The Puritans, Assurance, and Critiques From the Gospel Coalition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tullian Tchividjian pushed back against Kevin DeYoung (also a Gospel Coalition member) for his emphasis on "making every effort" to be holy in our Christian walk. Of course Tullian always was careful to nicely refer to DeYoung as "my good friend, Kevin..." He does the same thing with the Puritans. They are all his good friends too, but sadly they just didn't get the truth that Tullian gets, which is that justification justifies everything we ever do. In Tullian's paradigm, why should anyone engage in self-examination for the purpose of mortifying sin? So old school.

I believe he also has written stuff on his own view of sanctification...I might be wrong or exaggerating, but I seem to recall something like that how he downplays it quite a bit.
 
Isn't it amazing how quickly a major work like Beeke's The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and his Successors is forgotten?

I remember, several years ago, listening to a message by Steve Schlissel (of FV fame). I can't remember the context of the message, except that someone (who has since virtually apostatized from the faith) recommended it to me. I remember SS reading from the beginning of Dr. Beeke's book and mocking what he had written. It seems that many seek their assurance in other things besides the promises of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
 
It is just my hunch, and I would love to be proven wrong, but these kind of critiques seem to born out of ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, of what the Puritans actually wrote. They seem to be relying on secondary sources and hearsay for their information.

Trevin Wax is also not "reformed" in the strictest since -- he rejects limited atonement, for instance. And I think you are entirely correct; I do think think there is a huge neglect in the reading of the Puritans in our day, just as there is a huge neglect in self-examination.

Here is what John Flavel says about the issue of assurance:

Q. 1. Is assurance possible to be attained in this life?
A. Yes; for some have had it; Canticles 6:3. I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine. And all Christians are commanded to strive for it; 2 Peter 1:10. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence, to make your calling and election sure.

Q. 2. How many sorts of assurance are there?
A. There is an objective assurance; 2 Timothy 2:19. Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And a subjective or personal assurance; Galatians 2:20. Who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Q. 3. Is personal assurance perfect in this life?
A. No; It admits of doubts and fears, which interrupts it, and it is not always at one height; 1 Corinthians 13:10. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in p art shall be done away.

Q. 4. On what testimony is personal assurance built?
A. Upon the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing with ours; Romans 8:16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that are the children of God.

Q. 5. Doth the Spirit make use of signs in us to assure us?
A. Yes; ordinarily he doth; 1 John 3:14. We know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. And verse 24. Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he bath given us.

Q. 6. How is true assurance discerned from presumption?
A. True assurance humbles the soul; Galatians 2:20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And makes the soul afraid of sin; 2 Corinthians 7:1. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthi ness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Q. 7. What is the usual season of assurance?
A. The time of greatest sufferings for Christ; 1 Peter 4:14. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.

Q. 8. Is personal assurance absolutely necessary to salvation?
A. No; a man may be saved, and in Christ, without it; Isaiah 1:10. Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and bath no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.

Q. 9. What is the fruit of assurance?
A. Joy unspeakable amidst outward troubles; Romans 5:11. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Q. 10. What sins usually eclipse our assurance?
A. Negligence in duty starves it; 2 Peter 1:10. Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: For if you do these things ye shall never fall. And sinning against light, stabs it; Psalm 51:8. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Q. 11. What is the first inference from this doctrine?
A. That no unregenerate person can have any assurance; for it is the fruit of justification, adoption, and sanctification.

Q. 12. What is the second inference?
A. That all the joys of heaven are not to come; but some communicated in this life; 1 Peter 1:8. Whom having not seen ye love; in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.

Q. 13. What is the third inference?
A. That assured believers need to be circumspect persons, that they grieve not the Spirit; Ephesians 4:30. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
 
We do have to be careful to view the Puritans as being perfect, after all the Puritans were a wide group of men and disagreed with each other (for instance Baxter was criticized by Owen on the issue of justification).

No one thinks the Puritans were perfect.

No, but if we're not careful we can deify them and view them with an almost papal infallibility. And I'll be frank: there IS a danger in too much introspection, as it's an easy step from there into falling into works-righteousness. Criticism of excessive introspection is not unwarranted; it can and does lead to taking one's eyes off the objective work of Christ on the cross.

Is there a danger in Antinomianism? Almost certainly, but there's just as much of a danger in legalism and perfectionism, and there is a real possibility of supplanting Christ with one's own morality and works. This is something that Lutherans criticize in Calvinism and the Reformed (that there is an excessive emphasis on the fruit of a Christian life to the detriment of blending faith with works and being guilty of undermining "sola fide"), and in some cases I think they do have a point. And looking around the church, I see a far greater tendency to legalism than Antinomianism. While it's probable that there are those who jettison good works entirely, it is also very real that a great many churches so burden people with introspection that they despair of their own salvation because they look to their own performance rather than looking to Christ for the grounds of their justification.

