As we read further with R. T. Kendall he answers my question in my last post on where “Temporary Faith” went. Let’s follow along as Kendall describes the unfolding of this doctrine and how the pastoral implications of this teaching became the “hard teaching” of what we now commonly refer to as Calvinism:
The doctrine of temporary faith became the embarrassment, if not the scandal, of English Calvinism. The followers of Perkins claimed less and less for it so that it eventually presented no threat at all to the believer; William Ames gave its virtual demise a systematic sanction. This teaching seems to have begun with Calvin himself and to have been perpetuated especially by Perkins. Neither Calvin nor Perkins apologizes for a teaching that may seem to some as pastorally insensitive. This teaching depicts God as giving the reprobate, whom He never intends to draw effectually, but a ‘taste’ of His grace. Indeed, in the preface to Whether a Man Perkins claims that this temporary faith ‘proceedeth from the holy Ghost, but yet it is not sufficient to make them sound professor’. These men teach this doctrine simply because they find it in Scripture; to them it explains such passages as Matthew 7:21-3, Hebrews 6: 4-6, and the Parable of the Sower.
The thesis in Whether a Man is that a man may think himself regenerate when he is not, but a truly regenerate man ‘maie discerne’ that he is. In this connection Perkins employs 2 Peter I: 10 (‘Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall’), a verse he sees as the chief mandate for preaching generally as well as the formula by which Christians particularly may prove to themselves that they have the object of an effectual calling. The verse 2 Peter I: 10 may be safely called the biblical banner for the Perkins tradition; it stands out in bold relief on the title-page of Whether a Man and heads the list of Scriptures printed on the title-pages of his other works.
It is Perkins’s conviction, then, that the regenerate man may discern that he has the knowledge of saving faith, or assurance of election. Such knowledge Perkins calls ‘experimental’. The testimony of the Spirit is given by ‘an experiment’ that is not conjectural but ‘an infallible certenty of the pardon of sinne’. Perkins believes that 2 Peter I: 10 is to be related to one’s conscience. The conscience itself, he believes, takes effect in a man’s mind by a process of syllogistic reasoning. Conscience pronounces judgement ‘by a kinde of reasoning or disputing, called a practical syllogisme’. By the ‘practical syllogisme of the holy Ghost’ one may not only have ‘experimental certentie of the truth of the Bible’ but know ‘hee is in the number of the elect’. (R. T. Kendall, “Calvin And English Calvinism To 1649,” 7-8)
Again, I am struck by the lack of this kind of language and thinking amongst those who claim to be the heirs of folks like William Perkins and William Ames. I have interacted with plenty of contemporary Calvinists today, and read many of their writings (even their blogs); and I can honestly say that I have never heard the grammar that we are hearing described here. In other words, I don’t hear the language of temporary faith, experimental predestinarian, practical syllogism; and beyond that I don’t hear contemporary Calvinists stressing over whether they may or may not be one of the elect. I don’t see them trying to discern if they have a ‘real faith’ or a ‘temporary faith’; instead most typically assume the “positive side” of this equation, and just assume that they indeed are one of the elect — the negative piece, articulated by folks like Perkins, that they in fact could only “appear” to have a saving faith is really never engaged (I would suggest, at least with the Western psyche, that contemporary Calvinists are more socio/culturally “liberated” and “individualized” so that the notion of their “election” simply becomes an “understood reality” for them).
Even Kendall notes that teaching like this became a “scandal” for the Puritans and the implied pastoral concerns that this kind of teaching engendered; but instead of jettisoning this teaching these “divines,” like Perkins, came up with an elaborate system and procedure to counter the negative vacuum that things like “temporary faith” generated — so the creating of the mechanism known as the “practical syllogism.” I would like to see contemporary Calvinists truly embrace their heritage; consistently follow through on the logic of their “system;” and live out both the negative and positive sides of their teaching of double predestination. I doubt my humble “call” will produce anything, but hey, it’s worth a shot ๐ . . .
John Piper, in his second last sermon before sabbatical, preached on How God loves the Church.
He offers it as a corrective (though it’s not much of one) to his repeated mantra that the point of the gospel is not God making much of you (but freeing you to make much of Him). In the sermon he admits that the shape of his preaching is determined by the thought that millions of nominal Christians around him are going to hell. He says:
“Let me try to help you understand what shapes so much of what I say. A people ought to understand their pastor. I am more concerned about nominal hell-bound Christians who feel loved by God, than I am about genuine heaven-bound Christians who donโt feel loved by God.
“Please donโt hear me as uncaring or indifferent to genuine Christians who donโt feel loved by God. I do care, and this sermon is especially for you. At this point, Iโm simply trying to give you a perspective on why I emphasize what I do. There are millions of nominal Christians who are not born again who believe God loves them and yet are on their way to hell. And the difference between them and a born again believer is this: Whatโs the bottom, the decisive foundation, of their happiness? As you penetrate down deeper and deeper to the core, or the bottom, of what makes you happy, what is it?”
He might not use so much of the language of “temporary faith, experimental predestinarian and practical syllogism” but I think his ministry is a good example of this stuff lived out.
Or maybe I’m being unfair?
Bobby,
It might not be front and center teaching anymore, but it is interesting that this is exactly the sort of belief that modern Arminians include in their arguments against Calvinism. I didn’t understand their violent reaction at first because, as you said, the aforementioned teaching is generally not being proclaimed as such.
