# Assurance in American Puritan Thought



## 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?


----------



## Scott

C'mon, this is the PURITAN Board! I should be able to get an answer! :bigsmile:

Andrew - you got nothing for me? :bigsmile:


----------



## Peter

From what I understand, and I have yet to read the chapter concerning this in Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality bigsmile, occasion doubting, or giving diligence to make your calling and election sure, is not contrary to assurance but is part of confirming it.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I read Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality a year ago, so it is not fresh on my mind, but parts of the section on assurance stuck with me. Basically, my impression was that the Puritans sought to strive for assurance recognizing that at times we have it and at other times we do not.

I do not recall anything to the effect of "assurance of salvation was a sure sign of its absence."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> C'mon, this is the PURITAN Board! I should be able to get an answer! :bigsmile:
> 
> Andrew - you got nothing for me? :bigsmile:



 Ok, this is not my forte, and I would definitely defer to previous comments and to Joel Beeke's book in particular, but I'll offer a few thoughts:

The American Puritans were highly introspective. Throughout their writings one senses a tension between the affirmation that assurance is not of the essence of true faith (WCF, XVIII) and the need to guard against false assurance by constant self-examination. There were different strains of thought in this regard. This is particularly evidenced in the historical antinomian controversy of the 1630´s and the halfway covenant emphasis on assurance as a requisite to participation in the Lord´s Supper, on which Solomon Stoddard disagreed with Richard Mather and others. The Puritans had a lot to say about assurance, but I have not come across that particular blanket statement that "assurance of salvation was a sure sign of its absence." I think they were generally in line with Bunyan's portrayal of Christian in _Pilgrim's Progress_ who struggled with assurance throughout his life's journey but did receive some measure of comfort for his anxious thoughts.

"œAssurance is a mercy too good for most men´s hearts"¦. God will only give it to his best and dearest friends." "œAssurance "¦ is a "¦ crown that few [Christians] wear." -- Thomas Brooks

"œThe assurance of salvation is not common to all Christians, many never attain it." -- Samuel Hopkins

"Neither be idle in the means, nor make an idol of the means." -- William Secker 

"Means must be neither trusted nor neglected." -- John Trapp 

"Use thy duties, as Noah's dove did her wings, to carry thee to the ark of the Lord Jesus Christ, where only there is rest." -- Isaac Ambrose 

"There are no men more careful of the use of means than those that are surest of a good issue and conclusion, for the one stirs up diligence in the other. Assurance of the end stirs up diligence in the means. For the soul of a believing Christian knows that God has decreed both." -- Richard Sibbes 

"Assurance encourageth us in our combat; it delivers us not from it. We may have peace with God when we have done from the assaults of Satan." -- John Owen 

"Assurance grows by repeated conflict, by our repeated experimental proof of the Lord's power and goodness to save; when we have been brought very low and helped, sorely wounded and healed, cast down and raised again, have given up all hope, and been suddenly snatched from danger, and placed in safety; and when these things have been repeated to us and in us a thousand times over, we begin to learn to trust simply to the word and power of God, beyond and against appearances: and this trust, when habitual and strong, bears the name of assurance; for even assurance has degrees." -- John Newton 

See also:

Matthew Mead, _The Almost Christian Discovered_
William Bridges, _A Lifting Up for the Downcast_
Thomas Shepard, _The Ten Virgins_
Thomas Hooker, _The Poor Doubting Christian Drawn to Christ_
Thomas Brooks, _Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices_
Obadiah Sedgwick, _The Doubting Beleever_
Jonathan Edwards, _Religious Affections_ 
William Gurnall, _The Christian´s Great Interest_
Thomas Brooks, _Heaven on Earth_ 
Edward Taylor, _Preparatory Meditations_


----------



## Scott

thanks


----------



## Larry Hughes

True assurance can only be found by objectively looking and trusting in Christ alone because if anything within me is examined at length it will ALWAYS fail the test of God´s holiness. The Puritans were indeed more subjective than the magisterial reformers. It might do well to note that Rome against the Reformers thought of true assurance as a sure sign of deception. 

Thus, with the aid of Wesleyan revivalism American Christianity is EXCESSIVELY inward, the Gospel is all but lost. It is constantly asked in Christian circles, what about election, regeneration, good works and so forth. These and similar questions are asked in such a way that they dangerously look inward for salvation and/or outward into eternity reflexively from the inward, although in words we would deny it and parrot the formula "justification by faith alone". Yet, our inordinate queries and emphasis not upon the true Law and the true Gospel but rather on "works" (in various ways), "election", "rebirth" and etc... show forth where our trust truly desires to lay and how the Devil is misleading our eyes from Christ. There are two ways to deny God's grace, (Christ suffering and risen); 1. Lawlessness (impiety) and 2. Lawfulness (piety). Number one is quite easy to see even among pagans. Number two is the religious (including those within the Christian community) and insidious, it holds a man from grace more than anything by its very nature. By the very "œgood appearing nature" of the piety and the trust invested in it - it bars a man from grace willfully. The irreligious have a tendency to see the Kingdom of Heaven before the religious.

This is not a difficult thing to discover personally within, though in our pride we put on mask to hide it from the eyes of fellow believers and even ourselves. You must always look to where "the eyes of the soul" are being guided such as to trust and be assured; is it Christ and Him crucified alone or is it "my growth", "my Christian sanctification", "naked peering into the will of God via His election", "looking on externals (fruit) so as to peer into one's or another's heart to determine if regeneration/rebirth has occurred". All of these forsake the cross by looking primarily through and past it, and such think vainly they can discern the inward realities and eternal realities by the externals and appearances by site. To such the cross of Christ either disappears altogether or becomes so transparent as to be invisible. In short we are seeking to know "good and evil" for ourselves, building Towers of Babel climbing toward God "our" way, and these are all the religions of Cain. 

Yet, we are called to look at Christ alone. This and this alone is the decisive mark of a Christian. Note how, sadly, today in the majority of American Christianity there is an excessive population of teaching out there that seeks out "good works", WWJD, "list upon lists upon lists ad nausem of the 'true marks/fruits of a Christian'", election and am I, "are you a born again Christian", regeneration, xyz experiences and so forth. Note closely that while these fallen religions exalt and glorify (that is make famous) the very things they state, LOST altogether is Christ and His cross and the only glory due Him. At best, Christ and Him crucified is relegated to some back seat in a dark corner that was necessary at the beginning of the Christian life but now "its time to move on to bigger an better things". But this only shows how we are still hiding our faces from His cross, turning from Him and denying Him as Peter did, but we do it under the guise of "Christian religion and piety" and doctrines sans the Gospel. This demonstrates how much we really disdain the glorious Gospel and the suffering Cross of Christ by calling it by the Devil's terms as a "cheap grace" and turning for Gnostic-demonic-fallen glory religions and our own ways labeling it as "Christian" and "gospel". We "get bored" with Christ and Him crucified and nothing says "hatred for" like indifference and moving on to "other things". 

This is how easily and craftily the Devil and we obscure the real Christ and the real Gospel. Those who have gone through such tribulations know what is being said, though it is impossible to explain to those who have not. Never-the-less, this is why it is wrong to set a man's mind and soul into peering into himself and his growth to find peace or to set a man's soul into peering into the secret will of God via election or to seek out if he/she was truly reborn before a certain event can take place. ALL of the tricks of the Devil set the sheep of Christ to trusting not their Master but in themselves or some eternal peering as if they may see God nakedly so as to kill them or have them kill themselves. The Devil does anything to move us from peering at the suffering at the Cross and that alone for "me" where we may find true faith and peace - in Christ alone. Seeking out works, election, rebirth and etc...without the soul fixed upon Christ alone can only result in two things by the one being communicated to do so in some fashion: 1. Despair and distrust in God. 2. Presumptive pride and finding something other than Christ to rest in.

Heiko A. Oberman writes,

"But all Christians are subject to two other forms of diabolical temptation: on the one hand, despair over moral unworthiness and on the other, uncertainty over whether God has not already excluded one from salvation for all eternity-what theology terms predestinational anxiety..."

"...The discovery that he who lives by faith (naked trust in God - ldh) is truly just before God was accompanied by a reevaluation of spiritual distress. The new interpretation manifests itself in two conclusions: tribulations are not a disease, so there can be no cure for them. They are a characteristic condition of Christian life. Only firm faith (naked trust -ldh) in God's unalterable promise enables spiritual crises to be withstood-not over come. God's law shows with frightening clarity what has become of man; everyone is exposed in his unworthiness. God's law is the Devil's proof: there is no salvation! Yet precisely at this point it becomes clear that the mercy of God is the only refuge.

"Luther's spiritual crises escalate in intensity. The Devil himself appears on the scene and will not content himself with simple "temptations", as Luther termed the seducer's arts. The Devil drives a person to doubt his election, and seduces the doubter into wanting to penetrate God's hidden will to find out whether or not he is really among those chosen by God. This undertaking must fail and the ensuing uncertainty leads to fear, blasphemy, and hatred for God, and finally to doubts about the existence of God altogether. What the Devil would most like to do is to push all Christians to the brink of revelation, tempt them to try to penetrate God's nature, and then let them fall where he fell: into the void. With this the Devil discloses his most ardent desire: he is "not only a liar, he is also a killer.""

"Luther's own theological and personal turning point became a momentous break through for Church and society with his public call to resist the Devil in the spiritual and temporal realms, to unmask him as a liar and brand him a killer. It was typically medieval that Luther had to abandon the world. The end of the Middle Ages drew near when he would not let the world go to the Devil, instead sounding the battle cry for its preservation and improvement. The world, which had previously been the wide gate and the broad way to Hell, and partner to a pact with the Devil, now disclosed itself in the Reformation view to be the world God had ordained and preserved, an environment in which plants, animals, and man could flourish. Whereas good works had once been done for God's sake, to comply with His high righteousness, they were now redirected to earth for the sake of man, in the service of life and survival until doomsday. Reformation of the Church will be God's work-at the end. Improvement of the world is the reformation's work-now."

"Luther-Man Between God and the Devil", Heiko A. Oberman, Pages 178-179

Ldh


----------



## Myshkin

Larry and Andrew-

Of all the issues one faces in christian doctrine and life, this one on assurance has been the most thorny and complicated for me. Both of your posts have clarified alot. I have some more questions if you both don't mind.

1) is what you have both just stated exemplary of the difference between the 3 Forms and the WCF on this point?

2) if not, are they just two different sides of the same coin, with historical context requiring both groups to focus on/emphasize one side?

3) Larry, is this subjectivism of the Puritans strictly with the American ones or is it characteristic of puritanism in general (British and Dutch)?

4) How much of today's subjectivism is due to puritan influence, and how much of it is due to revivalism and wesleyanism? Or do they intertwine?

5) Andrew- as a strong puritan advocate, is their anything Larry has said that you disagree with, or that the puritans would disagree with?

6) Larry- based on what you have stated, how do you explain verses like Hebrews 12:14, 2 Peter 1:8-11? Is true heart reflection even possible at all in light of Jeremiah 17:9?

I am trying to basically understand:
a) if the differences over this issue are due to content or due to emphasis (or both)
b)what each side actually holds to
c)which view is right

Thanks for your time and patience.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

First, one must understand, as Andrew pointed out, that from a Westminster perspective assurance is not of the essence of Faith, which is contra to a purely Calvinian view. Calvin held that assurance is of the very essence of faith and if I remember correctly, you will even find in Calvin places where it does not appear to be of such essence.. As for the question of assurance, however, there is no monolithic point of view either from a Presbyterian/British/Puritan context and what is commonly called on this board the continental/Dutch perspective. You will not find in the authors of either of these theological traditions a consistent witness about assurance. Certainly, some remarks on this subject have already been disqualified by their claiming too much. To say that "œ"¦with the aid of Wesleyan revivalism American Christianity is *EXCESSIVELY inward*, the Gospel is all but lost. *It is constantly asked in Christian circles, what about election, regeneration, good works and so forth.*" and that "œThe American Puritans were highly introspective" is to claim too much.

Nevertheless, Andrew is correct in saying that "œThere were different strains of thought in this regard. This is particularly evidenced in the historical antinomian controversy of the 1630´s and the halfway covenant emphasis on assurance as a requisite to participation in the Lord´s Supper, on which Solomon Stoddard disagreed with Richard Mather and others." There were different strains of thought with a wide range of understanding. These strains are still with us in their extremes. One is that we can only have assurance by nothing else than an objective measure and has been articulated by Larry, but quite frankly, can be as much presumption as any thing else. It would be folly to never ask the question or to submit to Paul´s exhortation in 2 Cor. 13:5. To neglect the passages of scripture that certainly point to a so-called subjective element boarders on something approaching a type of scholasticism. The Westminster Confession of Faith also supports this view of the subjective element of assurance in 28.2.

The other extreme as pointed out by claiming too much against it is sometimes found in some of the Dutch Reformed denominations in the states and is found in the churches of the Highlands of Scotland. That is the radical subjective standard of introspection and looking for an "œexperience" to bring one into full assurance. Even In Dr. Beeke´s old Denomination you would find people who had obviously been born again and excelled in Christian piety, but had never taken communion. It is articulated by J. C. Ryle well when he says,



> It is mere waste of time to be constantly asking ourselves whether God loves us, and whether Christ died for us; and it argues gross ignorance of Scripture to trouble ourselves with such questions. The Bible never tells men to look at these questions, but commands them to believe. Salvation, it always teaches, does not turn on the point, "˜Did Christ die for me?´ but on the point "˜Do I believe in Christ?´ If men do not "˜have eternal life,´ it is never because God did not love them, or because Christ was not given for them, but because they do not believe on Christ.



This extreme tradition is always asking, "œAm I elect?" Ryle rightly points out (and he is commenting at this point on John 3:15 and 16) that this is the wrong question to be asking and that a person is only saved by belief in Christ, which would again be placing the emphasis in the correct place.

The Puritans, however, had a doctrine that is commonly referred to as desertion, which is something that happens to the believer for various reasons. They would point to Job as a paradigmatic figure of a person experiencing desertion. It was quite common to use Psalm 77 as a paradigmatic passage of scripture of the same. It almost goes without saying that all one need to do is to point to Psalm 51 as another passage of scripture that is important to this discussion as well as Romans 7. You can also find the doctrine of desertion in the Westminster Confession of Faith 28.

[q]True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God´s withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.[/q]

This view of desertion is also found in the WLC Q&A 81

I think, on the whole, I think you will find a more wholesome and biblical view down the middle of the two extremes that have been noted already. There is both a objective element and a subjective one.


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Larry and Andrew-
> 
> Of all the issues one faces in christian doctrine and life, this one on assurance has been the most thorny and complicated for me. Both of your posts have clarified alot. I have some more questions if you both don't mind.



Alan,

Without a doubt I agree and it is hard to find good help concerning this most important issue. Those who have suffered the pains of the devil, felt wrath and hell and death and the misery of their sin, the inward trials, know. These trials are worse than bodily death for bodily death seems relieving by comparison of really feeling death. Those who have not will not grasp the love of the pure Gospel until then, this may not come until the death bed when one is faced up with the final stroke of the Law, then under the suffering of death the Gospel will finally be sweet and all foolish pretense of working will be annihilated. John Calvin himself considered himself first and foremost a minister of assurance above all. Sadly, today this is not true with the by and large out there. One either gets the fluffy liberal theologian that appeals to your will by "œpep" talks only to lead to greater despair when one fails or the mindless conservative theologian who preaches what he dreams is the depth of human sin, stopping short of total will annihilation, the true depth of sin, and merely raises the appeal to the will from the "œpep talk" to the n-th degree. The problem is the later still appeals to the will it matter little if it is a little or a lot. Neither of these are of the theology of the cross, neither will withstand suffering, take doctrine to suffering and the cross if it cannot sustain it is useless.



> 1) is what you have both just stated exemplary of the difference between the 3 Forms and the WCF on this point?



I don´t think the WCF differs all that much from the 3 forms of unity, but I do think that the 3 forms of unity "œspell it out" much more clearly. But I should say that I´ve only read through the WCF and not put a study of it as I have the HC. That´s just my opinion I do prefer the Heidelberg the most by the way it is set forth and arranged. It starts right out of the gate with, "œWhat is thy only comfort in life and death? That I in body and soul both in life and death am not my own but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, Who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sin, and delivered me from all the power of the devil, and so preserves me that apart from the will of my Holy Father not a hair can fall from my head, yea that all things are subservient to my salvation. Therefore by His Holy Spirit He assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready to live, henceforth, unto Him." That is a powerful opening Q and A to memorize and cherish in dark times. Right off the bat the HC gives forth the Gospel and sets up the three way division of its Q and A of guilt, grace and gratitude. This also better formulates memorizing it by systemizing it.



