Assurance in American Puritan Thought

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by RAS

For Patrick and Michael-

If our sanctification (fruit/good works) can be a basis for assurance of our salvation, how can we be comforted by this if Romans 2:14-15 is true about non-believers? Granted, believers now have new hearts and seek to do the law out of love for God, but this then makes the fruit search inward as opposed to outward since the non-believing gentiles can "do" the law. But then if it is inward, how can we gain any certainty/assurance even in this when we have Jeremiah 17:9? It seems then to me that we are driven back to Christ and Christ alone for our assurance of justification and our sanctification, which then produces the fruit of faith as natural gratitude rather than as things to look for for assurance.

So it seems to me that the issue really isn't over sanctification and the law (both sides affirm their necessity and use) but strictly over the basis of assurance.

I don't present this as a challenge, just as some ideas I need clarified. Thank you for this discussion. Please keep it up.

I'm not sure how you think Rom. 2 ties into this. That is merely stating how the law is written in the heart.

Perhaps the misunderstanding is over your use of "inward." I do not consider self-examination merely some introspection of my heart where I take my eyes off of Jesus to look below. Self-examination is a product of faith. It is a mark of maturity. It involves examing our behavior and our motives. Not just one or the other. The whole point of self-examination is simply to answer the question, am I growing? Am I more godly today than I was a month ago? Year ago? 10 years ago? Do I still struggle with the same sins or have I improved in refusing those things which so easily beset me before? The examination of motives is just as simple. Do I love Christ more than before? Do I hate sin more than before? Have I grown in the fruits of the Spirit? These are simple questions. If you can answer yes, then praise God! Jesus give me more! If no, then woe is me! Lord grant me repentence, show me by your Word and Spirit where I continue to fail and grant me repentence that I may no longer displease you my Father!

Again, it is a secondary role in helping assurance. Wouldn't it be reassuring to you to examine your life and see the grace of God bring you out of sin? But it's not a resting place. Though self-examination reveals growth, it also reveals where more growth is needed.

There is that assurance which is part of essence of faith. This is never lost to the believer. This is the heart of his prayers, even when he doubts his own salvation the most, he cries out "Oh God of my salvation!" There is assurance there deep down that he will be heard. But there is further growth, or a more subjective conscious assurance, which may ebb and flow as we grow in grace. This is what spurs us to examine ourselves and bring our sins to Christ for pardon and repentence.

there is really no difference in principle. I think Calvin would have no problem with the Puritans at all on this matter.

For further study, I recommend, Joel Beeke's, The Quest for Full Assurance . He does an excellent job demonstrating the harmony of Calvin and Luther with the later Puritans and Nader Reformatie theologians regarding assurance of salvation.
 
Allan,

Bingo, brother, you said it much better than I. The one seeking doing his works for assurance is ultimately selfish and sinning & hipocrisy. Looking to Christ alone for assurance then I'm quite literally free from that bondage, free from the Law, dead to the Law. Then, ever so imperfectly, I can make beginnings to what the Law was REALLY pointing too...upholding the Law by Christ's fulfilling. And that's the real difference.

The one looking to Christ is in the sap of that which causes all growth and salvation. Examination looks 1 time to self and 10000 times to the cross as it was once stated. Today its more like 10,000,000 to self and a passing glance to the cross, completely upside down. Our natural fallen gravitation is toward a legal way not antinomianism per se, although both end up the same in the end. Historically this has proven itself for 6000+ years in the church, the leagal way is always the greater danger because we gravitate there. All fallen religions too bear this out.

Two men do exactly the same thing for their neighbor in need: feed him and care for his house while he cannot.

One is doing it to sure up his sagging assurance. The other who too has sagging assurance but refers immediately back to Christ. The first is outside of faith and is sinning, the second is in faith and sins not. Not because of any value on the work but the faith and blood of Christ which cleanses it and makes him unconcerned of pleasing God by the work, he just does it because the neighbor needs it, true love, and true what the Law points to. But to do this you must be dead to the Law and that's the paradox! And this via the constant application of Gospel unconfused.

Faith NEVER looks to works to discern them or otherwise. If faith is looking (which is a metaphore for trusting) to works AT ALL, then it is BY DEFINITION NOT FAITH which solely exists when fixed upon Christ alone. There are no middleground variances for faith - its true or false. Christ fixed and existing or not Christ fixed and not existing.

Allan you said it beautifully and I'm lifted up by it personally, it is always good to hear Gospel from another as we cannot really preach it to ourselves.

Blessing brother,

Larry
 
Larry, I'm not sure who you are arguing against here. No one is arguing to do good works to "sure up his sagging assurance." And no one is arguing to look away from Christ when they examine themselves. If this is your understanding of the Puritans, then you are mistaken. True self-examination is not looking away from Christ to self. That is an impossibility for faith because Christ commands us to examine ourselves. To trust in Christ, to love Him, includes obeying Him, which includes self-examination. The idea that "faith never looks to works to discern them" in reference to justification I could agree with, but if this refers to sanctification, then this is clearly not Scriptural. Part of faith is obeying Christ, which requires examining our works to ensure we obey the law and please our Father.
 
For goodness sakes I've never said there is no self examination at all. Calvin, whom you quote, realizes this but by in far and large in everything he wrote the objective work of Christ was primary.

Larry, et al, I haven't read your subsequent posts thoroughly but if this is your view we have no disagreement. Throughout our conversation I thought I emphasized that Christ as yea & amen to the Word was primary yet was responding to what I perceived was total rejection of reflexive faith.
 
Patrick,

No one in particular. I was arguing against the wrong emphasis. JI Packer and many others have made this very point about some, emphasis, some Puritan literature. But not so much Puritans but the American church today without denominational distinction in general is the thrust of it. It is one thing to say "I emphasize" Christ alone, but when in reality one's % language if you will is works, law, works, law. When that is the majority of the talk one is NOT emphasizing Christ at all but the opposite. That was my point in my statements about people saying, "I'm all about the Gospel, etc..." then never ever actually saying the Gospel.

There is a fear and shame for just saying and really truly emphasizing the Gospel. And this is a very real issue in the church today. People are confusing Law and Gospel all over the place, not everybody but the majority report.

If I spell it out, justified by faith alone, everyone will jump on board and say, "yea oh yea, that I agree with". But then the discussions, 99%, are about us, what to do, etc...

The reason I gave the example of my present church, wonderful, was not to compare this church with that church, that would be silly. But rather to show that true real strong pure Gospel (the only Gospel) preaching, rightly dividing Law and Gospe actually leads to the very love and fruit everyone so desparately states they want. Harping on "good works" NEVER does, NEVER has, and NEVER will. It produce either despair or self-deception. I live in SB central and perhaps experience this different than some of you others, and that enters into my thought - so there may be some difference there. But all the majority of the SB churches do is parrot "Evangelism". In parroting and commanding the work, the -ism, they've lost the Evangel itself because they never give Evangel, except for may a quick sentence or two. But then its confused almost immediately.

The point is the Good News is the only way and power to have all true works, fellowship and building up of the bretheren. And though affirmed by most in a sentence or two, it is not by far and in large the emphasis.

And that is the point.

YOurs in Christ,

L
 
"This is a faithful saying, and these things I want to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintian good works. These things are good and profitable to men."

Titus 3:8

Believers ought to maintain good works.
 
Larry.....I've been enjoying your posts immensely!

I think there's a tendency to focus too much on the Puritans. Admist all their virtue, they do get "lead-footed" on the Law and THAT is precisely the tyranny of the regenerate soul.

Astonishingly as it may seem, The Gospel is for the sanctification of the believer.

Blessings,

Robin

:)
 
Originally posted by puritansailor

I'm not sure how you think Rom. 2 ties into this. That is merely stating how the law is written in the heart.

Patrick, I am not sure that it does tie into this either. What does Romans 2:14 mean when it says "...by nature do what the law requires..."? (ESV) I can see where this could devolve into a debate over natural vs. biblical law, so I'll stop here.

My question was really this: If (?) non-believers can "do" works of the law, this would seem to me to make an examination of our "works" as believers uncertain. If this is true, then we would have to go further than the non-believer would in "doing" the law by examining our internal motives, etc. Obviously an unbeliever does not care whether they are in Christ or not so they don't examine anything correctly about themselves nor do they want to. But is it not possible for sin to deceive those who think they are doing well inwardly because they have noticed a measure of growth, and a supposed decrease in struggle over sin? I am not denying the importance of self-examination coupled with a focus on Christ. I am just concerned that we forget how sin can deceive even believers, and that this carries over even into our self-examination inwardly of motives and growth, and not just external actions of obedience. I am trying to steer away from works/self-examination as a basis for assurance, rather than an aid to seeking Christ and the assurance he gives us that all our sins are forgiven by faith alone in Him alone. How do we really examine ourselves without deceiving ourselves in the process?

Again, perhaps we are talking past eachother. Experience may have much to do with this. I, like Larry, come from a background of where Galatians 3:1-6 is common. Justification (which was explained in the classical protestant sense) was taught and held high, but then it was assumed that once you believed this doctrine about yourself, then it was time to move on to more important things, namely sanctification and law-keeping (and for some, "world-changing"). Instead of the Guilt (law)- Grace (gospel)- Gratitude (thankful obedience to the law) scheme, it seems to be popular to start with the gospel (without an explanation or examination of oneself under the law and hence the need for the gospel) and then launch into nothing but imperatives. Instead of the gospel (which is the power of God for salvation, the law is not) being proclaimed as the answer to our need and enlivening grateful obedience thereby, their is a subtle idea it seems that the gospel is really just a means to personal internal and external holiness. In other words, the gospel is for justification and the law is for sanctifcation. And anyone who questions this is quickly thought to be an antinomian. Add to this all the confusion about the "grace of the law" that is stated even by the "reformed", and Christ as redeemer is replaced with Christ as example and tool for my own progress. It seems that the more my assurance is through Christ rather than my works (even since they are In Christ), the more I am willing and desirous to obey the law gratefully for what Christ has done for me. It has been refreshing to hear that the gospel is for christians too, not just the door to the covenant or the faith. At times it seems as if in the (correct) desire to uphold the third use of the law, many forget that the second use is still in play also and is neglected in preaching. It is as if the second use was cancelled or at least greatly diminished, because now that we're christians we only need to be concerned with the third. And anyone who points this tendency and error out is being labeled a Lutheran or a "Lutheranized calvinist", and in some cases "antinomian".

As Larry said, the criticism/concern was not directed to anyone on this board, and not the puritans on the whole. It is only in reference to the way things are in certain circles today, and the way some puritans were in their emphasis/practice if not doctrine.

Originally posted by puritansailor
For further study, I recommend, Joel Beeke's, The Quest for Full Assurance . He does an excellent job demonstrating the harmony of Calvin and Luther with the later Puritans and Nader Reformatie theologians regarding assurance of salvation.

Thanks. I'll check this out asap.
If you want to understand more what Larry and I are trying to articulate, I'd recommend Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lorship Salvation edited by Mike Horton, The Law of Perfect Freedom Chapter 12, by Mike Horton. True Spirituality, by Francis Schaeffer.

I'll end my post with this quote from Francis Schaeffer (above mentioned book, p. 70):

"I became a christian once and for all upon the finished work of Christ through faith; that is justification. The christian life, sanctification, operates on the same basis, but moment by moment. There is the same base (Christ's work) and the same instrument (faith); the only difference is that one is once for all and the other is moment by moment... If we try to live the christian life in our own strength we will have sorrow, but if we live in this way, we will not only serve the Lord, but in place of sorrow, He will be our song. That is the difference. The 'how' of the Christian life is the power of the crucified and risen Lord, through the agency of the indwelling Holy Spirit, by faith moment by moment."

Thanks for the discussion.

[Edited on 11-8-2005 by RAS]
 
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by puritansailor

I'm not sure how you think Rom. 2 ties into this. That is merely stating how the law is written in the heart.

Patrick, I am not sure that it does tie into this either. What does Romans 2:14 mean when it says "...by nature do what the law requires..."? (ESV) I can see where this could devolve into a debate over natural vs. biblical law, so I'll stop here.

My question was really this: If (?) non-believers can "do" works of the law, this would seem to me to make an examination of our "works" as believers uncertain.
It depends on why you are examing your works. If you are doing so to brag, or to count up your merits to get to heaven then you are in sin, seeking justification (right standing before God) by works.

If this is true, then we would have to go further than the non-believer would in "doing" the law by examining our internal motives, etc. Obviously an unbeliever does not care whether they are in Christ or not so they don't examine anything correctly about themselves nor do they want to. But is it not possible for sin to deceive those who think they are doing well inwardly because they have noticed a measure of growth, and a supposed decrease in struggle over sin? I am not denying the importance of self-examination coupled with a focus on Christ. I am just concerned that we forget how sin can deceive even believers, and that this carries over even into our self-examination inwardly of motives and growth, and not just external actions of obedience. I am trying to steer away from works/self-examination as a basis for assurance, rather than an aid to seeking Christ and the assurance he gives us that all our sins are forgiven by faith alone in Him alone. How do we really examine ourselves without deceiving ourselves in the process?
It is possible to decieve ourselves about our works. But it is also possible to deceive yourself into thinking you are truly trusting in Christ (Mat. 7:21-23) when you truly are not, and examing your works, motives, and progress will help indicate that. This has been the concern that Michael and I have been trying to raise. It's not enough to just believe, and suddenly everything mystically falls into place.

Sanctification involves work. Hard work. Mortification. Christian service involves work. Self-denial, often a huge conflict of motives which must won over. But it is all the fruit of faith all the same. There are times in your life when you know you must obey God and you don't feel like it at all, or when you don't feel like you have faith at all, but you do it anyway because you love God. Faith in Christ is more than just a conscious trust in Christ. It changes the way we think. Often we may do things right without even thinking about it, because of the progress of sanctification. It's not that I was thinking about Jesus at the time. I just did it because I'm a new creature. The more I grow in grace, the more practically righteous I become. But obedience is not always joyous because I'm believing Christ. Often times obedience feels awful, and the only joy in it is knowing that in the end, my Father is pleased. I don't know if this clarifies anything at all, but I think this is more than just talking past one another. Faith is broader than just trust in Christ. That is the chief part of it, but it's also a new way of looking at the world, the way we should be looking at the world and ourselves. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God." We have recieved new eyes. And it is by faith that we see our sin for what it is, and fight against it, not to keep our justification by this, not even to keep our assurance by this, but to be conformed to His image and please our Father. But if this attitude and desire is not present in your life, then you do not have true faith but presumption. Well, that's enough for now. Hopefully I've helped you understand where I'm coming from.
 
Patrick, I agree with you, also with Larry. Sanctification is VERY hard work; however, the motive for the hard work should be love for God and faith in what Christ has already done, the motive should not be for assurance. On the other hand, if one sees that love & faith,(and consequently that hard work), increasing, that's certainly a good sign. That's my :2cents:
 
Originally posted by puritansailor... but I think this is more than just talking past one another....

Patrick,

If so, where exactly do you think I or Larry have erred? I am willing to be corrected. I do not disagree with anything you have stated. Again, my comments (and Larry's I think) are directed at those who emphasize works and sanctification to the neglect of justification.

My concern is not with piety and good works. My concern is with pietism and mysticism where assurance "founded upon the the divine truth of the promises of salvation" is neglected (even replaced) and either "the inward evidence" or the "testimony of the spirit witnessing with our spirits" is over emphasized. WCF 18.2

As these are said to be the three pillars of assurance, I do not believe that overemphasizing the first (God's promises/gospel) is a bad thing, yet not to the neglect of the other two (inward fruits, and Spirit's testimony). If one has no fruit because they are only focusing on the gospel/Christ (which is what I think you are concerned I am stating), I would submit that it is not because they are focusing on the gospel, but rather it is because they do not trust the gospel. I believe works are so connected to true faith that they are inevitable, but there is a sharp distinction between the two that gets erased when the other two pillars dominate or replace the first.

I believe assurance is the essence of faith, but the absence of it does not mean that faith is absent. It simply means that one is not conscious of it, hence we are to with all diligence pursue assurance until the Spirit revives it. Because it is by assurance of our salvation that we are motivated to do the hard work of participating in our sanctification. If we forget this, then our "progress" becomes our focus, subtle perfectionism creeps in, and we forget that the gospel has given us perfection, and that our own internal and bodily perfection will not come until we are glorified. Our sin, satan, and the world are constantly trying to get us to trust in something we do, rather than what Christ has done, is doing, and will do. It is comforting that after Romans 7 where Paul is sharing his mature understanding of the law and its effects even on the most holy among us, Paul then proceeds with gospel in Romans 8:1, bringing us back to Christ and His work rather than telling us to do more works/work harder in our sanctification so that we may have assurance despite our struggles. Then come the imperatives in Ch. 12 and on. By forgetting this order, the "not yet" of our salvation is forgotten and we are left to wonder why the "already" seems so lacking in our sanctification.

If this pursuit of assurance only focuses on or overemphasizes fruit and inner testimony, then one is not seeking the fountain of assurance, Christ himself, and receiving His promises as true for us. To my knowledge, no one has said that this is what your position is. The original discussion was about a teaching that exists in certain circles of christianity, not about persons on the PB, and not about the Puritans as a whole. It is really about the assurance/sanctification systems of Wesleyanism/pietism/revivalism etc. So, again, I do not understand where we disagree unless I am being labeled into a corner I don't feel comfortable with.