Again: talk to your ex-Arminian bretheren who have gone through this before, because Arminians are notorious for this. I was dealing with a woman last year who went through this very thing. She was being told that her works weren't enough, that she was not good enough, but instead of turning her to Christ, her church did the very thing these blogs are pointing out: that she continue to relentlessly give introspection to herself. And if there was any sin, she wasn't right with God, and that she needed to take care of that. Where is the grace in that? Where is the assurance that Christ's blood truly covers sin? Where is salvation by grace through faith ALONE? As a result, she was driven away from the church. She doesn't want anything to do with it anymore, because she's not good enough, and even when I had conversations with her about what the gospel is, she still felt the sting of that burdening of perfectionistic introspection. What she went through was the old "bait and switch" tactic in which somebody told her salvation was free, then pulled the rug out from under her because she wasn't "good enough."

Those blogs have a point. Does that mean we ignore the Puritans? Of course not, but it does mean that we remember the Puritan writings are not additions to Scripture either. And while we are to examine ourselves, it also means that we need to always examine the fruit in light of the faith, and not the other way around. It is our trust in Christ-NOT our works-that saves us, period. It is Christ's work on the cross by which God declares us righteous, period. And it is suggesting a different gospel when one attaches works to that promise of salvation in a way that makes works conditional for salvation, period. And I don't care if you're John Owen or John MacArthur: if you make works play ANY role in salvation-ANY ROLE-you are preaching a different gospel. This is the whole point of Romans 3-5, and the entire book of Galatians.

To end with Luther's words: "Ever more say 'keep the law,' but don't ever attach that old meaning to it (that one is saved in any part by the law) again!"
 
The problem, Jeremy, is that the criticism is far too vague and imprecise. Whose writings supposedly promote an excessive introspection? Is it Thomas Goodwin, who specifically and explicitly attempts to set Christ out for the believer to exercise his faith upon, and that with reference to assurance? Is it Walter Marshall, who warns us against pursuing holiness by the covenant of works? Is it Edward Fisher, who insists that the law must be taken from the hand of the Mediator? Is it Richard Sibbes, who describes the glory of Christ and then lets us know that this Christ will not quench the smoking flax? Is it John Bunyan, who celebrates the skilfulness of Christ in prosecuting the cause of our justification from our sins? Without specifics; without interaction, such a remark depends on a caricatured agglomeration of the Puritans that those with even limited acquaintance with the primary sources will feel free to ignore.

I think someone like William B. Sprague is justly liable to some careful criticism for his method of explaining self-examination. But William B. Sprague is not "the Puritans", not even "a representative Puritan", not even a "Puritan" at all. And a broad and unsubstantiated statement that we should avoid the Puritan error of morbid introspection is the opposite of careful.

Puritan pastors, like all pastors throughout history, had to deal with people coming from various backgrounds - witness The Marrow of Modern Divinity, whose whole structure consists in a pastor dialoguing with an antinomian and a neonomian (and subsequently a new believer). Sermons from the time often show that these pastors were every bit as skilled in comforting the weak as in any other part of pastoral labor, including warning the unruly.
 
Last edited:
Great discussion...and on perhaps a related but not primary note to the conversation, are there any other resources (besides the excellent sermon that Rev. Glaser posted) that will help sort through the Puritans and their very helpful doctrine in a discerning, God-glorifying way? For the record, I already have this one:

A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life - Reformation Heritage Books

It's been sitting on my bookshelf in the study for a while now, not opened only due to me being on travel for the last 3 weeks. If that is all I need, then that's fine, because the 1,000 pages in that one is enough to chew on for a while. I've also heard that Packer's work below is helpful, but I don't have that one:

A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life - Reformation Heritage Books

Thanks in advance for any replies, and I am enjoying all of the comments and perspectives.
 
It is The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. A work of quite deserved renown.
 
It is just my hunch, and I would love to be proven wrong, but these kind of critiques seem to born out of ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, of what the Puritans actually wrote. They seem to be relying on secondary sources and hearsay for their information.

Trevin Wax is also not "reformed" in the strictest since -- he rejects limited atonement, for instance. And I think you are entirely correct; I do think think there is a huge neglect in the reading of the Puritans in our day, just as there is a huge neglect in self-examination.

Here is what John Flavel says about the issue of assurance:

Q. 1. Is assurance possible to be attained in this life?
A. Yes; for some have had it; Canticles 6:3. I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine. And all Christians are commanded to strive for it; 2 Peter 1:10. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence, to make your calling and election sure.

Q. 2. How many sorts of assurance are there?
A. There is an objective assurance; 2 Timothy 2:19. Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And a subjective or personal assurance; Galatians 2:20. Who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Q. 3. Is personal assurance perfect in this life?
A. No; It admits of doubts and fears, which interrupts it, and it is not always at one height; 1 Corinthians 13:10. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in p art shall be done away.

