What is second Blessing?

[Ray]

I remember a Reformed Minister that I used to be close with explaining some differences between the 3FU and the WCF. He said one for instance, the WCF teaches that assurance of faith is not the essence of faith, but rather is a reflex act of the believer. The Three Forms teach assurance of faith is the essence of faith. He said that this sounds like a minor issue but it has been argued quite persuasively that the Westminster view opened the door for the “second blessing” theology which developed later among some Protestants. So can someone explain these differences of Assurance more deeply to me please? And what is 2nd Blessing Theology?

 

[MW]

I remember a Reformed Minister that I used to be close with explaining some differences between the 3FU and the WCF. He said one for instance, the WCF teaches that assurance of faith is not the essence of faith, but rather is a reflex act of the believer. The Three Forms teach assurance of faith is the essence of faith. He said that this sounds like a minor issue but it has been argued quite persuasively that the Westminster view opened the door for the “second blessing” theology which developed later among some Protestants. So can someone explain these differences of Assurance more deeply to me please? And what is 2nd Blessing Theology?

That would make a poor thesis in historical theology. It has been argued by R. T. Kendall, and has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate and ahistorical assessment in the following article by Joel Beeke:

http://heidelberg-catechism.s3.amazonaws.com/CTJ 27.1 - Faith and Assurance in HC.pdf

The second blessing refers to a second work of the Spirit which is purported to bring a believer into a higher Christian life. While some theologians have stated assurance in terms of the sealing of the Spirit as something which happens after faith, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms do not. Even when some theologians speak of assurance in terms of the sealing of the Spirit they still recognise that it grows out of the essence of faith; it is not a "second blessing" in the sense that the Holy Spirit brings one into a "higher Christian life."

 

[Peairtach]

I'm not aware that any second blessing teaching arose from the Reformed idea that you could have saving faith and yet not be assured. I thought these higher life/second blessing teachings eventually arose because of the Arminian Wesleyan teaching that you could achieve entire perfection in this life. This variously led to the Keswick Convention teaching of the attaining of a "higher life" in the process of sanctification and also contributed to the Pentecostalist notion that the baptism with the Spirit was a second experience of God's grace subsequent to regeneration. Maybe others more knowledgeable can clarify.

The Reformed don't believe in a specific experience to be sought, according to any supposed Scripture teaching, subsequent to regeneration but progressive sanctification is a continuum with believers at various stages of development and having various experiences of the sanctifying power of God from time to time.

A deep and abiding sense of assurance can be given at conversion and yet sometimes be lost, and hopefully found again, or there can sometimes be a deep lack of assurance at conversion which is attained later. There may be different factors involved in this.


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[Ray]

That would make a poor thesis in historical theology. It has been argued by R. T. Kendall, and has been demonstrated to be an inaccurate and false assessment by Joel Beeke in this article:

http://heidelberg-catechism.s3.amazonaws.com/CTJ 27.1 - Faith and Assurance in HC.pdf

The second blessing refers to a second work of the Spirit. While some theologians have stated assurance in terms of the sealing of the Spirit as something which happens after faith, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms do not.

I clicked on the link, but it said access denied.

 

[MW]

I clicked on the link, but it said access denied.

You have quoted me before I revised my post. I apologise for that. Please see my revised post.

 

[Ray]

You have quoted me before I revised my post. I apologise for that. Please see my revised post.

Thank you.

 

[Ray]

You have quoted me before I revised my post. I apologise for that. Please see my revised post.

I'm also asking about assurance and I should of mentioned it on the title, I have a brother who stoped taking communion because he is saying he is lacking assurance in his salvation because of certain sins in his life. Should he be stopping taking the Lords Supper?

 

[MW]

I'm also asking about assurance and I should of mentioned it on the title, I have a brother who stoped taking communion because he is saying he is lacking assurance in his salvation because of certain sins in his life. Should he be stopping taking the Lords Supper?

The Lord's supper is a means of increasing graces, ministering assurance, and strengthening the soul for the Christian battle against sin. Pastorally, though, it depends on the nature of the sins and of the person's attitude towards them. Self-discipline is an important aspect of Christian life, and self-examination is a necessary pre-requisite for the Lord's supper.

 

[Mnason]

I'm also asking about assurance and I should of mentioned it on the title, I have a brother who stoped taking communion because he is saying he is lacking assurance in his salvation because of certain sins in his life. Should he be stopping taking the Lords Supper?

The Larger Catechism is helpful with your question:

Q. 172
May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?

A. One who doubteth 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 hath 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.

 

[lynnie]

I don't know if Lloyd- Jones would be called "second blessing", but in his pastoral ministry he dealt with many people who lacked assurance of salvation, including at one point his wife. I mention him because of his influence on Iain Murray ( Banner of Truth) and the Jonathan Edwards influenced Revival wing of Reformed Theology. I am not sure how to term it- some of the WSC guys would reject the whole Edwards revival idea as "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT)" ( R Scott Clark)

LLoyd Jones wrote a book called "Joy Unspeakable" that I read a while ago and found helpful as a former charismatic. ( still continuationist, but much of modern charismania I would reject). He said that there were two camps. Camp one- the Reformed- says that you get the Holy Spirit when you get saved, and that's it, that's all the Holy Spirit you need to pray for and seek after. Camp two is Pentecostal Second Blessing where you speak in tongues and that is when you get the Holy Spirit (obviously false) and that's it, you have the Holy Spirit now.

Lloyd Jones rejects both, in favor of a detailed exegesis promoting repeated times in life of outpourings/infillings/baptisms/times of refreshing/etc. He does go into detail about people who had powerful encounters with the Holy Spirit that brought them full assurance of their salvation that was previously lacking. (I know he rejects the Keswick idea of perfectionism in this life; his second third and forth and so on blessings are part of ongoing sanctification.)

I found his overall conclusion to be very convicting. We should be earnestly praying for revival, and along with the lost getting saved we should pray for great outpourings on the church. God wants us to have some measure of experiential reality of the Holy Spirit that we see spoken about in the New Testament, that leads to joy and assurance and devotion to the word and holy living, etc.

I myself have had times like that, I suppose they could be called the mountaintop periods. When I really "saw" P of TULIP years ago (I had known apostates and was Arminian regarding P) it was huge, it was like a flood of assurance that I would make it to the end I can't even describe. I knew I was currently saved but wasn't sure I'd last, being as the apostates had started out apparently so much better Christians than I was. Sometimes those mental blocks take breakthroughs, revelations as it were, special outpourings or baptisms that open our eyes.

Anyway, ML-J was A Calvinist Methodist, but did have a big influence on the English Presbyterians, and even broader than Britain. I think his influence towards second, or multiple subsequent, "blessings" should not be underestimated.

 

[MW]

Lloyd Jones rejects both, in favor of a detailed exegesis promoting repeated times in life of outpourings/infillings/baptisms/times of refreshing/etc. He does go into detail about people who had powerful encounters with the Holy Spirit that brought them full assurance of their salvation that was previously lacking. (I know he rejects the Keswick idea of perfectionism in this life; his second third and forth and so on blessings are part of ongoing sanctification.)

I don't think DMLJ's treatment of this subject would pass for "detailed exegesis." I agree that he depends on experiences, and especially those connected with his revivalist tradition; but this begs the question as to whether these experiences of "the Spirit" are in accord with biblical teaching.

The advent of the Spirit was promised to covenant Israel to usher in the last days and constitute a spiritual administration of grace to all nations. This redemptive-historical advent of the Spirit is often overlooked by those seeking for individualistic experiences.

 

[Herald]

The Lord's supper is a means of increasing graces, ministering assurance, and strengthening the soul for the Christian battle against sin. Pastorally, though, it depends on the nature of the sins and of the person's attitude towards them. Self-discipline is an important aspect of Christian life, and self-examination is a necessary pre-requisite for the Lord's supper.

Matthew, thank you for this. It may be helpful to expand on how a person's attitude towards their sin can/should impact their participation in the Lord's Supper. A person who exhibits a hardened heart, or who is living in open, unrepentant sin should not partake of the Supper. But Ray is asking about a brother who is not being prohibited from partaking, rather he has chosen not to partake because he is lacking assurance due to certain sins. I agree with Branson's quoting Q 172 of the Larger Catechism. If a brother has exhibited true repentance of sin and contriteness of heart, then by all means he should partake of the Lord's Supper. After all, is not the Lord's Supper spiritual nourishment? It is not required that repentance should be accompanied by penance. Hopefully, someone is coming along side this brother and helping him in his struggle against sin.

 

[MW]

I would agree with you, Bill, if it were simply a matter of lacking assurance; but the particular case stated that the reason for the lack of assurance is because of certain sins in the person's life. That being the case, one must know what the sins might be so as to determine if they require exclusion from the Lord's supper. For example, what if it happens to be fornication or theft? These are things which in their very nature are blatant acts of disobedience against the clear commandments of God. It would be scandalous to advise such a person that he should go forward to the Lord's supper if he is overtly sinning against God in these ways. I am not saying this is the case in this instance; I am just clarifying that the possibility this may be the case makes it the responsibility of a spiritual counsellor to inquire into the nature of the sin which is causing the lack of assurance.

 

[lynnie]

MW- I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of L-J. The OP had asked this:

the Westminster view opened the door for the “second blessing” theology which developed later among some Protestants. So can someone explain these differences of Assurance more deeply to me please? And what is 2nd Blessing Theology?

I think- mind you I am not nearly as well educated in this fairly recent church history as some others may be- that M L-J may be a significant answer to the OP's question.

Here is the link to the "Calvinist Methodist Confession of Faith or the Presbyterians of Wales" ( 1823):

( note it was for both Welsh Methodists and Presbyterians and I have no what Presbyterians adopted it and what influence they had in Great Britian, and don't have time today to research, but I post it as a possible lead for the OP).

http://www.creeds.net/cmwales/main.htm

snip: ( highlight is mine).

33. Of the Assurance of Hope.
The assurance of hope follows upon true peace of conscience and a strict walk with God by faith. Hypocrites may deceive themselves with false hope and a carnal presumption of being in the favour of God and in a state of salvation, but their hope shall perish (a). But all that believe in Christ, and love him in sincerity, and endeavour to walk before him in all good conscience, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God; and their hope shall never be put to shame (b). This is not a doubtful conjecture, grounded on a false and feeble hope : it is "the full assurance of faith," resting on the blood and righteousness of Christ, as it is revealed in the gospel; an inward evidence of saving grace in the soul; and the witness of the Spirit to their adoption. The effect of this assurance is to make their hearts more humble and holy (c). A true believer may have to wait long and strive with many difficulties before he enjoys this assurance (d); but being enabled by the Spirit rightly to use the means of grace and divine ordinances, and being taught to know the things which are "freely given him of God," he can attain it without a miraculous revelation of any kind (e); and it is the duty of every Christian to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that he may largely experience the love of God and joy in the Holy Ghost, and more boldly, usefully, and cheerfully walk in the path of duty (f). The Christian's assurance may in divers ways be shaken and impaired : if he falls into any sin and grieves the Spirit, he loses the light of God's countenance, and walks in darkness (g). But the Christian can never lose that seed of God which is in him, or the life of faith, or the love of Christ. The Spirit restores him in God's good time, and meanwhile keeps him from utter despair. The evil of his sin is revealed to him, and he is chastened by the Lord, that he may not be condemned with the world. But he is strengthened in all his affliction to hope in God; yea, he has hope in his death (h).

Here is the WCF; you can see how alike it is:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/w...body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XVIII.html

This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]

I am not Iain Murray and I don't want to pretend to speak well for L-J, but I think what L-J was trying to say was what is in the WCF and the CMC. You might wait long to have assurance, and may need to diligently pray and seek God until you know for certain with full assurance that salvation belongs to you. L-J did believe in an experiential reality of that love, joy, and assurance, and would call it a baptism in the spirit for those who go from doubt and fear to the solid unwavering conviction. So he did believe in subsequent spirit infilling/baptism/outpouring- but he did not equate it with the Acts event of the disciples praying in other tongues unknown to them but understood by foreigners.

Anyway, L-J was very influential on Presbyterians, by himself and with Iain Murray, and I am trying to answer the OP and not argue about L-J. I do happen to think these experiences can be perfectly in line with biblical NT teaching but that isn't what the OP is asking. He is trying to figure out where any WCF second blessing influence on Presbyterians came from and I am offering a possible explanation.

 

[lynnie]

Just to add....

