# Help understanding Paul Washer on assurance?



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2021)

I've never read much of Paul Washer. I keep seeing guys praise him for making you feel horrible. I don't know if that is true, but how would he present assurance of salvation?


----------



## B.L. (Oct 2, 2021)

Perhaps consider this as a request for one of your awesome book reviews:









Gospel Assurance and Warnings - Recovering the Gospel (Washer)


Puritan and Reformed books at discounted prices.




www.heritagebooks.org

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2021)

B.L. said:


> Perhaps consider this as a request for one of your awesome book reviews:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just borrowed the audiobook from my library. I do plan to do a critical review of it (if Washer is saying what I think he is saying and what is fans say he is saying, I am not a fan), but it won't be super analytical because I won't be able to refer to page numbers.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexanderjames (Oct 2, 2021)

I used to listen to Paul Washer a lot and my take away was that while he often emphasised the need for the new birth, evidenced by a radically changed nature, he acknowledged that the evidences of grace may be weak. He also urged that the Christian's bedrock confidence is always and only Christ by His merits.
I don't recall Washer's preaching making me feel rubbish personally, though I realise that may be the case for some. I have benefited greatly from his sermons and am very thankful for helping direct me in the earlier days of my faith. I recall a series of sermons on 1 John helping me greatly in assurance.
Yes, sometimes in zeal to convict and reprove I think Washer has gone too far. He admits this himself. But on the whole I think the conviction that his preaching brings is good for self examination and looking to Jesus.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 2, 2021)

alexanderjames said:


> I used to listen to Paul Washer a lot and my take away was that while he often emphasised the need for the new birth, evidenced by a radically changed nature, he acknowledged that the evidences of grace may be weak. He also urged that the Christian's bedrock confidence is always and only Christ by His merits.
> I don't recall Washer's preaching making me feel rubbish personally, though I realise that may be the case for some. I have benefited greatly from his sermons and am very thankful for helping direct me in the earlier days of my faith. I recall a series of sermons on 1 John helping me greatly in assurance.
> Yes, sometimes in zeal to convict and reprove I think Washer has gone too far. He admits this himself. But on the whole I think the conviction that his preaching brings is good for self examination and looking to Jesus.



I found Washer very helpful years ago on 1 John. Good balance on what are the marks, accounting for remaining sin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Oct 2, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> I found Washer very helpful years ago on 1 John. Good balance on what are the marks, accounting for remaining sin.


That’s his signature passage right? Like Keller with the Prodigal Son?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 2, 2021)

I used to listen to him a lot. I think he's pretty balanced. I haven't noticed anything heretical in his teaching. It all seems Biblical, just more nuanced on living like a Christian. His sermons generally felt very similar to me, so I eventually moved on. It seems he's doing a lot for the Church to help people see their need of true conversion. I did get bummed out to hear him regularly make hard-line statements as if they are declaratively true, that I knew weren't always true in all circumstances. I imagine it's some sort of fallacy in the world of logic. Overall I think he's solid.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan (Oct 2, 2021)

I’ll be interested in reading your review. Based on what I’d seen from YouTube, I pigeonholed him as being very lopsided in his theology but he posted a library tour in the last year that was very balanced in my estimation. I think his whole “persona” is more of a reflection of what gets views on YouTube rather than of his actual ministry.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 2, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I just borrowed the audiobook from my library. I do plan to do a critical review of it (if Washer is saying what I think he is saying and what is fans say he is saying, I am not a fan), but it won't be super analytical because I won't be able to refer to page numbers.


If Washer says what Ryle says in "Holiness" then he can't possibly be wrong since "Holiness" is like the 67th book of the Bible. 

BTW, assuming you borrowed this from Hoopla, this is another example of my library system apparently having the "budget" option. They have a handful of Washer titles, but not this one.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 2, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I’ll be interested in reading your review. Based on what I’d seen from YouTube, I pigeonholed him as being very lopsided in his theology but he posted a library tour in the last year that was very balanced in my estimation. I think his whole “persona” is more of a reflection of what gets views on YouTube rather than of his actual ministry.


I think I remember seeing a video where he said that the "Shocking Youth Message!" was a bit unbalanced. It was extemporaneous remarks in response to some kids goofing off that ended up going viral.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 2, 2021)

ZackF said:


> That’s his signature passage right? Like Keller with the Prodigal Son?



I'm not sure. Part of the problem is, like @Ethan alluded to, what has gotten up on YouTube in the earlier years has been what fans have put up. He doesn't manage his online presence, last I've known. Washer is known for messages that sort the wheat from the tares, possibly because that's what the fans find most intriguing. I don't keep up on him now, but most of his messages on the net were itinerant, special-speaker messages. If Washer was preaching week after week to a congregation, you might see a different side to him.


----------



## LilyG (Oct 2, 2021)

Paul Washer is not a Calvinist, though he may claim that. He is Arminian. Instead of comforting his people with Christ's active obedience, he beats them with continual striving after obedience to maybe someday hopefully get to a spot where God might be pleased and accepting of them. It is the complete opposite of the gospel.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## LilyG (Oct 2, 2021)

I just glanced over the chapter headings in his book on assurance from the link, under Part 1: Biblical Assurance. Look at all the self works in those headings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 3, 2021)

This booklet by Prof (and pastor) David Engelsma may shed some light on assurance:

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This booklet by Prof (and pastor) David Engelsma may shed some light on assurance:



Thank you. I plan to read it. Does he deal with Washer?


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 3, 2021)

If you’re going to throw Washer under the bus on the topic, then consistency demands that you throw Dr Beeke under the bus along with him. RHB published it, and Beeke could hardly have given it a more glowing recommendation. In his endorsement, Beeke refers to this book as “tremendously helpful,” “masterful,” and “sweet help for God’s children.” 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Oct 3, 2021)

LilyG said:


> I just glanced over the chapter headings in his book on assurance from the link, under Part 1: Biblical Assurance. Look at all the self works in those headings.
> 
> View attachment 8438


Which of these do you take issue with?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 3, 2021)

Not having read Paul Washer's book, it is possible that he encourages believers to be unduly introspective. Looking at the chapter titles, however, I see nothing "Arminian" about it. In fact, superficially at least, it looks in accordance with both a scriptural and confessional view of assurance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JH (Oct 3, 2021)

LilyG said:


> he beats them with continual striving after obedience to maybe someday hopefully get to a spot where God might be pleased and accepting of them.


That statement my friend, is a blatant lie and ought to be retracted. Washer has never taught a meritorious justification through "enough obedience". You really should be more thorough in the statements you make of others, because this forum takes the ninth commandment seriously. And I would not be surprised if your post sends this thread (mind you, OP had good intentions with his inquiry) into oblivion and argument.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 3, 2021)

The ebook was free either last month or a month before and I thought he did a good of assauging the fears that many here bring up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 3, 2021)

refuting the view that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification



BayouHuguenot said:


> Thank you. I plan to read it. Does he deal with Washer?



No, Jacob,

But he deals with a view that many of the Puritans held – and possibly Beeke, and Washer – that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification, and is given to very few but the more advanced saints. Engelsma vigorously refutes this view – using Scripture – saying that assurance is given along with justification, as a gift of love for the elect, that they may *know* their Father and the Son and have eternal life in them (John 17:3). He considers the Puritan view a cruel and harmful misrepresentation.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> refuting the view that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where does Engelsma expound this?


----------



## Taylor (Oct 3, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> Where does Engelsma expound this?


Steve posted a link to Engelsma's book in post #14 above.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 3, 2021)

His explanation/interview of his famous 'Shocking Youth Message' might be helpful in looking at his motives, at least in that instance. It's only 12 minutes long.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Oct 3, 2021)

LilyG said:


> Paul Washer is not a Calvinist, though he may claim that. He is Arminian. Instead of comforting his people with Christ's active obedience, he beats them with continual striving after obedience to maybe someday hopefully get to a spot where God might be pleased and accepting of them. It is the complete opposite of the gospel.


This is just plain false.



Pilgrim said:


> If you’re going to throw Washer under the bus on the topic, then consistency demands that you throw Dr Beeke under the bus along with him. RHB published it, and Beeke could hardly have given it a more glowing recommendation. In his endorsement, Beeke refers to this book as “tremendously helpful,” “masterful,” and “sweet help for God’s children.”
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Beeke also dedicated his new book "A Radical, Comprehensive Call to Holiness" to Paul Washer, and recently had him preach in his church.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 3, 2021)

I just spent the past hour and forty minutes listening to Paul Washer's exposition of 1 John. The title of the sermon being Assurance of Salvation. Unless I'm badly mistaken it is purely confessional.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Oct 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> refuting the view that assurance is earned by diligent strivings after holiness, thus it depends on our progressive sanctification
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me point out that the Synod of Dort also taught that assurance admits degrees and is dependent upon holiness.
"Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 3, 2021)

From what I recall from reading the David Engelsma pamphlet, he was primarily dealing with a view attributed to Thomas Goodwin and others that infallible assurance was something for only a select few of the elect. I do recall seeing this idea in some "Puritan" writings (Thomas Brooks may have been once such divine), but, from what I can gather, that view was quite an extreme one, which is not representative of mainstream opinion. The mainstream Puritan opinion is that while assurance is not of the essence of faith (so that you cannot be a Christian without it), faith should (ordinarily) grow up into full assurance in every Christian.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## LilyG (Oct 3, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> Which of these do you take issue with?



Where is the basis, the ground of our assurance? Is it in our works? In our degree of sanctification? Or is it in the complete, finished work of Christ? Our works may surely be an encouragement as the fruit of our salvation. But Christ's imputed righteousness alone is the sure ground of our assurance.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 3, 2021)

It is also possible, if there is a degree of emphasis issue with Washer, it could be due to Mrs. Washer discovering her conversion was false years into their marriage.


----------



## mpb (Oct 3, 2021)

What most people see of Washer is what happens to be the most viewed stuff of his that circulates on YouTube and Facebook, and it’s often him at these big conferences preaching to wake up a sleeping church in the West that has lost the sight of the need for personal godliness. Those kind of talks are needed, and Washer is about the best the church has been blessed with in the last few decades to do so. 

But of course, if that’s all you hear from him, you’re going to think he’s unbalanced, and if you constantly listen to that and nothing else, then it could be hard on the soul. 

