There is only one cure for a lack of fruit in our Christian lives. It is to go back to Christ and enjoy (yes, enjoy) our union with Him. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith insists that Christians may be “certainly assured that they are in the state of grace” (18:1) and goes on to assert that this “infallible assurance of faith” is “founded upon” three considerations:

“the divine truth of the promises of salvation”
“the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made”
“the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are children of God” (18:2).

The possibility of “certain” and “infallible” assurance is set against the backdrop of medieval and post-Reformation Roman Catholic views that paralyzed the church with an “assurance” that was at best “conjectural” (wishful thinking), based as it was on rigorous participation in a sacramental treadmill. Few epitomized the contrast more starkly than Cardinal Bellarmine (1542–1621), the personal theologian to Pope Clement VIII and ablest leader of the Counter-Reformation, who called the Protestant doctrine of assurance “the greatest of all heresies.” What, after all, could be more offensive to a works-based and priest-imparted system of salvation than the possibility that assurance could be attained without either? If Christians can attain an assurance of eternal life apart from participation in the church’s rituals, what possible outcome could there be other than rampant antinomianism (the belief that God’s commandments are optional)?
But what exactly did the Westminster divines mean when they implied that our assurance is “founded upon” inward evidence? Behind this statement lies a practical syllogism:
(major premise) True believers demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit.(minor premise) The fruit of the Spirit is present in me.(conclusion) I am a true believer.
It should be obvious that the subjectivity of this argument is fraught with difficulty. While the certainty of salvation is grounded upon the (objective) work of Christ, the certainty of assurance is grounded upon the (objective) promises God gives us and the (subjective) discovery of those promises at work in us. And it is this latter consideration that gives rise to one or two problems.
Theologians have made a distinction between the direct and reflexive acts of faith. It is one thing to believe that Christ can save me (direct act of faith). It is another thing to believe that I have believed (reflexive act of faith). Apart from the first consideration (that Christ is both willing and able to save) there can be no assurance of faith. Indeed, it is pointless to move forward with the discussion about assurance apart from a conviction of the truthfulness of this statement: “Christ is able to save those who believe.”
Assuming, then, that there is no doubt as to the ability and willingness of Christ to save those who believe, how may I be assured that I have this belief? The answer of the New Testament at this point is clear: there is an “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). True faith manifests itself in outward, tangible ways. In other words, the New Testament draws a connection between faithfulness and the enjoyment of assurance. True believers demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, and this fruit is observable and measurable.
Four Ways of Knowing
The Apostle John addresses this very issue in his first epistle: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). Apart from belief “in the name of the Son of God,” there is no point in furthering the discussion about assurance. The question at hand is, “How can I know if my belief is genuine?” And John’s answer emphasizes four moral characteristics of the Christian life.
First, there is obedience to the commandments of God. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:2–3). True faith is not and can never be antinomian.
Read More

Our young men need public and private examples of godly men in generations past and present.  Our pastor would tell us that his personal pursuit of holiness was for the benefit of others—because his wife needed a godly husband and his children a godly father and the church a godly leader. He modeled meekness and godliness even in his later years of immense personal suffering.  He showed us how to die. The church needs more everyday heroes like him to prepare our young men to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” and to “fight the good fight of the faith” until the Lord calls them home (1 Tim. 6:11-12).

A hero went Home this week.
It’s hard to put into words the measure of a man.  God gives many good men to His church.  As I mourn this beloved pastor, I can’t help but wonder how many of our young men are in the queue to lead the next generation.  I know not every man can or will be like him – but that was not his aim, nor his desire to be a standard for comparison.  His aim was to build men who follow after Christ (1 Cor. 11:1) and become more Christ-like (Rom. 8:29), from one degree to another (2 Cor. 3:18).  Christ is the only imitable way, truth and life (John 14:6).
Yet, the scriptures do command us to “consider your leaders and the outcome of their faith” (Hebrews 13:7) and to follow them, as they follow Christ (1 Cor. 11:1).  I’ve had ample opportunity to “consider…the outcome” of this pastor’s life as a sheep in his flock for 35 years.  And, at the risk of the criticism of romanticizing a fallible man, I offer these reflections of one man’s faithful life to encourage the Church to nurture our young men, so that it will flourish in their generation.
Set Christ apart in your heart by faith.
We must encourage our sons to live wholeheartedly for Christ.  There is no middle ground, no nuanced path. Indeed, the way is narrow and has only one gate. Our pastor would say to us, “Look to Christ” who is the “author and finisher of our faith” in all things (Heb. 12:2).  Our world holds many glittering distractions for a young man’s heart, but we must pray that our sons’ hearts esteem Christ above all else. When men learn to find their treasure in Christ alone, many worldly distractions fall away, scattered in dull comparison.  We must pray for our young men because this act of “setting apart” is a sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit alone, in His timing.  The Church must exercise patience, grace and grit to equip men to grow into “mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).
Have a vision to change the world.
We must encourage our young men to have a vision for their lives that extends beyond their personal gain, for the glory of God’s kingdom. Our pastor’s vision to change the world was not to have a world-renowned name for himself, but to lead, train and send men “into all the world” (Matt. 28:19) for Christ’s name.  As we foster interests and enable talents of our sons, we need to never stop encouraging them to think big and take risks for His glory and for the good of others.
Read More
Related Posts:

Our objection to worshiping images is that it is idolatry because that worship does not pass through them to Christ, but is actually just worshiping artwork in the same way that ancient idolaters were actually just worshiping statues. Such images do not direct our devotion to Christ, but away from him (who is invisible to us by God’s sovereign will) and to mistaken notions of one of his two natures. They are not necessary for our devotion – for they are not necessary for us to worship the Father and the Spirit.

