Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Trevor:
Of course I agree that one may merely mentally assent to the gospel. This is why I said that we look not only at doctrine and life but ask about repentance and faith. We want to know not only whether one assents, but whether one trusts in Christ and Him alone. I've been saying this all along so you can't seriously question me on this. My objection is not to Joseph Alleine's seeking to press faith and repentance on his hearer in every proper way.
Rather, my objection, dear brother is to what you continue to say: On what basis do you assume that there are myriads with right doctrine and life but fall short of truly knowing Christ? And your answer must be, as it has consistently throughout these posts, not simply the theoretical "well one may have nothing but mental assent" but "clearly there are many religious professors who are not possessors of Christ because they do not have the requisite religious experience." I am not denying the reality of or even the need for religious experience. I am denying that one must have a certain experience: so much conviction before true conversion, for example.
I ask all the time in my preaching "Have you ever truly hoped in Christ?" and the like. This is not the point. The point is that you identify whether or not one has done that with a particular sort of thing: sufifcient conviction before conversion and the like. You may think that you are doing what Edwards and Alleine are doing but I would say that you are not. I have no trouble inquiring, and think that good preaching should, as to whether or not one has truly trusted in Christ and Him alone. I do have a problem with concluding that many have false assurance because they've not undergone what is requisite to true assurance: a pre-conversion conviction of sin that becomes the touchstone for true conversion and thus the warrant of true assurance. It's one thing to say that deficient life and doctrine and no testimony to faith and repentance prompts one to question the assurance of others. It's another thing altogether to question the assurance of others based on their lack of pre-conversion conviction. That's simply unwarranted and uncharitable. Sorry to be so blunt, but I see no way around that.
I think that if you don't get what I am saying by now, I probably need simply to stop here and commit all these matters to prayer and perhaps take it up again, if that appears wise and useful, in the future.
Peace,
Alan
Of course I agree that one may merely mentally assent to the gospel. This is why I said that we look not only at doctrine and life but ask about repentance and faith. We want to know not only whether one assents, but whether one trusts in Christ and Him alone. I've been saying this all along so you can't seriously question me on this. My objection is not to Joseph Alleine's seeking to press faith and repentance on his hearer in every proper way.
Rather, my objection, dear brother is to what you continue to say: On what basis do you assume that there are myriads with right doctrine and life but fall short of truly knowing Christ? And your answer must be, as it has consistently throughout these posts, not simply the theoretical "well one may have nothing but mental assent" but "clearly there are many religious professors who are not possessors of Christ because they do not have the requisite religious experience." I am not denying the reality of or even the need for religious experience. I am denying that one must have a certain experience: so much conviction before true conversion, for example.
I ask all the time in my preaching "Have you ever truly hoped in Christ?" and the like. This is not the point. The point is that you identify whether or not one has done that with a particular sort of thing: sufifcient conviction before conversion and the like. You may think that you are doing what Edwards and Alleine are doing but I would say that you are not. I have no trouble inquiring, and think that good preaching should, as to whether or not one has truly trusted in Christ and Him alone. I do have a problem with concluding that many have false assurance because they've not undergone what is requisite to true assurance: a pre-conversion conviction of sin that becomes the touchstone for true conversion and thus the warrant of true assurance. It's one thing to say that deficient life and doctrine and no testimony to faith and repentance prompts one to question the assurance of others. It's another thing altogether to question the assurance of others based on their lack of pre-conversion conviction. That's simply unwarranted and uncharitable. Sorry to be so blunt, but I see no way around that.
I think that if you don't get what I am saying by now, I probably need simply to stop here and commit all these matters to prayer and perhaps take it up again, if that appears wise and useful, in the future.
Peace,
Alan