It makes God appear to be cold, heartless and even deliberately cruel in teasing people just to the edge of salvation and then dumping them on their faces because they weren’t really elect after all.
How did guys like Perkins get around passages like:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Glen,
I heard this one. And I think you’re right; in fact I think Piper is the most explicit about this kind of stuff, conceptually — I suppose the language has just been repackaged (but not as precisely or carefully as it was in the past).
No, I think you’re being quite fair; every time I’ve listened to Piper his soteriology comes through loud and clear.
Heather,
The irony is that Arminians have the same theology “functionally;” they all can “lose their salvation” or for the Classic Calv. (they never had it to begin with). Same damaging psychological consequences and crippling spirituality.
As far as the Timothy passage; the “all” of course is referring to “all the elect.” This is the typical and famous way of the Classic Calv. interpretation.
Same damaging psychological consequences and crippling spirituality.
I’ve noticed that.
As far as the Timothy passage; the โallโ of course is referring to โall the elect.โ This is the typical and famous way of the Classic Calv. interpretation.
Ah yes. I’ve heard that before.
And it left me worrying whether I was of the elect and how I could know for sure.
Bobby,
As I read your post I find myself agreeing with your analysis of contemporary Calvinism. And yet, as I think further about your comments and reflect on my own experiences of contemporary Calvinism I find myself thinking that the ‘negative … side of their teaching of double predestination’ is not altogether lost, but rather it is relocated.
Yes, these contemporary Calvinists do indeed ‘… most typically assume the โpositive sideโ of this equation’, that is, for themselves as individuals. However, when it comes to the ones who they are addressing through their preaching or writing they more often than not seem to assume the โnegative sideโ.
I would have to say that most contemporary Calvinists rarely offer any substantive assurance for the hearer or reader. They seem to me to be consistently calling the people in the pews to saving faith, whilst all the while assuming that they are probably not โwithin the bounds of the โInvisible Churchโ โ. So, even in a tiny congregation where there are 10 folk in the pews, that is, 10 folk who have been faithfully worshipping in this church for the past 30-70 years the Calvinistic preacher continually calls them to saving faith; week in, week out.
There is a delicious paradox in all of this. As the preacher is assuming that at least 8 of the 10 are โprobably unsavedโ, this same preacher basks in the assurance that he is one of the ‘elect’. In brief, I would say that the ‘negative side’ is now relocated from the self to the other.
Tony,
I couldn’t agree with you more; this is so often the case. In fact this irks me like nothing else — for the congregant — as far as radio ministries both MacArthur and Piper come to mind (they do this often); in fact even Alistair Begg even has engaged in this (I’m thinking back to when I used to listen to him on the radio).
I guess I was thinking of the “Calvinist” bloggers I’ve come across; it seems that they are completely assured of their election, while everyone else should be suspect.
I’m glad that you’ve seen your way out of that, Heather!
Hey Bobby & Tony;
Another irony to me, is that, for all their speech on the sovereignty of God, they seem to think that the salvation of the congregant depends on their (the pastor’s) much speaking. Or else, even though God has decreed which ones are reprobate, the pastor will still be held accountable if he does not repeatedly sound the warning, which no reprobate can possibly heed.
Duane,
I don’t have as much as a problem with this one. They have a pretty good internally consistent response, and that is that God ordains the means as well as the ends; of course the problem I have is what shapes this little anecdote in the first place.
There is still some irony here as the reading of these scriptures which concludes that this sort of temporary faith is a possibilty would also suggest that permanent and temporary faith are mutually exclusive.
Hi Chris E.
That would presuppose that “temporary faith” is an actual category to begin with; which is what I would strongly contest.
Well yes, I was addressing it as it appears in a Perkins like reading of the text.
Indeed, I see your point.
So, does the concept of temporary faith play into the CC understanding of the parable of the sower, soil and seed?
I’ve heard an Arminian explain that the middle two examples are meant to represent those who were genuinely “saved”, but lost it at some point. I’m assuming the CC explanation would involve never having been “saved”, but only sort-of believing the Gospel message while never having been truly converted. I’ve always tended toward the second explanation, but am not even sure it is meant to illustrate what saving faith looks like.
Hopefully, that question is not too off-topic.
Heather,
I think Jesus explains that parable quite clearly. The first two soils weren’t saved to begin with, apparently.
I think the danger I’m wanting to highlight is uncritically imposing theological frameworks upon the “categories” presented by Scripture. So the question I would want to entertain is: is the CC framework and its informing categories (given its reliance upon a Thomistic philosophical structure) best at explaining the context and emphases of Scripture? Just because there is an “appearance” of correlation between Scripture and CC (in the way they articulate it); does not mean that the meaning or the conceptual emphases that CC brings is correlative to what Scripture is indeed saying (I think election is a great case study here — just because that term is used in Scripture does not automatically mean that it correlates to the “way” that CC uses that term [I think they clearly equivocate here]).
Great question!
The syllogism of the Holy Spirit? Oh that things were so simple! Were all of these older calvinists just a bunch of pietists…locating the certainty of their salvation in an exquisite feeling produced by airtight mental deduction? “Infallible certainty of the pardon of sin” within the heart of man is precisely what causes so much anguish in the congregation. The heart is not an immanent seat for the Word of God. This seems like quite a heavy deviance from sola scriptura.
The heart is a wicked deceiver, and will never submit to the Word of God infallibly. What is needful most of all is the Word of Christ in and of itself. “Feelings come and feelings go” as Luther said.