Peter Leithart on assurance

[MarieP]

A Facebook friend posted this article from Peter Leithart, and I wanted to see what you all thought he is saying. My friend says I'm misunderstanding the article. I wondered if Leithart had changed his views because he says, "Works, whether my 'autonomous' works or the works that come from the Spirit of Christ, have no place in the 'calculus' of assurance, just as they have no place in the declaration that I am righteous. I trust entirely on the fact that God has declared me in the right." That doesn't seem to take into account 1 John or James 2.

How To Say, “I Am Righteous” | Peter J. Leithart | First Things

Please don't make this a thread about the FV in general. I realize the whole background. That's actually why I'm surprised by the article (ie Norman Shepherd's view of the covenant). I guess the more you emphasize an objective covenant (even I as a Reformed Baptist believe there is such a thing), there's the danger of losing the importance of heart realities. Though I am debating whether those can truly be called "subjective" because the Spirit's work is absolutely real, and they will be present, albeit to varying degrees, in God's true children.

Interestingly enough, this morning I just heard a great seminary chapel message from DA Carson on Galatians 5:16-23!

 

[Guido's Brother]

Leithart continues on his trajectory away from the Reformed faith. He rejects "simul iustus et peccator" (at the same time righteous and a sinner) -- a view clearly taught in the Reformed confessions (cf. HC LD 23 and 51). His view of assurance also contradicts the Reformed confessions (LD 32, Canons of Dort 5.10).

 

[earl40]

I understand that we all until our last breath will be sinners to the day we die and the struggle to believe in Our Lord Jesus in repentance, gives me true hope as expressed in Romans 7. As a sidelight I have often wondered when we hear...."God when He sees us does not see us in our sin but only cloaked in the righteous of Christ" should have the caveat that He also knows and sees what is under that cloak and we ought not to forget that as per "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Knowing that God knows I am still a sinner by nature and the new nature, or new man, comes totally from without (alien) also gives me great comfort.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I find the article as a whole confused. I agree with Wes that a kind-of studied refusal to invoke the simul principle at the beginning of the article is truly a rejection of the Reformational "joy" that invoked at the end of the article.

Because PL's first-principle of theology appears to be ANTI-DUALISM, he plays Whack-a-Mole wherever he thinks it pops up. Seems to me, this fallen world is fraught with dualisms, which are only resolved existentially for the blessed when their "Already/Not Yet" dualism is perfectly resolved in the latter. And even then in glory, there continues (besides the history of our sinful, fractured past, now healed) a stark dualistic divide to rational creaturely existence, between the living and the damned.

On the other hand, certain points PL affirms are true, and often forgotten by those who should know them best. Truth mixed with error is a toxic brew. So much sifting is necessary with PL, it is almost impossible to recommend his writing. He is yoked with NTWright in this very thing.

PL isn't actually breaking new ground, and pitting the post-Reformation against the Reformation is quite unoriginal. What he actually invokes as the basis for assurance is thoroughly familiar to those without an animus against the tradition; it is most commonly spoken of as "union with Christ," a fairly standard category.

To the degree that this doctrine has ever been over-leaped in an effort to ground assurance in good works (fruit of faith, HC86), there is real danger. As Dort 5:10 words it, our assurance is helped tertiarily (in the third place) by the will to preserve one's good conscience and desire to perform good works. How worthless this "help" would be without the first two grounds, which are the Word of promise and the witness of Holy Spirit, ought to be manifest. As HC114 puts it: "In this life, even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience," certainly too little to hold us (barely) in any confidence of grace.

PL puts an emphasis in his piece on the means of grace, as that which bears in them tokens of God's propitiousness toward me, the believer, which strengthen faith by the exercise. But then, how does that faith do less than bear "fruit," HC86?

To the extent that we apply to such fruit the sober judgment that it is bruised and hardly nutritious, still it is recognizable fruit. And because it is known to be fruit, it bears a witness to the prior works of God in the soil, and ought to encourage us as the fruit of sanctification, Rom.6:22. It is not fruit originally for ourselves, but is "unto God," Rom.7:4, and he imputes his valuation to it.

In keeping with PL's comment, I would not want to put my works into the calculus of my assurance. Seriously, it is "the fine dust of the balance," is it not? Is PL's comment a new concession, indicating some further distance between him and the FVists? One muddled article is not sufficient to say. PL is the Melancthon of our times: part Lutheran, part Roman/generic Medieval, and passionate for unity even if it demands vagueness where precision once was a matter of life and death.

 

[MarieP]

Because PL's first-principle of theology appears to be ANTI-DUALISM, he plays Whack-a-Mole wherever he thinks it pops up. Seems to me, this fallen world is fraught with dualisms, which are only resolved existentially for the blessed when their "Already/Not Yet" dualism is perfectly resolved in the latter. And even then in glory, there continues (besides the history of our sinful, fractured past, now healed) a stark dualistic divide to rational creaturely existence, between the living and the damned.

An excellent point about dualism!

In keeping with PL's comment, I would not want to put my works into the calculus of my assurance. Seriously, it is "the fine dust of the balance," is it not? Is PL's comment a new concession, indicating some further distance between him and the FVists? One muddled article is not sufficient to say. PL is the Melancthon of our times: part Lutheran, part Roman/generic Medieval, and passionate for unity even if it demands vagueness where precision once was a matter of life and death.

