Quote:
Originally Posted by spicedparrot  For what it is worth the Lutheran view is that like our justification our assurance must be "extra nos". Therefore, any assurance we have comes from resting upon Christ and his promises - in other words resting on Word and Sacrament, particular one's baptism. Why Baptism, because there God does a work to us and makes a promise that is entirely void of our doing. As such, we merely have to ask ourselves if Christ keeps his promise.
To put it another way here is what is often put forth as the syllogism of assurance:
a) All those who truly believe will be saved
b) I know I truly believe
c) Therefore I know I am saved.
The Lutheran position is something more like this:
a) In my Baptism Christ promised I was united to his death and resurrection and my sins were forgiven
b) Christ does not lie
c) Therefore in my Baptism I was united to his death and resurrection and my sins ARE forgiven.
The problem of course with the first syllogism is that it is inherently reflexive and focus the attention of the believer back upon themselves. From the Lutheran perspective that is a hopeless place to look, our gaze should be firmly focused instead on Christ and His promises. As you can see the second syllogism (which is the logic behind the cliche "Remember Your Baptism!") focuses attention on Christ and his pro me work ("for me").
Interestingly I am reading the excellent Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer. In there he spends a good deal of time dealing with the puritans, their view of death, etc. He comments that to many at the time, feeling "assured" of your salvation was actually indication that you WERE NOT saved. Interesting.
Finally, I've heard it put this way by Carl Trueman:
In the Scottish presbyterian tradition your assurance was derived from an internal testimony of the spirit
In the Continental reformed tradition your assurance was derived from the testimony of your good works.
For what its worth, I prefer to derive my assurance on the "extra nos" Word and Sacrament - otherwise I would have no assurance at all. |
The difference between the Lutheran and Reformed Christian is a good example of what I meant in a previous post in this thread when I said "as Reformed believers, we want to say that Christ alone saves and we believe that those trusting in something else cannot be saved". WCF XIV states "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." If this is true, then the Lutheran trusting in baptismal regeneration cannot be saved. This seems to be too drastic a position to take, yet the WCF seems to be saying that.
This goes back to my OP, because clearly on the one hand the WCF is narrowly defining saving faith, yet it does not leave much room for my own wavering to trust Christ alone (ie, "I believe, help my unbelief!" nor does it leave much room for those whose confessions of faith include clear statements of the vital role of the sacraments in bringing salvation to the Christian (as Spiced Parrot articulated and as the RC church articulates).
Perhaps the answer is in the next line of the WCF in the same chapter, to wit:
"This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong..."
Would that statement be the qualifier that allows us as Reformed believers to disagree with other believers on issues such as baptismal regeneration, yet firmly believe they are saved? Perhaps I am not interpreting that part of the WCF correctly.