Assurance

[Ryan&Amber2013]

As I have been reading through the Bible, multiple passages about assurance have stood out to me. I feel like there is generally a disconnect though, from what we as protestants teach, and what is standing out to me in the Bible. Please correct me if I am not on the right track.

Often, when I hear teaching about assurance, it seems that the concept of love, character, and good works are strictly left out, and we typically just say, if you want to have assurance, look to Christ. And we basically leave it at that.

I totally believe that if we are looking to see if we are justified, we look to Christ and none other. But as I read the Bible, the concept of assurance seems to point to other things as well. So for example, if somebody were asking you how to know they are truly a disciple, on top of making sure they believe in the gospel, would you exhort them to grow in character, love others, and do good works? I wonder why we can be so reluctant to talk about Good works? I don't know, maybe I'm way off here.

"For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end,"
Hebrews 6:10‭-‬11

"For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."
2 Peter 1:8‭-‬10

 

[Polanus1561]

First, some confessional standards...

Canons of Dort 5.10

Article 10

This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to or independent of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which He has most abundantly revealed in His Word for our comfort; from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God (Rom. 8:16); and lastly, from a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience and to perform good works. And if the elect of God were deprived of this solid comfort that they shall finally obtain the victory, and of this infallible pledge of eternal glory, they would be of all men the most miserable.
---

if you want to investigate this more, you need to pinpoint exactly what you mean by 'I wonder why we can be so reluctant to talk about Good works? I don't know, maybe I'm way off here.' Who is the we? What pool of writings or teachings are you referring to?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

First, some confessional standards...

Canons of Dort 5.10

Article 10

This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to or independent of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which He has most abundantly revealed in His Word for our comfort; from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God (Rom. 8:16); and lastly, from a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience and to perform good works. And if the elect of God were deprived of this solid comfort that they shall finally obtain the victory, and of this infallible pledge of eternal glory, they would be of all men the most miserable.
---

if you want to investigate this more, you need to pinpoint exactly what you mean by 'I wonder why we can be so reluctant to talk about Good works? I don't know, maybe I'm way off here.' Who is the we? What pool of writings or teachings are you referring to?

Thank you very much. This is good stuff and good to think about that article.

I think it's just a general reflection of my experience since I've been a Christian.

I'm not quite sure I've ever heard somebody say "Are you struggling with assurance? Trust in Christ, believe God's promises, go do good things, love people, and pursue character growth." I definitely hear the first two, but not the latter.

Edit: I know there are people out there that would say such things, and now that I think of it more, I do know of a few pastors that would teach pretty strongly on this. But I would say the norm is that things are left out.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The natural tendency, as I see it, is to prioritize the inward look, the navel gazing, the fruit-inspection, the incurvatus in se approach. We need less of this, and more encouragement to look away from ourselves unto Christ, precisely because of this tendency.

Taking from our sanctification--from the divine presence and work of the Spirit--some hope and motive to continue in grace is part of normal Christian living. It may and should be promoted, but not at the expense of that which is of greater utility and benefit, namely from looking unto the Author and Finisher of our faith for hope and motive. Do we put confidence in the effect, or the cause of the effect? That is the distinction.

It is not my experience that the majority of Christians, even in Presbyterian or Reformed or Particular Baptist churches which offer some degree of balance to the general ecclesiastical picture, are taught to look away from themselves to God in Christ for assurance. The encouragement typical churchgoers receive from preaching is banal sentiment, or it is moralistic--either to behave better, or to succeed using God's methods. There is an overwhelming emphasis in American religion on human works, whether or not that ends up being explicitly used to foster some form of assurance.

Some churches spend little or no time preaching repentance along with faith, thus promoting a useless version of commitment to an "idea" of Jesus as Lord and Savior (sometimes minus the "Lord"). The danger in teaching no law at all is that there is no real reason to embrace the gospel after that. Jesus is tangential to one's life. There is another error, however, which is just as ill in its effect: So preaching duty and spiritual health that the practical effect is pride (on one side) and despair (on the other).

It is right to be delighted in the fruit of righteousness, especially as we see it in our brothers but not without some sight of it in oneself. But just as we apprehend there is such a thing as "righteous anger," while ever mindful of how rare it is and how subtle the skill of the enemy in turning wrath into sin; we have also to beware the ease by which long focus on one's own condition (in between ruin and perfection) is turned into either inordinate satisfaction or inordinate loathing.

In Christ, I look for the Spirit's conforming acts upon my heart, which dissipates that excess love toward his product for which I have innate pride that must be put to death. All the same, I am restrained in Christ from blind hatred toward my still sinful (though redeemed) person, instead of focused mortification of the putrid relics of the old man that still hang on and cumber the body in this life. I am what I am for good and eternity in Christ.

The priests of old were appointed to carry the ark. Uzzah's saintly, circumcised hand was too polluted to protect such cargo from the filth of muddy ground, and God struck him down. Despite the holiness of motive we can ascribe to king David (see Ps.132), being the fruit of the Spirit in him, it brought him no joy when he was forced by those circumstances to anger (self-recrimination) and fear, 1Chr.13:11-12.

As a preacher, the more time spent stoking the congregation's ego by reminding them how assured we are from our richly laden branches and stores of righteous fruit, the more energy I must undoubtedly put into restraining the gallop that will take the ungainly cart being used to transport precious cargo right into a wreck. All that has been accomplished in the believer is still nothing beside what has been accomplished outside us and without any of our aid. More assurance is to be gained from the Object of faith than faith's instrumentality or the fruit that comes about because of the instrument.

 

[CathH]

The WCF does include a reference to people's graces as part of a well-founded assurance:

"[assurance is] founded upon:
* 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 the children of God..."
(WCF 18.2)

Seen in this way assurance is like a three-legged stool - all three parts make their own essential contribution.

When people are not evidencing the graces in their lives, we can't be surprised if they remain uneasy and lacking in the joy of salvation. When David prayed, 'Restore to me the joy of thy salvation,' he wasn't going to be answered while he continued in rebellion against God's law about adultery and murder (Ps 51).

Assurance and holiness are mutually reinforcing, as John's first epistle shows.

 

[Elizabeth]

When people are not evidencing the graces in their lives, we can't be surprised if they remain uneasy and lacking in the joy of salvation.

Sometimes these graces from the Lord are hidden from our view when we look at others.
The Lord can be working on a cranky heart in wonderful ways before any outward evidence.
If we look to Christ, and trust his work in our lives (and the lives of others!), we can rest assured.
Our human measurement of these things is always going to be a tad askew, as long as we live in this flesh.

Also, we can't always see the 'endeavoring' that is taking place in the heart. Not all soulish work is easily seen. (WCF 18:1)

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Sometimes these graces from the Lord are hidden from our view when we look at others.
The Lord can be working on a cranky heart in wonderful ways before any outward evidence.
If we look to Christ, and trust his work in our lives (and the lives of others!), we can rest assured.
Our human measurement of these things is always going to be a tad askew, as long as we live in this flesh.

Also, we can't always see the 'endeavoring' that is taking place in the heart. Not all soulish work is easily seen. (WCF 18:1)

That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. Do you have any Bible references to support the idea of a changed heart but not a changed outward life? I honestly haven't really heard of this. Thank you.

 

[CathH]

Sometimes these graces from the Lord are hidden from our view when we look at others.
The Lord can be working on a cranky heart in wonderful ways before any outward evidence.
If we look to Christ, and trust his work in our lives (and the lives of others!), we can rest assured.
Our human measurement of these things is always going to be a tad askew, as long as we live in this flesh.

Also, we can't always see the 'endeavoring' that is taking place in the heart. Not all soulish work is easily seen. (WCF 18:1)

Maybe I didn't use the best phrasing - I wasn't intending to make this about our perceptions of other people. I could have phrased it instead, "When I am not evidencing the graces in my life, I can't be surprised if I remain uneasy and lacking in the joy of salvation."

WCF 18.1 says, "... such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace ..." The bit about "endeavouring to walk" is what I think I understand Ryan to be meaning.

 

[alexanderjames]

Perhaps I may add that I am sure there are many (wider Protestant) believers on both side of the issue, with many who do never think to consider the call to examine themselves any way near as seriously as the word of God calls for.