I looked up the 3FU and quote this:

http://www.prca.org/Three_Forms_of_Unity.htm

Article 12. The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God—such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.

Article 16. Those who do not yet experience a lively faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, and glorying in God through Christ, efficaciously wrought in them, and do nevertheless persist in the use of the means which God hath appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace.

OP.....this seems to me to also open up the door to a second blessing doctrine of experiencing assurance, well, sort of. Whoever said the WCF led to it but not the 3FU I don't think was correct. They both speak of the elect who don't have assurance and need to persist and press into the many means of grace. What the 3FU calls a later season of richer grace can pretty much be what L-J calls an outpouring/baptism.

I wish I had more time today, I am wondering what other Presbyterians said about this, like the old Princeton guys....

 

[MW]

OP.....this seems to me to also open up the door to a second blessing doctrine of experiencing assurance, well, sort of.

No, not sort of; not in the slightest. Fifth head, article 14 states, "And as it hath pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of his Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, as well as by the use of the sacraments."

The same applies to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Christian growth is always taught in terms of quickening and strengthening that which the believer has, never in terms of giving him something which he did not have before. Assurance is obtained in the way of living the normal Christian life by the ordinary activity of the Holy Spirit blessing the means of grace to the active believer. The Westminster formulary is so full in its description of practical Christianity that it has left no room for a second blessing. The blessing of the Holy Spirit as given at the beginning of the Christian life is able and sufficient to bring the work of grace to completion.

Consider what Joel Beeke writes in the afore-mentioned article (p. 66):

The Reformers and Puritans, for the most part, taught that the believer cannot truly trust the promises without the aid of the Holy Spirit, and that he cannot with any degree of safety look to himself without the enabling enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. At every point in true assurance, the activity of the Spirit of God is absolutely essential. The promises of God, without the application of the Spirit, lead to self-deceit and fruitless lives. Self-examination, without the enlightening of the Spirit, tends to excessive introspection, bondage, and legalism. The witness of the Spirit, divorced from the promises of God and from scriptural self-examination, is prone to reap unbiblical mysticism and excessive emotionalism. For Calvin, the HC, Ursinus, Olevianus, and the Westminster Assembly, these three great strands of assurance belong together.

 

[lynnie]

MW-

Well, of course. But in regards to this:

it has been argued quite persuasively that the Westminster view opened the door for the “second blessing” theology which developed later among some Protestants.

you would say " no, it didn't".

Maybe you are correct. But I was trying to give the OP a tip on where his friend might be coming from.

The fact is Matthew, if you ever listened to Horton interviewing Robert Schuller, Schuller swore he was confessional. (It was funny when Schuller got upset with Horton's negativity and ended things.) The PCUSA in conflict with Machen claimed to be confessional. People can appeal to the confessions for all sorts of things. The FV thinks they are confessional. My guess is that the parts I underlined were indeed used to support second blessing theology. I could be wrong.

I read an article back with the "Toronto Blessing" appealing to Jonathan Edwards that would have made Edwards roll over in his grave to be so misapplied. This was so called holy laughter and all sorts of weird manifestations, and the author claimed that to reject it was to reject Edwards and true revival.

I personally know a guy who used Lloyd Jones' book in his small group to teach about the Holy Spirit, and this guy has "words" from God ( extra biblical revelation) and would be only too happy to have everybody praying in tongues together. M L-J would have ripped that all to shreds.

Maybe the term "second blessing" is not what I think. Maybe the OP is referring to something other than what I guessed from my charismatic past. At any rate, I don't think the influence of Lloyd Jones on this (ie, some people having powerful experiences with the Holy Spirit bringing them assurance- OF COURSE focused on the scripture, and the scripture penetrating through hard or fearful hearts and doubting minds) should be underestimated. He was a major influence on Tim Keller who has a major influence in the PCA, at least in America. You may of course have problems with Keller, but the OP is asking about Presbyterians and so I offered my thoughts.

A good person to ask might be Trueman, him being British and a Church Historian. I am sure WTS could give Ray the OP his addy.

Just for the record MW, when I speak in agreement with L-J of these wonderful and powerful moments with the Holy Spirit, they are always in terms of scripture breaking through. Things we didn't see become clear, or things we assented to in the mind become alive and real to the heart. Of course it is never separated from the bible. Nobody is talking about mystical prophetic words here, or rolling on the floor laughing. But they are moments where the Holy Spirit is indeed poured out in an unusual way. I am grateful to have had some experiences like that; perhaps I needed it more than most people, given the state of my fallen heart.