In a recent talk he gave (I believe the one for the PRTS graduation this year) he spoke about how at his church, his pastor had asked him to preach each Wednesday night. So he’s been doing a series on the immense love of Christ to His people. Washer noted how it’s way different than what people are used to him talking about, or what they expect from him. But he said those clips that get the most views are not what he focuses on most, and once someone is converted he just wants them to know and rest in Christ’s deep love for them. He said how some visitors came and listened to one of these talks and thought Washer had gone “soft.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Oct 3, 2021)

LilyG said:


> Where is the basis, the ground of our assurance? Is it in our works? In our degree of sanctification? Or is it in the complete, finished work of Christ? Our works may surely be an encouragement as the fruit of our salvation. But Christ's imputed righteousness alone is the sure ground of our assurance.


Assurance is knowing that one has received the redemption purchased by Christ and his imputed righteousness. You can't see that directly. The hypocrite and the believer can just as easily claim they have Christ's righteousness imputed to them, but only one can have assurance. What gives? Only the believer has true evidences in the form of good works. Again, as the synod of Dort says, assurance comes "by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2021)

I am not saying throw Washer under the bush. I also certainly see parallels between Washer and Beeke. As to whether that is "the true Washer" as opposed to the internet, I am simply going by his books. That seems fair enough.

I am around chapter 3. It's hit or miss. I don't disagree with him on looking for fruit, but he seems to think the general audience is living the carnal Corinthian life. I have a lot of sins in my life, but I am not sleeping with my step mom, getting drunk at the Lord's Supper, or denying the Resurrection. Moreover, as RHB published this book, I would imagine that most of those reading RHB literature aren't living the Corinthian life, either.

My next criticism deals with a more subtle point. He sometimes shifts between "conversion experience" and "looking for fruit of sanctification." The latter is biblical. The former can be okay, but it certainly isn't required. And while we should look for fruit in our lives, how do I know I have looked long enough or not enough? If someone is of a more tender conscious, he will certainly not be satisfied that he has good enough fruit. What's needed at this point is God's promise in his covenant seals

Side note: Dissertation/Thesis topic: Compare Klaas Schilder's emphasis on promise with Washer's emphasis on fruits.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 3, 2021)

ZackF said:


> It is also possible, if there is a degree of emphasis issue with Washer, it could be due to Mrs. Washer discovering her conversion was false years into their marriage.


It is my opinion that if you listen to Paul Washer enough, you will doubt your own conversion. Whether his wife was actually unconverted or not, we will never know. He pushes back against nominal American evangelicalism, to his credit. That is the context out of which he rose to prominence. Interestingly enough, he gave the convocation address at the 2021 convocation at PRTS in Grand Rapids (Beeke's seminary). In his message, I noticed he pushed back against evangelicalism and church fads. While that was good, I felt it was a little bit like he didn't know his audience, as PRTS is essentially one of the most conservative reformed schools in the world. There is nothing broadly evangelical about that school or its students. 

As for Beeke, he comes out of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, which are notorious for members which lack an assurance of salvation. To his credit he pushes back against that a lot and has written a lot of good things about assurance. I have his book "Knowing and Growing in Assurance of Faith" and I would recommend it. If I remember correctly, he describes the "meat and potatoes" of assurance as a combination of God's promises and recognizing spirit-wrought fruits. A conversion experience, or certain spiritual highs are more like gravy.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 3, 2021)

De Jager said:


> As for Beeke, he comes out of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, which are notorious for members which lack an assurance of salvation. To his credit he pushes back against that a lot and has written a lot of good things about assurance.


Note, he has left that movement. He did a doctoral dissertation on this and fully defends the doctrine of assurance in the WCF and 3FU


----------



## SavedSinner (Oct 4, 2021)

These are the second reformation churches, so they are not hyper-sacramental and never bought into the neo-Calvinist “presumptive regeneration” of Kuyper, as the CRC did. The churches that left the N.R.C. federation are the ones that formed the new Heritage Netherlands Reformed Churches. These are black-stocking churches that have become more enthusiastic about the Gospel, assurance and the Westminster Standards than most Presbyterians.


----------



## JP Wallace (Oct 4, 2021)

LilyG said:


> Where is the basis, the ground of our assurance? Is it in our works? In our degree of sanctification? Or is it in the complete, finished work of Christ? Our works may surely be an encouragement as the fruit of our salvation. But Christ's imputed righteousness alone is the sure ground of our assurance.


Lily

I appreciate your determined and proper attachment to imputed righteousness, but with respect the position you espouse here is rather reductionistic (not wrong per se) and perhaps this is why you are rather vehemently against Washer. The Westminister Confession in fact asserts a threefold ground of assurance and the imputed righteosness is not expressly one of them (though is necessarily tied up in the first. Here is 18;2 annotated to highlight the three grounds:

"(WCF 18:2 WCS) "This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon (GROUND ONE the divine truth of the promises of salvation (GROUND TWO the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, (GROUND THREE) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

So essentially the grounds of assurance are:

1) the resolute belief and faith in the promises of the Gospel - which of course includes fundamentally the reality that what is offered is acceptance with God on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness, but also that Christ bore our penalty at the cross etc.. etc..
2) the inward evidences of of faith and grace in life. (note the proof texts - (WCF 18:2 WCS) "2 Pet. 1:4,5,10,11; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 3:14; 2 Cor. 1:12.")
3) the inward testimony of he Spirit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2021)

We can also make a distinction between certainty and certitude. Geisler makes this distinction in terms of epistemology and I have found it helpful. Certainty is objective. Certitude is not. I have certainty of God's assurance to me because of his promise and covenant seals, not because of how intensely I can feel. My certitude, however, can waver depending on growth in grace, indwelling sin, etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 4, 2021)

Charlie, you wrote (post 27),


Charles Johnson said:


> Let me point out that the Synod of Dort also taught that assurance admits degrees and is dependent upon holiness.
> "Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on."



and I'm glad you did. To be sure, Engelsma also takes his confessional standards seriously.

Our Faith is indeed an experiential matter. When first regenerated – made alive to God upon the preaching of the Gospel – I had no conception of "assurance of faith", and it was not until I began reading the Scripture that I became aware of the teaching. The spiritual milieu I was initially in was Arminian, and I thought one could lose their salvation, although I saw John 10:27, 28 clearly challenged that – and I could not believe that He whose presence appeared to me by the Holy Spirit would utterly forsake me. "In due time", as I matured – and came into contact with the Doctrines of Grace – I became convinced as regards "assurance".

So yes, "though by various stages and in differing measure(s)", I eventually gained full assurance. This was not "earned" or merited by arduous strivings – though there were those at times – as my early years were preponderantly marked by backsliddenness and grievous failures / sins. Arminianism, Pelagianism (a la Finney), and perfectionism (a la John Wesley) are spiritual killers. Nonetheless, the Shepherd was faithful in keeping this wretched sheep.

When I was introduced to the Doctrines of Grace (the 5 points of Calvinism), after some 25 years in a terrible wilderness (I wrote of all this in my book), this was revolutionary, and the Spirit of God increasingly bore witness to me of God's graciousness to His children in Christ. When set free from this prison of error, I was like a lion let out of a cage, now passionate for the Reformed truths.

And the years (now some 28 further) have given me to refine my understanding. Although I am growing a bit feeble as I approach 80 (in March of '22), the power of the Gospel is the more precious to me – and more evident, for I am still tossed to and fro in the vicissitudes of life, spiritually and physically, and my only hope is in Christ my Saviour and the benefits of being in Him, which – in essence – derive from Justification and Sanctification. Trusting in the psalmist's words (David, I believe) I carry on (Psalm 71:9, 18) hoping – even with failing strength – to bear fruit.

All this to flesh out Dort 1.12 quoted above. Full assurance, if the preacher knows it by the Spirit and the word, the Spirit may convey it to the hearers of the Gospel. This Engelsma knows, and I seek to follow suit.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

I just finished reading Engelsma's booklet (~50 pages), and I highly recommend it. Personally, it confirmed some worries I had some years ago of some of the Puritans.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## MountainPilgrim (Oct 4, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If someone is of a more tender conscious, he will certainly not be satisfied that he has good enough fruit. What's needed at this point is God's promise in his covenant seals


Unfortunately, this is what I have seen. While Washer may not be entirely off the mark, the emphases in his popular teaching - when not rightly categorized or taken with a healthy dose of grace - can and do lead people to undue despair. I have seen men who were raised under pietistic influences struggle with assurance in an abundantly unhealthy way due to Washer's influence. For those with a solid confessional foundation, and read through an appropriate lens, Washer can be instructive and helpful; but for those without such, he can be quite condemning indeed.

I have noticed his popularity among the New Calvinist/YRR crowd seems to revolve around the trend of focusing more on our depravity than our new nature. There is a tendency to seek out teachers, sermons, books, etc. who will make one feel utterly convicted and left with little hope, as though the worse one views his condition, the driven he will be, and thus the more holy he can become. There is an interesting sort of spiritual masochism that somehow likes to be "beat up" and left in the gutter so as to sufficiently motivate one to strive all the more for holiness. So once was I, and I am thankful to have learned a more full and beautiful view of the Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude model of the Christian life - yes, the Heidelberg was massively influential in this journey.

Another dangerous trend I have seen is Washer's popularity among those who wish to emulate him by making it their goal to, "show nominal Christians that they aren't really saved." That has its place, but I've rarely seen it done well. Sadly, more often than not, it is the young Believer who is left condemned. The Gospel isn't often emphasized, and when it is, it is always with a caveat, a "but" which applied honestly, would leave us all questioning our eternal condition.

I am all for the use of the Law to demonstrate our need for the Gospel, and as a model for our Christian lives, but what I have seen more often leaves the Brother in his despair than lifts him up with the promises of the finished work of Christ. It can easily become all guilt, no grace, which is indeed dangerous to those of more tender conscience, as Jacob said.

I do not condemn Washer, and recognize his teaching may indeed be exactly what many need. Yet, I think what he gets wrong has such a potential to overshadow what he gets right that I would not recommend him lightly. There are others who can and do teach that which Washer gets right in a more balanced, confessional, and gracious way.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Oct 4, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've never read much of Paul Washer. I keep seeing guys praise him for making you feel horrible. I don't know if that is true, but how would he present assurance of salvation?


I really liked his preaching 10 years ago when I was at seminary. I believe he's become a more humbler man over the last decade.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Charlie, you wrote (post 27),
> 
> 
> and I'm glad you did. To be sure, Engelsma also takes his confessional standards seriously.
> ...



On a similar point, do you know of any sermons Engelsma preached on assurance?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 4, 2021)

He probably did, Jacob; I will look around.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Oct 4, 2021)

In perusing the topic of Engelsma and the PRC in general, I came across this podcast by Thomas Sullivan out of Grand Rapids, whom I know has been narrating Reformed Puritan works for about 30 years or so. Providentially this podcast was recorded only a month ago. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91211814436027

He also has another lecture where he briefly mentions the history of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Hoeksema, the CRC/PRC, and Beeke/Engelsma conflict on the topic of assurance. 



 - his part about said controversy starts at around 33:44.

I've personally found both resources to settle the controversy for me. I personally find it hard to cast off many learned men of renown for Engelsma and others. From what I understood, one of the tenets of the PRC is that assurance belongs to the essence of faith. They appeal to Calvin for this, however, what Calvin meant by this (bearing in mind the historical context, this idea was contra Rome) is the part that's actually debated.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## De Jager (Oct 4, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Note, he has left that movement. He did a doctoral dissertation on this and fully defends the doctrine of assurance in the WCF and 3FU


Yes, you are correct. That's what I meant by he "came out of".

He is a minister in the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations.

I appreciate Joel Beeke a lot. I think his background in the NRC and seeing some of the struggles that certain members had with obtaining assurance led to his interest in the topic.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 4, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> In perusing the topic of Engelsma and the PRC in general, I came across this podcast by Thomas Sullivan out of Grand Rapids, whom I know has been narrating Reformed Puritan works for about 30 years or so. Providentially this podcast was recorded only a month ago. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91211814436027
> 
> He also has another lecture where he briefly mentions the history of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Hoeksema, the CRC/PRC, and Beeke/Engelsma conflict on the topic of assurance.
> 
> ...


My minister (URC) told me that the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism believed that assurance belonged to the essence of faith. Refer to QA 21.

However, he also noted that this assurance would vary in degrees. Consider a small sapling and a full-grown oak. There is quite a difference between the two but in both situations you have an Oak tree, albeit in the one very young and tender, and in the other full and developed.

Personally, I believe that it is possible to have a lack of assurance and yet still have true faith, otherwise the apostle's command to "make our calling and election sure" would seem to not make much sense. That admonishment to me implies a lack of assurance. However, what I will also say is that the Bible knows nothing of a morbid introspection in which assurance is only rarely obtained and is reserved for the most pietistic saints. That's an abuse that is foreign to the pages of scripture but one that I have dealt with personally. For that, I am glad for someone like Beeke who can dismantle that type of thinking. My personal experience is that Washer does not help in that area for me.

At the end of the day I think each man's background explains a bit of how they deal with the topic of assurance.

Beeke came out of a hyper-calvinistic background with many poor, burdened saints who struggled with assurance - so his thrust is to provide Biblical comfort and lead them to an assurance of true faith

Washer is confronting false conversions and American evangelicalism - so in essence his thrust is to cause unconverted people to doubt their salvation.

That's my take, and I mean no ill will toward either man.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## JH (Oct 4, 2021)

De Jager said:


> My minister (URC) told me that the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism believed that assurance belonged to the essence of faith. Refer to QA 21.


Gotcha. Do you think we should then conclude that the Heidelberg differs from the Westminster? Consider WCF 18.3


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Gotcha. Do you think we should then conclude that the Heidelberg differs from the Westminster? Consider WCF 18.3


If I may be so bold, it appears at least on the surface that Westminster differs from Westminster:

"This infallible assurance doth not *so* belong to the essence of faith..." (WCF 18.3).​​"Assurance of grace and salvation *not being* of the essence of faith..." (WLC 81).​
These are two statements I have never been able to reconcile. The Confession seems to say that assurance is not of the essence of saving faith _to some extent_, while the Larger Catechism says that assurance is _to no extent_ the essence of saving faith.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JH (Oct 4, 2021)

While I do not have a quick response, I would have to assume that there is no intended contradiction. I would have to do more research into Larger Catechism commentaries, but I did pull down David Dickson in the meantime as to why assurance does not belong to the essence of faith (WCF 18.3)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> While I do not have a quick response, I would have to assume that there is no intended contradiction. I would have to do more research into Larger Catechism commentaries, but I did pull down David Dickson in the meantime as to why assurance does not belong to the essence of faith (WCF 18.3)
> 
> View attachment 8448


The first point there concerning Eph. 1:13-14 is something Engelsma takes serious issue with, and I think he may be right. Even though he uses the KJV, he criticizes its translation in Eph. 1:13 as misleading. He argues that the sealing of the Spirit does not happen _after_ belief, but _at_ and _with_ belief. Again, I think he is right. Look at the difference, for example, between the KJV and the ESV here:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also *after* that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..." (KJV).​​"In him you also, *when* you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..." (ESV).​


----------



## JH (Oct 4, 2021)

Taylor said:


> The first point there concerning Eph. 1:13-14 is something Engelsma takes serious issue with, and I think he may be right. Even though he uses the KJV, he criticizes its translation in Eph. 1:13 as misleading. He argues that the sealing of the Spirit does not happen _after_ belief, but _at_ and _with_ belief. Again, I think he is right. Look at the difference, for example, between the KJV and the ESV here:
> 
> "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also *after* that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..." (KJV).​​"In him you also, *when* you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..." (ESV).​


One of the resources I linked (if I remember correctly, the first one from Sullivan), he recollects not a single Puritan who interpreted it in such a fashion, besides Goodwin. And I personally do not know of any other Puritans who interpreted akin to some sort of Pentecostal second blessing. If you find any, please let me know


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> ...not a single Puritan who interpreted it in such a fashion, besides Goodwin.


I'm not familiar enough with the entire Puritan corpus to know. Maybe Engelsma is giving too much weight to Goodwin here. However, didn't Dickson in the above-cited text interpret it so?


----------



## JH (Oct 4, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I'm not familiar enough with the entire Puritan corpus to know. Maybe Engelsma is giving too much weight to Goodwin here. However, didn't Dickson in the above-cited text interpret it so?


I think more research would be profitable to figure out what historical commentators thought upon the emphasis of "after". I have a hard time imagining it to be something that comes much later than regeneration itself, but I imagine "after" to refer to a consequential sort of ordeal. I'm not quite sure how to put it into words, but I've never stumbled much or even put much emphasis into the term "after" in that passage. Because interpreting Scripture with Scripture (WCF 1.9), we also know that a person can only believe after the Spirit has begun working in them. And in one sense I think this almost pries into the mysteries of God's salvation, in relation to the ordo salutis. "Which comes first", one might ask, "faith, or repentance?" And I think this discussion (specifically in regards to this passage) is very similar to that. 

Going to family worship, so I may not respond immediately.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 4, 2021)

Taylor said:


> If I may be so bold, it appears at least on the surface that Westminster differs from Westminster:
> 
> "This infallible assurance doth not *so* belong to the essence of faith..." (WCF 18.3).​​"Assurance of grace and salvation *not being* of the essence of faith..." (WLC 81).​
> These are two statements I have never been able to reconcile. The Confession seems to say that assurance is not of the essence of saving faith _to some extent_, while the Larger Catechism says that assurance is _to no extent_ the essence of saving faith.


Taylor, they say the same thing. Think of the Confession as answering the question, “Doth infallible assurance belong to the essence of faith?”

Ans: “It doth not so belong.”


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Taylor, they say the same thing.


I don't think so. At the very least, there is a difference in clarity. But I think there is a difference in meaning. WCF 18:3 to me very clearly means: "This infallible assurance doth not [to such a degree/in such a way] belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, etc.," whereas WLC 81 is a flat-out denial.



Eyedoc84 said:


> Think of the Confession as answering the question, “Doth infallible assurance belong to the essence of faith?”
> 
> Ans: “It doth not so belong.”


I would agree, except that this is superimposing a paradigm upon the WCF that is not there. It is not answering a question (like the Catechisms), but making statements. Furthermore, the "answer" to the "question" in the WCF is not a bare denial, but a denial with an adverbial modifier (i.e., "so") and further qualifying remarks. It is not, it appears to me, that clear cut.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Oct 4, 2021)

Rutherford's writings against the antinomians go into detail on this matter. The antinomians at the time of the assembly claimed that faith was being persuaded that Christ died for oneself, even against all evidence. See Rutherford's Christ Dying.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 4, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I don't think so. At the very least, there is a difference in clarity. But I think there is a difference in meaning. WCF 18:3 to me very clearly means: "This infallible assurance doth not [to such a degree/in such a way] belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, etc.," whereas WLC 81 is a flat-out denial.
> 
> 
> I would agree, except that this is superimposing a paradigm upon the WCF that is not there. It is not answering a question (like the Catechisms), but making statements. Furthermore, the "answer" to the "question" in the WCF is not a bare denial, but a denial with an adverbial modifier (i.e., "so") and further qualifying remarks. It is not, it appears to me, that clear cut.


I was not superimposing a paradigm, rather using an example to display a different understanding of the word “so” than what you are presuming. 

I think the best approach is to assume that if I’m interpreting the documents in such a way that I reach contradictory conclusions, maybe the problem is with how I’m reading them, and not that the Divines were sloppy or contradicting themselves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I think the best approach is to assume that if I’m interpreting the documents in such a way that I reach contradictory conclusions, maybe the problem is with how I’m reading them, and not that the Divines were sloppy or contradicting themselves.


Of course. And I am the first to recognize the superiority of the Divines to me in every conceivable way. However, they were not infallible. To say that they _could_ have missed a small discrepancy is not outside the realm of possibility, nor should we find it incredible or upsetting. In the end, all I have to work with are the words they left behind. None of them or their contemporaries are around for me to inquire of them what they meant. At bare minimum, in my opinion, they did not do us any favors using different language between the WCF and the WLC when using the same topic. We cannot deny that one says "does not so belong" and the other says "does not belong."


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 5, 2021)

As helpful as A Brakel is, this understanding really turned me off from him regarding the definition of faith.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Of course. And I am the first to recognize the superiority of the Divines to me in every conceivable way. However, they were not infallible. To say that they _could_ have missed a small discrepancy is not outside the realm of possibility, nor should we find it incredible or upsetting. In the end, all I have to work with are the words they left behind. None of them or their contemporaries are around for me to inquire of them what they meant. At bare minimum, in my opinion, they did not do us any favors using different language between the WCF and the WLC when using the same topic. We cannot deny that one says "does not so belong" and the other says "does not belong."


Sure, but I don’t understand your insistence that there is a contradiction when it can easily be read harmoniously. Especially considering they were meant to be complementary documents, not independent ones. 

I’ll also add that Manton recommended that families learn the catechisms before the Confession. Surely some of that is due to the teaching nature of catechisms, but if you learned WLC before coming to the WCF, your perceived difficulty may not be as apparent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 5, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> As helpful as A Brakel is, this understanding really turned me off from him regarding the definition of faith.


Elaborate


----------



## Taylor (Oct 5, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Sure, but I don’t understand your insistence that there is a contradiction when it can easily be read harmoniously. Especially considering they were meant to be complementary documents, not independent ones.


I’m not insisting. I’ve repeatedly said that this is my _opinion_, and that this is how the documents “seem to _me_” and “appear to _me_.” To _me_, there is a discrepancy—or at the very least a difference of some sort, whether or not it amounts to a difference in meaning. I don’t think they can be read entirely harmoniously for the reasons I have already given—again, my opinion. You disagree. And that’s fine. But I have not insisted upon anything.


----------



## JH (Oct 5, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> As helpful as A Brakel is, this understanding really turned me off from him regarding the definition of faith.


Would you mind fleshing that out? As one who has not read his entire systematic (primarily his sections on Desertion and Apostacy), I would like more info.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 5, 2021)

Without having read Engelsma, what would he then conclude about the myriads of Christians who struggle with assurance? That they don't have true faith?


----------



## De Jager (Oct 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> If I may be so bold, it appears at least on the surface that Westminster differs from Westminster:
> 
> "This infallible assurance doth not *so* belong to the essence of faith..." (WCF 18.3).​​"Assurance of grace and salvation *not being* of the essence of faith..." (WLC 81).​
> These are two statements I have never been able to reconcile. The Confession seems to say that assurance is not of the essence of saving faith _to some extent_, while the Larger Catechism says that assurance is _to no extent_ the essence of saving faith.


I don't see any contradiction in those statements.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 5, 2021)

De Jager said:


> I don't see any contradiction in those statements.


I’m not sure I see _contradiction_, either. (And, for the record, I never used that word, even though it has been attributed to me twice now.) As I’ve said, though, I think the _difference in language_ begs a question or two.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 5, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Elaborate





Jerrod Hess said:


> Would you mind fleshing that out? As one who has not read his entire systematic (primarily his sections on Desertion and Apostacy), I would like more info.








A Brakel on Faith?


Unlike Grant, I haven't gone from beginning to end through the Christian's Reasonable service. Rather I have been treating it as a reference. Anyway, perusing through the Chapter: Concerning Faith A Brakel states in the picture: What is your take? Am I not informed of the context? I was under...




puritanboard.com




I thought faith is personal appropriation of Christ. Brakel seems to disagree.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I’m not sure I see _contradiction_, either. (And, for the record, I never used that word, even though it has been attributed to me twice now.) As I’ve said, though, I think the _difference in language_ begs a question or two.


Fair enough. I guess it is possible to read one as being a stronger statement than the other.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 6, 2021)

It's late at night for me, but I want to say a bit more on this matter of assurance and faith, and hope I can be brief. There are such nuances in this, and _seemingly_ contradictory statements from generally sterling men, and even – _seemingly_ – between confessions, that there is no absolute safety or certainty save in Scripture and what one knows of it for oneself.

Indeed, one may have true faith and not assurance, for in "due time" the latter may appear, and that appearance may take years. When I was first saved at 26 yrs old, hearing the Gospel (a simple woman bearing strong Gospel witness to me) the Holy Spirit manifested the presence of Christ to me such that it was with me as with a seer I’d later read, Charles Spurgeon, who said, “I looked at Him, and He looked at me, and we were one forever.” From that moment on, I was His. And yet I was subsequently subjected to teaching which cast a spell, so to speak, over my mind which clouded any distinct assurance. Still, the sealing of the Spirit at that moment of my regeneration kept a flame of hope alive in me that was not extinguished even during ignominious backslidings. Somehow I knew the One who came to me would keep me. I wouldn't call it assurance – such as we are talking of here – just hope, or some kind of deep knowing. Song of Solomon 8:6 has these words, "for love is strong as death". His initial presence left an _indelible_ mark on my soul.

At any rate, I would agree with Prof Engelsma that it is by the hearing of the Spirit-anointed Gospel promises, the word of God's righteousness given to men in Christ thus giving them right standing before Him, that fills the heart with assurance He will always keep them, and enable them to persevere in faith and holiness until the end, though they may fall again and again.

During a dark period recently, this one portion of Scripture alone buoyed my heart above the threatening waters: "*Nothing* can separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus!" (Rom 8:39)

What a blessing for a soul, or a church, to be given such teaching – enabling all the elect in a congregation to luxuriate in the immersion of His saving love and power, week after week!

Reactions: Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 7, 2021)

What Puritans clearly said that assurance is of the essence of faith?

We can't establish the truth by counting noses, but if we find ourselves on the side of those with bad theology otherwise, maybe we ought to take another look.

*Assurance is of the essence of faith: *

Sandemanians
Various Hyper-Calvinists and those who are "hyper-adjacent" e.g. PRCA
Old Dallas Seminary dispensationalists (Chafer, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, etc.)
Tullian Tchvidjian and his defenders
Gordon Clark and John Robbins, who were in large agreement with the most extreme old DTS "free gracers" on this
R.T. Kendall

*Assurance is not of the essence of faith:*

Westminster Standards
J.C. Ryle
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
All or almost all of the Puritans
Too many others to mention -- before this thread, I assumed that arguing that assurance is of the essence of faith was the kind of argument that would have been shut down here since the Puritans so obviously rejected it.

This may seem dismissive, but if we don't identify with the alleged "pietism" of the Second Reformation over the alleged stance of the First or Magisterial Reformation on this, then why are we here? (I understand that the differences may be overblown, but some who argue that assurance is of the essence of faith cite early Reformers here and there and argue that the Puritans got it wrong and were guilty of "morbid introspectionism.")

At least for those of us who aren't theocratic or theonomic, the Puritan teaching on the Christian life, including assurance, is basically THE main reason for studying them.

*The Puritans aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth, but after all,* *this IS the Puritanboard*.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> At least for those of us who aren't theocratic or theonomic, the Puritan teaching on the Christian life, including assurance, is basically THE main reason for studying them.



While I disagree with any overemphasis on introspection, I do agree with you on that being the reason for studying them.

As to assurance is the essence of faith, my own take on it is that the first generation had different problems than the later ones. The later generation had to deal with the horrors of Cartesian certainty and the waning of certitude. Given that, they couldn't say assurance was the essence of faith.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 7, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> *Assurance is of the essence of faith: *
> 
> Sandemanians
> Various Hyper-Calvinists and those who are "hyper-adjacent" e.g. PRCA
> ...


Doesn’t this list beg the question, though? The argument is that the most orthodox in our history held to this understanding—Calvin and Heidelberg, just to make two titans. It seems to me we can say Turretin did, as well, unless I’m reading him wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 7, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Doesn’t this list beg the question, though? The argument is that the most orthodox in our history held to this understanding—Calvin and Heidelberg, just to make two titans. It seems to me we can say Turretin did, as well, unless I’m reading him wrong.


I believe you are right on Calvin and Heidelberg. The question then is what do you do with those who struggle with assurance? Are they considered unconverted? Or do we make a distinction between little assurance and full assurance, i.e. can assurance be present in various degrees? Does Calvin or Heidelberg allow for this?


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 7, 2021)

De Jager said:


> I believe you are right on Calvin and Heidelberg. The question then is what do you do with those who struggle with assurance? Are they considered unconverted? Or do we make a distinction between little assurance and full assurance, i.e. can assurance be present in various degrees? Does Calvin or Heidelberg allow for this?


I think you have two different, complementary perspectives.

Those who stress assurance being of the essence of faith are often approaching the question from a more theoretical perspective: if salvation is genuinely by faith alone and not by works, then (contra Roman Catholicism) every believer may and should have full assurance. If there is no "performance" in our salvation - nothing in my hand I bring/simply to thy cross I cling - then there is no reason why even the simplest believer should not have full assurance. Christ is sufficient: just look to him.

Those who stress degrees of assurance tend to approach the question from a more pastoral/experiential perspective. The fact is that many believers do struggle to have assurance. Theoretically, they shouldn't perhaps, but they do. And lacking assurance doesn't necessarily make you an unbeliever. Healthy faith should tend toward assurance, to be sure, but even an unhealthy, immature, or weak faith may nonetheless be a genuine faith in the Christ who saves us.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## py3ak (Oct 7, 2021)

Following up on Dr. Duguid's good post above, it seems to me that a danger in these discussions is of embracing a false dichotomy, one that the divergence in Westminster's language from Confession to Larger Catechism should actually prevent. Herman Bavinck's discussion in _Reformed Ethics_ is very profitable from a Biblical, theological, pastoral, and historical perspective.

Of course_ assurance_ is of the essence of faith. What sense would it make to say that uncertainty belongs to belief? Nothing is more certain than God's word, and being persuaded of its truth is the highest form of knowledge available to us in this life. 

Of course _the experience of doubt_ is compatible with saving faith. We're not saved by subjective certitude, after all, and none of us enjoy perfect spiritual health.

When the question is put in terms of Christian experience, of course _assurance_ is not _so_ of the essence of faith that it prevents all struggle and conflict; but that qualifier is important, because the weakness of the actual state of belief in a believer doesn't pertain to the nature of faith. And so when the question is explicitly about if true believers are always [subjectively] assured of their present being in the estate of grace, the answer must be that assurance of grace and salvation are not of the essence of faith. Faith can absolutely exist without excluding doubts and fears, though uncertainty is opposite to the nature of faith.

To cite Bavinck:



> According to Erskine, assurance belongs to the nature of faith, as does resting [in God] and trusting God. Though the believer does not always feel assured, "is not always actually staying and resting ... in the Lord," and "is not always trusting," none of this affects the nature of faith any more than the nature of the eye as an organ of seeing is changed when someone momentarily closes both eyes and cannot see. One needs only to remove the impediments, the unbelief, etc., and immediately assurance of faith returns. It is for precisely that reason that we must maintain that doubt is unbelief and sin and conflicts entirely with the nature of faith. All of us must thus endeavor to come to the full assurance of faith and strive to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10), grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), and become strong in grace (2 Tim. 2:1).


(Herman Bavinck, _Reformed Ethics _[Grand Rapids: Baker Academic], 2019: 413-414)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Irenaeus (Oct 7, 2021)

After my reading of what @iainduguid and @py3ak just wrote, part of me wants to see the thread closed so that the discussion can end on that high note. Thank you, gentlemen.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 7, 2021)

I know the discussion is on Paul Washer in particular and the nature of assurance in general.

It occurs to me that a conversation I heard recently between Sinclair Ferguson on the Theology on the Go podcast points (in part) to one of the issues many Reformed people have in discussing any theological topic. He was pointing out how Hugh Ross' writings serve to remind us of the mooring that our theology has in the Covenant of Grace. I often think many discussions about faith or assurance tend to leave their mooring in the Covenant of Grace and are taken up independently as if they can be considered without understanding how Christ's Mediatorial Offices operate to secure and grant these Evangelical graces to believers. Conversations between the neophyte or the nomist or the antinomian with the preacher of the The Marrow of Modern Divinity come to mind. 

