of Scripture) does so warrant us to do; and therefore the moving, eating, drinking of natural Moralists, are materially lawful and conform to Scripture, for God by the Law of nature commands both heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church [nominal church members], to do natural acts of this kind, because the Lord has revealed that to be his will in the Book of Nature:
But these heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their lusts and carnal will, and not because God has commanded them so to do in the Book of Nature; and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially, et quod substantiam actus [and that according to the substance of the act], the action be good; and the same is the sin of natural men within the visible Church, and a greater sin, for God not only commands them in the Law of Nature, but also in Scripture to do all these natural acts, because God has revealed his will in these natural actions, as they are moral, to natural men within the visible Church, both in the Law of Nature and in the Scripture, and de jure they ought to obey because God so commands in bot; and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all natural actions in a spiritual way, though their eating, moving, sleeping be lawful materially, et quod substantiam actus; yet because they do them without any the least habitual reference to God, so commanding in Nature’s Law and Scripture, they are in the manner of doing, sinful;”
.
.
.
“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.”
Rom. 3:27
“That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
1 Cor. 2:5
“Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”
2 Cor. 1:24
.
.
.
Related Pages