Do you struggle with assurance of salvation? You know, we are working on putting together a second EC volume that deals with more pastorally driven questions (still theologically grounded) that deal with the “so what?” kinds of questions that naturally might follow upon the doctrines dealt with in our first EC volume. I will be writing, for one of my personal chapters, on the Christian doctrine of assurance. Unfortunately I am afraid that this doctrine has fallen on hard times, not because everyone has assurance of salvation, but for more dire reasons; I think this doctrine has fallen on hard times because most Evangelical Christians in America (and maybe elsewhere in the world) don’t think deep enough about salvation to ever concern themselves with such things. If you are a depth kind of Christian though, the rest of this post is for you.
I used to write, quite frequently on the exploits and happenings of the Puritans (probably because an important mentor of mine, Ron Frost, through seminary was/is a Puritan expert); the Puritans of course are known for their rigid and even ‘precisianist’ (see Theodore Dwight Bozeman’s seminal book The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638ย [Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia]) modes of existence; in short they became known, in some instances for their legalism. But more positively, the Puritans and that era of Calvinist development (in both England and America) are also known for producing a rich pietistic heritage that promotes a warm hearted love for Christ through the expositional teaching of Scripture (many of the so called New Calvinists [Collin Hansen’s “Young, Restless, and Reformed” are enamored with much of the spirituality promoted by this Puritan heritage, today). One of the doctrines that was internalized and developed during this period was known as theย practical syllogism.ย The ‘syllogism’ was basically an intellectual (mechanistic in its employment) apparatus used to measure the intangibles of either a genuine or temporary (false) Christianity and spirituality. Here is how famed and seminal English Puritan William Perkins articulates thisย practical syllogism:
Major Premise:ย He that believes and repents is God’s child.
Minor Premise:ย I believe in Christ and repent: at the least I subject my will to the commandment which bids me repent and believe: I detest my unbelief, and all my sins: and desire the Lord to increase my faith.
Conclusion:ย I am the child of God.
[William Perkins cited by R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649,ย p. 71,ย ย cited by Joseph C. Dillow,ย The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man,ย p. 264.]
This syllogism flows out of what Kenneth Stewart in his book calls the only universally agreed upon fifth point of Calvinism (see his bookย Ten Myths About Calvinism, Appendix: The Earliest Known Reference to the TULIP Acronym,ย 291-92),ย Perseverance of the Saints.ย The belief that true Christians (not just temporary ones, which was another teaching of the Puritan teaching known as experimental predestinarianism) would persevere in good works until they died (or until Jesus came back); and that this perseverance in ‘good works’ reflected that they truly had the Spirit of Christ enlivening them thus proving that indeed they were one of the unconditionally elect for whom Christ died in particular (I just anachronistically used the TULIP conceptually to read the Puritan experience through). You can see how unstable of a situation this might produce for someone who lived under the burden of culturally/societally internalized teaching. Here is the testimony of one man who indeed lived during this period, and was finally set free from this burden through the teaching of Richard Sibbes:
[I] was for three years together wounded for sins, and under a sense of my corruptions, which were many; and I followed sermons, pursuing the means, and was constant in duties and doing: looking for Heaven that way. And then I was so precise for outward formalities, that I censured all to be reprobates, that wore their hair anything long, and not short above the ears; or that wore great ruffs, and gorgets, or fashions, and follies. But yet I was distracted in my mind, wounded in conscience, and wept often and bitterly, and prayed earnestly, but yet had no comfort, till I heard that sweet saint . . . Doctor Sibbs, by whose means and ministry I was brought to peace and joy in my spirit. His sweet soul-melting Gospel-sermons won my heart and refreshed me much, for by him I saw and had muchof God and was confident in Christ, and could overlook the world . . . My heart held firm and resolved and my desires all heaven-ward. (Ron Frost. Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason, eds., โThe Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics,โ Frost is quoting from: John Rogers, Ohel or Bethshemesh, A Tabernacle for the Sun (London, n.p., 1653)
Thankfully for, Humphrey Mills (the man whose testimony we just read), he was relieved from looking to himself apart from Christ as the ground and thus assurance of his salvation. The key is that there should never be an mediate wedge or thing that stands between the believer and their Savior; there should be an immediate relation between Christ and His saints. Sibbes began to offer this kind of way forward (through his style of ‘Free Grace’ Calvinism) under the conditions and material theological categories he had available to him in his particular context.
But I think there is even more constructive resource available for us today; because even though Sibbes pointed people to look to Christ alone first (as a lover of their soul, instead of the law-keeper of their bodies), he still didn’t have the adequate theological resource to truly ground a person’s humanity and thus salvation/reconciliation in the Savior’s, in Christ’s humanity for them. It wasn’t really until we come up to Karl Barth that this kind of teaching was finely tuned and developed. [I would like to write and say more about Karl Barthโand will in the futureโbut because I am running out of time all I am going to be able to do is offer a quote from Michael Allen as he comments on Barth in his CD, as Barth discusses this issue of assurance of salvation through his teaching on election] Barth was quite aware of this ‘practical syllogism’ as I have described it above, but because Barth saw Jesus as both electing God (the subject) and elected man (the object) of election, he saw Jesus fulfilling both sides of election; thus humanity can rest assured not in their good works, not in their continued and sustained subjective choice for God (made evident by their good works), but they are, for Barth, able to rest assured because Jesus holds in Himself both the Subjective and Objective sides of God’s election for all of humanity in the humanity of Christ which is for us, and thus representative of God with us. Here is how Michael Allen comments on this reality in Barth’s teaching (I have some sweet quotes from Barth from his CD on this that I will have to share later):
[N]otice the personal application of the election of the Sonย โ all others are elect ‘in Himย โ that speaks volumes about the doctrine of assurance…. Elsewhere in this volume, Barth addresses the so-called ‘practical syllogism’ (II/2.335โ340), whereby the Puritan tradition grounded assurance not only in the objective work of Christ but also in the subjective fruits of that union with Christ (namely, in sanctifying evidences of justification in Christ). Barth believes assurance is entirely in Christ, and that the practical syllogism denies that Jesus is obedient for us, just as He is accursed for us. He fills both sides of the covenantal relationship…. [Michael Allen,ย Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader,ย 102, Nook version.]
So Barth sees through this artificial distinction (dualism) between our humanity juxtaposed with Christ’s humanity, as if our humanity has an ontological reality of its own (apart from finding its grounding in Jesus’ humanity for us). And Barth sees how the Puritans abstracted and annexed the sanctification side of salvation to our humanity while placing this in a refracted relationship with the objective justifying work done by Jesus Christ. The effect, as Barth soย presciently observed, was a spirituality was produced that caused people to look at themselves before they could ever look to Christ for assurance. The individual person had to subjectively check their own lives to see whether or not they had enough good works to plausibly confirm that they indeed were fitted with the genuine righteousness of Christ and thus saved. Barth’s remedy (and Barth was not purely seeking to find a remedy for this, in a negative sense) was to ground our humanity from Christ’s elected humanity (as archetypal) for us. Thus, we cannot think of ourselves apart from Him, but only in and through His “saved” humanity for us.
I am out of time …
My only quibble is that Puritanism is one of those ‘things’ that is hard to define. It’s an ethos and a feeling of an age and not necessarily a ‘thing’. There’s the temptation to reify this category. Sibbes was as much as Puritan as Perkins but they went in very different directions in their gospeling.
I’m with Sibbes though. However, I’m not sure if Barth really affirms the best language, but that’s another debate. He certainly has some good insights (emphasis on Christ as ground of election).
Pax,
Cal
I can agree with Perkins to a point but still acknowledge that salvation and assurance of salvation is all of God and none of me. There still remains a denying of self, taking up your cross and following – all in the power of Christ alone (through the enabling of the Holy Spirit.)
I agree with Barth here I guess – Yes we are to look to Christ FIRST but we still have to look at ourselves at some point. (still stuck on obedience!) (especially as a pastor who preaches Grace (which I agree is Jesus) but also maturation in ones walk with Christ.) Be patient with me brother, still trying to wrap my mind around this.
As I read these posts, which I love, my mind bounces back and forth in debate between the freedom and acceptance found in the Gospel, and the demands of the law and the apparent demands of Jesus apparently affirmed by Paul. A clear example is Paul excoriating the Church at Corinth: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorallity among you among you of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans [surprisingly, this makes ancient helenistic society look prudish compared to modern day western civilization] for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.”
[Still debating] Still Paul never explicitly questions the man in question’s salvation (I don’t think so): “…you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” and “… but now I’m writing to you not to associate with anyone WHO BEARS The NAME OF BROTHER if he is guilty of sexual immorality, or greed or an idolater, reviler, drunkard, thief – no do not even eat with such a one.”
So the school master of the law is still there. BUT, (and I’m sure one of our theologians has written this) “do you find yourself still a sinner? So do we all! Look to Jesus, for He Is thy salvation!” And not only so, but we are perfect in Him.
So there is Bobby, what you call “the dialectic” even in this message. No?
But we would move the message of Jesus’ vicarious sanctification to the fore, because in the law we experience condemnation and destruction; however, in Jesus Christ we find peace and perfection.
@Cal,
It is only hard to define are an amalgam of too many threads to keep track of–and thus relative–if you aren’t a Puritan expert ๐ or follow Perry Miller’s thesis which makes Purtian history a monolith. That’s the whole point of Dr. Ron Frost’s PhD dissertation, though, to demonstrate how there are distinguishable movements within Puritanism; and Frost did his dissertation on Richard Sibbes using William Perkins as Sibbes’ foil (further, Frost totally undercuts Mark Dever’s PhD on Sibbes as Dever reads Sibbes through Perry Miller’s thesis as a pastor/theologian who simply falls into the Westminster mold of things (which is hogwash!). Frost’s dissertation is entitled: Richard Sibbes’ Theology of Grace and the Division of English Reformed Theology and was submitted and defended in 1996 to King’s College, University of London where he earned his PhD. And then on top of this you ought to read Janice Knight’s book (which I have referred to more than once in my blogging over the years) Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism. She makes the hard and fast distinction between two distinct movements within Puritanism; The Spiritual Brethren of whom Sibbes was one of its stalwart leaders in contrast to The Intellectual Fathers led by William Perkins and others (the Westminster crowd), and this is tied into discernable differences between their doctrines of God (Sibbes focused on God triune nature as love and Perkins style focused on God as Powerful brute Creator Law giver etc). Frost uses Knights thesis and shows how this branches out even further and more distinctly ecclesially between the conformists and non-conformists. I suggest you read both Knight’s book and Frost’s dissertation which you can now purchase online here: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/RNFrost (the title has been changed, but this is his PhD diss published). After you work through this I think the fog you mention that surrounds the Puritans, for some schools of thought, will be (or should) be dispelled.
I don’t understand what you mean in what you say of Barth; what do you mean? Care to elaborate?
@Steve,
William Perkins at this blog is no friend at all! He says nothing that is right relative to the Gospel as far as I am concerned; I have offered critique of him over the years, and think I have a category for him in my sidebar; you should check it out (my discussions of him usually can be found under my Ron Frost category too). But no, he is wrong; his doctrine of God works from the god of the philosophers and not the God revealed in Jesus Christ (and I say this relative to theological method).
Yes, there does still remain a denying of self; but for an Evangelical Calvinist we think of that through the vicarious humanity of Christ. So He denied HImself for us; He picked up the cross for us; etc. And we live from and out of this reality that He did and does for us, and so we look only to Jesus and not ourselves, and we look at ourselves (have knowledge of ourselves pace Calvin), only as we have knowledge of God in Christ first. So there is a methodology and order about this, and it is an important one!
Steve, there is a lot to grasp with what we are saying; it will take time :-).
@Duane,
Yes, you are right; as I just mentioned to Steve, there is a proper order to this stuff. And while it may seem tedious to make such methodological distinctions, they obviously have huge ramifications for our daily Christian practice and spirituality!