It seems to me that the magisterial reformers (Calvin, Luther, etc.) and puritan views of assurance are really focusing on two distinct questions. One is asking "how do I know I am saved? (A: If you trust Christ you can be assured); and the other is asking "how do I know I am trusting?" (A: if you are producing good works). The latter, left to itself, brings the focus back on ourselves and our works. I do not deny the role of law/works/sanctification properly understood. What I am arguing against is those who do this and deny the gospel is primary or even necessary for the christian life, if not by their words then at least by their pastoral practice and preaching.

Ironically, the more the law is emphasized to the neglect of the gospel, the more antinomianism increases. Paul was accused of antinomianism also when he focused on the gospel. And as Larry has said a couple times now, quoting Machen, if one is not accused of preaching antinomianism when they preach the actual gospel, then maybe it is not the gospel that has been preached; or maybe it is because those who are hearing the gospel are actually regenerate and therefore see the gospel as a gift that produces thankful obedience.

The concern is not with the Puritans or the confessions, it is with moralism of all types, (which even some puritans were not immune to, nor are we) and with the idea of basing one's assurance on how well they are doing.

I hope I have been more clear.:)

[Edited on 11-8-2005 by RAS]
 
The hard work is the faith part, believing it to be that Good of News which then cheers the heart which then true good works arise naturally. That is the difference in true Christianity & and all fallen religion. It is the faith in the unconditional love of Christ that mortifies & is the hard part. If all one has communicated by the end of the day something that a Mormon could concur with, then no Gospel or christianity has been set forth.

True Faith is a cup over flowing NOT a cup needing filling.

Make no mistake about it the hard part is the unconditional trusting, Pagans & Muslims & Mormons can work hard at good works, just ask one, but none posses faith and all such works are sin in the end.


Ldh

ASSURANCE AND DOUBT

JOHN CALVIN

I. Section 16

The principal hinge on which faith turns is this"”that we must not consider the promises of mercy, which the Lord offers, as true only to others, and not to ourselves; but rather make them our own, by embracing them in our hearts. Hence arises that confidence, which the same apostle in another place calls peace";1 unless anyone would rather make peace the effect of confidence. It is a security, which makes the conscience calm and serene before the Divine tribunal, and without which it must necessarily be harassed and torn almost asunder with tumultuous trepidation, unless it happen to slumber for a moment in an oblivion of God and itself. And indeed it is but for a moment; for it does not long enjoy that wretched oblivion, but is most dreadfully wounded by the remembrance, which is perpetually recurring, of the Divine judgment. In short, no man is truly a believer unless he be firmly persuaded that God is a propitious and benevolent Father to him, and promise himself everything from his goodness; unless he depend on the promises of the Divine benevolence to him and feel an undoubted expectation of salvation; as the apostle shows in these words: "If we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end."2 Here he supposes that no man has a good hope in the Lord who does not glory with confidence in being an heir of the kingdom of heaven. He is no believer, I say, who does not rely on the security of his salvation and confidently triumph over the devil and death, as Paul teaches us in this remarkable peroration:

I am persuaded [says he] that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.3

Thus the same apostle is of opinion that "the eyes of our understanding" are not truly "enlightened" unless we discover what is the hope of the eternal inheritance to which we are called.4 And he everywhere inculcates that we have no just apprehensions of the Divine goodness unless we derive from it a considerable degree of assurance.

II. Section 17

But someone will object that the experience of believers is very different from this; for that, in recognizing the grace of God towards them, they are not only disturbed with inquietude (which frequently befalls them), but sometimes also tremble with the most distressing terrors. The vehemence of temptations to agitate their minds is so great that it appears scarcely compatible with that assurance of faith of which we have been speaking. We must therefore solve this difficulty if we mean to support the doctrine we have advanced. When we inculcate that faith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not of a certainty attended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no anxiety; but we rather affirm that believers have a perpetual conflict with their own diffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid calm, never disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand, we deny, however they may be afflicted, that they ever fall and depart from that certain confidence which they have conceived in the Divine mercy.

The Scripture proposes no example of faith more illustrious or memorable than David, especially if you consider the whole course of his life. Yet that his mind was not invariably serene, appears from his innumerable complaints, of which it will be sufficient to select a few. When he rebukes his soul for turbulent emotions, is he not angry with his unbelief? "Why [says he] art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in God."5 And certainly, that consternation was an evident proof of diffidence, as though he supposed himself to be forsaken by God. In another place also, we find a more ample confession: "I said, in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes."6 In another place also, he debates with himself in anxious and miserable perplexity, and even raises a dispute concerning the nature of God: "Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Will the Lord cast off for ever?" What follows is still harsher: "And I said, I must fall; these are the changes of the right hand of the Most High."7 For, in a state of despair, he consigns himself to ruin; and not only confesses that he is agitated with doubts, but, as vanquished in the conflict, considers all as lost; because God has deserted him and turned to his destruction that hand which used to support him. Wherefore it is not without reason that he says, "Return unto thy rest, O my soul;"8 since he had experienced such fluctuations amidst the waves of trouble.

And yet, wonderful as it is, amidst these concussions, faith sustains the hearts of the pious, and truly resembles the palm-tree, rising with vigor undiminished by any burdens which may be laid upon it, but which can never retard its growth; as David, when he might appear to be overwhelmed, yet, chiding himself, ceased not to aspire towards God. Indeed, he who, contending with his own infirmity, strives in his anxieties to exercise faith, is already in a great measure victorious. Which we may infer from such passages as this: "Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart; wait, I say, on the Lord."9 He reproves himself for timidity, and repeating the same twice, confesses himself to be frequently subject to various agitations. In the meantime, he is not only displeased with himself for these faults, but ardently aspires towards the correction of them.

Now if we enter into a close and correct examination of his character and conduct, and compare him with Ahaz, we shall discover a considerable difference. Isaiah is sent to convey consolation to the anxiety of the impious and hypocritical king. He addresses him in these words: "Take heed, and be quiet; fear not," etc.10 But what effect had the message on him? As it had been before said, that "his heart was moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind,"11 though he heard the promise, he ceased not to tremble. This therefore is the proper reward and punishment of infidelity"”so to tremble with fear that he who opens not the gate to himself by faith, in the time of temptation departs from God. But, on the contrary, believers, whom the weight of temptations bends and almost oppresses, constantly emerge from their distresses, though not without trouble and difficulty. And because they are conscious of their own imbecility, they pray with the Psalmist, "Take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth."12 By these words we are taught that they sometimes become dumb, as though their faith were destroyed; yet that they neither fail nor turn their backs, but persevere in their conflict, and arouse their inactivity by prayer, that they may not be stupefied by self-indulgence.

III. Section 18

To render this intelligible it is necessary to recur to that division of the flesh and the spirit which we noticed in another place and which most clearly discovers itself in this case. The pious heart therefore perceives a division in itself, being partly affected with delight, through a knowledge of the Divine goodness; partly distressed with sorrow, through a sense of its own calamity; partly relying on the promise of the gospel; partly trembling at the evidence of its own iniquity; partly exulting in the apprehension of life; partly alarmed by the fear of death. This variation happens through the imperfection of faith; since we are never so happy, during the present life, as to be cured of all diffidence and entirely filled and possessed by faith. Hence those conflicts in which the diffidence which adheres to the relics of the flesh rises up in opposition to the faith formed in the heart.

But if, in the mind of a believer, assurance be mixed with doubts, do we not always come to this point, that faith consists not in a certain and clear, but only in an obscure and perplexed knowledge of the Divine will respecting us? Not at all. For, if we are distracted by various thoughts, we are not therefore entirely divested of faith; neither, though harassed by the agitations of diffidence, are we therefore immerged in its abyss; nor, if we be shaken, are we therefore overthrown. For the invariable issue of this contest is that faith at length surmounts those difficulties, from which, while it is encompassed with them, it appears to be in danger.

IV. Section 19

Let us sum it up thus: As soon as the smallest particle of grace is infused into our minds, we begin to contemplate the Divine countenance as now placid, serene, and propitious to us: it is indeed a very distant prospect, but so clear, that we know we are not deceived. Afterwards, in proportion as we improve"”for we ought to be continually improving by progressive advances"”we arrive at a nearer, and therefore more certain view of Him, and by continual habit He becomes more familiar to us. Thus we see that a mind illuminated by the knowledge of God is at first involved in much ignorance, which is removed by slow degrees. Yet it is not prevented either by its ignorance of some things or by its obscure view of what it beholds from enjoying a clear knowledge of the Divine will respecting itself, which is the first and principal exercise of faith. For, as a man who is confined in a prison, into which the sun shines only obliquely and partially through a very small window, is deprived of a full view of that luminary, yet clearly perceives its splendor, and experiences its beneficial influence"”thus we, who are bound with terrestrial and corporeal fetters, though surrounded on all sides with great obscurity, are nevertheless illuminated, sufficiently for all the purposes of real security, by the light of God shining ever so feebly to discover his mercy.
 
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by puritansailor... but I think this is more than just talking past one another....

Patrick,

If so, where exactly do you think I or Larry have erred? I am willing to be corrected. I do not disagree with anything you have stated. Again, my comments (and Larry's I think) are directed at those who emphasize works and sanctification to the neglect of justification.

My concern is not with piety and good works. My concern is with pietism and mysticism where assurance "founded upon the the divine truth of the promises of salvation" is neglected (even replaced) and either "the inward evidence" or the "testimony of the spirit witnessing with our spirits" is over emphasized. WCF 18.2
I don't want to say you are in error at all. It's not anything you have said, but only an emphasis which I think is missing. My concern, unlike you, is not with pietism or mysticism. I cannot understand why anyone fears pietism anymore. I think the church could use a much stronger dose of the law actually, not for justification, but to be reminded how they are suppose to be living. I don't see any form of pietism or wesleyism or anything like that as a threat anymore (unless you include conservative political activism in there). Who cares about that anymore? Really? A few dinasour fundamentalists, and a few Reformed folks who actually know what "peitism" means. The greatest threat in the American churches today (including Reformed churches), at least in my experience and opinion, is easy-believism and dead orthodoxy (really, they are the same); presumption, not faith. There is no more concern to be seperate from the world. A "trust" in Christ with no worry about sanctification at all. That is why I think Michael listed Saltmarsh and Crisp above. I would add Sandeman and Glas to the list just for future study not that I think you agree with them, but just to gaurd yourself from the subtle anti-nomianism that can creep in to even an orthodox understanding of justification and sanctification, which has happened in Reformed history.

I believe assurance is the essence of faith, but the absence of it does not mean that faith is absent. It simply means that one is not conscious of it, hence we are to with all diligence pursue assurance until the Spirit revives it. Because it is by assurance of our salvation that we are motivated to do the hard work of participating in our sanctification.
I agree with you here that there is an assurance in the nature of faith. I also agree that a conscious assurance can be lost temporarily. This is why I find the Puritan distinction helpful. The more objective assurance that is part of faith, is never lost. That is the deep comfort and calm we have knowing that no matter how bad things get, we can still pray to our Father. No matter how plagued with doubts about our faith, or about God Himself, we still come to Him because He has the words of life. The subjective assurance, certainly can help motivate us to good works. But here is where I think Ryle's understanding is good. Assurance is not the only motivation to sanctification. God uses other motivations as well. God uses His Fatherly displeasure, our circumstances, our love for Him, even our doubts, to motivate our participation santification. And it is all legitimate. I like the illustration of a soldier in war. He is in the trenches fighting bitterly against the opponents attacking him, sometimes victorious, sometimes almost perishing, and yet he may not be aware at the massive casualities he has caused to the enemy because he's too busy fighting the war. The victory is garanteed, but the battle must be fought and in the chaos of battle, emotions vary and sway, but commitment keeps him fighting no matter what his own doubts or assurances may be.