> 2) if not, are they just two different sides of the same coin, with historical context requiring both groups to focus on/emphasize one side?



Presently I cannot answer that, only to recommend the three forms to you as superior in their clarity.



> 3) Larry, is this subjectivism of the Puritans strictly with the American ones or is it characteristic of puritanism in general (British and Dutch)?



With Puritan literature you have to be careful. I´ve certainly not read all that´s out there and never will. But one thing about the Puritans is that they were not monolithic in there doctrine. Generally, many put more emphasis on the subjective than did Calvin, Beza or Luther. The later where correct for in the end analysis the only thing that will give one true faith and hope is not looking inward but outward to Christ. It´s practical theology applied. If you are like me and some of us extreme internal examiners, at length NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING you examine within yourself will ever pass the muster. Hence, you will never ever find assurance inwardly, never. The confusion seems to come when "œothers" look at say these professing Christians who manifestly deny the faith in some way. These others, Wesley for example, Rome for example, say then, "œsee pure grace cannot be enough we need to terrorize afresh with the Law". But they end up denying the Gospel JUST because some never attain to it and abuse it. To put it another way if I am a doctor and I have a medication that heals a man of a deadly disease and it is the only medicine. Yet, this same medicine is abused by some, would I not be very evil to not administer this medicine to the needy EVEN if others will still abuse it? I cannot change the Gospel just because some abuse it. I cannot and must not redefine faith for example as 1. Knowledge, 2. Ascent to that Knowledge as true, 3. Leading to obedience. When true faith is 1, 2, and 3. Sheer Trust in Christ Alone apart from obedience. If I do change the Gospel or faith such that it changes the Gospel then I´m cooked. If a minister does this and does not repent he runs the danger of falling under the Divine curse Paul speaks much of, his sermon and teaching are damned if he changes the Gospel. Now at this point we do have some latitude in that even Peter faltered, BUT Peter repented, we all falter. But if a pastor does not, willfully remaining ignorant to the truth, his soul is in peril.

4) How much of today's subjectivism is due to puritan influence, and how much of it is due to revivalism and wesleyanism? Or do they intertwine?

That´s hard to say but a guess would say that 99% of it is Wesleyan revivalism. Not all Puritan´s were subjective heavy. E.g. Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections goes to extreme length to destroy subjective reliance. Thomas Hooker was a great healer and assuror of souls, but Hooker did recognize the dangerous trend in later day Puritanism toward the subjective - it is why he himself became a great balm to the "œPoor and Doubting Christian Drawn to Christ". It is said that when he died it was considered a public tragedy. Yet, upon his very own death bed he reaffirmed the objective strength of faith and assurance in Christ alone. His best friend came to him in his last dying moments and said, "œYou will receive a great reward for your work here." To which Thomas replied, "œNO, I will receive mercy." He saw, he knew Christ alone.



> 5) Andrew- as a strong puritan advocate, is their anything Larry has said that you disagree with, or that the puritans would disagree with?



Andrew would probably disagree with me that I´m a handsome devil. Gotta have some humor!

6) Larry- based on what you have stated, how do you explain verses like Hebrews 12:14, 2 Peter 1:8-11? Is true heart reflection even possible at all in light of Jeremiah 17:9?

Keep in mind I am just a lay person but the whole chapter 12 of Hebrews is speaking of Law and Grace. Verses 18 - 21 clearly spell out the Law while Verses 22 - 24 the Gospel. Verse 14 is fulfilled for us in Christ. For it speaks of keeping peace with all men and holiness. This can only be through Christ, it is speaking of keeping faith highest - Christ´s cross. What we have to realize is that when we try to obey the Law we automatically sin. If I seek righteousness or favor with God in any way per the Law say, loving my neighbor, I´m really not loving my neighbor at all though I may make many motions of love toward him. How? Because my basis for doing so is to please God and the Law so that I WILL gain reward which is selfish. Doubly, then I glorify myself, make myself famous, in God´s sight so as to even raise myself above God - all by trying to do the Law. Gospel kills this terminally. I read this once and it helped me grasp it better. Paul said in Romans 6 that he would not have known coveting had the Law not said, "œThou shall not covet." But then when the command meant for life came in the sin arose and he died by the Law. We often leap at this superficially and say, "œthis is true the forbidden fruit is always more tempting being forbidden." But this is superficial though true. What Paul is saying is that by "œdoing" the Law I can never achieve because I AM a coveter. You see by the very command, "œThou shall not covet", the will is shown for what it is - desire to be self sovereign a desire to do what it forbids. One could say, "œI will not covet" with an eye to being righteous by obeying or pleasing God. But THIS is coveting, coveting righteousness. It matters little if I covet my neighbor´s wife or house or even righteousness - coveting is coveting even if it is righteousness. When we covet especially righteousness before God, to "œimpress God", then we really begin to glory in ourselves and look down upon others and at length we become "œmore pious" than God - truly Satanic. This is why not even sanctification is driven by the Law for the Law, especially since it comes from a Holy God whom we think we desire to impress but are really making ourselves IMPRESSIVE, self righteousness/self glory, raises up all kinds of selfish pride and arrogance. We truly take the law and make it evil, not the Law itself which is really good, but our "œuse of it".

I have not looked at the 1 Peter passage yet.



> I am trying to basically understand:
> a) if the differences over this issue are due to content or due to emphasis (or both)



It depends on who one is reading. Generally I think it is emphasis but that is an over generalization.



> b)what each side actually holds to



Again, generally because many of the Puritans aligned with the Reformers (E.g., Bunyan and Hooker), the Reformers: Luther, Calvin and Beza. NOT, definitely NOT ANY of the Anabaptist who are not Reformers anyway but the theological left hand of Rome.



> c)which view is right



If you are meaning where is assurance found objectively or subjectively? Objectively, nothing but the cross of Christ and His life. Again, at length no man´s works or life are ever meant to be trusted into only Christ. That is the real shocking and radical message of the cross: "œWhat must I do to be saved?" "œNothing, absolutely nothing, you must stop, sit down, shut up and listen to what Christ has only done." THIS Gospel call literally is a "œLet there be light." It kills the old Adam, the "œdoer", and raises the new man in Christ. Note that Paul never back tracks or chickens out when he has just finished preaching faith alone. No, what does he do? He answer by death-life language. The old man is dead in Christ alone and works not, by sheer naked trust one is brought into life. Luther said that God may even go the whole length and never do any good works in a man so that he may be slain on the cross, thus suffering, seeing nothing within himself, he then must alone trust nakedly in Christ alone.

In short all theologies of fallen religion fall apart under suffering - which drives home to reality theology. Under suffering one finds true faith, true cross, true God & the reality of true man (man & his will to do = nothing). For some this suffering may be in finality one's death bed, then for some who have been in religion all their lives the "lights" may finally come on, then it will not just be "logical" propositions & so many words for reality will face us up as we face a Holy & living God. Then Christ alone objectively will become all too clear & one will despair of all pretense of one's "works" pre or post coming to faith.

I havn´t forgotten your U2U just have not had time.

Your brother In Christ´s sufficiency alone,

Larry

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Alan,

I'd recommend some rather short yet powerful books for you to read. They are short but the concentration and power of the information is very helpful. 

The first is "On Being A Theologian of the Cross - Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518" by Gerhard O. Forde

The second is "Justification by Faith - A Matter of Death and Life" by Gerhard O. Forde

Dr. Forde much to our loss in this life past away just this August.

These are excellent books that cut right to the chase and the Reformation firestorm that so raged both Rome and the Anabaptist. When you read these you will better understand why Luther and Calvin by extension NEVER backed down to either group and just what was as stake - the Gospel. Unfortunately in our day few find this fire.

It will also help you see the more clearly the disconnect between camps like MacArthur and Hodges in that debate and in the end why both are wrong. E.g., the sheer force of grace being free by utter Divine declaration, imputation, IS its killing force of the old Adam and it calling into being the new man. This is how Paul spoke, he never attempted to redefine faith or the Gospel but went right to the juggular with the unconditional declaration of grace that precipitates the death-life language. This permeates all of the Apostles thought including his exact language regarding baptism. The fact that the absolute unconditional declaration of justification for Christ's sake alone, it sheer freeness, kills any idea of so called "cheap grace" (against Hodges dispensational camp) because its not cheap its free and thus the old Adam who works dies. Also the same kills the vainity of grace being costly on our part (against MacArthur's dispensational camp). In other words one doesn't make grace grace by taking on our part from cheap to costly, but both are slain by free/unconditional, you see.

It is crucial to grasp that sin is NOT just the immorality but morality of the old Adam, not just impiety but piety, not just lawlessness but lawfulness. As a matter of fact the later is worse than the former for it holds a man from free grace by its very existence. This is why Jesus says that tax collectors and prostitutes would see the kingdom of heaven before the religious and pharisees. And so it is true today. The irreligious atheist will more quickly grasp grace before the man who for the most part grew up religious. A real sinner knows real forgiveness. A painted sinner thinks he only needs a painted Christ.

But see the free declaration of justification kills both and this is what the old Adam wars against, especially the "religious".

In the born again, the very Divine declaration of righteousness solely for Christ's sake brings into being for the first time the simultaneous sinner (before hand one does not consider one's self this) and justified. It reveals both faith and unbelief - it shows what we are and in Whom we must trust. Seeing what we are drives us to Christ! The cross of Christ precludes all works by its very happening!

The new man is now truly something that did not exist before, it is a new entirely new creation.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Peter

Larry, I disagree with you. Primarily our comfort should be the promises of God in Christ. However, the heart is a deceiver Jer 17:9; Gen 6:5 and we can be easily led to false assurance if we neglect secondary reflexive assurance. The reflect act is not man centered but Christ centered as it is the Spirit of Christ looking at itself to show our spirit that we are the children of God. Ro 8:15, 16 shows us that the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. 2 Pe 1:10 commands subjective reflection. 1 John 2:3 is explicit "hereby we know we know him, if we keep his commandments." Sanctification, bearing fruit, and inward graces are the inevitable result of the new birth. If we have them it should be a comfort if not then a discomfort.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Peter,

Then we disagree. Do you not see that you are battling the cross? Because some men have these fruits to the eyes of others watching them but to themselves they never see them as valuable. 

1 John 2:3 "keep his commandments" is in Christ alone. You cannot nor will not keep his commandments any other way because you/I cannot love altruistically and to "keep his commandments" to assure ourselves is not keeping his commandments. The one in Christ already has his commandments kept, all is all in Christ and the very essence of faith in Christ alone is that ALL is done in Christ alone. This raises up the fruits of the Spirit for the Spirit is bearing witness to our spirits of Christ - then and only then do arise love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, etc...exactly because Christ has first loved me and I need not work my way to God in Justification or Sanctification. Sanctification presupposes unfaltering Justification. To speak otherwise is to speak non-sense.

The Christian never can get beyond the cross, the cross is so powerful to them that he "counts all things but rubbish and filth". Primary and ultimate assurance IS only in Christ alone. Only the old nature can look through the cross to other things.

The witness of the Spirit IS the Witness of the cross to our spirits. The one assured in Christ alone can only show these fruits because he IS looking at the cross alone. Thus, his gaze so fixed he never looks at himself, yet fixed the fruits arise naturally. When the gaze fixes upon self arrogance arises immediately and he thinks himself well though he says, "by grace I do it." Then, when he has raised himself in his estimation by the gifts of God he immediately condescends to others and ultimately raises himself above God.

The "reflexive" as you put it is a natural reflexive by the very singular gaze and trust in the cross of Christ. You will note that these "fruit seekers" and "works seekers" speak much about fruit and works and themselves, but nary a word of Christ.

The very fact that the heart IS deceptive is the reason that hope and faith are found outside of us and not inside of us. For we cannot assess our works rightly DUE to the heart. The only sound and solid rock is Christ, that is why He is called the rock and all else is sinking sand.

It's quite practical and not essoteric. When you lay dying and if I'm around, let me know the comfort your works give you on that day, let me know how these reflexive works carry you through death unto a holy and living God.

JG Machem said it well, "I'm a dying man and on my way to the grave (as we all are), do you have ANY Good News. If not I will not listen to you." Luther and Calvin as well grasped this, that at the end of the day the Christian faith is to prepare a man for his ultimate dying so that he may have peace and trust in Christ alone. The Solas where designed to do just that direct ALL attention to Christ and the immeasureable grace and mercy of God.

Ldh

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Peter

Larry, the problem is how do we know we are really and sincerely at the cross? Christ's open invitation 'come to me all who are weary and heavy laden' and promise 'he who comes to me I will in no way cast out' are primary but we can not neglect the scriptures that command self examination and visible fruit. Reflex upon the graces of the Spirit is a work preformed by the Spirit Ro 8:16 so it conquers human infirmities. Yes only Christ can keep the commandments perfectly for our salvation however we can keep the commandments inherently, imperfectly, and by the Holy Spirit. Yes, self examination will cause some doubting but doubting is good. First, it sifts out the tares and the self-deceivers. Loss of assurance also causes a sense and hatred of sin and fuels sanctification while the opposite view fosters antinomianism. It is also deeply humbling. When the elect sins and loses assurance he sees what a worm he is in God's presence. It also causes him to relish assurance.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Peter,
> 
> Then we disagree. Do you not see that you are battling the cross? Because some men have these fruits to the eyes of others watching them but to themselves they never see them as valuable.
> 
> 1 John 2:3 "keep his commandments" is in Christ alone. You cannot nor will not keep his commandments any other way because you/I cannot love altruistically and to "keep his commandments" to assure ourselves is not keeping his commandments. The one in Christ already has his commandments kept, all is all in Christ and the very essence of faith in Christ alone is that ALL is done in Christ alone. This raises up the fruits of the Spirit for the Spirit is bearing witness to our spirits of Christ - then and only then do arise love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, etc...exactly because Christ has first loved me and I need not work my way to God in Justification or Sanctification. Sanctification presupposes unfaltering Justification. To speak otherwise is to speak non-sense.
> 
> The Christian never can get beyond the cross, the cross is so powerful to them that he "counts all things but rubbish and filth". Primary and ultimate assurance IS only in Christ alone. Only the old nature can look through the cross to other things.
> 
> The witness of the Spirit IS the Witness of the cross to our spirits. The one assured in Christ alone can only show these fruits because he IS looking at the cross alone. Thus, his gaze so fixed he never looks at himself, yet fixed the fruits arise naturally. When the gaze fixes upon self arrogance arises immediately and he thinks himself well though he says, "by grace I do it." Then, when he has raised himself in his estimation by the gifts of God he immediately condescends to others and ultimately raises himself above God.
> 
> The "reflexive" as you put it is a natural reflexive by the very singular gaze and trust in the cross of Christ. You will note that these "fruit seekers" and "works seekers" speak much about fruit and works and themselves, but nary a word of Christ.
> 
> The very fact that the heart IS deceptive is the reason that hope and faith are found outside of us and not inside of us. For we cannot assess our works rightly DUE to the heart. The only sound and solid rock is Christ, that is why He is called the rock and all else is sinking sand.
> 
> It's quite practical and not essoteric. When you lay dying and if I'm around, let me know the comfort your works give you on that day, let me know how these reflexive works carry you through death unto a holy and living God.
> 
> JG Machem said it well, "I'm a dying man and on my way to the grave (as we all are), do you have ANY Good News. If not I will not listen to you." Luther and Calvin as well grasped this, that at the end of the day the Christian faith is to prepare a man for his ultimate dying so that he may have peace and trust in Christ alone. The Solas where designed to do just that direct ALL attention to Christ and the immeasureable grace and mercy of God.
> 
> Ldh
> 
> [Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]
> 
> [Edited on 10-29-2005 by Larry Hughes]



This is a classical example of one confusing justification and sanctification, which only serves to diminish the clarity and distinctions of the two. This would also account for why Luther (who is favorably quoted in defense of this position) early on wanted to rid the NT of James. This is a view that is at odds with just such a book.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Michael, 

Respectfully, that"˜s a rather snappish reply & not at all what Luther, OR Calvin or ANY of the early reformers taught. As a matter of fact that answer is exactly the reply Rome, John Wesley"˜s and a slew of other semi-peligians gave and do today continue to give. "œGrace must not be enough"¦" it is the same old fallen religion´s argument and fear and even chickening out on the Gospel itself. The legalist will scream "œantinomian" and the antinomian will scream "œlegalist", when in fact neither differ all that much at all. For antinomianism is not the death of the Law through Christ alone but either the banishment of the Law up front so that one does not know why they need Christ, OR more in the vain of the dispensationalist like Hodges, a reduction of the Law to something doable. Making the Law "œdoable" really is to get rid of the true Law which is High and Holy and not "œdoable". The legalist is obvious and needs no explanation here.

Luther and Calvin later and many of the other reformers of the time were not denying "œgood works" at all, the abundance of their rebuttals, one would think, would suffice, but the same ole war against the cross of Christ ensues as then and now. They where showing where true good works come from - the Gospel, as did Paul, Peter, John and yes James. Paul never backed down on this point but steam rolled straight ahead with the death-life language, he never re-defined faith at all. Divorcing Justification and Sanctification IS the way that the two are confused.

And at the end of the day James is preaching faith not works. He is not saying "œdo works" to vivify "œdead faith" which he clearly uses as another term (dead faith) to be "œno faith at all", hence he asks "œ"¦can this KIND of faith save?" James is not saying "œdo works" to make a dead faith or "œno faith" look like a "œliving faith" which would be hypocrisy. No, James is saying you have no faith, you must have saving faith. That´s the whole point of the rich class raising themselves above the poor in the church for if they had true living faith, such is that humbles ALL justified freely by Christ alone, then they would not be making such distinctions. If these "œrich members of the church" merely started working to condescend to the poorer Christians outwardly they would merely be raising themselves more in their own estimation though outwardly they hypocritically condescend to the poor. James was preaching faith. 

But back to where true good works come from. You see real sin is fundamentally the fallen will seeking itself in all things, that is to be divorced from God. It matters not whether this will worship is of the tune of immorality or of morality since both seek self and not love of neighbor OR God. Charity, godly love, as Paul amply puts is altruistic, and utterly selfless, no vested interest or gain toward self (like Christ on the cross). And love = the Law. This is why we are fallen both irreligious and religious, lawless and lawful, impious and pious and etc"¦ Both of these people deny the grace of God. The impious by direct rebellion and selfish gain (e.g. the tax collector and prostitute) and the pious by hypocrisy pretending to seek righteousness but doing so for self. The latter seeks selfish gain above all. The proof of this is when one is faced up with one´s hypocrisy of piety and then gets angry, rejects the cross alone or throws up sanctification higher than the cross of Christ by virtue of all he/she speaks of. E.g. If you show me external love "œto obey the Law of God" and actually do do good to me in my need (love of neighbor), mere motions of the Law, YET you are doing it per the Law to "œplease God" or to improve "œyour own so called sanctity"œ, then, you really do not altruistically love me which is TRUE godly love and to what the Law REALLY is pointing to. In our "œdoing" the Law, especially because it comes from God, to either seek righteousness or more hidden to seek His approval or "œimprove" my sanctification, then one is really violating ENTIRELY the Law, seeking self and so forth even if you give your life for me and it is the essence of sin and the fallen nature. For in the end you sought by your will to do this per the Law, but mere motions of the Law not to what the Law is really pointing to too be fulfilled. It is impossible for fallen creatures to "œdo the Law" pre or post conversion. Because what has to die entirely is the old Adam, the "œdoer", and he dies by the word of the Cross. Justification for the sake of Christ ALONE, or faith alone, sola fide, is the slayer of the old Adam, the doer. For the fact that Christ alone fulfills the Law and by Him alone is one saved and by Him alone nothing is left "œto do", the old Adam, "œthe doer", is crucified in Christ. He must die completely and not "œjust a little." The will of man which sets itself up against the God must be killed. When the word of the utter, unconditional free grace comes it literally kills the old Adam and resurrects something entirely new that did not exist before, it is literally as Paul says, calling into being that which did not exist. This is exactly Paul´s response to the question, "œshall we sin that grace may abound." You see, faith alone, sola fide, the Reformation´s cry, kills the old Adam, the doer.

Now, since in Christ Jesus alone I have all things, that is literally there is nothing left for me to do, the new man can for the first time make the ever so failing beginnings of growing while the old man is slain. Now, since Christ has fulfilled the Law for me, the Law as Law disappears and I can begin to live to what the Law pointed to, altruistic selfless love and not just motions of the Law. I can then "œjust help my neighbor". Why? To please God or so called "œgrowth in sanctity", all selfish motives? No, BECAUSE Christ has gained ALL that for me, literally nothing in that stance is left for me to do. NOW, because of Christ´s bearing all my sin and being all my righteousness with NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING left to do, I can be redirected form my selfish self and for the first time unto my neighbor, restored unto the original creation and "œjust help and love my neighbor because HE needs me". That is going in the direction of true godly love of which Paul speaks in Cor. But you see, it requires the constant proclamation of the Gospel, the Good News for we still battle in the flesh. The old Adam, the doer, is still around in this life and thus, we need the killing act of the proclamation of "œunconditional free justification for the sake of Christ alone" to kill the old Adam and raise the new man to life.

This is why Luther could say that "œthis living faith cannot help but to do good works, it neither considers this or that to be a good work, it merely does them before it is asked"¦" If a child falls and hurts themselves the adult does not sit back and say to themselves, "œnow is this a good work that will please God and/or help my sanctity or not?" Yet, that is how many are preaching "œgood works" and it is evil and the devil´s religion. No, faith, which rests in Christ alone, can immediately do by the sheer fact and force of the assurance of ALL IS MINE FOR THE SAKE Christ ALONE. 

This is mortification of the old Adam. The simul Justus et peccator is quite literal, we are always in this tension of being entirely true sinners simultaneously entirely justified and this is the humility that sleighs the old Adam. The lack of this, saving faith, is why in James the rich "œbelievers" thought themselves greater than the poor believers. Faith was ultimately missing not works, or works were missing BECAUSE true living faith was missing, but note that James speaks of works unto saving faith, not the Law. 

This is why "œpreaching good works" and not the Gospel leads to sin. If you´ve got to be told to do a good work from the command of God for me, and for your own sanctity or some other gain of reward or fear of punishment, don´t bother, I don´t want your hypocrisy"¦the old man must die! To unbeliever "œLove thy neighbor" is a command that must be obeyed, but to the believer "œLove thy neighbor" is a promise and grows to be a joy, not thing "œI must do". Married men can know what I mean here easier. If your wife has to tell you, "œBuy me some roses to show your love" and you do, we all know how empty and devoid of love that is. I don´t have to be commanded to love my wife, I just love her. This is like the difference of living under the Law and doing the motions of the Law for fear of punishment/hope of reward, and being dead to the Law and living under faith.

IF you want people to grow in grace, then preach grace, preach Christ. Rome, much like today´s Babylonian church in America, thought that a sign of grace was an "œincrease in sanctity meaning moral repair, increased morals and so forth. Hence, they thought it a substance or "œforce". The reformers, not just Luther, understood the true presents of grace came from the very unconditional free declaration of Christ alone - faith alone, sola fide. When this happens, grace increasingly reveals the depth of sin. This is the humbling and death of the old man that drives one to Christ alone, and if I must rely on Christ alone, then I have NOTHING to brag about excepting Christ and HIM crucified. Sanctification for them, and Paul and James, was not moral fruit or moral repair but the revelation of sin, the light shines into the darkness and reveals the filthy darkness - both lawlessness but especially lawfulness, impiety and piety, immorality and morality. Sanctification for the Reformers was the killing of the old via sola fide slaying "œthe doer", and the rising of the new man in Christ who need not "œdo" as all is done whereby true love makes its beginnings, true love to which the Law points to but NEVER gives the power there unto.

"The better legalist a man is the more he may rest assured of his own damnation and portion with the Pharisees. It is hideous to see a rebellious sinner to become jealous for good works and become greatly concerned for public morality. Does it not make laughter in hell to see licentious men censuring the pure Gospel of the Lord Jesus and finding fault with free forgiveness because it might make men less mindful of purity. It makes me sick to see the hypocrisy of these legalist"

-Charles Haddan Spurgeon

Amen,

LDH


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Larry, the problem is how do we know we are really and sincerely at the cross?



Brother, let me relieve your burden. Don´t you know in whom you´ve trusted? This question reveals a working for the cross and not resting in the cross. It is a question that says, "œI´m looking not at Christ as Christ, that is the eyes of the soul are not trusting in Christ but in trusting itself. I´m looking at my looking and not the serpent being raised to be healed that the Son of Man would be raised for the same. I´m trusting in my trusting, faith in my faith, is my faith right and correct?" Do some fake it, sure, but their hypocrisy means they simply are not looking at the cross. But you cannot, and must not translate that over to a poor soul who "˜hears these words´ and wonders, am I sincerely looking or deceived too? There is a chasm between the hypocrite who really is not looking to Christ and the one who is. Do not take sincerity and make it one more new work that will keep you from the cross, you cannot perfect sincerity in order to purchase the gift of God. Like the man who came to Christ, "œI do believe, help Thou my unbelief." The hypocrite worries not about his sincerity.

And if you are not already "œsincerely" looking (trusting) at the cross then what vanity it is to then turn and look (trust) in works and fruit. Are you a whole sinner in need of a whole Saviour, even to save you from your unbelief, then there is Christ, look, look, look, trust, trust and trust it IS a free unconditional gift! It is like staring at a clear blue sky and you say to me, "œhow do I know I´m staring sincerely at a clear blue sky?"



> "¦Loss of assurance also"¦etc



Paul never preached a loss of assurance is good, never. He redirected, every single time back to the Gospel. When doubts came in - back to the Gospel. This view you are espousing is the very view of Rome and the very thing Rome brought up against every single Reformer. It is the exact same view of John Wesley´s yeast. Fear of punishment and hope of reward as motivation. Yet, the Apostles said the GRACE of God has appeared that we would not sin, you have died to sin (in other words in view of your justification). When we examine ourselves and sin we go straight to the cross, confess our sins and receive forgiveness, this is EXACTLY what 1 John explains. This is not presumption as Rome countered, this IS sure faith, the surety that when we sin we have an Advocate with the Father.

Loss of assurance, even though it happens, is unbelief. For when we sin and become doubting and despairing in this way, we are not really despairing over the greatness or repetitiveness of our sins. No we are despairing over our lack of goodness and self-righteousness that"˜s why we despair such and loose assurance. That´s why we despair when we sin and loose assurance. Real repentance has sorrow and despair for sin and immediate faith in the same Jesus. This is why Paul in Romans 7 could lament His sin yet rejoice fully in Christ.

Ldh


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Michael,
> 
> Respectfully, ....
> 
> "The better legalist a man is the more he may rest assured of his own damnation and portion with the Pharisees. It is hideous to see a rebellious sinner to become jealous for good works and become greatly concerned for public morality. Does it not make laughter in hell to see licentious men censuring the pure Gospel of the Lord Jesus and finding fault with free forgiveness because it might make men less mindful of purity. It makes me sick to see the hypocrisy of these legalist"
> 
> -Charles Haddan Spurgeon
> 
> Amen,
> 
> LDH



Thanks for the respect, but snappish it is not (but you may read it as you please). I am only stating and continue to maintain that you are confusing the two, sanctification and justification, and still mixing apples with oranges. Your small tome has not proven your case in either direction, but only confirmed to me that you are mixing the two. Now, I would say you have at least clarified your position as to the message of James, which I would be more than willing to agree with you on. The message of James is about faith.

The fact is that "œThere are degrees in our sanctification," which I am saying assurance comes under, but "œIn our justification there are none," which is what you are actually speaking of when you speak of assurance. :bigsmile:


----------



## Michael Butterfield

Never, never let us curtail the freeness of the glorious gospel or clip its fair proportions. Never let us make the gate more straight and the way more narrow than pride and the love of sin have made it already. The Lord Jesus is very pitiful and of tender mercy. He does not regard the quantity of faith, but the quality: He does not measure its degree, but its truth. He will not break any bruised reed, nor quench any smoking flax. He will never let it be said that any perished at the foot of the cross. "œHim that cometh to Me," He says, "œI will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37).

J. C. Ryle, Holiness


----------



## Larry Hughes

Michael,

With your last quote I would agree whole heartedly but I'm not confusing Justification and Sanctification. If I may in short, to divorce them IS to cause their confusion. It is absolutely absurd to assume one and not the other and preach one as if the other does not exist...that's what happens when so called "works" are preached as emphasis, Christ is lost all together. 

I'll say it again the proof is in the pudding when the "good works" emphasis "preachers" preach this to the sacrifice of Christ and His cross all is lost. Or as Luther said damned are all sermons that preach not Christ. Or as Spurgeon said where ever I find myself in my sermon I better cut cross country quickly and get to the cross. Or as the Apostle Paul said I am cursed if I do not preach Christ and Him crucified.

The best example is that insideous debate between the two dispensational camps over "Lordship salvation", which is their whole problem to start with - dispensationalism. There has never been a bigger waste of pen in ink. Neither one preached the Gospel and both put a price on the gift of God from receivers perspective. The only difference in the two was the accursed price to be paid by the "buyer". One sold a gospel, which is no gospel at all, at yard sell prices while the other sold a gospel, which is no gospel at all, at Wall Street prices. What an insult to Christ for selling His gift for such tawdry prices.

Have you ever wondered why the church today is so blasÃ©, because rare indeed is the Gospel proclaimer. Christ as Christ is almost NEVER heard of anymore both from liberal and conservative theologies (Read: Both as non-biblical/non-reformational theologies). When I first converted a few years back the Gospel was blazing before my eyes. And I really had love, peace, joy and etc... growing in me. But it didn't take long for that to begin to be dulled as the Christ obscurers piled one wet blanket on top of another. I almost lost Christ altogether. Providentially today, a true Gospel church and preacher and elders have come my way. And you know what, the church is full of joy, full of serving the community, full of doing missions and evangelism, full of the seriousness of raising their covenant children, full of prayer and love. Why? Because sanctification and works are preached and emphasized, no not at all. Because the Gospel is preached and nobody considers works or "their works", they just do them and when they fail they are assured of their salvation because they know in Whom they have believed because He is proclaimed afresh EVERY Sunday - and the real and true good works are arising naturally since as Paul said, "the Gospel is the power..." And I don't mean just "busy body" churchiness either that "seem" to be so active but are not.

In any case I suppose I've exhausted this for now. I yield to you, if you will, the last word and if not then that is fine as well...there is no hard feelings either way, please don't take it that way, and I don't think you do. It's just so hard to tell over typed print.

Your Brother In Christ Alone,

Ldh


----------



## Michael Butterfield

Larry,

Last things first, no I do not take any thing you have said in a hard way. I do not take myself that seriously and as I have said before, this is the web after all. I am completely sympathetic about the fact that ones voice is difficult to discern over typed print, especially if you have never actually talked to the person. So, one must always be careful under such circumstances to avoid imputing more than a charitable voice in what has been posted.

As for your post, I do not think we are that far apart in some of the details, but we are quite distant on others. It is, as you rightly state, a mistake to divorce justification and sanctification. Nevertheless, it is also an equal mistake to tie them too closely together in the sense of making them virtually synonymous. I would be the last one to argue against your concerns about the "œworks" preachers, though I am not entirely certain who those preachers might be. With all due respect, your reference to the Lordship theology debates seem to be, in my opinion, misguided and reveal a lack an understanding of the serious issues debated there, but that is for another post. I understand, though, that you are using it as an example of what you are addressing. I simply do not believe it fits the discussion.

If I may say so, I think your argument is too simplistic. It is not a question of divorcing them as you put it, but it is one of making clear distinctions about the two. They are clearly treated in just such a fashion from a biblical perspective and a confessional one. To put it simply, they are distinguishable elements of the Christian life. I mean, what are you going to do with Romans 7? What of Titus 2:11-14? or Ephesians 2:8-10? Or texts like, Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5 or especially Hebrews 12:14?

I appreciate too what you are saying about your present fellowship and your experience there. I rejoice with you and the evident work of God´s grace in the hearts of the people there, but I would say that it is not one that necessarily has to be paradigmatic of every other church. However, I am not entirely certain what you mean by the fact that the Gospel is preached there every Sunday, because I do not know the last time I was in a Church where the gospel was not preached every Sunday. So, just exactly what do you mean by such a statement. If you preach on say the Seventh commandment what is meant by the gospel in that context? If you exhort people to flee to Christ for he alone is the keeper of the commandment is that the gospel? Just what in your mind constitutes preaching Christ and the gospel is a question that seems fundamental to your position.

I have to admit that I think in our own day the gospel has been narrowed down to something that fails to grasp the breadth of the word of God or as it is commonly called the whole council. The gospel is as broad as all the scriptures. So, without wanting to continue to add my own superfilous words, let me also end this, because now it is getting into a different subject. So, I close with a J. C. Ryle quotation that I will place on a separate posting.

Unworthy of the least of His mercies


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> An inquirer into religion would find more understanding if he made these simple distinctions between faith and assurance. It is all too easy to confuse the two. Faith, let us remember, is the root, and assurance is the flower. Doubtless you can never have the flower without the root; but it is no less certain you may have the root and not the flower.
> 
> Faith is that poor trembling woman who came behind Jesus in the press and touched the hem of His garment (Mark 5:25). Assurance is Stephen standing calmly in the midst of his murderers and saying, "œI see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56).
> 
> Faith is the penitent thief, crying, "œLord, remember me" (Luke 23:42). Assurance is Job, sitting in the dust, covered with sores, and saying, "œI know that my Redeemer liveth" (Job 19:25). "œThough He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15).
> 
> Faith is Peter´s drowning cry, as he began to sink: "œLord, save me!" (Matt. 14:30.) Assurance is that same Peter declaring before the council in after times, "œThis is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:11, 12).
> 
> Faith is the anxious, trembling voice: "œLord, I believe: help Thou mine unbelief" (Mark 9:24). Assurance is the confident challenge: "œWho shall lay anything to the charge of God´s elect? Who is he that condemneth?" (Rom. 8:33, 34). Faith is Saul praying in the house of Judas at Damascus, sorrowful, blind and alone (Acts 9:11). Assurance is Paul, the aged prisoner, looking calmly into the grave, and saying, "œI know whom I have believed. There is a crown laid up for me" (2 Tim. 1:12; 4:8).
> 
> Faith is life. How great the blessing! Who can describe or realize the gulf between life and death? "œA living dog is better than a dead lion" (Eccl. 9:4). And yet life may be weak, sickly, unhealthy, painful, trying, anxious, weary, burdensome, joyless, smileless to the very end. Assurance is more than life. It is health, strength, power, vigor, activity, energy, manliness, beauty.
> It is not a question of "œsaved or not saved" that lies before us, but of "œprivilege or no privilege." It is not a question of peace or no peace, but of great peace or little peace. It is not a question between the wanderers of this world and the school of Christ: it is one that belongs only to the school: it is between the first form and the last.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Michael,

Sorry for being brief but I'm in a rush this morning. The Gospel is narrowly the Good News, what Jesus did, justification by faith alone in Christ alone, my sin imputed to Him and He dying for me, His righteousness to me imputed...etc...

That's the Gospel. I've been to many churches that confuse the Gospel and the Law and end up with neither.

L


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> This is why "œpreaching good works" and not the Gospel leads to sin. If you´ve got to be told to do a good work from the command of God for me, and for your own sanctity or some other gain of reward or fear of punishment, don´t bother, I don´t want your hypocrisy"¦the old man must die! To unbeliever "œLove thy neighbor" is a command that must be obeyed, but to the believer "œLove thy neighbor" is a promise and grows to be a joy, not thing "œI must do". Married men can know what I mean here easier. If your wife has to tell you, "œBuy me some roses to show your love" and you do, we all know how empty and devoid of love that is. I don´t have to be commanded to love my wife, I just love her. This is like the difference of living under the Law and doing the motions of the Law for fear of punishment/hope of reward, and being dead to the Law and living under faith.



Larry, given your understanding here that we are not to do anything from a motive of fear of judgment (which I agree with), how do you understand the chastizing or discipline of God? Scripture clearly teaches that He chastizes those He loves. What is the role of fear there? How are you to recognize His chastizement? How are you to recognize _why_ you are being chastized? 

How do you understand Calvin's 3rd use of the law?


----------



## Peter

Joel Beeke on Calvin and assurance:

"Nevertheless, Calvin is actuely aware that a person may think that the Father has entrusted him to Christ when such is not the case...Many scholars minimize Calvin's emphasis on the need for a subjective, experiential realization of faith and election by refering to Calvin's practice of approaching his congregation as saved hearers...Because the reprobate often feel something much like the faith of the elect self examination is essential." p44, 45 PRS

John Calvin quoted from Beeke : "Let us learn to examine ourselves and to search whether those interior marks which God distinguishes his children from strangers belong to us viz. the living root of faith and piety"


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Larry, given your understanding here that we are not to do anything from a motive of fear of judgment (which I agree with), how do you understand the chastizing or discipline of God? Scripture clearly teaches that He chastizes those He loves. What is the role of fear there? How are you to recognize His chastizement? How are you to recognize why you are being chastized?
> 
> And note that in this quote you've ripped from Calvin that Calvin clearly enters first into it the root of living faith.
> 
> How do you understand Calvin's 3rd use of the law?



Patrick,

That's easy to answer, Fatherly, that's why I can instantly return to Him and "draw near with confidence to the thrown of grace". That is what suffering does, it makes one repent and immediately flee back to the cross, not drum up some new Romish work of penentance before I can go there. It is FOR faith not against faith. It does not drive me to "works" now but Christ again. 

This problem is immediately apparent when the Christian realizes that he/she is TRULY simultaneously sinner and saint and in this life never leaves that status. To put it another way if the Christian really thinks he's pulling it off he immediately settles into arrogance and pride over others and again at length piety over God. The status of remaining a true sinner (meaning both by immorality and morality) in this life keeps us humble and clinging to Christ.

That is why the second use of the Law is strongest, it always points out what we are NEVER doing and thus we flee back to Christ and grace. Graciously forgiven we turn away from self and then can begin to really love. One commanded to love is not loving at all. Those poor in spirit do really work inwardly though the outward measure may be small , but those not poor in spirit may work outwardly more but inwardly they greatly self decieved. Only the humility of the cross can set forth the former for the cross says, "By virtue of Christ alone dying for you and being all your righteousness thought, word and deed, past, present and future proves categorically that all your working is nothing." This turns a man from self by means of faith which is self emptying by definition and onto the objective righteousness of Christ. Thus, turned a man can then begin to alturistically serve his neighbor for the first time, though imperfectly even still because persuing it perfectly would be not the cross but again a new work going on. That is why faith never measures a work or even recognizes this or that is a good work. Once you measure the work you are relying upon it. That is to understand true total depravity and true grace.



Peter,

I cannot help your struggle I suppose, I've pointed you to Christ. If you wonder about the sincerity of your faith so much perhaps have you ever considered a polygraph and at least get an objective measure of your sincerity? Actually in criminal work they've developed an MRI scan that detects lying 100% of the time without failure. (I mean that of course tongue in cheek). 

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. To miss that is to completely miss Calvin altogether. Calvin and Luther were in agreement on this issue, so your pitting a reality that simply never was. The type of examination you are proposing is the same monkery the Reformation warred against. Because this excessive self examination ends up into total sin and war with the Law. One becomes a self absorbed monster only concerned with self and never serving neighbor. OR when they do it is again for selfish hypocrisy.

Do you not know Whom you've trusted in?

Ldh

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Larry Hughes

To slip "exhortation" or a "to do" into the inherent definition of the Good News is to destroy it entirely. As a matter of fact it formulates an un-resolvable contradiction. For such yeast of the Pharisees added to the Gospel makes it an entirely different message. It says on one hand "grace is unconditionally free...but here is the contradictory fine print...you must do something". This is the confounding doctrine of Rome, the Judaizers, Dispensationalist, modern "evangelicals", men like Wesley and Finney, legalist, and antinomians alike. As soon as you add to the pure Gospel something else you've destroyed it for the hearer. Thus, one ends up preaching another Christ or more sharply anti-Christ. Any contamination of purity is by definition impurity and that is axiomatic. The Gospel IS alone what Christ did and nothing of me or you pre or post conversion, ever in time and space. That is the entire point of every Sola of the Reformation and Rome understood the implication and that is why Rome sought and still does to have them removed.

Too many people in theory and idle chatter say, "Oh yea, the Gospel, that's what I'm all about, yep that's it...that's the stuff...evangelism blah blah blah". But it is so many vane and empty words for that is all they do. All they do is "talk about the term and syllable and notion of Gospel" but they never get around to saying "the Gospel", or when they say something it is not the Gospel but another gospel which is no gospel at all. No Christian church would openly say, "We don't preach the Gospel." But in reality they don't they just emptily use the term. 

It is much like this: At 10 pm I turn on my TV and in advertisement after advertisement local news affiliates break in and announce, "NEWS coming at 11 O'clock." Channel after channel; "Channel 3 the best news source", "Channel 11 the first in news", "For real news turn to 32", "58 is the first in news information", etc... So the anticipation is built up...I'm going to HEAR some NEWS. 11 o'clock arrives and one turns to channel 3 the "broadcasters" appear and start to talk over the air waves to the listening audience which includes yourself, "Have you done this or that? You must!" "When are you going to do this or that? If you want to make the news you must!" "The news is you say you have failed and are too weak, well here at 3 we exhort you to do this or that and make up for your failure!" "You need to try harder!" "Are you sure you are an American, what have you done to prove that you are an American? Where is your American fruit?". 

Channel after channel you turn to this kind of speech is what you hear and each of them sign off with, "Now that's the news, good night." But what NEWS did they broadcast? They did not but they called it "news". It sounds absolutely ridiculous doesn't it? Yet, in this small parable the channels are like many churches today, like Rome, like fundamentalist, like modern evangelicals, like far too many so called protestants, like piestist, like legalist, like antinomians. They say "we give the Good News (Gospel)" but they never really do - for they always are forever appealing to the will of man and fallen religion's will worship. Many of these claim they affirm "the sinfulness of men" but their appeals reveal otherwise. 

They talk about the news, its great anticipation and how they best do it. But like a cacophonous atonal squall they NEVER give that beautiful harmonious song from heaven, they never say, "Grace and peace unto you from God on High, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ I bring you Glad Tidings for Christ alone has suffered and Christ alone has risen. These are who do not do this are mere hearers of the word only and not doers of the word.

Ldh


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> 
> 
> Larry, given your understanding here that we are not to do anything from a motive of fear of judgment (which I agree with), how do you understand the chastizing or discipline of God? Scripture clearly teaches that He chastizes those He loves. What is the role of fear there? How are you to recognize His chastizement? How are you to recognize why you are being chastized?
> 
> And note that in this quote you've ripped from Calvin that Calvin clearly enters first into it the root of living faith.
> 
> How do you understand Calvin's 3rd use of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> That's easy to answer, Fatherly, that's why I can instantly return to Him and "draw near with confidence to the thrown of grace". That is what suffering does, it makes one repent and immediately flee back to the cross, not drum up some new Romish work of penentance before I can go there. It is FOR faith not against faith. It does not drive me to "works" now but Christ again.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are arguing agianst here, but if it's the Puritans or Presbyterians, then you have truly misunderstood them. The purpose of self-examination for the Puritans was to cause people to go to Christ. This of course requires knowing why they need to go to Christ regarding their sanctification, not just for sin in general, but for deliverance from specific sins. And the mortification of sin is an active process. We need to know if we are growing in grace. This does not mean we fall into morbid introspection, nor into works righteousness. The standard of righteousness is the law. 



> This problem is immediately apparent when the Christian realizes that he/she is TRULY simultaneously sinner and saint and in this life never leaves that status. To put it another way if the Christian really thinks he's pulling it off he immediately settles into arrogance and pride over others and again at length piety over God. The status of remaining a true sinner (meaning both by immorality and morality) in this life keeps us humble and clinging to Christ.


Though a sinner may never leave that status in this life, the Christian is called to mortify the flesh. Growth and maturity are expected of God's children. The growth is measurable. You are correct that comparing ourselves to others leads to pride, but that is not what anyone here, nor the Puritans were advocating. 



> That is why the second use of the Law is strongest, it always points out what we are NEVER doing and thus we flee back to Christ and grace. Graciously forgiven we turn away from self and then can begin to really love. One commanded to love is not loving at all. Those poor in spirit do really work inwardly though the outward measure may be small , but those not poor in spirit may work outwardly more but inwardly they greatly self decieved. Only the humility of the cross can set forth the former for the cross says, "By virtue of Christ alone dying for you and being all your righteousness thought, word and deed, past, present and future proves categorically that all your working is nothing." This turns a man from self by means of faith which is self emptying by definition and onto the objective righteousness of Christ. Thus, turned a man can then begin to alturistically serve his neighbor for the first time, though imperfectly even still because persuing it perfectly would be not the cross but again a new work going on. That is why faith never measures a work or even recognizes this or that is a good work. Once you measure the work you are relying upon it. That is to understand true total depravity and true grace.


These last few lines are what concern me regarding your position thus far. It's obvious you care much about this issue, and spent much time reflecting upon it. But I think you are missing what the Puritans were trying to say, which was no different than Calvin in principle, though they did use some different terminology. Faith does measure a work. Faith produces good works. Good works are defined by the law. Faith, for the Christian, operates within the parameters of the law. Obedience to the law is what pleases our Father. This is measurable. Progress is measurable. Certainly we all fall short, but we all should be able to know if we are growing or not. This is not works righteousness. It's a loving fear and obedience to our Father. He accepts our imperfect works on behalf of Christ, but that is not a license to keep doing imperfect works. We are to grow in knowledge and understanding, and how to better obey our Father in all areas of life. To examine our works is not to rely upon them. It is the means God grants us to inform us where we need to keep mortifying the flesh. This is war, a war we are promised to win, but a war all the same. That requires active participation in the subduing of our sin. This is impossible to do without faith in Christ, but it is also impossible have faith in Christ without a desire to mortify the flesh. This drives us to Him for grace to do this work. 

And for the Puritans you must understand that self-examination was never the primary means to gaining assurance. It is always held secondary to faith in Christ. Only Christ Himself grants assurance. The Puritans agreed with Calvin, that there was an assurance in the nature of faith which is never lost (otherwise he would never pray), but also believed in the "full assurance" or a more subjective and conscious assurance which develops and grows as the Christian grows in grace. Though self-examination could help in showing one that he is improving in sanctification (or if he was just a hypocrite), and thus reinforce assurance, this self-examination was never a resting place, for it also reveals that one is not fully sanctified yet, and thus drives him to Christ. 

If you haven't read it yet, I would recommend J.C. Ryle's, Holiness. It is a great work straight from the Puritan tradition. I think you will find that the Puritans were not as bad as you think.


----------



## turmeric

At risk of sounding like a quietist (which I pray I am not!) let me say that we can see our progress, but it isn't something we can look at pridefully and say "Look what I did!", e.g. if I look to my love for God to evaluate whether I am in the faith I will very quickly feel hopeless, because this is something I struggle with. However, I have seen an increase in my love for God, but this is hardly a work of mine, I can't make myself love God. I can go through the motions, but I can't make myself love God, only God can do that. So if my love for Him has increased, this is something He has done. I am longing for Him to increase it.


----------



## Myshkin

Larry and Michael-

Thanks for your responses. I have been following intently and the discussion has fleshed some things out in my mind.

For those who disagree with Larry's position, have you read "Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation", edited by Mike Horton?

I agree with you Larry. Self-examination is something we ought to do, the law is our standard of righteousness and our guide as christians, "good works" are a necessary fruit of being justified, and we ought to see these evidences in our lives if we claim to be christians, but none of these things can be a basis for assurance. In fact, the more we are assured of our salvation (re: justification and sanctification) by the gospel/Christ rather than by fruit or works, the more we "naturally" respond with a desire and attempt to obey the law; and this out of gratitude not out of a desire to have assurance. It seems that those who disagree with you, are concerned that you are throwing out sanctification and the law. It seems to me though that you are upholding them. Have I stated your position correctly?

I am beginning to see the two sides talking past eachother as the issue really is not a difference over theological content, but rather over a disagreement of emphasis.

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.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _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.


----------



## Larry Hughes

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


----------



## Puritan Sailor

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.


----------



## Peter

> 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.


----------



## Larry Hughes

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


----------



## Michael Butterfield

"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.


----------



## Robin

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


----------



## Michael Butterfield

John Saltmarsh and Tobias Crisp.


----------



## Myshkin

> _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]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## turmeric

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


----------



## Myshkin

> _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 piet_ism_ 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]


----------



## Larry Hughes

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.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _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 piet_ism_ 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
Click to expand...

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]


----------



## cupotea

> _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.


----------



## turmeric

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.  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...


----------



## Robin

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. 

r.


----------



## Robin

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.



r.


----------



## Myshkin

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


----------



## Larry Hughes

> 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


----------



## Larry Hughes

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


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _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.


----------



## Robin

> _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!! 

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.



r.


----------



## Robin

> _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.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> You are probably right. I apologize.



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




> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> http://www.geocities.com/reformedchristian/BeekeAssurance.htm
> 
> If this is your understanding, then we are in full agreement


----------



## Larry Hughes

> 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


----------

