Is faith always opposed to fear?

I think our instinct is to say, “yes,” to that question. And it is a healthy instinct. God loves those who trust in Him as he is revealed and offered in the Gospel. Perfect love casts out fear.

At the same time, we can’t simply go with our instincts if the Bible says otherwise. At least in some ways we are going to have to nuance how we speak of the relationship between faith and fear.

I would argue that the Westminster Assembly acted wisely and biblically when they included fear in the definition of faith:

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. 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.

By the way there have been attempts to grammatically bifurcate this passage and claim that most of it is not defining faith at all. While there are two identifiable sections in this definition, they are still both part of the definition of saving and justifying faith.

There are several problems with the idea that the first sentence is a list of other things that are done “by” faith as opposed to the second sentence listing what faith actually is:

  • It is a commonplace that “have faith” and “believe” are virtual synonyms of one another. Both refer to trust. But if we separate these two sentences and only allow the latter to define saving faith, then we are in the anomalous position of saying that believing God in His Word (“believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein”) does not count as faith. Even more strange would be to insist that trusting God savingly is something distinct and different from “embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.”
  • If the statement “by this faith…” is taken to exclude an actual definition of faith, then we would have to insist that the chapter on repentance never bothers to tell us what repentance is:

    By it [i.e. this repentance], a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

    According to the proffered novel hermeneutic of the chapter on faith, repentance must not be defined as turning from sin to God.

  • If we recognize this, then it will make perfect sense why the Divines also include in the definition of faith, “trembling at the threatenings.” How can one say that one believes God and not take His warnings seriously? A person who doesn’t take God’s warnings seriously is refusing to believe or trust God as a reliable guide and protector.
  • The second sentence does not say “But faith actually is…,” but rather “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.” The contrast is not between some things that one does “by” faith and what faith actually is. Rather, the contrast is between general acts of faith and “principal acts” of faith, which are both part of the definition of faith itself. Since our faith is weak and we remain sinners in this life, none of us will trust God so much as to perfectly obey him. If the divines had left us with only the first sentence in their definition, then one would become unsure as to whether one truly received the imputed righteousness of Jesus in his life of obedience and his suffering the penalty that our sins deserved. One needs to know that, in the midst of weak faith, one can continue to rely on God through Christ for all things necessary to salvation.On the other hand, if only the last sentence is counted as a definition of faith, then “faith” would be indistinguishable from wishing one was in Christ, hoping one is in Christ, or imagining strongly that one is in Christ. Justification by faith would degenerate, as John Williamson Nevin once observed, into justification by fancy.
  • Finally, the Westminster Assembly did not define repentance as mere outward conformity to God’s behavioral standards, but rather the turning from sin to God upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to those who repent (WCF 15.2). Imagine a woman raised as a Mormon who worships their false gods, and who hears the Gospel of the infinite, personal Trinity and the role of God’s son in uniting himself to our nature and suffering in our place and bearing us up to God in his resurrection and ascension. If that woman repents of her false god and the false hopes she placed in that fiction to forgive her sins, and embraces the true God and trusts him to save her, how does one disentangle faith and repentance in that event? To speak more broadly, turning from unbelief to faith in God is an act or repentance and turning from sin (including unbelief) to God (to forgive and to save) is an act of faith.

So “fear in response to God’s warnings,” is a part of saving faith. This is certainly what we see in the first sin. Adam and Eve stopped trusting God and therefore decided they had nothing to fear from God’s warning about eating the forbidden fruit. Likewise, the author of Hebrews believes that fear and faith can be complementary:

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.

Of course, not every book is written like the book of Hebrews because not every book is dealing with such a desperate situation. Furthermore, faith is never only about fear. Not ever. I think the Westminster Confession reflects the Biblical message when it points out that both fear of God’s wrath and hatred of sin are insufficient for repentance to life:

By it (i.e. repentance), a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments (WCF 15.2).

If you look at the book of Hebrews, you see some severe warnings, but at the same time, you see the constant encouragement to trust God’s great promises. Jesus is “a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (2.17). Thus, we should “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful” (Hebrews 10.23), just like Sarah “considered him faithful who had promised” (Hebrews 11.11).

Basically, whether or not faith involves fear, or to what extent it might, really isn’t a question so much about the nature of faith, but about what God is saying. God’s promises are great and his expressions of love are sincere, but when he warns, only unbelief would refuse to respond in an appropriate manner. The Christian life involves taking the wrath of God seriously. As the Westminster divines put it:

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?
A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

Escaping God’s wrath is an awfully negative description of the positive blessings God promises to those who trust Him.  But even if the emphasis is not the one we normally use, the description is based on the Bible.

For that reason there is a degree of fear involved in faith.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *