reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
I was talking with a friend today whose theological abilities I respect. He is not reformed, but has read the Puritans fairly extensively. He made a statement that has been nagging me, because it's not my take on the Puritans as a whole at all. He said that the reason he doesn't read them any longer is because there seems to be a lack of assurance among them.
I don't see that as being the case, on the whole. There is certainly an emphasis on closing with Christ, on being a truly converted person (i.e., not self-deceived or hypocritical), and on applying the balm of the gospel to afflicted consciences. But I read all of these focuses as being derived from the sound assurance that springs from knowing all that God is for us in Christ, from knowing the precious promises of the gospel, and from the nature of the covenant of grace.
Certainly there are instances of a sermon/treatise here or there which are more of that negative bent, but I'd argue that we should bear in mind the intended audience. Tom Nettles told me once, "If the sermon scares the heebie-jeebies out of you, it's not intended for Christians, but hardened, cold sinners; if it draws your heart to Christ, he's speaking to Christians."
I wish I'd had more time to ask my friend for specifics today, but it was at a busy point in the day for each of us and I had to let it go. Either way, while we disagree re: Reformed theology, I esteem him highly in the Lord as a dear brother in Christ, and a faithful minister who gives himself to hard theological study and expository preaching.
I love and respect my friend, but think he's mistaken on this point. What say ye to his assessment?
I don't see that as being the case, on the whole. There is certainly an emphasis on closing with Christ, on being a truly converted person (i.e., not self-deceived or hypocritical), and on applying the balm of the gospel to afflicted consciences. But I read all of these focuses as being derived from the sound assurance that springs from knowing all that God is for us in Christ, from knowing the precious promises of the gospel, and from the nature of the covenant of grace.
Certainly there are instances of a sermon/treatise here or there which are more of that negative bent, but I'd argue that we should bear in mind the intended audience. Tom Nettles told me once, "If the sermon scares the heebie-jeebies out of you, it's not intended for Christians, but hardened, cold sinners; if it draws your heart to Christ, he's speaking to Christians."
I wish I'd had more time to ask my friend for specifics today, but it was at a busy point in the day for each of us and I had to let it go. Either way, while we disagree re: Reformed theology, I esteem him highly in the Lord as a dear brother in Christ, and a faithful minister who gives himself to hard theological study and expository preaching.
I love and respect my friend, but think he's mistaken on this point. What say ye to his assessment?
Last edited: