All right, let’s recap.
Dr. Clark says that I have unwittingly denied the Reformation because I hold that saving faith is holy. I say that when God calls us effectually and regenerates us and gives us a new heart, this new heart turns away from sin (in repentance) and turns to Christ (in faith). Because I have said that this faith “partakes” of the qualities of heart that produced it, Dr. Clark says I am therefore necessarily saying that God considers these qualities to be meritorious. But I deny that God considers the merit of these qualities in any manner whatever as He justifies me.
But what options are left for Dr. Clark if he wants to avoid denying the Reformation like me? He must either say that the faith that “rests and receives” is an unholy faith (no works here!), or he must say that faith somehow comes in detachable modules, so that it can be holy in this part, but in the part that does all the resting and receiving, no qualities of holiness are to be found anywhere in that module, which is sealed off from the others. For otherwise, if he grants that the faith that does the resting and receiving is also holy, then he has agreed with me, and will not simple souls conclude from all this that prayers to Mary are appropriate?
Now, with this said, let us turn to what Dr. Clark says is the definition of what it means to be Reformed — the confessions. We will content ourselves this morning with the Confession that I am in submission to, the Westminster.
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 (WCF 14.2).
A great deal has been said by Dr. Clark about “resting and receiving” alone. But in Westminster, this is all part of a larger sentence. 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. Notice that the accepting, receiving and resting are not isolated. They are directed toward certain defined ends. Three of them are mentioned. Justification is one of the things that saving faith looks toward. Sanctification is the second thing that saving faith looks toward. Get that? Saving faith has something on its mind other than just getting past the moment of justification. And the third thing that saving faith thinks about is eternal life. Saving faith proceeds from a heart that is interested in personal holiness, and it looks forward to the personal holiness that sanctification brings. If Dr. Clark doesn’t like it, he can take it up with Westminster — the Confession, not the seminary.
So is this all that saving faith does? No, those were just the principal acts of saving faith. These are the central things that saving faith does, but the Westminster divines do not believe for a moment that saving faith has to be stripped bare of everything around it in order to become a naked assent that would make the Escondido Lutherans happy. No, for them, saving faith is a busy bee.
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).
So what are some of the other things that saving faith does, misbehaving as it does right here in a Reformed confession? Saving faith believes whatever God has revealed in His Word, and that would include, incidentally, Genesis 1-2. Note that the point is not that saving faith affirms the generic inspiration or inerrancy of the Word, but that it believes as true the content of what is revealed there. Saving faith has a sound hermeneutic, acting differently according to the nature of the passage before it. Saving faith yields obedience to the commands of God. The problem here for Dr. Clark is that the Westminster was written in English, and so in a crisis like this we can’t resort to Greek word studies. Saving faith yields obedience to God’s commands, and what Dr. Clark is doing is declaring unconfessional a number of Reformed ministers who have the temerity to believe the confession in places where he doesn’t.
Saving faith trembles at the threats. Saving faith embraces promises for this life and the next. But the principal acts of saving faith are to accept, receive and rest upon Christ for three things. Those three things are justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
Now, however saving faith does this, it is clear that it does not do it detached from all love, sanctity, and holiness.
A new heart is given, one that loves God, and submits to Him. That new heart detests sin now, and turns from it in repulsion. We call that motion repentance. This new heart loves Christ and turns to Him, seeking Him out. We call that motion faith. Dr. Clark says that if I allow the motive of love into this motion of turning to Christ then I am somehow diluting it with Romanism. Yikes. It is not Romanism to love Jesus from the first moment of the effectual call.
Lest anyone who specializes in taking quotes out of context see this (and I know you’re out there!), and point to it, saying that Wilson is clearly mixing “works” into the moment of justification, let me slice it as thinly as you do. In a thought experiment (I am out of my mind to talk like this), if God were to stop the process of an individual’s salvation just before the moment of justification, but after the effectual call, and if He were to judge that individual on the basis of the loving qualities of the person’s new heart, what does Wilson think would happen to that guy? Is this question esoteric enough for you? I believe that if God were to interrupt the moment of someone’s conversion with judgment this way, the person concerned would go straight to Hell headfirst. If God were to mark iniquities, would could stand?
The new heart is different from the old one, but still sinful and fallen. The repentance is genuine, but still imperfect. The faith in Christ, and love for Him are not hypocritical, for they are gifts of God, but they still fall short of the glory of God. They have turned away from sin, and have turned to Christ, but they have not done so perfectly — and a holy God requires perfection. Being a loving God, what He requires of us in this respect He also gives to us in the perfections of Jesus Christ. But we are still in our thought experiment. So the individual is not declared righteous, sinless, acceptable, or holy on the basis of how good he was being for that nanosecond before justification.
But because his heart was quickened, his eyes opened, his faith stirred into life, the one thing that this person can do is see Jesus Christ. To argue against this is unscriptural, unconfessional, and incoherent. To push Dr. Clark’s logic out to the end requires us to say that a blind and dead eye sees Christ and can rest in Him, receiving Him. But wait . . . is it not obedient, and holy, to rest in Him? Maybe saving faith has to do this while snarling and sullen. No popery here.
To refute all this from the Scriptures would be easy, but we have come to the point in this controversy where if I were to do that, the response would be something like, “Yeah, well, Jehovah’s Witnesses have Bibles too, and they appeal to them too. We need the confessions.”
You have appealed to the confessions, and so to the confessions we have gone. Saving faith yields obedience to the commands of God. Among many other activities, saving faith trusts in Christ alone for sanctification.