The object of our faith

[StephenMartyr]

So I got a few books in the mail today and one of them was volume 2 of van Mastricht. In the start of the book as I was skimming he says on page 10 that the object of our faith is not "(1) the promises... .Nor (2) the benefits of God and the Mediator...".

Turretin also says in volume 2, pg. 573 very top, "The object of faith is none other than the written word of God...".

I read the next page and a bit, but it didn't really answer my question. If you asked me this question "What is the object of our faith?" some time before reading these books, I would have said "Jesus is!".

So how is the bible, the Word of God, the object and not Jesus Christ himself? Am I misreading these two or not getting something straight?

 

[alexandermsmith]

That quote from Van Mastricht made me think he was going to say that the object of our faith is Christ Himself, not the promises or benefits. Our faith and trust is in the person of Christ, not directly in His work or the benefits recevied from Him. So Van Mastricht in this quote doesn't appear to me to be disagreeing with that. On the other hand Turretin's quote does strike me as a bit off.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This might prove to be a good lesson in the proper of reading things in context.

Rather than read a line or two, and take away a snippet of text into which we pour our own meaning; we have to consider the original scope of the discourse.

Is it VM or FT's intent to be describing THE OBJECT OF SAVING FAITH? The proper object in that case is Jesus, who is THE SAVIOR. HE acts, he does the saving, it is his strength alone that saves, his righteousness alone that avails, etc.

What do the two authors under consideration themselves have in view? Are they making "universal statements" about all aspects of the Christian Faith? First, we need to recognize that we have additional "objects of faith" within (even without!) the Christian Faith, depending on the topic at hand. So, immediately we should be on guard against totalizing the author's statement.

VM reads to me as if he is distinguishing between a more diffused notion of "faith in particulars," and "faith in a whole," or rather faith in the one, living and active Origin or Source which gives rise to the particulars. The "promises" or "benefits" are nebulous or open to re-rendering if in any way stood apart from the container (the written word) of the content.

Don't assume you have such promises or benefits assured without the Testimony, any more than you have promises to pay or the benefits of some policy absent the documentation. On one hand, if you were the personal recipient of a promise-to-pay or personally shook hands with the dispenser of a benefit, you might be on sufficient grounds of assurance. But none of us in 2000yrs are in that position. We rely on the Testimony.

So, on the one hand we cannot derive any value of a promise if it is vacuous or content-free. The promise is SUBSTANTIVE. However, we look to the written word, and trust it as God's chosen vehicle or instrument for conveying the precious cargo to us. If we cannot or do not trust it, then the putative content is worthless to us; or else the ground on which we accept it is unworthy of the level of confidence we have placed in it. Or it is "blind faith."

Thus, on the other hand, we have no possession of promise or benefit if we do not accept that God has spoken and had reliably recorded and preserved for us his assuring word. This is not the same as "putting saving faith" in the true Object, the Person of the Savior. But in fact, it is a key prerequisite for apprehending Christ savingly (unto salvation).

This is the ordinary way of coming to faith in Christ. We are not to rely on extraordinary revelations, but on the testimony of the Word. It is bound up to Christ, the Word Incarnate; there is no separation of these objects that are yet distinguishable. But you will not properly embrace a Christ unless you have acceded to the reliability of the witness of Christ.

 

[StephenMartyr]

This might prove to be a good lesson in the proper of reading things in context.

Rather than read a line or two, and take away a snippet of text into which we pour our own meaning; we have to consider the original scope of the discourse.

Is it VM or FT's intent to be describing THE OBJECT OF SAVING FAITH? The proper object in that case is Jesus, who is THE SAVIOR. HE acts, he does the saving, it is his strength alone that saves, his righteousness alone that avails, etc.

What do the two authors under consideration themselves have in view? Are they making "universal statements" about all aspects of the Christian Faith? First, we need to recognize that we have additional "objects of faith" within (even without!) the Christian Faith, depending on the topic at hand. So, immediately we should be on guard against totalizing the author's statement.

VM reads to me as if he is distinguishing between a more diffused notion of "faith in particulars," and "faith in a whole," or rather faith in the one, living and active Origin or Source which gives rise to the particulars. The "promises" or "benefits" are nebulous or open to re-rendering if in any way stood apart from the container (the written word) of the content.

Don't assume you have such promises or benefits assured without the Testimony, any more than you have promises to pay or the benefits of some policy absent the documentation. On one hand, if you were the personal recipient of a promise-to-pay or personally shook hands with the dispenser of a benefit, you might be on sufficient grounds of assurance. But none of us in 2000yrs are in that position. We rely on the Testimony.

So, on the one hand we cannot derive any value of a promise if it is vacuous or content-free. The promise is SUBSTANTIVE. However, we look to the written word, and trust it as God's chosen vehicle or instrument for conveying the precious cargo to us. If we cannot or do not trust it, then the putative content is worthless to us; or else the ground on which we accept it is unworthy of the level of confidence we have placed in it. Or it is "blind faith."

Thus, on the other hand, we have no possession of promise or benefit if we do not accept that God has spoken and had reliably recorded and preserved for us his assuring word. This is not the same as "putting saving faith" in the true Object, the Person of the Savior. But in fact, it is a key prerequisite for apprehending Christ savingly (unto salvation).

This is the ordinary way of coming to faith in Christ. We are not to rely on extraordinary revelations, but on the testimony of the Word. It is bound up to Christ, the Word Incarnate; there is no separation of these objects that are yet distinguishable. But you will not properly embrace a Christ unless you have acceded to the reliability of the witness of Christ.

Thank you for that rebuke. And your comments as well.

When you say Testimony with a capitol T are you meaning the entire bible itself?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in the Word of God, is the only proper object of saving faith.