If this pursuit of assurance only focuses on or overemphasizes fruit and inner testimony, then one is not seeking the fountain of assurance, Christ himself, and receiving His promises as true for us. To my knowledge, no one has said that this is what your position is. The original discussion was about a teaching that exists in certain circles of christianity, not about persons on the PB, and not about the Puritans as a whole. It is really about the assurance/sanctification systems of Wesleyanism/pietism/revivalism etc. So, again, I do not understand where we disagree unless I am being labeled into a corner I don't feel comfortable with.
I don't wish to corner you at all. Perhaps I'm just too picky as I have wrestled much through this issue as well. I don't see wesleyism or even revivalism as a danger anymore. Who in the church at large really takes that seriously? American Christianity doesn't care about holiness anymore. I do not take those heresies lightly. I was raised in them. But even the pentacostal legalistic circles I grew up in were beginning to cast away their wesleyan heritage for antinomian easy-believism and have further descended down that path.

Ironically, the more the law is emphasized to the neglect of the gospel, the more antinomianism increases. Paul was accused of antinomianism also when he focused on the gospel. And as Larry has said a couple times now, quoting Machen, if one is not accused of preaching antinomianism when they preach the actual gospel, then maybe it is not the gospel that has been preached; or maybe it is because those who are hearing the gospel are actually regenerate and therefore see the gospel as a gift that produces thankful obedience.
I agree with you here. Whenever legalism enters the picture antinomianism does as well. That's the natural irrationality of unbelief. Even antinomians have legalistic necessities.

The only caution I would have though is that, yes, you could be accused of antinomianism by preaching the gospel but you could also be accused of antinominianism because you are preaching antinomianism :)

Again, I don't think you are necessarily in error. And I could just be too picky. But I think a more full orbed understanding of faith is necessary in order to understand it's role in sanctification. Sanctification does not just mystically happen because I trust Christ. That seems, to me, to be the direction you and Larry are leaning (if I'm wrong then I apologize). Yes, faith receives all from Christ. But, faith is broader than just trusting Christ, but embraces a correct view of everything, the world, ourselves, and how we see life, and is the means by which we are empowered to do something about that which we see.

I will leave it there for now. Hope I answered your concerns sufficiently.

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by puritansailor]
 
Originally posted by Scott
I have heard from a couple sources that assurance of salvation was foreign to the early (17th century) American Puritans. From what I have read they believed that hope and doubt of salvation fed off each other. Assurance of salvation was a sure sign of its absence. Is this a correct statement of their beliefs on assurance?

I think a lot of them didn't want to make such a strong statement as "I know I'm saved".

However, take a look at this:

"Betwene five & six of the clock in ye evening my
Dear sister Anna took her flight to Eternal glory she left her house
of clay and went to her house not made with hands, where she
will live & Reigne throout ye endless days of Eternity"

This is the heading of a poem, written in 1706 by Rev. George Curwin of Salem, Mass. You can see how perspective was already changing my George's time. And look:

"I shall together with her stand
At the last day at ye right hand
Of our Redeemer Judg & frind
When shall have yt sentence past
o come ye of my father blesst
Inheritt mansions were prepared
for you before ye world was reard
Enjoy your longd for joy & crowne
eternally with high renown
This this is what is your just due
for I have puchased for you
You shall together now possess
thoes pleasures wch will nere grow less
You shall enjoy eternall joy
not with mixture or Aloy."

George was, in a respect, a Puritan, but he was 3d generation. His father was a witch trial judge, but you can see that George reflected the change in religion that was occurring in America already in 1706.
 
Patrick,
I respectfully disagree with you about pietism not being a danger anymore. No one knows much about it anymore but it hasn't gone away. The vast majority of Christians in Portland, I would guess, are dispensationalists, a system which can trace its ancestry back to Darbyism & Keswick perfectionism. This system was ubiquitous in Dispensationalism, Evangelicalism, & the Charismatic movements and were still quite fresh & verdant when I was coming up in the 1970's. I admit I'm a dinosaur, but it's still around on Christian radio, and most folks don't have enough Biblical or theological knowlege to spot it and know what's wrong with it. Believe me, I asked and asked about it and most of the people at my church (PCA) that I asked didn't know what I was asking about, but believed in it. So did I, imagine my shock when I discovered what I actually believed, and what the Scripture said. And this stuff leads directly to antinomian easy-believeism, that's what the "Lordship Salvation" debate was about. I trust this will soon be part of ancient history, and Larry & RAS & I can sit in the nursing home & tell our war-stories and bore the youngsters. :lol: Meantime, although revivalism may be going the way of the dodo bird (I sincerely hope you're right!) there are two things I would like to point out.

1. Many of us are recovering Evanjellyfish. Even if we didn't try too hard, we did try to be perfect, rather than to trust Christ, and

2. This is a human tendency, it isn't just trying too hard, it's really an antinomian insistence that I don't need God. If the Wesleyans can't get me to do it, I can find ways. The heart is deceitful & desperately wicked...

Sanctification doesn't happen all by itself, but it is promised to all believers. God will get us to do what is necessary. Otherwise, the death of Christ would be of no effect. Of course, if we don't co-operate, we may get very familliar with the interior of the woodshed...:lol:
 
Patrick....

I think I understand where you're coming from. For the most part, I agree with your concerns. There certainly are times when antinomians are really being antinomians, Etc.

However, if there was ONE danger to the Church, today....in my opinion...I'd also say it is Weslayan use of the Law. (Christ would not endanger a smoldering candlewick as Rick Warren does daily.)

What can we suppose the "Purpose Driven" stuff is? All self-help; purpose XYZ; moralistic preaching, et al, is emphasis on law-keeping for merit covert or orvertly.

Both legalism and antinomianism trust in law keeping. The antinomian trusts in self-defined law, rejecting God's authority; the legalist projects onto God's Law his own self-defined law. This is why both the legalist and the antinomian can be considered "lawless" in God's economy, since they either reject or distort God's edicts.

I understand and agree that somehow we need to do some major educating to folk about what the Scriptures teach about God's true Law (Ten Commandments.) What they are and are not. Ignorance and misunderstanding is rampant - and yes, a potential convert must first clearly understand the Law before the Gospel makes any sense at all.

Perhaps this could be helped by teaching others what the Word of God SAYS?

Whew....making disciples is lots of hard work!

God help us all. :candle:

r.
 
PS....

Each and every one of us (unbelievers included) are, by nature, legalist and antinomians. We don't need to be taught these pulls....they come to us in the flesh, until we leave this present evil age.

The Gospel, on the other hand, is totally outside of us. Period. It is something we hate, by nature (even believers!) The battle is so very great because the distance we fell was so very far. This is why, in the end, we must physically die. (Unless Christ mercifully intervenes before then.)

In view of this, the Gospel, much more than the Law, must be emphasized and taught. Any and all information about The Christ is the Gospel.

:book2:

r.
 
Patrick-
Thank you for your patience and interaction. This has been fruitful.

Originally posted by puritansailor
I don't want to say you are in error at all. It's not anything you have said, but only an emphasis which I think is missing. A "trust" in Christ with no worry about sanctification at all. That is why I think Michael listed Saltmarsh and Crisp above. I would add Sandeman and Glas to the list just for future study not that I think you agree with them, but just to gaurd yourself from the subtle anti-nomianism that can creep in to even an orthodox understanding of justification and sanctification, which has happened in Reformed history.

I am not sure where you are picking up from my posts that I am missing something. If you had said "with no desire for or actual sanctification" rather than "worry". I would agree with you. As you said, faith is more than just faith in Christ for justification, it is broader. It also includes faith in Christ that He will preserve me and sanctify me, and glorify me. Because of this promise, I can persevere in my sanctification (i.e. law-keeping) without worry, although sin at times will lead me to worry as I begin focusing on law-keeping to the neglect of finding rest in the gospel. I am unaware of any post where I have downplayed sanctification. I am trying to uphold it. My beef is with those who leave justification behind or as a sidebar, and who elevate sanctification as the be all end all of what it means to be a christian. Sandeman believed in a naked assent, as do all antinomians; I believe faith is knowledge, assent, personal trust; and good works are the fruit of this faith, not faith itself.

Originally posted by puritansailor
I don't see wesleyism or even revivalism as a danger anymore. Who in the church at large really takes that seriously? American Christianity doesn't care about holiness anymore. I do not take those heresies lightly. I was raised in them. But even the pentacostal legalistic circles I grew up in were beginning to cast away their wesleyan heritage for antinomian easy-believism and have further descended down that path.

I would submit that the reason this easy-believism exists, is because God's law has been replaced with man's laws, and in turn are either considered "gospel" or the gospel is thrown out altogether.
Antinomianism and legalism are like Samese twins. I grew up in a Wesleyan church, and antinomianism was rampant. My first "reformed" church was antinomian, yet legalism was rampant.
What we need is not less law (what you seem to imply I am saying), but more law (but only if this is God's law and not man's), and only if we get more gospel (which is really gospel, and not law) alongside it. My contention from the beginning has been that we need more gospel, and we need to emphasize it a little more in our santification and preaching. Why this has been jumped on as me and Larry saying that we no longer need the law for sanctification (as is being implied), I frankly do not understand. In a thread on law preaching, you stated something to the effect of..."the reason the puritans overemphasized the law was because they also overemphasized the gospel." This is what I am calling for also, against the spirit of the age today that underemphasizes gospel or confuses it with law (i.e. neonomianism). It is this underemphasis and confusion of the law/gospel that leads to an overfocus on sanctification as a basis for assurance. (Notice I said overfocus, and not neglect of).

Originally posted by puritansailor
The only caution I would have though is that, yes, you could be accused of antinomianism by preaching the gospel but you could also be accused of antinominianism because you are preaching antinomianism :)

Agreed. But to be fair, it could also be because the accuser is unknowingly a legalist and is uncomfortable with the gospel being central to the christian faith and life. Just because Christ/gospel is central to the faith, does not imply that this means He/it is the only thing. A legalist takes the other things and crowds out the central thing. An antinomian makes Christ the only thing. Both are a denial of Christ.

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again, I don't think you are necessarily in error. And I could just be too picky. But I think a more full orbed understanding of faith is necessary in order to understand it's role in sanctification. Sanctification does not just mystically happen because I trust Christ. That seems, to me, to be the direction you and Larry are leaning (if I'm wrong then I apologize).

I am not sure what you mean, by Larry and I leaning towards "sanctification mystically happening by trust in Christ". If you mean God is the one who works in us to will and to do His will, then yes. If you mean sanctification happens by quietism and contemplation of Christ alone, then no. It is not my faith that sanctifies me, it is Christ. Any progress I make in my efforts at sanctification/obedience is an acting out of what God has already promised and given. But I am not going to desire this sanctification unless I am regenerate, and a regenerate person desires sanctification because of what Christ has done, is doing, and will do.

With respect brother, I think you are being too picky. All of your concerns I have never denied. But it does seem that a rush judgment was made by isolating statements and ignoring others, even after they were repeated. This is why I thought we were talking past eachother.

The following article on assurance should clear up things. I take the position given by Beeke, Calvin, Comrie. I think Calvin, the 3 Forms and Westminster/puritans are of one mind on this issue. But I also think some of the puritans took their side of the coin and denied Calvin's side, at least in practice/method. And some take Calvin's side and deny the puritan side. I think Berkhof explains this well in
his systematic.

http://www.geocities.com/reformedchristian/BeekeAssurance.htm

Proverbs 27:17
 
Each and every one of us (unbelievers included) are, by nature, legalist and antinomians. We don't need to be taught these pulls....they come to us in the flesh, until we leave this present evil age.

The Gospel, on the other hand, is totally outside of us. Period. It is something we hate, by nature (even believers!) The battle is so very great because the distance we fell was so very far. This is why, in the end, we must physically die. (Unless Christ mercifully intervenes before then.)

In view of this, the Gospel, much more than the Law, must be emphasized and taught. Any and all information about The Christ is the Gospel.

Dead on the money Robin!

And pietism is alive and well, I can take you to tons of such churches/regions in this area, it almost drove me to suicide once. My wife grew up in some of the thickest pietism you can imagine.

E.g., When I witnessed to a muslem friend of mine once we never disconnected until it hit the Gospel. Jesus was after all in his mind a good teacher of love just as was Mohammed, and love and good deeds is what we all should be doing right (his words). But when I, very nervously said (I almost chickened out), "Ahad, what I'm saying to you is that you nor will any man in any country or race go to heaven if they do not repent of their good works and open sin, and alone put their soul trust in Christ alone." He understood what I said and rejected it. And later even laughed at the idea in derision. We are still friends/co-workers, but he clearly understood me and THAT is what he rejected. I could slip law into anybody's mind and they will always accept it.

If you've ever went evangelizing to Mormons you will experience this par excellent and they will pull James 2 on you like a gun fighter! NOT under justification but sanctification of life.

Christian sanctification MUST differ from ALL leagal sanctifications. The war today is not so much lost under justification but sanctification...the ole Romish "faith formed by love" arguments.

L
 
Patrick,

I appreciate your kindness. No I can affirm it not to be mystical, rather the proclamation of and hearing of "your sins are forgiven you for Christ's sake" and all its forms, the Gospel, IS literally the life giving Word in the power of the Holy Spirit attending it. It is literally God calling into being that which does not exist and sustaining it. Paul says this in Romans. What you hear in your ear changes you over time, those alive to the Gospel.

It is no more mystical than being in a worn torn country where defeat seems to be happening internally and externally, and hearing afresh every week or day the proclamation - "Your KING has one the war - believe it!"

This prevent total despair and/or self righteousness, but you have to hear it!

The reason God allows us to remain in this life in imperfect sin and flesh, why do I still sin and struggle, is to SHOW us that there will NEVER be any self-generated holiness, sanctification comes from Christ alone as well. But this over time hardly breeds passivity but true POWER and glorying in Christ and serving neighbor. But it takes time and some only grow so much even unto the end of life.

We are so much blinded by man's glory and self glorification that we must remain in this struggle else our pride would be truly Satanic to such heights it would be immeasurable. We glory in self and in men but we hide our faces from the shame of the cross, relegating it to "just that thing I needed at the beginning of conversion, but now I can move on to bigger and better things." As if there IS.

Your Brother Always In Christ,

Larry
 
Originally posted by RAS
With respect brother, I think you are being too picky.
You are probably right. I apologize.

The following article on assurance should clear up things. I take the position given by Beeke, Calvin, Comrie. I think Calvin, the 3 Forms and Westminster/puritans are of one mind on this issue. But I also think some of the puritans took their side of the coin and denied Calvin's side, at least in practice/method. And some take Calvin's side and deny the puritan side. I think Berkhof explains this well in
his systematic.

http://www.geocities.com/reformedchristian/BeekeAssurance.htm

Proverbs 27:17
If this is your understanding, then we are in full agreement :)

But perhaps we do need to hammer out some definitions regarding where the thread has now turned. I view "pietism" and "wesleyism" more in their historical origins and definitions. They focused on actual holiness and righteousness, though often caught up in some man-made rules. It would appear others here are using much looser definitions. I don't see how there is any concern for holiness in the modern church. Even in what's left over of fundamentalist circles, there is a huge emphasis on "grace" meaning anti-nomianism, than legalism. Yes they both exist together, but often one is more emphasized than the other. So I don't understand where others are coming from here when they are afraid of "pietism" or "wesleyism" at least as traditionally understood. Perhaps others could clarify how they are using these terms.
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Christian sanctification MUST differ from ALL leagal sanctifications. The war today is not so much lost under justification but sanctification...the ole Romish "faith formed by love" arguments.
L

Hoo-boy, L, this is right-on, brother!! :up:

When one meditates on the logic of it...it's typically like God to ordain a means of sanctification utterly different than what we want. The self-help industry will forever prosper with its "gospel of the world." Man prefers to think he will achieve peace with God via more information or activity to accomplish right living.

For the Christian, emphasis on law-keeping will either drive to despair or self-righteousness.

The best hope to have for your friend is, at least, he received a "lethal" dose of true Gospel exposure. The Lord's timing will reveal fruit. May Christ be pleased to honor his name by having mercy and granting faith and repentance.

:pray2:

r.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
It would appear others here are using much looser definitions. I don't see how there is any concern for holiness in the modern church. Even in what's left over of fundamentalist circles, there is a huge emphasis on "grace" meaning anti-nomianism, than legalism. Yes they both exist together, but often one is more emphasized than the other. So I don't understand where others are coming from here when they are afraid of "pietism" or "wesleyism" at least as traditionally understood. Perhaps others could clarify how they are using these terms.

Hey Patrick,

Of course there are a few strands of distinctions involved...but, in a nutshell, Wesley said the only motivation for the Christian life is "fear of punishment and hope of reward."

This plays-out today in a few ways including pastors who scare the congregation into obeying; self-examination programs like Saddleback's "S.H.A.P.E." Needless to say, FV is an off-shoot of Brother Wesley's ideas. (Bear in mind, the Aurburn Ave. is rightly disturbed by the ignorance and neglect of holiness in the church.)

George Whitefield had some weighty rebukes for Wesley:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/historical/whitefield_to_wesley.htm

Selah

R.
 
Not a problem. No hard feelings. I hope this discussion has been seen as exemplary of godly character and conduct.

Absolutely, this whole discussion of all parties was very uplifting to me in the faith. It is right at the heart of the issue!

Robin, Patrick, Michael, Allen, et ali. may all of us be blessed with a greater understanding of Christ and the Gospel!

Your Simul Justus et Pecator Brother In Christ,

Larry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top