The teaching of Thomas Aquinas has been much debated recently, and it is advantageous that we consider his own writings and not merely others about them. Below is the full text of Aquinas’ consideration of worshiping images of Christ from his Summa Theologiae IIIa, Q.25, Art. 3, followed by my commentary upon it. Note that when Thomas uses “latria” or “adoration” he means worship: “worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia).
Article 3: Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of “latria”?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s image should not be adored with the adoration of “latria.” For it is written (Ex. 20:4): “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything.” But no adoration should be given against the commandment of God. Therefore Christ’s image should not be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
Objection 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works of the Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). But the Gentiles are reproached principally for that “they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man,” as is written (Rm. 1:23). Therefore Christ’s image is not to be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
Objection 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of “latria” is due by reason of His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of “latria” is not due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself.
Objection 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine worship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:23) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Church, says: “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” But Scripture does not lay down anything concerning the adoration of images. Therefore, Christ’s image is not to be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as saying: “The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype,” i.e., the exemplar. But the exemplar itself—namely, Christ—is to be adored with the adoration of “latria;” therefore also His image.
I answer that, As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else. And between these movements there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the thing. Thus, therefore, we must say that no reverence is shown to Christ’s image, as a thing—for instance, carved or painted wood: because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follows therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently, the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of “latria,” it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of “latria.”
Reply to Objection 1: This commandment does not forbid the making of any graven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of adoration, wherefore it is added: “Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.” And because, as stated above, the movement towards the image is the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration thereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is. Wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own gods, i.e., the demons, and so it is premised: “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” But no corporeal image could be raised to the true God Himself, since He is incorporeal; because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): “It is the highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is Divine.” But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can be adored in His corporeal image.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common with the “unfruitful works” of the Gentiles, but not with their useful works. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the unfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the Gentiles used to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there was something Divine therein, on account of the answers which the demons used to give in them, and on account of other such like wonderful effects. Secondly, on account of the things of which they were images; for they set up images to certain creatures, to whom in these images they gave the veneration of “latria.” Whereas we give the adoration of “latria” to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Reverence is due to the rational creature for its own sake. Consequently, if the adoration of “latria” were shown to the rational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion of error—namely, lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the man, as a thing, and not be carried on to God, Whose image he is. This cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible material.
Reply to Objection 4: The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): “Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word”—that is by word of mouth—“or by our epistle”—that is by word put into writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ’s image. Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ, which is in Rome.
Commentary
Aquinas bases his claim that it is proper to worship the image of Christ on Basil’s opinion that worship passes through images and to what they purport to represent: since it is proper to worship Christ, therefore it is thought proper to worship images of him. This false premise contravenes Scripture’s prohibition of images (Ex. 20:4) and its conception of idolatry as consisting in the absurd worship of inanimate objects (Isa. 44:9-20; Jer. 10); and note that Aquinas’ Scripture references are found in the objections which he conspires to refute, not his own position. The only verse he references in support is 2 Thess. 2:14, which he interprets as providing blanket approval for Rome’s traditions, their frequent contradiction of Scripture’s explicit commands notwithstanding.
Aquinas’ answer is also based on Aristotle’s reasoning (“the Philosopher” in the Summa) about how thought works in adoration. Scripture warns us to beware lest human philosophy lead us astray: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). The Aristotelian notion Aquinas propounds here is mistaken, for he distinguishes regarding an image as it is in itself and regarding it insofar as it represents something else. Since an image of Christ is not regarded for its own sake, but insofar as it intends to represent Christ, Aquinas reasons it is proper to worship his images.
By such reasoning idolatry cannot exist, provided the worshiper regards an idol not as a statue but as representing what it purports to represent. This contradicts Scripture’s conception of the evil of idolatry as reducing its committers to the folly of worshiping mere objects.
No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” (Isa. 44:19).
In his Reply to Objection 1, Aquinas reasons that the evil of idolatry is that it is directed to false gods, not to objects as such. Again, that is not Scripture’s position (Ps. 135:15-18), and in this Aquinas’ reliance on Aristotle corrupts his exegesis. It might appear that 1 Cor. 10:14-22 supports Aquinas. Yet the best understanding of that passage’s teaching that idolaters offer sacrifice to demons is that idolaters’ worship does not pass through idols to demons, but by worshiping idols they do the bidding of the demons who use such worship of objects to ensnare them (1 Cor. 12:2; Gal. 4:8).
Aquinas regards it as improper to image God, since he is incorporeal. Images of Christ are acceptable, however, because in Christ God has taken to himself a “corporeal image.” In this lies much of the error of images of Christ and why many do not approve them for any use, much less worship. No one has ever portrayed Christ in the fullness of his being; at the most he can portray his humanity, and in fact he cannot even do that. The most he can do is portray what he imagines Christ’s humanity looked like, but long experience has shown that this never escapes the distortions of the artist’s preconceived cultural bias – hence in the West, Jesus is ever portrayed as a pale European, not a Levantine Jew. We should not worship some artist’s ridiculous, culture-bound notion of Jesus’ humanity. Such attempts to portray him also fail because they seek to portray him as he was during his first advent, not as he is now. Jesus’ present appearance is such that John strained the limits of description to give an idea of it (Rev. 1:12-16), and that it overwhelmed him (v. 17). No human art can accurately represent Christ as he is now.
To summarize, our objection to worshiping images is that it is idolatry because that worship does not pass through them to Christ, but is actually just worshiping artwork in the same way that ancient idolaters were actually just worshiping statues. Such images do not direct our devotion to Christ, but away from him (who is invisible to us by God’s sovereign will) and to mistaken notions of one of his two natures. They are not necessary for our devotion – for they are not necessary for us to worship the Father and the Spirit.
In this lies the weakness of ‘retrieving’ Thomas. It is a strange notion that renewing theology requires retrieving someone who taught the goodness of idolatry on the basis of self-justifying church tradition and Aristotelian philosophy, and in direct contradiction to Scripture, the exegesis of which was actually perverted by the tradition and philosophy in view. It is something of a mystery how that comports with 1 Cor. 5:11 (“I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is . . . an idolater”).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 
Related Posts: