# The Puritans, Assurance, and Critiques From the Gospel Coalition



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2012)

It seems to be the thing to do right now in the Young, Restless, and Reformed world to criticize the Puritans. There has been a good discussion coming out of the most recent conversation started by Trevin Wax and Tullian Tchividjian at the Gospel Coalition. Take the time to read Mark Jones' responses to Trevin Wax in the comments after the article by Wax. Carl Trueman and Jeremy Walker from Reformation 21 have responded as well. 

Beware the Puritan Paralysis – Trevin Wax

The Puritans Were Not Perfect – Tullian Tchividjian

Are you too introspective? - Reformation21 Blog

Evangelicalism Goes to Widecombe Fair - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## Wayne (Nov 24, 2012)

Isn't it amazing how quickly a major work like Beeke's _The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and his Successors_ is forgotten?


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 24, 2012)

> Yet is it really the case that uncritical appropriation of the Puritans is the, or even a, pressing problem for the church today? Is legalistic introspection really crippling the church? Are there no other, more threatening problems? Not weakness on Trinitarianism? Not books advocating sodomy in marriage? Not the new antinomianism? Not even new Calvinists who are happy to wear sneakers and buy computers made by slave labour in the Majority World?


Very true.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Isn't it amazing how quickly a major work like Beeke's _The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and his Successors_ is forgotten?



I am trying to be respectful to the folks at the Gospel Coalition, but I would be surprised if Trevin Wax, who is "Managing Editor of the Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources", has heard of that work, let alone read it. It is just my hunch, and I would love to be proven wrong, but these kind of critiques seem to born out of ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, of what the Puritans actually wrote. They seem to be relying on secondary sources and hearsay for their information.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2012)

Only tangentially related to the OP...

On the giving of assurance... 

In my ministry as an army chaplain, most are presumptuous false-professors... and so I direct those folks to the Puritans and their emphasis on the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.
However, I've now run into more than a few good decent Christian folk - especially in Reformed churches... and even every now and then here on the PB - for whom the introspective and inherently subjective process of looking for the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit - has led them to be fearful and almost despairing. 

I think the pastoral decision of what "avenue" to take in the process of giving - or challenging! - someone's assurance is very delicate and we should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 24, 2012)

SolaScriptura said:


> I think the pastoral decision of what "avenue" to take in the process of giving - or challenging! - someone's assurance is very delicate and we should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.



Very good point, and possibly a primer for another thread.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 24, 2012)

"Beware the paralysis that comes from this type of introspection. If our goal is to discover, analyze, and root out every aspect of sinfulness in our hearts, then we will never come to the end of the task."

I don't know why paralysis is mentioned here. If we balance out the task of self-examination with the joy of being in Christ, it is actually a motivation to press forward in a task that we know is ours to do until life, as we now know it, ends.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 24, 2012)

Everyone needs a whipping boy and the puritans are a good one because they are all dead and cannot defend themselves. So they are great for nailing all our boogie men to. I thought Dr Clark's post on this issue was very good Deconstructing Puritanism As someone who is introspective I feel like I am go in between being hopelessly self effacing and blindly unconscientious of my actions. So I have to agree with Rev Ben that it takes a different approach for different situations.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2012)

> "Beware the paralysis that comes from this type of introspection. If our goal is to discover, analyze, and root out every aspect of sinfulness in our hearts, then we will never come to the end of the task."



Simplistic generalisations about "The Puritans", and the above quote could give the impression that "The Puritans" advocated that this task was to be done in the strength of man, while they rather advocated looking to Christ for justification and for grace in the task of sanctification.

Also, preachers and other Christians can have great struggles with assurance and at the same time achieve great things for the Lord, and so not be "paralysed" in any sense in their zeal or action for Christ's cause and kingdom e.g. John Newton and C.H. Spurgeon.

So there's a lot (or a little) superficial thought gone into this post.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 24, 2012)

> In a blog post entitled Beware the Puritan Paralysis, Trevin Wax boldly goes where very few in the Young, Restless, and Reformed crowd are willing to go: pointing out one of the weaknesses of the Puritans. While there are many things about who the Puritans were and what they said that are of great benefit to the modern church, they were not infallible. And too many of us have treated them as if they were. Of course, we would never say that the Puritans were perfect, but all too often even our gentle critiques of them come with qualifications that subtly shrink the critique.



Would I be wrong to say that there is more fear about putting them on a pedestal than there is about taking them seriously as God-sent pastors who worshipped the God who still lives today? It is possible to "put them on a pedestal," but I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are morbidly introspective. Most are knee-jerk sensitive to confrontation about sin. And if not that, they can be ice cold to serious warnings about their condition.

Perhaps they most often held that assessment about the people they preached to, and so preached and wrote as they did?

And even then, some of the most comforting works for a Christian come from them. I cherished Owen on Psalm 130 and Baxter on "Overmuch Sorrow." Who else has been so good at nurturing a sick soul back to health?


----------



## Rufus (Nov 24, 2012)

We do have to be careful to view the Puritans as being perfect, after all the Puritans were a wide group of men and disagreed with each other (for instance Baxter was criticized by Owen on the issue of justification).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2012)

As Mr. Trueman and others have pointed out, it is not as if a monolithic approach to assurance may be ascertained by appealing to "...the Puritans." That said, I would hope that those who subscribe to the Westminster Standards and other Reformed documents would be more careful to paint with wide brushes as they would paint over what they say about sanctification and its relation to justification and how one may not only attain to an assurance of salvation but are enjoined, Biblically, so to do. I believer Mr. Wax is broad enough in his guarded comments so as not to write that all introspection is improper but simply a "morbid introspection." It would be helpful to know if he has any specific Puritans in mind but one would hope that neither he nor Mr. Tchividjian would find the following morbidly introspective.



> Q. 75. What is sanctification?
> A. Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit314 applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them,315 renewed in their whole man after the image of God;316 having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts,317 and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened,318 as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.319
> 
> Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?
> ...


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 24, 2012)

Of pertinance to this discussion: The Reformation vs. the Puritans on Faith and Assurance.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> It would be helpful to know if he has any specific Puritans in mind but one would hope that neither he nor Mr. Tchividjian would find the following morbidly introspective.



Without detracting from what I said above in post #5... I think we could, in general, do with more of this so-called "morbid introspection."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2012)

FenderPriest said:


> Of pertinance to this discussion: The Reformation vs. the Puritans on Faith and Assurance.



Who is the author of this paper?


----------



## JOwen (Nov 25, 2012)

Someone named N.I. Sasser from my investigation of the email "nisasser at yahoo dot com" from footnote 1. Perhaps someone on this board can tell us who this is?



Semper Fidelis said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Of pertinance to this discussion: The Reformation vs. the Puritans on Faith and Assurance.
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 25, 2012)

Rufus said:


> We do have to be careful to view the Puritans as being perfect, after all the Puritans were a wide group of men and disagreed with each other (for instance Baxter was criticized by Owen on the issue of justification).



No one thinks the Puritans were perfect.


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 25, 2012)

JOwen said:


> Someone named N.I. Sasser from my investigation of the email "nisasser at yahoo dot com" from footnote 1. Perhaps someone on this board can tell us who this is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nathan Sasser, who is Academic Assistant to the Dean, Pastors College of Sovereign Grace Ministries. He has bachelor's degrees in English and in Philosophy from North Carolina State University, has an M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and is a PhD student in philosophy at the University of South Carolina.


----------



## thbslawson (Nov 25, 2012)

The Puritans weren't perfect and neither are Trevin Wax and Tullian Tchividjian.


----------



## Zach (Nov 25, 2012)

Every time I read Dr. Trueman I grow more appreciative of his frank analysis of the state of Evangelicalism:



> Finally, on a personal note (and this is not a shot at Trevin Wax but rather at an apparent current trend): perhaps I live in a very different church world to the rest of American Calvinistic evangelicalism -- that would not surprise me at all -- but in the last few months we have had the Puritans whacked for slavery (and I still cannot name a single Westminster Divine who owned a slave - though I can name a few who, in 1662, lost everything through their stand for the truth) and now for introspection. Yet is it really the case that uncritical appropriation of the Puritans is the, or even a, pressing problem for the church today? Is legalistic introspection really crippling the church? Are there no other, more threatening problems? Not weakness on Trinitarianism? Not books advocating sodomy in marriage? Not the new antinomianism? Not even new Calvinists who are happy to wear sneakers and buy computers made by slave labour in the Majority World? *The last twelve months seem to have thrown up a few more likely candidates for pressing ecclesiastical problems than John Owen, John Bunyan, and Uncle Tom Goodwin and all.*


----------



## Rufus (Nov 25, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > We do have to be careful to view the Puritans as being perfect, after all the Puritans were a wide group of men and disagreed with each other (for instance Baxter was criticized by Owen on the issue of justification).
> ...



Yea, but sometimes the label Puritan stops a person from discerning the differences among them.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 25, 2012)

Rufus said:


> Yea, but sometimes the label Puritan stops a person from discerning the differences among them


They are also sometimes held out as a golden age. Puritans are almost like classic rock at this point in certain circles. We forget the less than stellar ones and look back on the greats and declare that it was just an age of better music (or in this case theology) and forget that we have many great contemporaries who still while appreciating the past are not trying to recreate it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2012)

FenderPriest said:


> Of pertinance to this discussion: The Reformation vs. the Puritans on Faith and Assurance.



Having read the article, I think Sasser misses the mark. What he sees as a departure from Calvin and the early Reformers in the Puritans is actually a development begun, in large measure, by Perkins. Sasser treats assurance as an abstraction and, although he points to the means of the Word, does not seem to understand how even Calvin would have acknowledged that the Covenant and Covenant signs and the historical outworking of God's grace in a believer's life would be means to assure the individual.

I recommend you grab a copy of _A Puritan Theology_ by Joel Beeke and Mark Jones. In it there is a good read on how Perkins did not radically depart from the Reformation (as Sasser impugns) but used the very ground of Union with Christ as the springboard with which to assure the believer. Sasser erroneously shows divergence because he does not understand that the assurance of salvation is seen to be of the essence of faith in one regard but not in another. That latter is a more worked out development of Calvin's own ideas about how a believer is assailed. Perkins utilizes the fruits of salvation not in the manner that Sasser supposes (at times using Calvin who is railing against Romanist conceptions of works being the evidence of salvation). In Perkins' thought, because the believer is united to Christ, he does not have access to eternity but only access to history (his own). Because he knows that a man who has been given faith is united to Christ that the same man is vitally united to Christ in the work of sanctification. Thus, when he looks for fruit in his own life, it is not to prove to himself that, because he has fruit that his fruit becomes a ground of assurance, rather, because he knows that Union with Christ produces fruit that if he possesses a hatred for sin (in any measure) and a love for the things of Christ (in any measure) that he can reason backwards to the unshakeable plan of election and that he is part of that golden chain of redemption. His assurance is not an introspection based on how well he is performing but on the realities of Union with Christ. A similar syllogism is possible with baptism as a means of grace as it is connected to the historical promise of God.

Here is a summary of Perkin's thought from Beeke and Jones:



> Perkins’s doctrine of assurance of faith emphasized the covenant, secondary grounds of assurance, active pursuit of assurance, subjective experience, and degrees of faith more than the Reformers did.66 Perkins also stressed the role of conscience in relationship to covenantal obedience, particularly in his practical syllogism.67 In his theology, growth in grace as a sign of assurance was inseparable from a close examination of the conscience.
> Perkins did not abandon the Reformers’ teaching on faith and assurance, however. Rather, his emphases rose out of pastoral concerns. Though at times Perkins emphasized salvation more than the primacy of God and His grace, he did not shift the ground of assurance from Christ, nor did he abandon sola gratia. He differed from Calvin and the Reformers in emphasis, but not in substance.
> Perkins was not a voluntarist in matters of salvation.68 He asserted that the conditions of the covenant must be fulfilled, but he also said that God enables the believer to fulfill them. “He that turns to God must first of all be turned of God, and after that we are turned, then we repent,” he wrote.69 Perkins maintained that the object of saving faith is Jesus Christ, and the primary ground of assurance rests in the christological promises of a triune God as they are apprehended by faith.



In summary, I think that Sasser's paper could stand to be reviewed by those who have a rich apprehension of Reformed development and the distinctions that the Puritans make not to lay different ground than those who preceded them (as Sasser maintains) but developed the notion of assurance upon the same basic ground.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, but sometimes the label Puritan stops a person from discerning the differences among them
> ...



Your statement seems to assume that theology is an endeavor by which we are constantly expecting to hear something new rather than contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2012)

A slightly different approach -- it shows the insecurity of a relationship when doubts and failures cannot be examined and amended in an open manner. An exterior of positivity and pleasantness is always needed to cover the insecurity, and anything which is negative or awkward threatens to reveal the insecurity lying beneath the surface. When we see an increase in the number of people who are averse to introspection in the Christian life, it should be seen as another symptom of the superficiality and immaturity which plagues Christianity, not just today, but in all ages of its witness. The Corinthians manifested it against the apostle Paul. There is nothing new in it.

Puritan detractors are nothing new either. They were a thorn in the flesh while the Puritans ministered, and one expects they will continue to operate wherever Puritanism makes its influence felt.

It is silly to speak of the Puritans having their faults, as if that in itself justifies criticism in a particular area of their theology or practice. Their critics have their faults too. This does nothing to illuminate us as to where the fault lies in particular. One requires some interaction with their own writings before criticism can even be considered.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 25, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> The Puritans weren't perfect and neither are Trevin Wax and Tullian Tchividjian.



And neither was Abraham or Jacob or Joseph or Moses or David or anyone else. There, we have solved the problem, all men are sinners. Can we move on now?


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 25, 2012)

You guys and your precious Puritans... sheesh... 

By the way, in Mr. Wax's defense, he seeks to clarify his meaning and intention in the comments below his article. I still I'm not a fan of the article title, but at least his intentions are made a little more balanced.


----------



## Randy in Tulsa (Nov 25, 2012)

Tullian Tchividjian pushed back against Kevin DeYoung (also a Gospel Coalition member) for his emphasis on "making every effort" to be holy in our Christian walk. Of course Tullian always was careful to nicely refer to DeYoung as "my good friend, Kevin..." He does the same thing with the Puritans. They are all his good friends too, but sadly they just didn't get the truth that Tullian gets, which is that justification justifies everything we ever do. In Tullian's paradigm, why should anyone engage in self-examination for the purpose of mortifying sin? So old school.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 25, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Your statement seems to assume that theology is an endeavor by which we are constantly expecting to hear something new rather than contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints.


I think I was more in love with the analogy then making it work  I am sorry I was just trying to be clever but it seems to have back fired. 
I will try to explain my point more. The puritans wrote to a particular demographic in a different context then most of live in. So sometimes their concerns and emphasis are different then ours. For example while the puritans were dealing with the threats of Erastianism and Popery, our cultural enemies for a lack of a better term are secularism and charismatism. So we should not expect to here a new message (in content) but at the same time the delivery or the catering (I understand that neither word is that great) will be different. So my intended point was that all the good theologians and pastors did not die out and we should not expect this generations good pastors and theologians to emulate the puritans in single every way as if they as a group are the archetypical Christians. I fully believe that we should not expect novelty in theology but we can also appreciate a constant desire to address the current culture and to call to repentance the church in this age for this ages sins. I hope I am making sense.


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 25, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Of pertinance to this discussion: The Reformation vs. the Puritans on Faith and Assurance.
> ...





armourbearer said:


> A slightly different approach -- it shows the insecurity of a relationship when doubts and failures cannot be examined and amended in an open manner. An exterior of positivity and pleasantness is always needed to cover the insecurity, and anything which is negative or awkward threatens to reveal the insecurity lying beneath the surface. When we see an increase in the number of people who are averse to introspection in the Christian life, it should be seen as another symptom of the superficiality and immaturity which plagues Christianity, not just today, but in all ages of its witness. The Corinthians manifested it against the apostle Paul. There is nothing new in it.
> 
> Puritan detractors are nothing new either. They were a thorn in the flesh while the Puritans ministered, and one expects they will continue to operate wherever Puritanism makes its influence felt.
> 
> It is silly to speak of the Puritans having their faults, as if that in itself justifies criticism in a particular area of their theology or practice. Their critics have their faults too. This does nothing to illuminate us as to where the fault lies in particular. One requires some interaction with their own writings before criticism can even be considered.



Thank you both for these responses. God has blessed us with both of you.....


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 26, 2012)

Randy in Tulsa said:


> Tullian Tchividjian pushed back against Kevin DeYoung (also a Gospel Coalition member) for his emphasis on "making every effort" to be holy in our Christian walk. Of course Tullian always was careful to nicely refer to DeYoung as "my good friend, Kevin..." He does the same thing with the Puritans. They are all his good friends too, but sadly they just didn't get the truth that Tullian gets, which is that justification justifies everything we ever do. In Tullian's paradigm, why should anyone engage in self-examination for the purpose of mortifying sin? So old school.



I believe he also has written stuff on his own view of sanctification...I might be wrong or exaggerating, but I seem to recall something like that how he downplays it quite a bit.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 26, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Isn't it amazing how quickly a major work like Beeke's _The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and his Successors_ is forgotten?



I remember, several years ago, listening to a message by Steve Schlissel (of FV fame). I can't remember the context of the message, except that someone (who has since virtually apostatized from the faith) recommended it to me. I remember SS reading from the beginning of Dr. Beeke's book and mocking what he had written. It seems that many seek their assurance in other things besides the promises of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 26, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is just my hunch, and I would love to be proven wrong, but these kind of critiques seem to born out of ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, of what the Puritans actually wrote. They seem to be relying on secondary sources and hearsay for their information.



Trevin Wax is also not "reformed" in the strictest since -- he rejects limited atonement, for instance. And I think you are entirely correct; I do think think there is a huge neglect in the reading of the Puritans in our day, just as there is a huge neglect in self-examination.

Here is what John Flavel says about the issue of assurance:



> Q. 1. Is assurance possible to be attained in this life?
> A. Yes; for some have had it; Canticles 6:3. I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine. And all Christians are commanded to strive for it; 2 Peter 1:10. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence, to make your calling and election sure.
> 
> Q. 2. How many sorts of assurance are there?
> ...


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 26, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > We do have to be careful to view the Puritans as being perfect, after all the Puritans were a wide group of men and disagreed with each other (for instance Baxter was criticized by Owen on the issue of justification).
> ...



No, but if we're not careful we can deify them and view them with an almost papal infallibility. And I'll be frank: there IS a danger in too much introspection, as it's an easy step from there into falling into works-righteousness. Criticism of excessive introspection is not unwarranted; it can and does lead to taking one's eyes off the objective work of Christ on the cross.

Is there a danger in Antinomianism? Almost certainly, but there's just as much of a danger in legalism and perfectionism, and there is a real possibility of supplanting Christ with one's own morality and works. This is something that Lutherans criticize in Calvinism and the Reformed (that there is an excessive emphasis on the fruit of a Christian life to the detriment of blending faith with works and being guilty of undermining "sola fide"), and in some cases I think they do have a point. And looking around the church, I see a far greater tendency to legalism than Antinomianism. While it's probable that there are those who jettison good works entirely, it is also very real that a great many churches so burden people with introspection that they despair of their own salvation because they look to their own performance rather than looking to Christ for the grounds of their justification. 

Again: talk to your ex-Arminian bretheren who have gone through this before, because Arminians are notorious for this. I was dealing with a woman last year who went through this very thing. She was being told that her works weren't enough, that she was not good enough, but instead of turning her to Christ, her church did the very thing these blogs are pointing out: that she continue to relentlessly give introspection to herself. And if there was any sin, she wasn't right with God, and that she needed to take care of that. Where is the grace in that? Where is the assurance that Christ's blood truly covers sin? Where is salvation by grace through faith ALONE? As a result, she was driven away from the church. She doesn't want anything to do with it anymore, because she's not good enough, and even when I had conversations with her about what the gospel is, she still felt the sting of that burdening of perfectionistic introspection. What she went through was the old "bait and switch" tactic in which somebody told her salvation was free, then pulled the rug out from under her because she wasn't "good enough."

Those blogs have a point. Does that mean we ignore the Puritans? Of course not, but it does mean that we remember the Puritan writings are not additions to Scripture either. And while we are to examine ourselves, it also means that we need to always examine the fruit in light of the faith, and not the other way around. It is our trust in Christ-NOT our works-that saves us, period. It is Christ's work on the cross by which God declares us righteous, period. And it is suggesting a different gospel when one attaches works to that promise of salvation in a way that makes works conditional for salvation, period. And I don't care if you're John Owen or John MacArthur: if you make works play ANY role in salvation-ANY ROLE-you are preaching a different gospel. This is the whole point of Romans 3-5, and the entire book of Galatians. 

To end with Luther's words: "Ever more say 'keep the law,' but don't ever attach that old meaning to it (that one is saved in any part by the law) again!"


----------



## py3ak (Nov 26, 2012)

The problem, Jeremy, is that the criticism is far too vague and imprecise. Whose writings supposedly promote an excessive introspection? Is it Thomas Goodwin, who specifically and explicitly attempts to set Christ out for the believer to exercise his faith upon, and that with reference to assurance? Is it Walter Marshall, who warns us against pursuing holiness by the covenant of works? Is it Edward Fisher, who insists that the law must be taken from the hand of the Mediator? Is it Richard Sibbes, who describes the glory of Christ and then lets us know that this Christ will not quench the smoking flax? Is it John Bunyan, who celebrates the skilfulness of Christ in prosecuting the cause of our justification from our sins? Without specifics; without interaction, such a remark depends on a caricatured agglomeration of the Puritans that those with even limited acquaintance with the primary sources will feel free to ignore.

I think someone like William B. Sprague is justly liable to some careful criticism for his method of explaining self-examination. But William B. Sprague is not "the Puritans", not even "a representative Puritan", not even a "Puritan" at all. And a broad and unsubstantiated statement that we should avoid the Puritan error of morbid introspection is the opposite of careful. 

Puritan pastors, like all pastors throughout history, had to deal with people coming from various backgrounds - witness _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_, whose whole structure consists in a pastor dialoguing with an antinomian and a neonomian (and subsequently a new believer). Sermons from the time often show that these pastors were every bit as skilled in comforting the weak as in any other part of pastoral labor, including warning the unruly.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2012)

I think it would be good for everyone to give a listen to this sermon/lecture by Sinclair Ferguson. Pay special attention to the section where Dr. Ferguson explains how hated and despised the Puritan minister was in his own day. 

http://feedingonchrist.com/files/2009/03/ferguson_puritan_reading_room.mp3


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Nov 26, 2012)

Great discussion...and on perhaps a related but not primary note to the conversation, are there any other resources (besides the excellent sermon that Rev. Glaser posted) that will help sort through the Puritans and their very helpful doctrine in a discerning, God-glorifying way? For the record, I already have this one:

A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life - Reformation Heritage Books

It's been sitting on my bookshelf in the study for a while now, not opened only due to me being on travel for the last 3 weeks. If that is all I need, then that's fine, because the 1,000 pages in that one is enough to chew on for a while. I've also heard that Packer's work below is helpful, but I don't have that one:

A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life - Reformation Heritage Books

Thanks in advance for any replies, and I am enjoying all of the comments and perspectives.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 26, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Is it Walter Marshall, who warns us against pursuing holiness by the covenant of works?



Ruben, forgive my ignorance, but I am not familiar with this work. Could you supply the title?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 26, 2012)

It is _The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification_. A work of quite deserved renown.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 26, 2012)

py3ak said:


> It is _The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification_. A work of quite deserved renown.



Gracias!

Found a PDF of this here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/GospelMystery.pdf


----------



## Wayne (Nov 26, 2012)

Another presentation of _The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification._, nicely divided into chapters version, here:

http://boston.server101.com/gospel_mystery_of_sanctification.htm

[note the sidebar at that site, with an extensive section for psalmody]


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 26, 2012)

The link doesn't work, Wayne.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 26, 2012)

Fixed it. Cut and paste left out the ever important " .htm "


----------



## JMKing (Nov 26, 2012)

py3ak said:


> It is _The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification_. A work of quite deserved renown.



I just finished this about a month ago, and have decided to read it again. It has much relevance to the topic at hand.


----------



## Zach (Nov 26, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > It is just my hunch, and I would love to be proven wrong, but these kind of critiques seem to born out of ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, of what the Puritans actually wrote. They seem to be relying on secondary sources and hearsay for their information.
> ...



Pastor Phillips, thank you so much for sharing this. These were of great comfort to me. What does he mean in Question 11, though? Surely there are unregenerate persons who have "assurance" of their salvation. Obviously, there is true assurance and false assurance of our salvation. Am I correct in saying that true assurance alone is marked by the above qualifications? As someone who often struggles with assurance of my salvation because of my sinfulness I fear that it would be easy to doubt whether one has attained true assurance or not even if one has some sense of assurance.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2012)

Some of the responses to this thread baffle me. A couple of blog articles state to "beware of the Puritans because they can lead you into excessive introspection". It's sort of like saying "beware of the Germans of the nineteenth century because they'll lead you to liberalism". The reason we discuss these things is to refine the ideas. Somehow any defense that a sweeping generalization is inaccurate devolves into this level of argumentation:

"This article seems to be vague about the Puritans. They weren't all excessively introspective and, by the way, what exactly is excessive introspection."
"Oh yeah, the Puritans weren't perfect!"
"Nobody said they were."
"But we might deify them."

How? By actually discussing what many taught?

Paul condemned both license and legalism. The Phariseess and the Judaizers are condemned along with those who continue to practice immorality and those who shrink back from belief.

The idea that discussing the nature of introspection may lead to error is quite true of any topic.

Do you know why I enjoy reading some of the Puritans? It's for the same reason I like listening to or reading some of the great teachers in our day. They cause me to think more deeply. Every time I think I've got a pretty good handle on things then I will see some insight that resonates with the Scriptures and helps me to understand more deeply. They're just men. 

i haven't met a reader of the Puritans who thinks they're not men and it's usually the people that haven't read them (or even read some of them criticizing each other over points) that thinks they thought of themselves as having some place above Scripture. 

That said, the moment some man tells me that another man's writings are not on the level of Scripture then it is also the case that his own opinions are not either. Consequently, the arguments that the modern writer makes in opposition to a Puritan thinker are on equal footing with that writer. His arguments may be placed alongside the Puritan thinker to demonstrate whose arguments best accord with the Scriptural data just as we would do with any argument.

Appeals to who thinks who is infallible or "deified" are just silly and do not advance understanding. Let us examine the arguments treating the Puritans and modern men with the same dignity. That they are all men and that the Puritans don't deserve to be lumped together as a molothic bunch to be warned against any more than I should warn people, in general, about men who write blog articles expressing their theological views.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 27, 2012)

Zach said:


> Pastor Phillips, thank you so much for sharing this. These were of great comfort to me. What does he mean in Question 11, though? Surely there are unregenerate persons who have "assurance" of their salvation. Obviously, there is true assurance and false assurance of our salvation. Am I correct in saying that true assurance alone is marked by the above qualifications? As someone who often struggles with assurance of my salvation because of my sinfulness I fear that it would be easy to doubt whether one has attained true assurance or not even if one has some sense of assurance.



