Puritans struggling for assurance?

Status
Not open for further replies.

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?
 
Last edited:
Some years ago a friend gifted me with a copy of Joel Beeke's work The Quest for Full Assurance : The Legacy of Calvin and his successors.

Probably the most extensive treatment on this subject that I know of.
 
Certainly there are instances of a sermon/treatise here or there which are more of that negative bent

I agree.

Hi Reagan,

Below are two different articles that I found helpful as an introduction to the Puritan/Assurance question.

First Article - A piece that puts Edwards and the Puritans entirely in the same camp, as though the one equals the other.
The Doctrine of Assurance under the Microscope of Jonathan Edwards - by Jim Ehrhard
https://goo.gl/stVt57

Second Article - Posted at Beggars All blogspot is not so favorable on Edwards and “many of the Puritans” as regards assurance. In the brief article, Edwards is compared to Calvin, and the Heidelberg to the Westminster Catechisms, as evidence of the difference "in what belongs to the essence of faith.".
Jonathan Edwards vs. John Calvin: Got Assurance? - posted by James Swan
https://goo.gl/Gs4jcW

For what it's worth I think there were some pockets of unneeded despair among the Puritans, with no lack thereof in New England, that sometimes led to sorrow and suffering among some true believers. But, I also think that an extreme form of introspection and angst over one's assurance is a far safer pendulum swing that of the often easy-believisn of our day. I loved Edward's Religious Affections, but it took a bit of a toll on my psyche.
 
James Durham does both often in the same sermon. While he may come off to some as constantly haranguing his hearers, we need to remember that Durham and other Puritans preached to audiences that today would be akin to if someone were preaching to everyone in a town or sector of a city showing up on Lord's Days. Durham pretty much thought Glasgow was filled with unconverted nominal Christians and he has a lot of those heebie-jeebie inspiring addresses to them. On the other had his sermons are filled with the comment or preface that he would not discourage any who are true Christians. Below he aims more for the latter.

James Durham: Assurance Christ died for you in particular
Use One. The first use serves for information to let you know that there are many professing Christians that account this a curious, nice and conceity thing, to study to be sure and to make it sure that Christ in His death and sufferings minded them in particular. Others maybe think it impossible; and all may think it a right hard and difficult thing and indeed so it is. But yet we would have you to consider: 1. That simply it is not impossible, else we should say that the comfort of the people of God were impossible. 2. That it is no curious thing; for the Lord does not lay the obligation to curiosity on any, though we would wish that many had a holy curiosity to know God’s mind towards them that they might not live in the dark about such a concerning business. 3. “That the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him” (Ps. 25:14), and even this same secret concerning redemption is with them, “and he will show them his covenant.” And indeed it were no small matter to have this manifested.

Use Two. And therefore as a second use of the point, we would commend to you the study of making this sure; for it has many notable advantages attending it. It would provoke to humility and to thankfulness to Him “that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” [Rev. 1:5].It would make a comfortable and cheerful Christian life; it would warm the heart with love to God and to Jesus Christ, Who has thus loved us as to give Himself for us. When we commend this to you, it is no uncouth, nice, needlessly curious or unattainable thing; nor would we have you, when you cannot attain it, to sit down discouraged; neither would we have you take any extraordinary way to come by it; nor waiting for any new light, but that which is in the Bible; nor would we have you resolving to do no other thing till you attain to this. But this we would have you to do, even to make faith in Christ sure by fleeing to Him and casting your burden on Him, by cordial receiving of Him and acquiescing in Him; and then you make all sure. The committing of yourselves to Him, to be saved by His price paid to divine justice and resting on Him as He is held out in the gospel, is the way to read your interest in His redemption.

And this is it that we have in Galatians 3 and 2:19–20, where it is disputed at length that we are heirs of Abraham by believing. “By the law” (says the apostle) “I am dead to the law, that I might live unto God: I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I live in the flesh is by the faith of the Son of God.” Hence he concludes, “who loved me, and gave himself for me.” And this he proves in the last words, “I do not frustrate the grace of God.” ‘I do not disappoint it, I mar it not in its end and design.’ ‘It is’ (as if he had said) ‘seeking a lost sinner to save and I give it a lost sinner to be saved.’ For though God’s decree be the first step to salvation and the work of redemption follows on it and then believing on both; yet to come to the knowledge of God’s decree of election and of our concern in the covenant of redemption, we look downward and seek first to know if we have a right to make application of that which was thought upon long since concerning us. And this we do by reflection on the way we have come to believing.

If we have been convinced and made sensible of sin and of our lost condition by nature; if we have not smothered that conviction, but cherished it; if we have not run to this or that duty for satisfying of divine justice and for making of our peace thereby, but were necessitated to betake ourselves to Jesus Christ made offer of in the gospel for the salvation of sinners; and if we have closed with Him as He was offered—if we have done so, we may thence conclude that He had loved us and given Himself to save us because He has humbled me for sin (may the serious soul say) and given me this faith to believe in Him; and this is His promise which I rest upon that I shall be saved.

Or you may try your interest in His redemption thus: Whether am I one of God’s people or no? Whether do I walk like them? And so go through the marks and signs of holiness, asking yourself, what sincerity is there in me? What mortification? What humility, meekness, love to God and His children? And what fruits of faith in new-obedience? These two, faith and holiness, are the pillars that bear up the house of assurance—working and not resting on it, believing and yet not growing vain and light because of it; but so much the rather studying holiness; and to go on between and with these two till we come to read God’s mind about our election and redemption. For neither believing nor holiness can make any alteration in the bargain of redemption, yet it will warrant our application of the bargain and clear out interest in it; as the Apostle Peter plainly insinuates when he thus exhorts, “Give diligence to make your calling and election sure” [2 Pet. 1:10]. How is that? Will diligence make God alter His decree of election or make it any surer in itself? No, by no means. But it will assure us of it; for “by so doing an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly into his everlasting kingdom.” By giving all diligence to add one grace to another and one degree of grace to another, there shall be a wide door opened to us to go into heaven by; and there is no hazard in commending this doctrine to you all, even the study of faith and holiness, thereby to come to the knowledge of God’s secret counsel concerning you.

James Durham, Sermon 20, Seventy-two sermons on Isaiah 53.


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."
 
A common canard thrown at them collectively which indicates either: 1) Ignorance of their writings, or 2) A lazy reading of their writings.

Never has a more balanced expression of the Scripture's doctrine of assurance, in my opinion, been set forth than in books like Brooks' Heaven on Earth, or Sibbes' The Soul's Conflict (among many other books and sermons of his), or Walter Marshall's The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. Often people call preachers' pressing to the biblical duty of self-examination as a pressing to morbid introspection, but the biblical duty of self-examination is measuring ourselves in light of the pristine law of God, and, thereby, being driven to Christ and His perfection alone, all over again. Yes, there are poor souls subject to the temptation of despair, and ministers have a duty not only to press self-examination, but also that the Lord's mercies are new every morning, and that the sure mercies of David are objectively promised to the penitent man. But in our age, I suspect, that we err far too much on the side of that lazy and false doctrine of what a pastor of mine has called "threshold" Christianity. The snowflake-sanctuary-safe-space doctrine doesn't just exist in the realm of politics, because it is an old doctrine, the leaven of the Pharisees. Gospel threatenings are necessary for our souls, and are salutary when the right uses are made of them.
 
Don't know if this ties into your question, but have read an interesting article that stated that early Reformation such as under Calvin, would look to assurance being found in the promises of the Scriptures taken by faith alone, but later on, during Puritan times, moved off internal assurance by faith alone to assurance being now from external means such as behaviour and good works!
 
The attitude displayed, for example, in John Bunyan's Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners seems like it could elicit feelings similar to that of your friend. This of course is a testimony, but it shows a long and arduous struggle for one Puritan with assurance. It's certainly not indicative of all Puritan works, but it came to mind when I got some similar feelings reading Bunyan.
 
Brothers, thank you for your replies! I've been busy today with ministerial duties, but have read your responses and will try to interact with them a bit this evening after prayer meeting.
 
A common canard thrown at them collectively which indicates either: 1) Ignorance of their writings, or 2) A lazy reading of their writings.

I would agree with Josh. Are they opening and reading the book, or just looking at its cover?


Byfield wrote extensively on assurance. Hardwicke, Burgess, Henderson, Preston, and yes Sibbes, Brookes, Owen...


I read the puritans because they have such excellent treatments of grounding faith, having assurance, preservation, etc.


Now, if someone read a treatise that is a "faith shaker" on purpose (and there are many of those), and walked away wondering if they are saved, that is a whole other issue.


Paul is quite clear: "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?-- unless indeed you are disqualified." (2Co. 13:5).
Examine your faith, if it is true, or counterfeit.
Examine your fruits, whether they show forth the works which glorify God.
Examine your preservation or perseverance in true religion.
Examine the way you deal with trials and contentment.
Examine your growth in humility.
Examine the progress you see in the mortification of sin, and putting to death the deeds of the body.
Examine your spiritual battle in temptation, or lack thereof.
Examine the manner in which you love others.etc. etc.
These, and many more, will be examined by Christ.


How much could we add to this?


Christ on Judgment Day will examine every leaf, and every branch, and even the roots of you as a tree to see whether there is real fruit flourishing on the tree.
You must be assured that you obtain "like precious faith."
 
I am encouraged by the responses on this thread, and appreciate you all taking time to interact with my inquiry. This will be brief for the moment, as it's been a long day.

I'm encouraged because your takeaways from the Puritans have largely been my own as well, and that means that I've probably not been misunderstanding them. I've been reading Edwards (I know, not properly a Puritan, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's keep him in play) for nearly 10 years and know his works pretty well. Religious Affections is written to awaken cold, hardened sinners, much like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God or Hypocrites Deficient in the Duty of Secret Prayer. But then he'll have Heaven is a World of Love or Charity and its Fruits or The Nature of True Virtue or The Excellency of Jesus Christ or the like, and those are written to draw the saint to rest in Christ's love and tender mercies. Certainly there is confrontation of sin and the call to repentance, mortification, self-examination, and persevering in self-denial and obedience in these more "positive" sermons as well; but no true Christian will deny his need of such aids (i.e., Ps 141.5).

John Flavel follows a similar path as Edwards, as I've studied him over the last year or so; his Fountain of Life is an amazing exposition of Christology, but it has moments where he thunders against sin and moments where he woos to Christ. Yet he is not imbalanced; on the contrary, he both wounds and binds up in his sermons (and frankly, there's a great deal more binding up than wounding). He has his Caution to Seamen and Table of Sins and Duties attaching to Church Membership, but he also has The Righteous Man's Refuge, The Balm of the Covenant, and The Touchstone of Sincerity. Indeed, Flavel is so warmly evangelical that I have found his work meat for strong reflection and peace to soothe the soul.

I've not read Bunyan as extensively as some here, so I can't speak very far to him; but I agree with the basic assessment that it took him a while to gain assurance. I don't necessarily think his writing is intended to call others' assurance into doubt, so much as to document his own experience of grace, and urge them to consider their own with care and diligence (i.e., 2 Pet 1.10); but I am open to correction there.

Sibbes, Brooks, and Marshall, as Joshua notes, are amazingly helpful on assurance. And as Dr. McMahon says, I'm wondering now if my friend read but didn't fully understand. He is very smart, but also young; and he read them while still in Bible college. I didn't understand a lot of the things I learned in Bible college until I heard them again in seminary, to be very blunt...though I will readily grant that he is smarter than me. Anyway, my point is not to talk about my friend, but to engage the question he raised. The Puritans require careful reading and there is a significant initial learning curve (well, there was for me, anyhow! Ha!)

Mr. Walsh, I've not had the chance to read the articles you link yet, but will look forward to them tomorrow.

Thanks again for the discussion, y'all. This is helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top