 

[bookish_Basset]

Ryan, I didn't take Elizabeth to be saying that there is no change in one's outward life, but that it doesn't always take place on a timetable that we would naturally expect -- that God's work is slow, often hidden deep in the heart, and unfolds in ways that aren't easily perceptible to our fallen senses. I think this can be the case when we go through seasons of heartache or suffering, for instance -- I can think of times when, looking back years later, I believe I can see that God was doing richly sanctifying work; yet, at the time, it wasn't at all apparent to me that I was growing spiritually, and in fact I feared I wasn't. I think that can be a special comfort to those of us who tend to be overly introspective -- that it's important to persevere in the means of grace and, in so doing, simply trust Christ to do what He promises He will do through them.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Mark Jones was very kind in allowing me to publish this on my blog. The Love of God
I think this helps to clear some of the mud away.

“DIVINES DISTINGUISH OF A TWOFOLD LOVE; A LOVE OF BENEVOLENCE AND A LOVE OF COMPLACENCY. . . . GOD LOVES US BOTH THESE WAYS.” —THOMAS MANTON (233)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Cath,

Much of what you point to back in post #5 is useful and should not be discounted in any way. However, I need to clarify in respect of the "three-legged stool" to which you refer. I cannot quote and reply for some reason, so bear with that fact, please.

When we "exegete" the language of the Confession (or any formal document), we are obliged to attend to the smallest words and even punctuation, in order to clearly reckon the meaning and authorial intent. Hence, the need for things like "critical editions" of the text of the Confession, an awareness of the history of its framing, etc.

Here I'm going to quote the text of WCF.18.2 entirely (as taken from the opc.org website, so this is technically speaking "The Confession of the OPC")

2. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; (a) but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, (b) the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, (c) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, (d) which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, (e) whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.​

The issue is: what is an "infallible assurance" grounded upon? That is to say, what does this statement teach is the foundation of true assurance? Is it a "three-legged" stool taught herein? No, not unless that stool is seen as having three legs of distinctly unequal strength and reliability. Hence, it is not actually a three-legged stool.

The "three parts" referred to in the post above are not set forth in parallel in the confessional statement. This is clear from the absence of one or two conjunctions ("ands") between the significant clauses. If in the case of three bases, there would be a minimum of one conjunction (and) following the second comma; there could be another justly placed after the first comma, but it would be verbally superfluous other than to clearly delineate a "three-pronged" answer. There is not even one conjunction, which observation clearly challenges the the parallel interpretation of the clause-relation.

The latter clauses stand in a different relation to the initial clause than a parallel arrangement. They supplement the first in some manner, and are either directly subordinate to, or otherwise supportive of, the primary clause. What follows is my explanation of the proper relation of those clauses, and hopefully an accurate read of the WCF's statement on the ground (basis) of assurance. The separate clauses are those in WCF.18.2 that I have labeled above (a)-(e).

Primary clause:

(a) Infallible Assurance is founded upon one thing: the divine promises, which comes from God who cannot lie, who blesses with salvation.​

The initial secondary clause has no parallel conjunctive relation to the first beside possibly the comma, if and only if there is a further clause-closure (comma) followed by the proper conjunction (there is none). This clause describes or amplifies the primary subject (assurance) of the previous clause:

(b) That assurance found inside the true believer (18.1) IS the evidence found within him of those graces (the divine gifts comprising salvation: election through glorification) "unto"="for which end or purpose" the promises (mentioned in (a)) were given.​

Note that nothing is mentioned here concerning outward evidence of any kind, any display of the fruit of the Spirit for instance. There is a "complementary" or completing clause to this initial secondary clause, which is the final secondary clause, the only clause in 18.2 begun with a conjunction: whereby (more on which at the place).

The next secondary clause explains the source of divine power that charges the assurance with infallibility:

(c) The divine Holy Spirit witnesses to and comforts our spirit with confidence of our identity as God's inalienable possession​

God's promise is accompanied by his presence which amplifies the promise and makes it personal

The next secondary clause is "nested" so-to-speak beneath the previous, as it explains concerning the Spirit's presence:

(d) the indwelling Spirit being the down-payment on receiving the whole inheritance contained in Salvation​

Finally, the last secondary clause, begun by the conjunction "whereby" obviously makes a reference to "the Spirit" from the immediate preceding clause (see Eph.4:30); but is nonetheless tied to the initial secondary clause, and in order to prove, I will set them (partially) in tandem:

(b) the inward evidence of those graces... (e) whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.​

In Eph.4:30, Paul expressly states that the Holy Spirit is by whom we are sealed. This confessional statement uses the term "whereby" we are sealed (the exact term of the contemporaneous KJV), thus making a prima facie case for this clause to be yet another "nested" clause. However, the initial secondary clause, though not strictly "hanging" and needs no complement, yet is happily completed by this final clause. Rather than the one interpretation excluding the other, these two actually support the other and tie together all four supplemental clauses.

The Spirit is himself the seal of the covenant of grace, of the promise of God concerning salvation; but he also does the work of sealing. And if we inquire as to the matter under his seal--i.e. what is that to which his seal attests--we see it is nothing other than the whole matter of our salvation, from election to glory, even eternal life, resurrection, and heaven our home. In other words, the graces (benefits) of salvation that have been given us, about which we are now assured, have been bestowed by the Holy Spirit.

In conclusion, WCF 18.2 says nothing about the ground of our assurance being settled in anything but the divine promises. Nor does it point us to any "evidence" aside from a true apprehension of the assurance itself, which has a witness within our spirit, but is omnipotently strengthened by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which presence again the Word of God explains for us. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are actually the portions of this chapter that point to the blessings of pursuit of holiness, and the dangers and assaults on assurance that both the believer's sin and other factors outside of him can have.

 

[CathH]

Rev Buchanan,

Thank you for this.

The "three-legged stool" term I used was infelicitous, since as you rightly say and I entirely agree, the three putative legs are very unequal in strength and reliability.

In terms of exegesis of the WCF, I again very much respect what you say here. The syntax of the Confession often makes a substantial contribution to its intended meaning and here is a case in point. I am grateful to you for grappling with the absence of conjunctions in 18.2. I suppose PB formatting isn't up to generating tree diagrams but perhaps I could check my understanding of your analysis with a paraphrase like this:

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; (a) but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,​

(b) [in other words, this certainty is] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,​

(c) [and the infallibility of this certainty comes from] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, (d) which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, (e) whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.​

Something like that?

AA Hodge on the Confession identifies "three grounds" in 18.2 and Chad van Dixhoorn's Confessing the Faith likewise (both in the Modern English Study Version and his commentary). I do however see the objection you are making to this analysis.

Going back to the wider issue of the OP, I may have imported too much from my own experience into the discussion, but whereas in #4 the risk is that people are allowed to settle down on something about themselves as the ground of their assurance, my worry is a different risk - where people who are very unassured almost treat the lack of assurance as a sign of godliness, rather than a sign that something is probably off-kilter in their thinking [about Christ and his work] and/or their living. So I suppose I am coming at the question from the point of view that (ordinarily, God's sovereignty aside) a person's sins and ignorance will hamper any confidence/joy in salvation whereas their belief of the truth and consistent walk will (ordinarily) go hand in hand with rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God. The 'false hopes' and 'carnal presumptions' of 18.1 can be diagnosed partly by whether you truly believe in the Lord Jesus and partly by whether you love him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before him.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rev Buchanan,

Thank you for this.

The "three-legged stool" term I used was infelicitous, since as you rightly say and I entirely agree, the three putative legs are very unequal in strength and reliability.

In terms of exegesis of the WCF, I again very much respect what you say here. The syntax of the Confession often makes a substantial contribution to its intended meaning and here is a case in point. I am grateful to you for grappling with the absence of conjunctions in 18.2. I suppose PB formatting isn't up to generating tree diagrams but perhaps I could check my understanding of your analysis with a paraphrase like this:

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; (a) but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,​

(b) [in other words, this certainty is] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,​

(c) [and the infallibility of this certainty comes from] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, (d) which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, (e) whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.​

Something like that?

AA Hodge on the Confession identifies "three grounds" in 18.2 and Chad van Dixhoorn's Confessing the Faith likewise (both in the Modern English Study Version and his commentary). I do however see the objection you are making to this analysis.

Going back to the wider issue of the OP, I may have imported too much from my own experience into the discussion, but whereas in #4 the risk is that people are allowed to settle down on something about themselves as the ground of their assurance, my worry is a different risk - where people who are very unassured almost treat the lack of assurance as a sign of godliness, rather than a sign that something is probably off-kilter in their thinking [about Christ and his work] and/or their living. So I suppose I am coming at the question from the point of view that (ordinarily, God's sovereignty aside) a person's sins and ignorance will hamper any confidence/joy in salvation whereas their belief of the truth and consistent walk will (ordinarily) go hand in hand with rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God. The 'false hopes' and 'carnal presumptions' of 18.1 can be diagnosed partly by whether you truly believe in the Lord Jesus and partly by whether you love him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before him.

With respect to your understanding of my analysis of 18:2, yes, I think that at least you understood me fairly well (whatever good that does).

I didn't consult the experts of this (CVD) or the previous age (AAH), however I feel confident of my expression of what 18:2 appears to claim (at limits). I would want to read other commentators for myself, in order to gauge them, before doubting or disagreeing. But it is possible I might differ from them. As I wrote already, the following paragraphs of WCF.18 do not fail to mention the place of holy living in connection to assurance, or the problem sin causes (or should cause) assurance.

I should add, that after your post #5 breakdown of 18:2 (basically laying out the order of clauses a/b/c) you commented using the language of "evidence" and "graces" (explicit terms found in (b)), which comment turned to external evidence of graces; and this turn is what more than anything prompted my reply. As the concern of the Confession is to speak of inward evidence of graces, the difference made me wonder if the Confession's wording was misunderstood, and applied to visible sign of the fruit of the Spirit, for instance, or consistent devotion in prayer, church attendance, care of the poor, etc.

The graces are not tiny seeds of love or patience that get planted within, having promise of bursting out in ripe exhibit. Those graces conceived by the Confession's writers are the benefits of salvation, things we might summarize as Paul does in "the golden chain" of Rom.8:29-30, some of which form major chapter headings of the WCF. The attachment of these to my person do not "show " on on my outfacing person as such, yet they have been truly given to me and are now mine through faith in Jesus; I may have confidence in this, though it is an "invisible" spiritual reality. Perhaps it may further be said that when I do a good work that is known to be such, aware that the motive is ultimately from the Spirit of God, this is a kind of outward display (yet also open to counterfeit).

I appreciate the seriousness of your primary impulse to expose how bizarre and perverse it can be to practically relish doubt. Romanism famously encourages it, pronouncing anathema on great confidence of salvation, and identifying the contrary self-regard as the height of piety. We should have added joy in a thankful life lived from the grace of our salvation marked by holy growth; and be unsurprised if sin justly disturbs our complacency.

 

[CathH]

I didn't consult the experts of this (CVD) or the previous age (AAH), however I feel confident of my expression of what 18:2 appears to claim (at limits). I would want to read other commentators for myself, in order to gauge them, before doubting or disagreeing. But it is possible I might differ from them. As I wrote already, the following paragraphs of WCF.18 do not fail to mention the place of holy living in connection to assurance, or the problem sin causes (or should cause) assurance.

As far as I can think, you are the only commentator who I've seen who has paid this level of attention to the absence of conjunctions. It has niggled at me before, so I appreciate this.

LC 80 supplies an "and," coordinating faith and the work of the Spirit:
Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.

The graces are not tiny seeds of love or patience that get planted within, having promise of bursting out in ripe exhibit. Those graces conceived by the Confession's writers are the benefits of salvation, things we might summarize as Paul does in "the golden chain" of Rom.8:29-30, some of which form major chapter headings of the WCF. The attachment of these to my person do not "show " on on my outfacing person as such, yet they have been truly given to me and are now mine through faith in Jesus; I may have confidence in this, though it is an "invisible" spiritual reality. Perhaps it may further be said that when I do a good work that is known to be such, aware that the motive is ultimately from the Spirit of God, this is a kind of outward display (yet also open to counterfeit).

In terms of the inward graces. Looking at the proof texts, it seems that these are not so much the benefits of salvation but things like love and patience planted within:

• 2 Pet 1:4, 5, 10, 11, 'Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; ... Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
• 1 John 2:3, 'hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments'
• 1 John 3:14, 'We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.'
• 2 Cor 1:12, 'For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.'

I should add, that after your post #5 breakdown of 18:2 (basically laying out the order of clauses a/b/c) you commented using the language of "evidence" and "graces" (explicit terms found in (b)), which comment turned to external evidence of graces; and this turn is what more than anything prompted my reply. As the concern of the Confession is to speak of inward evidence of graces, the difference made me wonder if the Confession's wording was misunderstood, and applied to visible sign of the fruit of the Spirit, for instance, or consistent devotion in prayer, church attendance, care of the poor, etc.

Trying to reconstruct my thought process in #5, I think at this point I was probably stepping back from the WCF to speak more generally to the OP, '... the concept of love, character, and good works ...' The recipients of the benefits of salvation are expected to show external evidence of this and cannot expect assurance where the evidence in their lives is contradictory to rather than consistent with this.

I appreciate the seriousness of your primary impulse to expose how bizarre and perverse it can be to practically relish doubt. Romanism famously encourages it, pronouncing anathema on great confidence of salvation, and identifying the contrary self-regard as the height of piety. We should have added joy in a thankful life lived from the grace of our salvation marked by holy growth; and be unsurprised if sin justly disturbs our complacency.

This exactly. It isn't just how damaging it is to the individual soul, and how dishonouring it is to the Saviour, it's also so massively regressive in terms of the historic attainments of the church.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As far as I can think, you are the only commentator who I've seen who has paid this level of attention to the absence of conjunctions. It has niggled at me before, so I appreciate this.

LC 80 supplies an "and," coordinating faith and the work of the Spirit:
Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.


In terms of the inward graces. Looking at the proof texts, it seems that these are not so much the benefits of salvation but things like love and patience planted within:

• 2 Pet 1:4, 5, 10, 11, 'Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; ... Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'
• 1 John 2:3, 'hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments'
• 1 John 3:14, 'We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.'
• 2 Cor 1:12, 'For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.'

Trying to reconstruct my thought process in #5, I think at this point I was probably stepping back from the WCF to speak more generally to the OP, '... the concept of love, character, and good works ...' The recipients of the benefits of salvation are expected to show external evidence of this and cannot expect assurance where the evidence in their lives is contradictory to rather than consistent with this.


This exactly. It isn't just how damaging it is to the individual soul, and how dishonouring it is to the Saviour, it's also so massively regressive in terms of the historic attainments of the church.

Cath,
I suppose many people besides me will benefit from your investigations, and posting them here.

I have little to add, or to argue with. With respect to connecting WLC 80 to the whole issue, I think you make a good case for broadening the concept of graces to include specifics of "love of the brethren" (ala 1Jn3:14) etc., which notice goes beyond the grand design of salvation and what might be termed the major benefits (i.e. election, justification, sanctification, etc.). I understand such love is "fulfillment of the law" (Rom.13:10), and is the right motive of all true obedience, which being the fruit of righteousness (certainly not the root) is the essence of sanctified life in Christ. We should make everything we can justly make out of such encouragement in ourselves, not exceeding bounds or boasting as if we had something we did not receive.

I do note that in WLC 80, possessed assurance remains grounded exclusively in divine promises gripped by believing them; see the preposition "by" repeated in the successive clauses. Assurance is attainable "...by faith grounded upon... God's promises; and by the Spirit enabling" accurate discernments, together with his co-witnessing. There is some coordination not to be ignored there, acknowledging the conjunction.

Let me also point to the Question itself, WLC 80, "Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?" Assurance and perseverance are united in the question, pointing to some interactive support. The answer then begins with another expression involving a coordinating conjunction, tying together faith and a consequential walk of faith in good conscience (i.e. effort after obedience, war with sin, mortification of the flesh, etc.).

Blessings,