Zach, he makes a distinction between assurance (i.e., true assurance) and presumption (i.e., false assurance) -- see Question 6 for instance. So yes, when "assurance" is noted, he is speaking of the true sort.

Q. 172 of the WLC might also be helpful here -- it concerns coming to the Lord's Supper, but deals with the issue of assurance/doubting:



> Question 172: May one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?
> 
> Answer: One who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God's account has it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further strengthened.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 27, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Another presentation of _The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification._, nicely divided into chapters version, here:
> 
> Walter Marshall - The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification
> 
> [note the sidebar at that site, with an extensive section for psalmody]



One can find a good outline of the book here - Paramount Church > Articles

I have read the book twice and have a question. It seems that those who subscribe to Jack Miller's Sonship theology think that Walter Marshall's book is the best thing ever. I appreciated the book but am wary of Sonship theology. Am I being inconsistent or are some people using Marshall in ways that he would not appreciate?


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 27, 2012)

In the Trueman article linked in the OP, he makes the point that Luther is misappropriated by the sonship folks:



> Luther's understanding of law and gospel certainly left a place - a large place - for introspection and even despair in the ongoing Christian life. He was no early advocate of radical sonship theology, despite his being used in this way by some Gospel Coalition writers.


----------



## KMK (Nov 27, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I think it would be good for everyone to give a listen to this sermon/lecture by Sinclair Ferguson. Pay special attention to the section where Dr. Ferguson explains how hated and despised the Puritan minister was in his own day.
> 
> http://feedingonchrist.com/files/2009/03/ferguson_puritan_reading_room.mp3



Wow. Also pay special attention to the section where he emphasizes the 'brotherhood' of the Puritans and its importance today. It sounds like he is describing the Puritanboard!

This brotherhood of the Puritan movement is contrasted by the party spirit which is often demonstrated by us today.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2012)

KMK said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be good for everyone to give a listen to this sermon/lecture by Sinclair Ferguson. Pay special attention to the section where Dr. Ferguson explains how hated and despised the Puritan minister was in his own day.
> ...



J.I. Packer gave a series of lectures on the history of the Puritans that's available at rts.itunes.edu that spoke to the fact that the Puritans were loathe to criticize other Puritans to outsiders and saved their criticisms for internal dialogs. 

One of the best things I've heard was from a fellow Pastor who once told me how much he loves the fraternity of elders in Presbytery. He said he never understood why any would want to bring women into it because brothers can fight and still get along. He always wanted brothers growing up and recalled time when his friend was complaining about his brother in front of him. When my friend joined in on the criticism his friend became indignant: "that's my brother you're talking about." Anyone with brothers knows that you may fight with your brother but you fight for him against outsiders. That analogy has stuck with me so that even though I might get in a theological fist fight inside my family, when were done we are still brothers and I need to remember to stick up for him when outsiders are coming after him.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 27, 2012)

For reference, R.L. Dabney [1820-1898], a Presbyterian theologian, saw that the Puritans corrected the error of Luther and Calvin, rather than developed it. 

"The cause of this error is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome . These noble Reformers. . . asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, 'My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me.' 

"Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error. . . for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected." (Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. I, pp. 215-16) 


I also read that William Perkins struggled with his own personal assurance, even up to his death at age 44. 
Not sure of the reference at this time.

Blessings...


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 27, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



Shouldn't we put greater attention into whether or not the criticism is just over against who the criticism is against? Otherwise it seems that it would be easy to fall into calling an outsider to account when one allows an insider to do the same thing without rebuke. Such seems to imply a case of being a respecter of persons.

CT


----------