This does confuse me, though. What of WCF Chapter XVI, paragraph 2?

These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

 

[MW]

Some of the confusion related to discussions on assurance arises from the failure to identify what the believer is to be assured of. Leithart's piece is a typical example. He sends us to the Word and sacraments and then bids us believe and be saved. But what if one's struggle concerns whether or not he has actually and genuinely believed? Leithart has no answer. He can only send us back to the Word and sacraments. This is sad. Scripture has more to say. It speaks to real believers who sometimes struggle with the witness in themselves and it shows them the bona fide marks by which they may be able to discern the work of the Spirit within them. Our Confession and Catechisms reflect this realistic teaching of Scripture. The man is to be pitied who thinks he is wiser than the Word. When that man assumes to teach others and share his ignorance with others, he should be marked and avoided.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Bona fide marks indeed.

"faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises"
"Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made"
"never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God"
"growing up to assurance of pardon of sin"
"in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness; which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect"
"as he is able and willing to help us, so we by faith are emboldened to plead with him that he would, and quietly to rely upon him, that he will fulfill our requests"
"and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith "
"being convinced of his sin and misery"
"not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,"
"receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness"
"we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation"

Not a few stumble by confusing assurance as faith, yet "assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith" and "true believers may wait long before they obtain it" forgetting that "yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God, as keeps them from sinking into utter despair". Many have eschewed checklisting our assurance of faith for fear of being accused of works-based attitudes. Yet we are admonished to examine ourselves. How else do we examine ourselves without prayerful and honest looking to the "bona fide marks"? I am often loathe to answer the question "How do I know I am saved?" for fear of simplistic "Do this an live" checklists. It takes careful assessment of the questioner's motivations, knowledge, and understanding. Only after much discussion wherein I have convinced myself the question arises from a repentant believer do I forge ahead with probing the "bona fide marks" in the hope that the person has genuinely sought the shelter of the Cross in their walk of faith.

 

[JimmyH]

Interestingly enough, this morning I just heard a great seminary chapel message from DA Carson on Galatians 5:16-23!

Google is not my friend tonight, could you provide a link please ?

 

[MarieP]

Google is not my friend tonight, could you provide a link please ?

It's actually not online yet- hopefully it will be tomorrow! I will link it when it's available.

 

[MarieP]

Google is not my friend tonight, could you provide a link please ?

Here you go! Be edified!

SBTS Resources » The Spirit’s Work in Gospel Transformation

 

[JimmyH]

Google is not my friend tonight, could you provide a link please ?

Here you go! Be edified!

SBTS Resources » The Spirit’s Work in Gospel Transformation

Thanks so much !! I need all the edification I can get ........

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What of WCF Chapter XVI, paragraph 2?

These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

I apologize for making any increase in confusion. Strengthening assurance is not grounding assurance. To strengthen implies they have deeper source; works are fruits, not vines that bear them. If I look especially to the measure of my performance--the quality and quantity of my lawkeeping at some point, together with time and repetition indicating progress--to be sustained in hope of God's favor; if I am not led back to the Spirit and the Word and to Christ himself, then the same law that validates good fruit must eventually assail it's lack of perfection.

For the Christian, both obedience and sin must lead back to Christ. Without obedience leading back to Christ and confidence in him, and in the alien righteousness of justification, self-righteousness must result--such "assurance" is all in the work, unless the law eventually exposes its lack of intrinsic merit.

My point is: at the end, in the day of the Lord, I do not expect confidence flowing from having had "my hand on the plow;" he has made of me what he willed, and I am entirely a product of his choice. Rev.19:7-8, "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." I do not want one thread of mine marring the dress; I have added nothing to his work. (The KJV is unsurpassed at this place. Translations that indicate the word "righteousness"[es] (pl.) as good works done by the saints, have tried to smooth the transition between the vv, and inverted the sense of v8 wherein the bride is wholly passive, all acted upon.)

In the meantime, those good works should assure me and other believers of God's goodwill toward and conforming grace at work upon us.

 

[MarieP]

For the Christian, both obedience and sin must lead back to Christ. Without obedience leading back to Christ and confidence in him, and in the alien righteousness of justification, self-righteousness must result--such "assurance" is all in the work, unless the law eventually exposes its lack of intrinsic merit.

In the meantime, those good works should assure me and other believers of God's goodwill toward and conforming grace at work upon us.

Amen! Thanks for the clarification!

I'll have to think about the interpretation of Rev.19:7-8 (not that disagreeing with you on it would invalidate your argument). I'll start a new thread... (NO PUN INTENDED, ahahaha!!!!)

 

[lynnie]

Just for the record, when people change their views on controversial big subjects, or repent of error, they say so. You won't need to figure it out.

I got saved into charismania. There are all kinds of things where I've had to say that I no longer believe it, or have renounced it, or I am sorry I was deceived about it. Nobody has to try and guess what I think about Hal Lindsey or breaking curses, or if one generally speaks in tongues when they get the power of the holy spirit, or my choices getting me saved.

When PL truly changes his views, you will know it.

 

[Gforce9]

Just for the record, when people change their views on controversial big subjects, or repent of error, they say so......When PL truly changes his views, you will know it.

Lynnie, I like your thoughts here. I wouldn't ask for (or take) PL's advice on what to have for dinner at this juncture......