Larry and Andrew-
Of all the issues one faces in christian doctrine and life, this one on assurance has been the most thorny and complicated for me. Both of your posts have clarified alot. I have some more questions if you both don't mind.
Alan,
Without a doubt I agree and it is hard to find good help concerning this most important issue. Those who have suffered the pains of the devil, felt wrath and hell and death and the misery of their sin, the inward trials, know. These trials are worse than bodily death for bodily death seems relieving by comparison of really feeling death. Those who have not will not grasp the love of the pure Gospel until then, this may not come until the death bed when one is faced up with the final stroke of the Law, then under the suffering of death the Gospel will finally be sweet and all foolish pretense of working will be annihilated. John Calvin himself considered himself first and foremost a minister of assurance above all. Sadly, today this is not true with the by and large out there. One either gets the fluffy liberal theologian that appeals to your will by "œpep" talks only to lead to greater despair when one fails or the mindless conservative theologian who preaches what he dreams is the depth of human sin, stopping short of total will annihilation, the true depth of sin, and merely raises the appeal to the will from the "œpep talk" to the n-th degree. The problem is the later still appeals to the will it matter little if it is a little or a lot. Neither of these are of the theology of the cross, neither will withstand suffering, take doctrine to suffering and the cross if it cannot sustain it is useless.
1) is what you have both just stated exemplary of the difference between the 3 Forms and the WCF on this point?
I don´t think the WCF differs all that much from the 3 forms of unity, but I do think that the 3 forms of unity "œspell it out" much more clearly. But I should say that I´ve only read through the WCF and not put a study of it as I have the HC. That´s just my opinion I do prefer the Heidelberg the most by the way it is set forth and arranged. It starts right out of the gate with, "œWhat is thy only comfort in life and death? That I in body and soul both in life and death am not my own but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, Who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sin, and delivered me from all the power of the devil, and so preserves me that apart from the will of my Holy Father not a hair can fall from my head, yea that all things are subservient to my salvation. Therefore by His Holy Spirit He assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready to live, henceforth, unto Him." That is a powerful opening Q and A to memorize and cherish in dark times. Right off the bat the HC gives forth the Gospel and sets up the three way division of its Q and A of guilt, grace and gratitude. This also better formulates memorizing it by systemizing it.
2) if not, are they just two different sides of the same coin, with historical context requiring both groups to focus on/emphasize one side?
Presently I cannot answer that, only to recommend the three forms to you as superior in their clarity.
3) Larry, is this subjectivism of the Puritans strictly with the American ones or is it characteristic of puritanism in general (British and Dutch)?
With Puritan literature you have to be careful. I´ve certainly not read all that´s out there and never will. But one thing about the Puritans is that they were not monolithic in there doctrine. Generally, many put more emphasis on the subjective than did Calvin, Beza or Luther. The later where correct for in the end analysis the only thing that will give one true faith and hope is not looking inward but outward to Christ. It´s practical theology applied. If you are like me and some of us extreme internal examiners, at length NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING you examine within yourself will ever pass the muster. Hence, you will never ever find assurance inwardly, never. The confusion seems to come when "œothers" look at say these professing Christians who manifestly deny the faith in some way. These others, Wesley for example, Rome for example, say then, "œsee pure grace cannot be enough we need to terrorize afresh with the Law". But they end up denying the Gospel JUST because some never attain to it and abuse it. To put it another way if I am a doctor and I have a medication that heals a man of a deadly disease and it is the only medicine. Yet, this same medicine is abused by some, would I not be very evil to not administer this medicine to the needy EVEN if others will still abuse it? I cannot change the Gospel just because some abuse it. I cannot and must not redefine faith for example as 1. Knowledge, 2. Ascent to that Knowledge as true, 3. Leading to obedience. When true faith is 1, 2, and 3. Sheer Trust in Christ Alone apart from obedience. If I do change the Gospel or faith such that it changes the Gospel then I´m cooked. If a minister does this and does not repent he runs the danger of falling under the Divine curse Paul speaks much of, his sermon and teaching are damned if he changes the Gospel. Now at this point we do have some latitude in that even Peter faltered, BUT Peter repented, we all falter. But if a pastor does not, willfully remaining ignorant to the truth, his soul is in peril.
4) How much of today's subjectivism is due to puritan influence, and how much of it is due to revivalism and wesleyanism? Or do they intertwine?
That´s hard to say but a guess would say that 99% of it is Wesleyan revivalism. Not all Puritan´s were subjective heavy. E.g. Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections goes to extreme length to destroy subjective reliance. Thomas Hooker was a great healer and assuror of souls, but Hooker did recognize the dangerous trend in later day Puritanism toward the subjective - it is why he himself became a great balm to the "œPoor and Doubting Christian Drawn to Christ". It is said that when he died it was considered a public tragedy. Yet, upon his very own death bed he reaffirmed the objective strength of faith and assurance in Christ alone. His best friend came to him in his last dying moments and said, "œYou will receive a great reward for your work here." To which Thomas replied, "œNO, I will receive mercy." He saw, he knew Christ alone.