 

[MW]

Schuller swore he was confessional.

And yet he wasn't.

Just for the record MW, when I speak in agreement with L-J of these wonderful and powerful moments with the Holy Spirit, they are always in terms of scripture breaking through. Things we didn't see become clear, or things we assented to in the mind become alive and real to the heart. Of course it is never separated from the bible. Nobody is talking about mystical prophetic words here, or rolling on the floor laughing. But they are moments where the Holy Spirit is indeed poured out in an unusual way. I am grateful to have had some experiences like that; perhaps I needed it more than most people, given the state of my fallen heart.

I think all true believers can testify of wonderful and powerful moments of "consolation in Christ," "comfort of love," "fellowship of the Spirit," "bowels and mercies." But it is all the same Spirit ministering the same blessings through the same means in accord with the condition and capacity of the believer. It does not serve the individual's growth, nor the body's union and communion, to have some folk laying greater emphasis on their experiences as if they were enjoying a second or higher blessing of the Spirit above what is ordinarily experienced by believers. True experience of the Holy Spirit produces like-mindedness and low-mindedness, Philippians 2:1-4.

 

[Joshua]

Second Blessing is the benediction from the second service on the Lord's Day, right?

 

[MW]

Second Blessing is the benediction from the second service on the Lord's Day, right?

Technically we are only resuming worship in the second service.

 

[Joshua]

Technically we are only resuming worship in the second service.

I was just employin' some word play.

 

[Herald]

I would agree with you, Bill, if it were simply a matter of lacking assurance; but the particular case stated that the reason for the lack of assurance is because of certain sins in the person's life. That being the case, one must know what the sins might be so as to determine if they require exclusion from the Lord's supper. For example, what if it happens to be fornication or theft? These are things which in their very nature are blatant acts of disobedience against the clear commandments of God. It would be scandalous to advise such a person that he should go forward to the Lord's supper if he is overtly sinning against God in these ways. I am not saying this is the case in this instance; I am just clarifying that the possibility this may be the case makes it the responsibility of a spiritual counsellor to inquire into the nature of the sin which is causing the lack of assurance.

Matthew, agreed. I suppose I was including such an example in my comment about living in open, unrepentant sin. Using your example, a person engaged in on-going fornication must cease and desist as part of repentance. A thief must stop stealing and make restitution. I would say that in the absence of ongoing sin, or a sin that requires restitution (and restitution hasn't been made), that the person should not necessarily recuse themselves from the Lord's table. Lastly, I don't want to ignore the role depression, mental illness, or emotional distress may play in making a person feel as though they are unworthy.

 

[KMK]

And yet he wasn't.



I think all true believers can testify of wonderful and powerful moments of "consolation in Christ," "comfort of love," "fellowship of the Spirit," "bowels and mercies." But it is all the same Spirit ministering the same blessings through the same means in accord with the condition and capacity of the believer. It does not serve the individual's growth, nor the body's union and communion, to have some folk laying greater emphasis on their experiences as if they were enjoying a second or higher blessing of the Spirit above what is ordinarily experienced by believers. True experience of the Holy Spirit produces like-mindedness and low-mindedness, Philippians 2:1-4.

I like this post but I do not know how to 'like' on tapatalk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[lynnie]

Matthew- I am fully agreed.

But when it comes to subtle or blatant thinking in believers that we are on a superior higher level, I'd say that there is plenty of that to go around in every camp. I know humble Pentecostals trying to be fully dependent on the Lord (even if I think their theology is way off) and I've met some arrogant Confessional people who don't seem to grasp dependency on the Holy Spirit at all. In theory, understanding the doctrines of grace should lead to more humility, but on the other hand, a strong awareness of needing the Holy Spirit to move can lead to much dependent prayer. At this point I just pray for great revival in the church, a sound doctrine one.

 

[MW]

At this point I just pray for great revival in the church, a sound doctrine one.

We are in full agreement on the point of praying for revival in the church, but including not only doctrine, but also worship, discipline, and government, that Christ may be all in all as the Head of His house and the King of His kingdom.