My comment about Barth’s language was in response to:
“even though Sibbes pointed people to look to Christ alone first (as a lover of their soul, instead of the law-keeper of their bodies), he still didnโt have the adequate theological resource to truly ground a personโs humanity and thus salvation/reconciliation in the Saviorโs, in Christโs humanity for them. It wasnโt really until we come up to Karl Barth that this kind of teaching was finely tuned and developed”
I don’t see Barth as that ground-breaking in regards to providing the resources to describe the reality of atonement. I think there was adequate language in the Reformation to put this reality into word. I’m still ambivalent over Barth. But rest assured, we’re 100% about grounding any doctrine of election in the Chosen One aka. Messiah.
For my 2 cents worth, election is one concept in Scripture that gets a pass when it becomes functionally Christless. We’ve seen when faith is reified and becomes something unto itself, devoid of Christ. Justification was set right when placed into the life of Christ and not some infusion of grace.
I think until it is thoroughly established that every doctrine sprouts out of Christ, then we’re bound to fall down endless pits. And I mean functionally!
Cal
Is Calvin all that different than the Puritans? Phillip Cary doesn’t think so. See his paper “Why Luther is not Quite Protestant.”
Good post, Bobby.
Aidan:
I only read the first couple pages, but from the little I know I see some problems.
1) He misjudges Calvin right away by connecting him right through to Baptists. Calvin did not side with Zwingli but tried to find a middle-way, but he no where endorsed a memorialist trajectory. Calvin recognized his own inclusion in the Kingdom in baptism. He was in the covenant because of this.
2) Luther’s writings vary as time progresses and anything can be proven by cobbling things together. I don’t know if Cary recognizes this (he doesn’t seem to), but Luther can seem very RC, very EO (vis. Finnish scholars) or whatever.
The ultimate difficulty is the term ‘Protestant’. I think that word needs to just disappear as it has little content.
This coming from someone who believes in sacramental efficacy, the power of Christ’s word in the Scripture, and one who puts no merit in Rome institutionally being a Church.
My 2 cents,
Cal
Cal,
I do declare! You don’t see Barth as that ground breaking?! That might be the overstatement of the century. Surely you jest! You might not agree with him, but it is hard to conceive of another theologian who has had and is currently having the kind of impact and paradigmatic earth shake that Barth has produced. Are you playing with me?!
Instead of continuing to make assertions in generalities like when you write “I think there was adequate language in the Reformation to put this reality into word….” Would you care to provide some more concrete examples of what you mean? Otherwise all I can do is scratch my head, and go “okay,” so what. Until you let me in on what you mean, we can’t have any kind of meaningful back and forth here. So please let me in on what you mean.
Fr Kimel,
Sure he is (Calvin)! How could Calvin not be, just given his situadedness, historically (and thus materially, theologically)? I will have to take a look at this article some time soon, but I have read massively from Calvin and on Calvin from all of the top experts; and I think they would all say, yes, Calvin was not a Calvinist (even Richard Muller concedes that given his thesis about what produced scholasticism Reformed).
Bobby:
I said not ground-breaking when it comes to providing language resources aka. terminology. NOT that he is not ground-breaking. He’s one of the most important theologians of the 20th century if not in the post-Enlightenment.
I’m being purposely vague because I’m avoiding having that debate (hence, “Iโm not sure if Barth really affirms the best language, but thatโs another debate.”).
Cal
Cal, what do you mean about Barth and his language; what language?
What I mean is that I don’t believe that Barth “created” language that is better or more suited for discussing the reality of being in Christ. I think Sibbes had a sufficient vocabulary to discuss this.
What I mean by creation of language is both new terms (i.e. Tertullian and Trinitas) and retooling older terms for a deeper explanation. I think Barth reinvigorated some great doctrinal points (i.e. grounding election in Christ) and added language to describe different points (i.e. Missio Dei).
However, I’m not a Barth scholar and this is just my opinion of what I know so far. I like Barth, but I’m not a Barthian. Anyway, that’s more than I wanted to say, but I hope that clarifies a little. I’m not looking to have a debate over this.
Peace brother,
Cal