5) Andrew- as a strong puritan advocate, is their anything Larry has said that you disagree with, or that the puritans would disagree with?
Andrew would probably disagree with me that I´m a handsome devil. Gotta have some humor!
6) Larry- based on what you have stated, how do you explain verses like Hebrews 12:14, 2 Peter 1:8-11? Is true heart reflection even possible at all in light of Jeremiah 17:9?
Keep in mind I am just a lay person but the whole chapter 12 of Hebrews is speaking of Law and Grace. Verses 18 - 21 clearly spell out the Law while Verses 22 - 24 the Gospel. Verse 14 is fulfilled for us in Christ. For it speaks of keeping peace with all men and holiness. This can only be through Christ, it is speaking of keeping faith highest - Christ´s cross. What we have to realize is that when we try to obey the Law we automatically sin. If I seek righteousness or favor with God in any way per the Law say, loving my neighbor, I´m really not loving my neighbor at all though I may make many motions of love toward him. How? Because my basis for doing so is to please God and the Law so that I WILL gain reward which is selfish. Doubly, then I glorify myself, make myself famous, in God´s sight so as to even raise myself above God - all by trying to do the Law. Gospel kills this terminally. I read this once and it helped me grasp it better. Paul said in Romans 6 that he would not have known coveting had the Law not said, "œThou shall not covet." But then when the command meant for life came in the sin arose and he died by the Law. We often leap at this superficially and say, "œthis is true the forbidden fruit is always more tempting being forbidden." But this is superficial though true. What Paul is saying is that by "œdoing" the Law I can never achieve because I AM a coveter. You see by the very command, "œThou shall not covet", the will is shown for what it is - desire to be self sovereign a desire to do what it forbids. One could say, "œI will not covet" with an eye to being righteous by obeying or pleasing God. But THIS is coveting, coveting righteousness. It matters little if I covet my neighbor´s wife or house or even righteousness - coveting is coveting even if it is righteousness. When we covet especially righteousness before God, to "œimpress God", then we really begin to glory in ourselves and look down upon others and at length we become "œmore pious" than God - truly Satanic. This is why not even sanctification is driven by the Law for the Law, especially since it comes from a Holy God whom we think we desire to impress but are really making ourselves IMPRESSIVE, self righteousness/self glory, raises up all kinds of selfish pride and arrogance. We truly take the law and make it evil, not the Law itself which is really good, but our "œuse of it".
I have not looked at the 1 Peter passage yet.
I am trying to basically understand:
a) if the differences over this issue are due to content or due to emphasis (or both)
It depends on who one is reading. Generally I think it is emphasis but that is an over generalization.
b)what each side actually holds to
Again, generally because many of the Puritans aligned with the Reformers (E.g., Bunyan and Hooker), the Reformers: Luther, Calvin and Beza. NOT, definitely NOT ANY of the Anabaptist who are not Reformers anyway but the theological left hand of Rome.
If you are meaning where is assurance found objectively or subjectively? Objectively, nothing but the cross of Christ and His life. Again, at length no man´s works or life are ever meant to be trusted into only Christ. That is the real shocking and radical message of the cross: "œWhat must I do to be saved?" "œNothing, absolutely nothing, you must stop, sit down, shut up and listen to what Christ has only done." THIS Gospel call literally is a "œLet there be light." It kills the old Adam, the "œdoer", and raises the new man in Christ. Note that Paul never back tracks or chickens out when he has just finished preaching faith alone. No, what does he do? He answer by death-life language. The old man is dead in Christ alone and works not, by sheer naked trust one is brought into life. Luther said that God may even go the whole length and never do any good works in a man so that he may be slain on the cross, thus suffering, seeing nothing within himself, he then must alone trust nakedly in Christ alone.
In short all theologies of fallen religion fall apart under suffering - which drives home to reality theology. Under suffering one finds true faith, true cross, true God & the reality of true man (man & his will to do = nothing). For some this suffering may be in finality one's death bed, then for some who have been in religion all their lives the "lights" may finally come on, then it will not just be "logical" propositions & so many words for reality will face us up as we face a Holy & living God. Then Christ alone objectively will become all too clear & one will despair of all pretense of one's "works" pre or post coming to faith.
I havn´t forgotten your U2U just have not had time.
Your brother In Christ´s sufficiency alone,
Larry
[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]
Ok, this is not my forte, and I would definitely defer to previous comments and to Joel Beeke's book in particular, but I'll offer a few thoughts:
bigsmile