Assurance of things hoped for

Probably Philip Melanchthon's most quoted comment was 'to know Christ means to know his benefits' (p.21, 'Loci Communes' (1521) in LCC: Melanchthon and Bucer). However, often people just read the immediate context of the quote and take him to mean that we should prioritise knowing about the work of Christ over his person. But that is not really what he is writing about. Instead it is concerned with one of his major concerns in the Loci, which is to overturn the Roman Catholic understanding of faith.

For Melanchthon the knowledge of Christ 'is faith alone' (p. 106, ibid). Faith is not just belief that some things are true, it is that God has promised salvation to me. For the Reformers assurance was an absolutely central part of faith, and this pervades all of Melanchthon's Loci:

'You see, then, that "the assurance of things hoped for" is called "faith." Therefore, those who do not hope for the promised salvation do not believe. "But," you will say, "I believe that salvation was promised, but that it will come to others." For thus the flesh thinks. But listen! These promises are made to you also, are they not? Has not the gospel been preached to all the nations? You do not really believe, therefore, unless you believe that salvation has been promised to you also.' (p.97, ibid)

In fact you can see her that assurance is not just part of faith, but faith itself for Melanchthon. In this he is following Luther who defines faith as 'a living, daring confidence in God's grace' (p.101, 'Preface to the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans' Luther's Basic Theological Writings). Melanchthon refuses to even give the name 'faith' to belief that is not assurance of receiving the benefits of Christ, instead he terms it 'frigid opinion' (p.100, Loci).

Carl Trueman observes that the Puritans saw this understanding of faith as potentially damaging to fragile spirits. They did not respond by going all the way back to the Roman Catholic position of denying it is possible to be assured of salvation, but they denied that it was a necessary attribute of faith. In the WCF Chapter 18 we read that 'his infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it'.

I'm not sure who was right really. But I cannot help observing that it is undeniable that when the Puritans said they believed in justification by faith, they meant something quite different to the Reformers (and especially the Lutheran reformers). For the Lutherans faith=assurance. For the Puritans faith led to assurance.

Things are a lot messier than we would like to believe sometimes.

... I know the position we take will affect our encouragement of other Christians, I wonder if it would affect our evangelism too.

What I'm up to

You are probably all very happy that things have gone quiet on this blog recently. Unfortunately I am busy at work at the moment and my law studies have restarted. This means I'll have less time to read, and blog, than God has graciously given me over the last few months.

However, I thought I'd let you know that I have decided after some deliberations to give the Puritans a second chance. I read a handful of books several years ago but could not understand what all the fuss was about. So I am joining the 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge, and going to try and get through 12 short Puritan books in 2008. Perhaps I'll give up half way through, but we'll see.

In preparation my commute has been to the sound of JI Packer's seriously English introductory lectures from 1988. Interestingly he relates how he had been trying to get a publisher to publish Richard Baxter's Christian Directory, which was one of just two books written by Puritans which was not occasional or based on sermons, and was actually designed to stand the test of time. The Banner of Truth apparently did not judge it sound enough! However it seems that he finally did manage to get someone to publish it in 1997.

On a more serious note, Packer makes a convincing case for understanding the Puritan movement as a revivalistic movement, which sheds a different light on things.

Meanwhile I'm also finding Lutheranism a strange and exciting new world of theology. The English-speaking evangelicalism that I know has always looked to the Reformed when it has got serious about theology. This seems clearest in that when people identify themselves as 'Reformed' in England they usually mean 'not Arminian', when of course the Arminians were 'Reformed' as well. Reading Lutheran theology I feel God confronting me, and interacting with me, in a way I have not felt since reading Calvin for the first time. Still I am not sure that I can agree with most of what distinguishes Lutheran from Reformed when it actually comes down to brass tacks. Nevertheless I can see the prophetic power that it must have had in the sixteenth century and still has now.

All very exciting but lots to do. Got to go.