Q. 4. On what testimony is personal assurance built?
A. Upon the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing with ours; Romans 8:16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that are the children of God.

Q. 5. Doth the Spirit make use of signs in us to assure us?
A. Yes; ordinarily he doth; 1 John 3:14. We know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. And verse 24. Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he bath given us.

Q. 6. How is true assurance discerned from presumption?
A. True assurance humbles the soul; Galatians 2:20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And makes the soul afraid of sin; 2 Corinthians 7:1. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthi ness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Q. 7. What is the usual season of assurance?
A. The time of greatest sufferings for Christ; 1 Peter 4:14. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.

Q. 8. Is personal assurance absolutely necessary to salvation?
A. No; a man may be saved, and in Christ, without it; Isaiah 1:10. Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and bath no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.

Q. 9. What is the fruit of assurance?
A. Joy unspeakable amidst outward troubles; Romans 5:11. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Q. 10. What sins usually eclipse our assurance?
A. Negligence in duty starves it; 2 Peter 1:10. Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: For if you do these things ye shall never fall. And sinning against light, stabs it; Psalm 51:8. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Q. 11. What is the first inference from this doctrine?
A. That no unregenerate person can have any assurance; for it is the fruit of justification, adoption, and sanctification.

Q. 12. What is the second inference?
A. That all the joys of heaven are not to come; but some communicated in this life; 1 Peter 1:8. Whom having not seen ye love; in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.

Q. 13. What is the third inference?
A. That assured believers need to be circumspect persons, that they grieve not the Spirit; Ephesians 4:30. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Pastor Phillips, thank you so much for sharing this. These were of great comfort to me. What does he mean in Question 11, though? Surely there are unregenerate persons who have "assurance" of their salvation. Obviously, there is true assurance and false assurance of our salvation. Am I correct in saying that true assurance alone is marked by the above qualifications? As someone who often struggles with assurance of my salvation because of my sinfulness I fear that it would be easy to doubt whether one has attained true assurance or not even if one has some sense of assurance.
 
Some of the responses to this thread baffle me. A couple of blog articles state to "beware of the Puritans because they can lead you into excessive introspection". It's sort of like saying "beware of the Germans of the nineteenth century because they'll lead you to liberalism". The reason we discuss these things is to refine the ideas. Somehow any defense that a sweeping generalization is inaccurate devolves into this level of argumentation:

"This article seems to be vague about the Puritans. They weren't all excessively introspective and, by the way, what exactly is excessive introspection."
"Oh yeah, the Puritans weren't perfect!"
"Nobody said they were."
"But we might deify them."

How? By actually discussing what many taught?

Paul condemned both license and legalism. The Phariseess and the Judaizers are condemned along with those who continue to practice immorality and those who shrink back from belief.

The idea that discussing the nature of introspection may lead to error is quite true of any topic.

Do you know why I enjoy reading some of the Puritans? It's for the same reason I like listening to or reading some of the great teachers in our day. They cause me to think more deeply. Every time I think I've got a pretty good handle on things then I will see some insight that resonates with the Scriptures and helps me to understand more deeply. They're just men.

i haven't met a reader of the Puritans who thinks they're not men and it's usually the people that haven't read them (or even read some of them criticizing each other over points) that thinks they thought of themselves as having some place above Scripture.

That said, the moment some man tells me that another man's writings are not on the level of Scripture then it is also the case that his own opinions are not either. Consequently, the arguments that the modern writer makes in opposition to a Puritan thinker are on equal footing with that writer. His arguments may be placed alongside the Puritan thinker to demonstrate whose arguments best accord with the Scriptural data just as we would do with any argument.

Appeals to who thinks who is infallible or "deified" are just silly and do not advance understanding. Let us examine the arguments treating the Puritans and modern men with the same dignity. That they are all men and that the Puritans don't deserve to be lumped together as a molothic bunch to be warned against any more than I should warn people, in general, about men who write blog articles expressing their theological views.
 
Pastor Phillips, thank you so much for sharing this. These were of great comfort to me. What does he mean in Question 11, though? Surely there are unregenerate persons who have "assurance" of their salvation. Obviously, there is true assurance and false assurance of our salvation. Am I correct in saying that true assurance alone is marked by the above qualifications? As someone who often struggles with assurance of my salvation because of my sinfulness I fear that it would be easy to doubt whether one has attained true assurance or not even if one has some sense of assurance.

Zach, he makes a distinction between assurance (i.e., true assurance) and presumption (i.e., false assurance) -- see Question 6 for instance. So yes, when "assurance" is noted, he is speaking of the true sort.

Q. 172 of the WLC might also be helpful here -- it concerns coming to the Lord's Supper, but deals with the issue of assurance/doubting:

Question 172: May one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?

Answer: One who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God's account has it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further strengthened.
 
Another presentation of The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification., nicely divided into chapters version, here:

Walter Marshall - The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification

[note the sidebar at that site, with an extensive section for psalmody]

One can find a good outline of the book here - Paramount Church > Articles

I have read the book twice and have a question. It seems that those who subscribe to Jack Miller's Sonship theology think that Walter Marshall's book is the best thing ever. I appreciated the book but am wary of Sonship theology. Am I being inconsistent or are some people using Marshall in ways that he would not appreciate?
 
In the Trueman article linked in the OP, he makes the point that Luther is misappropriated by the sonship folks:

Luther's understanding of law and gospel certainly left a place - a large place - for introspection and even despair in the ongoing Christian life. He was no early advocate of radical sonship theology, despite his being used in this way by some Gospel Coalition writers.
 
I think it would be good for everyone to give a listen to this sermon/lecture by Sinclair Ferguson. Pay special attention to the section where Dr. Ferguson explains how hated and despised the Puritan minister was in his own day.

http://feedingonchrist.com/files/2009/03/ferguson_puritan_reading_room.mp3

Wow. Also pay special attention to the section where he emphasizes the 'brotherhood' of the Puritans and its importance today. It sounds like he is describing the Puritanboard!

This brotherhood of the Puritan movement is contrasted by the party spirit which is often demonstrated by us today.
 
I think it would be good for everyone to give a listen to this sermon/lecture by Sinclair Ferguson. Pay special attention to the section where Dr. Ferguson explains how hated and despised the Puritan minister was in his own day.

http://feedingonchrist.com/files/2009/03/ferguson_puritan_reading_room.mp3

Wow. Also pay special attention to the section where he emphasizes the 'brotherhood' of the Puritans and its importance today. It sounds like he is describing the Puritanboard!

This brotherhood of the Puritan movement is contrasted by the party spirit which is often demonstrated by us today.

J.I. Packer gave a series of lectures on the history of the Puritans that's available at rts.itunes.edu that spoke to the fact that the Puritans were loathe to criticize other Puritans to outsiders and saved their criticisms for internal dialogs.

One of the best things I've heard was from a fellow Pastor who once told me how much he loves the fraternity of elders in Presbytery. He said he never understood why any would want to bring women into it because brothers can fight and still get along. He always wanted brothers growing up and recalled time when his friend was complaining about his brother in front of him. When my friend joined in on the criticism his friend became indignant: "that's my brother you're talking about." Anyone with brothers knows that you may fight with your brother but you fight for him against outsiders. That analogy has stuck with me so that even though I might get in a theological fist fight inside my family, when were done we are still brothers and I need to remember to stick up for him when outsiders are coming after him.
 
For reference, R.L. Dabney [1820-1898], a Presbyterian theologian, saw that the Puritans corrected the error of Luther and Calvin, rather than developed it.

"The cause of this error is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome . These noble Reformers. . . asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, 'My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me.'

"Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error. . . for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected." (Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. I, pp. 215-16)


I also read that William Perkins struggled with his own personal assurance, even up to his death at age 44.
Not sure of the reference at this time.

Blessings...
 
I think it would be good for everyone to give a listen to this sermon/lecture by Sinclair Ferguson. Pay special attention to the section where Dr. Ferguson explains how hated and despised the Puritan minister was in his own day.

http://feedingonchrist.com/files/2009/03/ferguson_puritan_reading_room.mp3

Wow. Also pay special attention to the section where he emphasizes the 'brotherhood' of the Puritans and its importance today. It sounds like he is describing the Puritanboard!

This brotherhood of the Puritan movement is contrasted by the party spirit which is often demonstrated by us today.

J.I. Packer gave a series of lectures on the history of the Puritans that's available at rts.itunes.edu that spoke to the fact that the Puritans were loathe to criticize other Puritans to outsiders and saved their criticisms for internal dialogs.

One of the best things I've heard was from a fellow Pastor who once told me how much he loves the fraternity of elders in Presbytery. He said he never understood why any would want to bring women into it because brothers can fight and still get along. He always wanted brothers growing up and recalled time when his friend was complaining about his brother in front of him. When my friend joined in on the criticism his friend became indignant: "that's my brother you're talking about." Anyone with brothers knows that you may fight with your brother but you fight for him against outsiders. That analogy has stuck with me so that even though I might get in a theological fist fight inside my family, when were done we are still brothers and I need to remember to stick up for him when outsiders are coming after him.

Shouldn't we put greater attention into whether or not the criticism is just over against who the criticism is against? Otherwise it seems that it would be easy to fall into calling an outsider to account when one allows an insider to do the same thing without rebuke. Such seems to imply a case of being a respecter of persons.

CT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top