We tend to discuss the issue of works, for instance, in the abstract, quite apart from their connection to whether a person is in the Covenant of Works or in the Covenant of Grace. It is the same thing with the Law itself. 

Once we move apart from the ground of the Covenant and start to discuss faith or works or assurance then we are divorcing them from the whole Christ and how He works them together in the believer. 

This is why a person operating from a lack of Covenantal understanding can read some Puritans (or their followers) and see only in them a morbid introspection.

One can say that assurance is of the essence of faith because it is the instrument by which we lay hold of the whole Christ in Whom assurance is found. It is a sinner, however, united to the Whole Christ and while sanctification is also of that essence of being united to Christ, it moves in fits and starts. We see the flesh still warring within our members and we are called repeatedly by the Scriptures to reckon who we are in this Christ as His Mediatorial offices of Prophet, Priest, and King are being outworked visibly and invisibly in the lives of Saints.

I can't speak about Washer, but I can say that one cannot judge a particular "reaction" to any sermon based on the hearer who is operating in a way that chops up theological bits like faith, assurance, good works, sanctification, etc as if they are to be tossed about in the mind as propositions to be logically understood without reference to the fact that they are all within the outworkings of the Mediator.

Incidentally, though not related to assurance, per se, this is the issue that is roiling within my own denomination and "Side B" Christianity. It's yet another example of sinners not grasping what it means that they have been brought from death (in Adam) to life (in Christ). It changes the entire conversation. It changes the whole outlook on what the Law, works, holiness, etc looks like. When one loses the plot (Covenant) then it affects everything and people even forget that sinners are united to the whole Christ and what that really means for the way we talk about ourselves to include our doubts, our sins, our works, etc.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 7, 2021)

Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say of the PRCA they're hyper-adjacent to Hyper-Calvinists – if I'm reading you right. That canard (to put it mildly) re the PRCA being hyper-calvinists I thought would have been put to rest on the PB for some time now.


Pilgrim said:


> Various Hyper-Calvinists and those who are "hyper-adjacent" e.g. PRCA

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## LilyG (Oct 7, 2021)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I know the discussion is on Paul Washer in particular and the nature of assurance in general.
> 
> It occurs to me that a conversation I heard recently between Sinclair Ferguson on the Theology on the Go podcast points (in part) to one of the issues many Reformed people have in discussing any theological topic. He was pointing out how Hugh Ross' writings serve to remind us of the mooring that our theology has in the Covenant of Grace. I often think many discussions about faith or assurance tend to leave their mooring in the Covenant of Grace and are taken up independently as if they can be considered without understanding how Christ's Mediatorial Offices operate to secure and grant these Evangelical graces to believers. Conversations between the neophyte or the nomist or the antinomian with the preacher of the The Marrow of Modern Divinity come to mind.
> 
> ...



I really need to remember that. Thank you! That is helpful.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 7, 2021)

Semper Fidelis said:


> We tend to discuss the issue of works, for instance, in the abstract, quite apart from their connection to whether a person is in the Covenant of Works or in the Covenant of Grace. It is the same thing with the Law itself.
> 
> Once we move apart from the ground of the Covenant and start to discuss faith or works or assurance then we are divorcing them from the whole Christ and how He works them together in the believer.
> 
> This is why a person operating from a lack of Covenantal understanding can read some Puritans (or their followers) and see only in them a morbid introspection.


Rich I think you have got to the key issue here. I am not sure where Washer stands on covenant theology but my experience with the MacArthur dispensationalists is they have an ordo salutis, but no pactum salutis, and no historia salutis. Therefore they have a theologically distorted framework for their doctrine of assurance. I did wonder if Paul Washer is affected by this?


----------



## lifelong_sinner (Oct 8, 2021)

Hello all. Paul washer in my opinion, is one of the better preachers for me to listen to online. I do find that his teachings do cut to the bone, of which i like. I dont care to listen to a lot of preachers saying how we are all ok, and that life is great. I want the old hellfire and brimstone teaching. I like that because as a false convert, i fully understand that judgment day will be extremely bad for myself and others. 
Teaching that everything is gonna work out doesnt make people see just how depraved we really are. You want to see truly regenerated people?? Teach the gospel fiercely and truthful so that others can understand the need for Jesus. Despair can be a powerful tool.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Hello all. Paul washer in my opinion, is one of the better preachers for me to listen to online. I do find that his teachings do cut to the bone, of which i like. I dont care to listen to a lot of preachers saying how we are all ok, and that life is great. I want the old hellfire and brimstone teaching. I like that because as a false convert, i fully understand that judgment day will be extremely bad for myself and others.
> Teaching that everything is gonna work out doesnt make people see just how depraved we really are. You want to see truly regenerated people?? Teach the gospel fiercely and truthful so that others can understand the need for Jesus. Despair can be a powerful tool.



If he came to my church and preached that, I would walk out. Our church works hard to nurture our covenant children in God's promises. That approach would teach my daughter to doubt God's covenant promise to be God to her.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 8, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say of the PRCA they're hyper-adjacent to Hyper-Calvinists – if I'm reading you right. That canard (to put it mildly) re the PRCA being hyper-calvinists I thought would have been put to rest on the PB for some time now.



I think basically what I meant was that they hold some things in common with hypers, such as the denial of the free offer. In my experience, hypers (various hyper-Calvinist Baptists) or “ultra high” Calvinists (such as Clark) are somewhat more likely to argue that assurance is of the essence of faith. On the other hand, I don’t think that someone like Pink agreed with them on that despite their taking his side against Murray et al. (As with the Puritans, I tend to agree with Murray that Pink’s writings on the Christian life are perhaps his most valuable.) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If he came to my church and preached that, I would walk out. Our church works hard to nurture our covenant children in God's promises. That approach would teach my daughter to doubt God's covenant promise to be God to her.



Would you say the same about Beeke and others in that school of thought (HRC, Free Reformed, etc)? Is there never any place for self-examination? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 8, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Is there never any place for self-examination?


*Test yourselves* _to see _if you are in the faith; *examine yourselves*! 2 Cor 13:5 [LSB]


----------



## Claudiu (Oct 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If he came to my church and preached that, I would walk out. Our church works hard to nurture our covenant children in God's promises. That approach would teach my daughter to doubt God's covenant promise to be God to her.


Are the two mutually exclusive?


----------



## alexanderjames (Oct 8, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Hello all. Paul washer in my opinion, is one of the better preachers for me to listen to online. I do find that his teachings do cut to the bone, of which i like. I dont care to listen to a lot of preachers saying how we are all ok, and that life is great. I want the old hellfire and brimstone teaching. I like that because as a false convert, i fully understand that judgment day will be extremely bad for myself and others.
> Teaching that everything is gonna work out doesnt make people see just how depraved we really are. You want to see truly regenerated people?? Teach the gospel fiercely and truthful so that others can understand the need for Jesus. Despair can be a powerful tool.


I hope by this you don't mean that you are still a false convert and that you despair of salvation?
And when you say despair, I hope you mean despairing in our own flesh, so that we may look only to Christ and rest in Him.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 8, 2021)

If Washer came to my church and preached on self-examination and the perils of false conversion, my words to my children would be, "Listen up. Because of what you are about to hear, your father is a true Christian."

Interestingly, this last Tuesday I spoke to a brother with a deeply tender and scrupulous conscience. The week before he had listened to Washer, I believe it was on self-examination, and found great comfort and assurance from him. At a time when I was in an extremely fearful state, Washer was the first light of truth to help me crawl out of my despair.

I don't listen to Washer much anymore. He's an itinerant, and an internet preacher doesn't make a suitable diet, and itinerants don't have messages tailored to feed over the long-term. Understandable for the circumstances. But I'd love to love Christ as much as Washer seems to.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Rich I think you have got to the key issue here. I am not sure where Washer stands on covenant theology but my experience with the MacArthur dispensationalists is they have an ordo salutis, but no pactum salutis, and no historia salutis. Therefore they have a theologically distorted framework for their doctrine of assurance. I did wonder if Paul Washer is affected by this?


That's possible. After some time of reflecting upon this, a CT understanding with Christ the Mediator at the center unties all the knots people tend to get into on these topics. Without the Covenant in view, a person is bound to fall into either antinomianism (insisting that all talk of works or fruits of faith or rewards, etc are a "violation of the Gospel") or neonomianism (wanting us to get really serious about the law and collapsing faith into faithfulness).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 8, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> We can't establish the truth by counting noses, but if we find ourselves on the side of those with bad theology otherwise, maybe we ought to take another look.
> 
> *Assurance is of the essence of faith: *
> 
> ...


Guilt by association much?
I wouldn't put PCRA next to crazy Dispensationalists.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2021)

Claudiu said:


> Are the two mutually exclusive?



If he is presuming damnation or that one is unregenerate, yes. By contrast, I am not presuming election or regeneration. I am presuming God's covenant promise.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Would you say the same about Beeke and others in that school of thought (HRC, Free Reformed, etc)? Is there never any place for self-examination?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Self-examination is fine. Morbid introspection is not. Presuming damnation is out of the question.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> *Test yourselves* _to see _if you are in the faith; *examine yourselves*! 2 Cor 13:5 [LSB]



I'm not saying don't examine yourselves. By all means. But Paul is speaking to people who were tolerating sleeping with stepmothers, getting drunk at communion, denying the resurrection, and following false teachers. By that criteria I am doing fine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 8, 2021)

I think a Biblical balance would solve the difficulties we're having as regards assurance. I've been reading a book lately, _Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal_ ( ISBN 13: 9780853642664), by Richard Lovelace, and want to quote from “Chapter 6, The Renewal of the Local Congregation”. I'll comment a little after the quote.

While evangelical churches have been preaching incessantly on the love of God since the Moody era, in far too many instances the justifying work of Christ has not been spelled out and balanced by an equal stress on sanctification, so that the grace of God can be both intelligible and credible for the individual believer. Many of our people are severely enculturated [i.e., worldly] because their relationship to Christ is so insecure that they are not free to cut loose from cultural support. So we must first make real to them the grace of God in accepting them daily, not because of their spirituality or their achievements in Christian service, but because God has accounted to them the perfect righteousness of Christ.

This may seem like the most elemental concept in the Protestant tradition but it is just as rare an act of faith among Protestants as among Catholics. We all automatically gravitate toward the assumption that we are justified by our level of sanctification, and when this posture is adopted it inevitably focuses our attention not on Christ but on the adequacy of our own obedience. We start our day with our personal security resting not on the accepting love of God and the sacrifice of Christ but on our present feelings or recent achievements in the Christian life. Since these arguments will not quiet the human conscience, we are inevitably moved either to discouragement and apathy or to a self-righteousness which falsifies the record to achieve a sense of peace.

Much that we have interpreted as a defect of sanctification in churchpeople is really an outgrowth of their loss of bearing with respect to justification. Christians who are no longer sure that God loves and accepts them in Jesus, apart from their present spiritual achievements, are subconsciously radically insecure persons—much less secure than non-Christians, because they have too much light to rest easily under the constant bulletins they receive from their Christian environment about the holiness of God and the righteousness they are supposed to have….

….As P.T. Forsyth says, “It is an item of faith that we are children of God; there is plenty of experience in us against it.” [P.T Forsyth, _Christian Perfection_, p 9] The faith that surmounts this evidence and is able to warm itself at the fire of God’s love, instead of having to steal love and self-acceptance from other sources, is actually the root of holiness…. 

[For] as Forsyth points out, justifying faith must necessarily be repentant faith. It must be the kind of faith which proceeds to sanctify the whole life. Where justification is preached without an equal stress on sanctification, the good news as always perceived as “too good to be true.” People may say they believe it and try to pacify their consciences with the message of cheap grace, but they will not succeed in believing the truth about God’s grace until they believe the truth about themselves and begin to strive to change what they see.

We cannot claim Christ’s justifying work without claiming at the same time his delivering power for sanctification. Thus Paul says, “We are convinced that one died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Cor. 5:14-15). Real justifying and sanctifying faith involves death and resurrection for the believer; it involves being born again. Every minister who is aiming toward a renewed congregation must seek to bring every individual member into the light concerning the depth of his or her need to appropriate the justifying and sanctifying work of Christ through a response of faith…. 

…. Beyond the goal of a regenerate congregation, the minister aiming at renewal must work toward one in which the members are growing in sanctification and making progress at conquering sin in their lives. (pp 211, 212, 213, 214)​_____

[End Lovelace]

I do have some reservations with Lovelace's book, but parts of it are profound with simple clarity of spiritual, Biblical insight. And I'm a learner in this school of Christ and the Holy Spirit myself. I started near the middle of the book where he spoke of things I am interested in, but then – really intrigued by his wisdom – began for a while from the beginning, but then continued again in the middle. The book is a tonic to me!

I may shortly be laboring in a congregation again (my doctors have given me a clean bill of health), and this is a matter dear to my heart, both as a pastor and as a disciple – a robust and deep spiritual life such as is our portion as God's children in Christ. Stephen Charnock once said, "A man may be theologically knowing and spiritually ignorant." I would like to grow in this area of my walk, and would like to bring the flock into it as well. Justification is the foundation of our relationship with God, part of the gift of His adopting us, but so also is Sanctification, which the indwelling Holy Spirit produces in us as He enables us both to will and to do His good pleasure. I need to grow in this, and I need to know Him better.

Justification is such a blessing, especially when I fail; I can, as I am in Christ, repair to our Father for the lavish love and strengthening He gives His beloved children, so I may again walk the highway of holiness. I'm heading to the City of God, I am.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not saying don't examine yourselves. By all means. But Paul is speaking to people who were tolerating sleeping with stepmothers, getting drunk at communion, denying the resurrection, and following false teachers. By that criteria I am doing fine.



Yes, this point is often one that is all too easily overlooked. I know of one man who has not had assurance for over a decade. When talking to a close friend of his, I remarked that this person was probably not visiting hookers every night and that his doubt was a greater sin than the other sins which were causing him to doubt his salvation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Claudiu (Oct 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not saying don't examine yourselves. By all means. But Paul is speaking to people who were tolerating sleeping with stepmothers, getting drunk at communion, denying the resurrection, and following false teachers. By that criteria I am doing fine.


You've thrown this line out a few times now. But that wouldn't be a simple exhaustive list of sins to compare ourselves to, right?

The catechisms rightly open up the ten commandments on this point. The reformed and puritans have maintained a law/gospel distinction and robust view of the three uses of the law. Certainly introspection is required. And in our current context the modern man is blessed with a wealth of biblical knowledge and information but a cursed saturation of worldliness that pervades even our reformed world.

Even more, with this seasons newfound appreciation of gospel-centered/focused preaching, in many churches there is an obsession with "finding Christ in every passage" to a degree that the third use of the law is diminished and we are simply left with platitudes of "trust in the promises of God" and "rest in Christ's finished work" snuck in nearly if not all sermons. The balance has been lost. Many moderns seemingly loathe the calls to the particular forms of holiness, with retorts that it's legalism and causing people to doubt their salvation, and would prefer we rather just focus on the theological truths of God's work. I think Beeke, Washer, et al are working within their respective contexts we are familiar with (hypercalvinism, presumptive regeneration) to restore some of this balance and likewise have an eye out to the problems that plague the church at large (lax Christianity). That will create an emphasis, especially as informed by our puritan fathers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2021)

Claudiu said:


> You've thrown this line out a few times now. But that wouldn't be a simple exhaustive list of sins to compare ourselves to, right?
> 
> The catechisms rightly open up the ten commandments on this point. The reformed and puritans have maintained a law/gospel distinction and robust view of the three uses of the law. Certainly introspection is required. And in our current context the modern man is blessed with a wealth of biblical knowledge and information but a cursed saturation of worldliness that pervades even our reformed world.
> 
> Even more, with this seasons newfound appreciation of gospel-centered/focused preaching, in many churches there is an obsession with "finding Christ in every passage" to a degree that the third use of the law is diminished and we are simply left with platitudes of "trust in the promises of God" and "rest in Christ's finished work" snuck in nearly if not all sermons. The balance has been lost. Many moderns seemingly loathe the calls to the particular forms of holiness, with retorts that it's legalism and causing people to doubt their salvation, and would prefer we rather just focus on the theological truths of God's work. I think Beeke, Washer, et al are working within their respective contexts we are familiar with (hypercalvinism, presumptive regeneration) to restore some of this balance and likewise have an eye out to the problems that plague the church at large (lax Christianity). That will create an emphasis, especially as informed by our puritan fathers.



Of course it isn't an exhaustive list, but it is the context of Corinth from which the verse came.

I am not sure what "finding Christ in every passage" has to do with the promises.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2021)

Claudiu said:


> You've thrown this line out a few times now. But that wouldn't be a simple exhaustive list of sins to compare ourselves to, right?
> 
> The catechisms rightly open up the ten commandments on this point. The reformed and puritans have maintained a law/gospel distinction and robust view of the three uses of the law. Certainly introspection is required. And in our current context the modern man is blessed with a wealth of biblical knowledge and information but a cursed saturation of worldliness that pervades even our reformed world.
> 
> Even more, with this seasons newfound appreciation of gospel-centered/focused preaching, in many churches there is an obsession with "finding Christ in every passage" to a degree that the third use of the law is diminished and we are simply left with platitudes of "trust in the promises of God" and "rest in Christ's finished work" snuck in nearly if not all sermons. The balance has been lost. Many moderns seemingly loathe the calls to the particular forms of holiness, with retorts that it's legalism and causing people to doubt their salvation, and would prefer we rather just focus on the theological truths of God's work. I think Beeke, Washer, et al are working within their respective contexts we are familiar with (hypercalvinism, presumptive regeneration) to restore some of this balance and likewise have an eye out to the problems that plague the church at large (lax Christianity). That will create an emphasis, especially as informed by our puritan fathers.



I grant one of your points, though. If you divorce "promise talk" from the third use of the Law, you have problems.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 9, 2021)

Claudiu said:


> You've thrown this line out a few times now. But that wouldn't be a simple exhaustive list of sins to compare ourselves to, right?
> 
> The catechisms rightly open up the ten commandments on this point. The reformed and puritans have maintained a law/gospel distinction and robust view of the three uses of the law. Certainly introspection is required. And in our current context the modern man is blessed with a wealth of biblical knowledge and information but a cursed saturation of worldliness that pervades even our reformed world.
> 
> Even more, with this seasons newfound appreciation of gospel-centered/focused preaching, in many churches there is an obsession with "finding Christ in every passage" to a degree that the third use of the law is diminished and we are simply left with platitudes of "trust in the promises of God" and "rest in Christ's finished work" snuck in nearly if not all sermons. The balance has been lost. Many moderns seemingly loathe the calls to the particular forms of holiness, with retorts that it's legalism and causing people to doubt their salvation, and would prefer we rather just focus on the theological truths of God's work. I think Beeke, Washer, et al are working within their respective contexts we are familiar with (hypercalvinism, presumptive regeneration) to restore some of this balance and likewise have an eye out to the problems that plague the church at large (lax Christianity). That will create an emphasis, especially as informed by our puritan fathers.



I am trying to read through Mark Jones' book on Antinomianism, subtitled "Antinomian's Unwelcome Guest?". He shares a similar concern. Historically, it's interesting how much of the Westminster was written in response to the antinomian controversy of its day. I'll be frank, some of the antinomian views he points out were views which I (ignorantly) held not too long ago myself, or was at least open to them. Not having finished the book, I'm guessing the question mark is in the title because perhaps antinomianism is only nominally unwelcome in Reformed circles, or unbeknownedst has a backdoor in.

A few years ago Tchividian--a clear antinomian--was quite popular not just among the standard evangelical dispie Baptist, but among those who call themselves Reformed. By that, I mean anyone who would claim to be fans of Calvin, Edwards, the Puritans, Reformers, even if all they have in common is four of the five points. These are the kind of people who would be able, far as they think, to assent to the terms of membership here on PB.

From my own experience, I certainly agree with what's been said that self-examination should be done keeping in mind God's promises. The grace of God enables us to be thoroughly honest with ourselves as to our real condition--because no matter how bad our condition, God will be merciful to the one who believes and turns. And our children already have a great inducement to mercy via church membership and baptism, which are powerful witnesses to that promise. Bare law only makes a bigger sinner.

However, the Tchividian types throw up an immediate barrier to anything approaching on self-examination or even true holiness. In their book, the First Commandment is in substance "Thou shalt not morbidly introspect thyself." I recount a conversation with a friend a year and a half ago, one who at least is in tune with the Reformed world. He tried throwing RC Sproul's analysis of Martin Luther at me to support his antinomian views, and not for anything could I get him to see that 1 John calls the reality of our faith to account according to fruits. I was a member of a Reformed Baptist church which was split by people infected with antinomianism. And not "I don't need to obey" antinomianism, but "we need to think more about our justification to become holy" antinomianism. The antinomian types are experts on grace far as they know. The remedy to antinomianism is multifaceted, but among them includes a man to starkly set before them what fruit grace should be bearing.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2021)

I'll summarize my point like this: as Calvinists we believe sin touches the root (radix) over everything. If you look for sin in your hearts, you are going to find it. If you try to run an exhaustive list when you examine yourself, you will never finish. That's why some in Dutch American churches are 80 years old and never take the Lord's Supper, even though they've never missed a Sunday.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> I am trying to read through Mark Jones' book on Antinomianism, subtitled "Antinomian's Unwelcome Guest?". He shares a similar concern. Historically, it's interesting how much of the Westminster was written in response to the antinomian controversy of its day. I'll be frank, some of the antinomian views he points out were views which I (ignorantly) held not too long ago myself, or was at least open to them. Not having finished the book, I'm guessing the question mark is in the title because perhaps antinomianism is only nominally unwelcome in Reformed circles, or unbeknownedst has a backdoor in.
> 
> A few years ago Tchividian--a clear antinomian--was quite popular not just among the standard evangelical dispie Baptist, but among those who call themselves Reformed. By that, I mean anyone who would claim to be fans of Calvin, Edwards, the Puritans, Reformers, even if all they have in common is four of the five points. These are the kind of people who would be able, far as they think, to assent to the terms of membership here on PB.
> 
> ...



Fair point. Not all "promise-types" share Tchividian's disastrous ministry. Klaas Schilder reacted against the morbid introspection of Kuyperianism and he certainly wasn't an antinomian (he's usually [wrongly] accused of being neonomian).


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Fair point. Not all "promise-types" share Tchividian's disastrous ministry. Klaas Schilder reacted against the morbid introspection of Kuyperianism and he certainly wasn't an antinomian (he's usually [wrongly] accused of being neonomian).



Fully agreed. I myself agree that promises must be presented in conjunction with the preaching of law or self-examination. Bare law makes a bigger sinner, and one must be taught of God (Jn 6:45, 1 John 2) to even know what sin is, or how deep it runs--which means you can only know it in a gracious relationship. Tchividian types are not wrong to highlight grace itself, but they are wrong as to what is gracious, what is not, how grace works, and grace's practical result. In other words, they don't get it.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Of course it isn't an exhaustive list, but it is the context of Corinth from which the verse came.
> 
> I am not sure what "finding Christ in every passage" has to do with the promises.


In some circles, it coincides with the idea that there should only be indicatives in preaching, and no imperatives.

Edit: More specifically, about 10 years ago, you may recall that a controversy erupted over "Redemptive historical preaching" in which some argued that you shouldn't have any application in preaching.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'll summarize my point like this: as Calvinists we believe sin touches the root (radix) over everything. If you look for sin in your hearts, you are going to find it. If you try to run an exhaustive list when you examine yourself, you will never finish. That's why some in Dutch American churches are 80 years old and never take the Lord's Supper, even though they've never missed a Sunday.


To some degree, I think we're talking past each other and reacting what we think the other's position must lead to.

Based on most of what you've written on this subject in recent days, if I didn't know better, I'd think that you'd denounce the Q&As in the WLC on the 10 Commandments as outrageous legalism. And that's exactly what a lot of people in allegedly "confessional" Reformed churches do, including some pastors.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that a conversation might go something like this:

Watson: "Knowledge without repentance is a torch to light men to hell."

"Forget about that old boy, just look to your baptism and ponder your justification. All that repentance stuff is for drunkards and whores." (Yes, some people really do think this way. And they are legion. The Baptist version is "remember that time you prayed to receive Christ" and an insistence that we should never have any doubts whatsoever.) Hence my "After all, this is the Puritanboard" statement. 

So we keep going round and round.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> To some degree, I think we're talking past each other and reacting what we think the other's position must lead to.
> 
> Based on most of what you've written on this subject in recent days, if I didn't know better, I'd think that you'd denounce the Q&As in the WLC on the 10 Commandments as outrageous legalism. And that's exactly what a lot of people in allegedly "confessional" Reformed churches do, including some pastors.
> 
> ...



I recently memorized the shorter catechism, including the ten commandments part. I've never denied repentance. I simply say we shouldn't look inward for assurance. To be sure, knowledge of ongoing sin can tell us where we need to do better, but I wouldn't make it the font of assurance.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 9, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> Interestingly, this last Tuesday I spoke to a brother with a deeply tender and scrupulous conscience. The week before he had listened to Washer, I believe it was on self-examination, and found great comfort and assurance from him. At a time when I was in an extremely fearful state, Washer was the first light of truth to help me crawl out of my despair.



I am not surprised to hear that. There are two tendencies or standpoints, which to some extent we see exemplified on this very thread, and they can come out at very different places. They can be identified by their response to "assurance is of the essence of faith."

For one group, that is a very comforting statement. Almost any qualification of it meets with resistance. They want assurance baked right into the crust of their believing.

For the other group, that statement is very disquieting. If assurance is of the essence of faith, and they lack assurance, what conclusion can they draw but that they also lack faith? This second group is often helped by very "searching" books and preaching; in order to help them through the slough of despond you have to get into the weeds and distinguish one thing and another very narrowly, as John Bunyan struggled through in _Grace Abounding_. 

Both groups agree in desiring assurance, in thinking of it as something good. But they differ widely in their approach, no doubt for many reasons. If you belong to the first group, it's worthwhile asking yourself why you find comfort where others find terror. The danger here will be that of resting on a profession of orthodox faith and an outwardly moral life, becoming _complacent_ rather than truly _dependent_. When in good spiritual health, this group will emphasize the sufficiency of Christ, which is of course a tremendous engine of sanctification and comfort.

If you are in the second group, it's worthwhile asking yourself why others find comfort where you find terror. Is the tendency to conclude against yourself relating more to a lack of faith or to the presence of profound self-knowledge? You'll know you're standing on the rock, not by feeling your feet, but by feeling the rock (as H.C.G. Moule memorably put it). In other words, is _self_, even if self in miserable forms, distracting you from Christ?

If the groups are going to communicate to any profit, it would be helpful to understand the other side a little bit. It's not wrong to resist being distracted from holding the Head! And someone experiencing an intense struggle for clarity and peace, and needing detailed help in that, is no cause for contempt. Today they may be a bruised reed; tomorrow they might be the next Bunyan.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lifelong_sinner (Oct 9, 2021)

alexanderjames said:


> I hope by this you don't mean that you are still a false convert and that you despair of salvation?
> And when you say despair, I hope you mean despairing in our own flesh, so that we may look only to Christ and rest in Him.



I am indeed a false convert and yes, the result of my understanding that im a false convert is why i have much despair concerning my salvation. Paul washer showed me, he did nothing wrong by explaining why there are so many false converts in our churches today. Lots of people dont like Paul washers sermons, but i do believe his strong point is to reveal why we need Jesus and how getting saved shouldnt be viewed as simply a get out of hell free card.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 9, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> I am indeed a false convert and yes, the result of my understanding that im a false convert is why i have much despair concerning my salvation. Paul washer showed me, he did nothing wrong by explaining why there are so many false converts in our churches today. Lots of people dont like Paul washers sermons, but i do believe his strong point is to reveal why we need Jesus and how getting saved shouldnt be viewed as simply a get out of hell free card.


Dear Raul, I will pray for you. Have you spoken to your pastor or elders about the condition you find yourself in? If not, I strongly encourage you to approach them immediately.

I entirely agree that "getting saved" is not a "get out of hell free card." Those who think that way reveal that their genuine concern is not _sin_ but _punishment_. But while it's morally good for sinners to be punished, it's not morally good to be a sinner, so I think it's clear which should be considered the worse evil. 

Now the Lord Jesus came to deal with sin and to deliver us from it. "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven." Before you resign yourself to despair, in other words, ask yourself if there is any hope apart from Christ. The answer is no, as your post above reveals. But if God has shut you up to the only true hope, that isn't for the purpose of destruction or despair; it's so that in Christ you will find a sufficiency, an abundance, of grace. The well-known words remain true: "All that the Father gives to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37). "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:27)

A sinner like you needs the Lord Jesus as a savior. It doesn't matter if previous efforts didn't take. It doesn't matter if you were converted before or not. What matters is that today you should appeal to Christ to save you, in all your corruption and inadequacy and even insincerity. Don't dishonor Christ by thinking that you're too much for him to save; realize that he is able to deliver you even from that sin. May the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ break in upon you very soon.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1 | Praying 1


----------



## lifelong_sinner (Oct 9, 2021)

py3ak said:


> Dear Raul, I will pray for you. Have you spoken to your pastor or elders about the condition you find yourself in? If not, I strongly encourage you to approach them immediately.
> 
> I entirely agree that "getting saved" is not a "get out of hell free card." Those who think that way reveal that their genuine concern is not _sin_ but _punishment_. But while it's morally good for sinners to be punished, it's not morally good to be a sinner, so I think it's clear which should be considered the worse evil.
> 
> ...



Hello py3ak. You have revealed 2 issues of mine, which further prove my false conversion. One is the issue of fear of punishment vs sin. I get that sin is bad, but its similar to speeding on the highway is bad. Speeding is bad, but only because govt said so. Thats my mindset.
And the other issue is that while i have tried to find a relationship with Jesus, i just cant. I dont feel the weight of sin, my despair is over the punishment of hell. But do i fear God? Absolutely, but not in the christian sense. I fear Him more in the light of His wrath. Mercy?? I dont see how a just God can show mercy. He must give to each what they deserve.


----------



## alexanderjames (Oct 9, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> I am indeed a false convert and yes, the result of my understanding that im a false convert is why i have much despair concerning my salvation. Paul washer showed me, he did nothing wrong by explaining why there are so many false converts in our churches today. Lots of people dont like Paul washers sermons, but i do believe his strong point is to reveal why we need Jesus and how getting saved shouldnt be viewed as simply a get out of hell free card.


I am praying for you. 
Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world. 

Hear the words of the Lord in Joel 2,

"Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil.'

And in Isaiah 45,

"Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 9, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> In some circles, it coincides with the idea that there should only be indicatives in preaching, and no imperatives.
> 
> Edit: More specifically, about 10 years ago, you may recall that a controversy erupted over "Redemptive historical preaching" in which some argued that you shouldn't have any application in preaching.


I think we're both getting old. I believe that controversy is more like 10-20 years old as it was roiling in the SoCal OPC Presbytery when I was a member there. Lee Irons was a huge proponent of the idea that you should never make application in sermons and leave it to the Holy Spirit. A person was only ever told how Christ fulfilled the Law if the Law was discussed at all. He (and others) rejected the Westminster Standards ideas on how the Law operates for believers under the Covenant of Grace.

I've often found that this kind of thinking is just that: "thinking". There seems to be an obsession with the idea that a believer must constantly think correctly lest he run the danger of depending upon himself instead of Christ. The Scriptures (and the Standards) certainly put emphasis on how we reckon ourselves but it is rooted not in "how we reckon" but in the fact that we are united to Christ. Thus, although my ability to "think properly" may not always be perfect, if I'm united to Christ then He is working by his Spirit to renew me. 

Toward that end, for instance, when you read Owen on mortification, he points out that the fear of laws or the disapproval of men may be the very thing that turns us away from sinning in some way. Certain forms of the above thinking would find it virtually abhorrent that a person didn't sin in some way because they were not "thinking the right way". That is to say, they were afraid of the law and its punishments. If we consider ourselves in Christ under the Covenant of Grace, however, then we can thank God that He even used our feeble motivations or the threats of punishment to keep us from sinning in a certain way. It moves the locus away from "thinking perfectly" to what Christ is working (both with the good and the bad) toward our good and His glory.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2021)

For the record I never said assurance was the essence of faith. In our post-Cartesian world, that statement can be problematic. Neither did I endorse redemptive-historical preaching (though it has its place). Focusing on the promises is not the same as finding Jesus in every Rock.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## py3ak (Oct 10, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Hello py3ak. You have revealed 2 issues of mine, which further prove my false conversion. One is the issue of fear of punishment vs sin. I get that sin is bad, but its similar to speeding on the highway is bad. Speeding is bad, but only because govt said so. Thats my mindset.
> And the other issue is that while i have tried to find a relationship with Jesus, i just cant. I dont feel the weight of sin, my despair is over the punishment of hell. But do i fear God? Absolutely, but not in the christian sense. I fear Him more in the light of His wrath. Mercy?? I dont see how a just God can show mercy. He must give to each what they deserve.


Raul, this is the sort of situation where it isn’t ideal for strangers on the internet to be your only interlocutors. Please do speak with the pastor or one of the elders at your church tomorrow.

Here are two things to think about in the meantime:
1. Do you wish for God to have mercy upon you? It kind of sounds that way.
2. Do you object to God’s righteous punishment? It doesn’t sound like it.

Along with acknowledging that God is holy and just, we also acknowledge that he is sovereign and free. It doesn’t make human sense that God forgives sin; but that is what he told us in Isaiah 55:8-9. God showing mercy also demonstrates how much higher his thoughts are than ours. “Judge not the Lord by feeble sense” is a good rule. His mercy is astonishing; if it were not divine it would be unbelievable. But it is divine: and the channel for mercy to flow to us with uncompromised righteousness was opened by the sacrifice of Christ.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 10, 2021)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think we're both getting old. I believe that controversy is more like 10-20 years old as it was roiling in the SoCal OPC Presbytery when I was a member there. Lee Irons was a huge proponent of the idea that you should never make application in sermons and leave it to the Holy Spirit. A person was only ever told how Christ fulfilled the Law if the Law was discussed at all. He (and others) rejected the Westminster Standards ideas on how the Law operates for believers under the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> I've often found that this kind of thinking is just that: "thinking". There seems to be an obsession with the idea that a believer must constantly think correctly lest he run the danger of depending upon himself instead of Christ. The Scriptures (and the Standards) certainly put emphasis on how we reckon ourselves but it is rooted not in "how we reckon" but in the fact that we are united to Christ. Thus, although my ability to "think properly" may not always be perfect, if I'm united to Christ then He is working by his Spirit to renew me.
> 
> Toward that end, for instance, when you read Owen on mortification, he points out that the fear of laws or the disapproval of men may be the very thing that turns us away from sinning in some way. Certain forms of the above thinking would find it virtually abhorrent that a person didn't sin in some way because they were not "thinking the right way". That is to say, they were afraid of the law and its punishments. If we consider ourselves in Christ under the Covenant of Grace, however, then we can thank God that He even used our feeble motivations or the threats of punishment to keep us from sinning in a certain way. It moves the locus away from "thinking perfectly" to what Christ is working (both with the good and the bad) toward our good and His glory.



Yes, that case does seem to be perhaps an early preview. I was thinking of some criticisms that John Carrick and others made against redemptive historical preaching (or r-h taken to an extreme, maybe) around 10 years ago. Around that time, the denigration of exemplary preaching etc had become much more widespread including among Southern Baptists. I think this is probably a good summary. https://banneroftruth.org/us/resour...d-the-decline-of-the-preaching-of-repentance/

Ironically, if I’m not mistaken, some of these same preachers have little hesitation today when it comes to applications in preaching that pertain to various “social justice” issues. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 10, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Hello py3ak. You have revealed 2 issues of mine, which further prove my false conversion. One is the issue of fear of punishment vs sin. I get that sin is bad, but its similar to speeding on the highway is bad. Speeding is bad, but only because govt said so. Thats my mindset.
> And the other issue is that while i have tried to find a relationship with Jesus, i just cant. I dont feel the weight of sin, my despair is over the punishment of hell. But do i fear God? Absolutely, but not in the christian sense. I fear Him more in the light of His wrath. Mercy?? I dont see how a just God can show mercy. He must give to each what they deserve.



Look to Christ, friend. Our feelings aren’t a reliable guide. And I don’t think that Washer would place that much emphasis on them. If we are looking for something in ourselves to merit acceptance by God, we aren’t going to find it. 

That being said, your feelings may be an indication that God is doing a work (or has done a work) in you. The typical reprobate in our culture usually isn’t troubled with the fear of God or with having a relationship with him. The kind of issue some of us have been referring to is a man who places too much weight on his baptism or a prayer he said or whatever and never has a doubt about his relationship with Christ no matter how wicked he may be. 

If God can show mercy to the wicked Ninevites under Jonah’s preaching, surely he can show mercy to us. 

“For every look at self — take ten looks at Christ!” Robert Murray M’Cheyne. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Oct 10, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Hello py3ak. You have revealed 2 issues of mine, which further prove my false conversion. One is the issue of fear of punishment vs sin. I get that sin is bad, but its similar to speeding on the highway is bad. Speeding is bad, but only because govt said so. Thats my mindset.
> And the other issue is that while i have tried to find a relationship with Jesus, i just cant. I dont feel the weight of sin, my despair is over the punishment of hell. But do i fear God? Absolutely, but not in the christian sense. I fear Him more in the light of His wrath. Mercy?? I dont see how a just God can show mercy. He must give to each what they deserve.


He shows mercy by uniting a person to Christ in his death and resurrection. He is our federal head. It is a legal arrangement that satisfies God's justice. God says in his word that it satisfies his justice. You may not understand how that could be, but do you believe him?


----------



## alexanderjames (Nov 6, 2021)

@lifelong_sinner
How are you?


----------



## lifelong_sinner (Nov 6, 2021)

Im good, and you?


----------



## alexanderjames (Nov 7, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Im good, and you?



Yes I’m well thank you. I just wanted to ask how you were in light of comments you had made in the thread. Do you think you have made any progress since you in knowing God in Christ?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lifelong_sinner (Nov 7, 2021)

Progress?? No. I dont think so.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 7, 2021)

I know that David Engelsma also teaches the importance of sanctification conjoined with justification – and perhaps that is where the confusion here arises. For the same Holy Spirit that effects the new birth in a believer also is given him or her to indwell that person, giving them a new heart and begins the rebuilding of the entire character, conforming it to the image of Christ. 

When one is remiss in pursuing holiness – perhaps through laziness, complacency, worldliness, outright sin – and one's heart is not actively seeking to commune with Christ, then our assurance wanes, and we can become very nervous and anxious as to assurance that things are well with us and the LORD, as without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Heb 12:14).

We often fail in our path of progressive sanctification, and would be downcast without remedy, were it not for the blessing of justification where our forensic or positional status as beloved before God, clean, and holy in His eyes (Col 3:12) because we are in Christ, renews us in courage and joy so we are able to walk the highway of holiness, which new character of ours wanting to do so is wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ.

We can do this because Christ's presence – which we have by faith, with a clean conscience – enables us.

Without ongoing sanctification we do not have assurance, although justification is the foundation, so to speak, of our entire life with God in Christ. Consider what is written in 1 Cor 1:30: "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption".

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## alexanderjames (Nov 7, 2021)

lifelong_sinner said:


> Progress?? No. I dont think so.



I’m sorry to hear that. Is this something you are speaking to your pastor or elders about?

You clearly have great understanding of your sinfulness and God’s holiness and justice. 
I don’t want to over complicate things - is it believing in Jesus Christ you find yourself not being able to do?


----------



## alexanderjames (Nov 7, 2021)

@lifelong_sinner

I won’t ask you anymore questions here. Please message me privately if you need to.

I must press upon you the weight of eternity. You do not know which day could be your last. If you do not close with Christ then you will die in your sins. 
You must, you must seek the Lord while He may be found. While it is still called today. How can you go on in your sin? You must cry out to Him by the promises of the Gospel until He saves you. His promise is that those who seek will find, those who ask receive, it will be opened to those who knock. He does give grace to the humble. 

Does the Lord Himself not say “Come now, and let us reason together”? (Isaiah 1:18)

Does His word not declare in 2 Peter 3,

“the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 7, 2021)

Hello @lifelong_sinner,

You said (in post #110), "I dont see how a just God can show mercy. He must give to each what they deserve." And that He does! He did not show Christ mercy, but rather the full extent of His wrath. The wrath due to wicked lifelong sinners who would trust Christ as their sin-bearer, that wrath was exhausted upon Him, and no more is left for us who cleave to Him – cleave to Him so as to unite with Him – "baptized into his death.... Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:3,4)

God gave to Christ what all trusting sinners deserve, without a spec of mercy. God's perfect and full justice was manifest in this. The sin-bearer rose again from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, God having accepted His substitutionary atoning sacrifice in our behalves. He has no wrath for Christ now, as Christ never sinned; God has no wrath now for sinners who by faith are in Christ, for that wrath was received and our debt paid in full. Now He can show mercy to whomever He will by virtue of their pleading His merits.

Do you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (that He is the Lord of glory manifest in the flesh), and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead? Then you shall be saved. For with your heart you believe unto receiving justifying righteousness; and with your mouth your confession is made – is efficacious – unto salvation in the eyes of God and His angels. (Romans 10:9,10). 

Every single creature (you included) is manifest in his sight – and all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do, and He hears your heart and words. If you come to Him now, He will not cast you out (John 6:37), but will receive you with gladness. The gospel is about how He can be both supremely just *and* merciful to the likes of us. He says to you – if you will receive it – "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28).

A number of us here will be praying for you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lifelong_sinner (Nov 7, 2021)

Thank you.


----------

