Thread: The Federal Vision and the Doctrine of Assurance

Can a Federal Visionist ever have assurance? How does one know that one has done enough works of covenantal faithfulness in order to be justified on the last day?

You don't. The FV stomps assurance right into the ground, since while the LORD knows those who He will preserve in faith until the end, the rest of us have to wait till we die to discover whether or not we outlive our faith.

Judging by their constant attempt to get people to back away from the fires they have created, (what I call the 'nothing to see here folks' attitude) and anger and bitterness towards anyone that critiques them because the critics are always WRONG, it is obvious that the FV people are much better than you or I. And so they can have assurance that you and I lack because they are 'holier than thou'.

I commonly hear, "look to your baptism" as all the assurance that one needs in the FV scheme. If you are baptized you are in the covenant and therefore saved. These people despise introspection and self examination, so the normal means of seeking assurance do not apply.

Originally Posted by markkoller

I commonly hear, "look to your baptism" as all the assurance that one needs in the FV scheme. If you are baptized you are in the covenant and therefore saved. These people despise introspection and self examination, so the normal means of seeking assurance do not apply.

Indeed, "look to your baptism" is the mantra they will continually repeat.... but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"

Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.

Originally Posted by Poimen

In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"

Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.

Thanks Poimen

It is nice to see someone actually quote an FV proponent when accusing them. I have found many people saying "this and that" about the FV, but fail to provide any quote or evidence.

For someone like me who is doing some reading and reasearch on the issue it definitely helps...Believe me, I am not going to take some guy's word about how "bad" it is, I will need quotes and evidence.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

So in other words, you're never *really* sure that you're saved, then?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

So in other words, you're never *really* sure that you're saved, then?

Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.

3. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, 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, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

The FV seem to redefine what it means to be saved as being temporal salvation, i,e, remaining in the visible covenant. the point they make is that this is all that can be known without what is seen as damaging introspection.

The question of decretal salvation is a seperate one, that is determined by the hidden councils of God.

The FV view on works would concentrate on the revelation in James that faith without works is dead i.e. a faith that is not alone.

My problem with their anlaysis is to say that one is saved temporaly still begs the question as to whether one is saved decretely, it almost demands that we be satisfied with our temporal state and not look for any more than that.

However God often uses a concern for our eternal state as the means by which we reach a state of repentance, people should be concerned about their eternal state and the Church should address a persons eternal state not teach that we should only look to our temporal state.

Originally Posted by Poimen

In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"

Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.

That sure sounds close to what I heard Hank Hanegraff saying the other day.......when asked about election.

Originally Posted by Hippo

The FV view on works would concentrate on the revelation in James that faith without works is dead i.e. a faith that is not alone.

The irony being that despite what one might make of James 2 in regards to the doctrine of justification in Christ, James makes it very clear that there is no salvation at all for those who have a dead faith (James 2:14)

Originally Posted by markkoller

I commonly hear, "look to your baptism" as all the assurance that one needs in the FV scheme. If you are baptized you are in the covenant and therefore saved. These people despise introspection and self examination, so the normal means of seeking assurance do not apply.

How does a FVer 'look to his baptism' if he was baptized as an infant?

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

Certainly Max Weber popularized this position with his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Calvinism" but Mr. Weber was no Calvinist and as far as I know, wasn't even a professing Christian.

So you will need to demonstrate this point with citations from our creeds/catechisms etc. that this view of election is confessionally Reformed. It may be that some Pilgrim Fathers held to this theology but that is far from making it orthodox.

Assurance of salvation/election based on works not a 'maintenance' theology (contra the FV); it is a 'fruit theology'

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.

Canons of Dordt, 1.12 (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32).

Originally Posted by Poimen

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

Certainly Max Weber popularized this position with his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Calvinism" but Mr. Weber was no Calvinist and as far as I know, wasn't even a professing Christian.

So you will need to demonstrate this point with citations from our creeds/catechisms etc. that this view of election is confessionally Reformed. It may be that some Pilgrim Fathers held to this theology but that is far from making it orthodox.

Assurance of salvation/election based on works not a 'maintenance' theology (contra the FV); it is a 'fruit theology'

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.

Canons of Dordt, 1.12 (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32).

I am not saying it is orthodox at all.

My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

So in other words, you're never *really* sure that you're saved, then?

Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.

3. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, 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, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

Before paragraph 3, the WCF says this:

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon 1) the divine truth of the promises of salvation,2) the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, 3) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

The Divines seem to believe that assurance is based on three things: God's promises, inward evidence, and the testimony of the Spirit.

'Inward evidence' seems to be the ability to discern the particulars of grace.

LC Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[349] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[350] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[351] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[352]

The Divines do add "and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him...' but their emphasis seems to be on the heart and not the works, hence the word 'endeavor'.

Is 'endeavoring' to walk in all good conscience the same as the FV 'covenantal obedience'?

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by Poimen

Originally Posted by MOSES

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.

Certainly Max Weber popularized this position with his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Calvinism" but Mr. Weber was no Calvinist and as far as I know, wasn't even a professing Christian.

So you will need to demonstrate this point with citations from our creeds/catechisms etc. that this view of election is confessionally Reformed. It may be that some Pilgrim Fathers held to this theology but that is far from making it orthodox.

Assurance of salvation/election based on works not a 'maintenance' theology (contra the FV); it is a 'fruit theology'

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.

Canons of Dordt, 1.12 (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32).

I am not saying it is orthodox at all.

My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.

Okay but saying "this is a historic belief in all of Calvinism" certainly gives the reader the impression that you thought it was.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.

3. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, 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, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:

CHAPTER XVIII.
Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, 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: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

III. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; 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, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

Originally Posted by MOSES

I am not saying it is orthodox at all.

My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.

To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

I am not saying it is orthodox at all.

My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.

To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?

My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.

That is not orthodox, imo, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...but a large number of others within the reformed faith.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

I am not saying it is orthodox at all.

My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.

To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?

My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.

That is not orthodox, imo, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...but a large number of others within the reformed faith.

For someone who values citations I would have thought you would have provided some. The only source you have provided for your claim is one paragraph within one chapter of the WCF. And that source, in my opinion, is slightly out of context.

Can I interject in this (already underway) conversation?

I am not FV and have no sympathies whatsoever for it. I believe it to be a dangerous movement. In fact, I think all movements are best left for the bathroom.

But is there something wrong with seeking assurance in the promises signed and sealed by God at one's baptism?

The historic Reformed Form for the Baptism of Infants has a wonderful section at the beginning about those promises and what each person of the Trinity promises to do for those who are baptized.

The Canons of Dort speak about assurance in 5.10 and one of the grounds of assurance is "faith in the promises of God, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort."

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

Can I interject in this (already underway) conversation?

I am not FV and have no sympathies whatsoever for it. I believe it to be a dangerous movement. In fact, I think all movements are best left for the bathroom.

But is there something wrong with seeking assurance in the promises signed and sealed by God at one's baptism?

The historic Reformed Form for the Baptism of Infants has a wonderful section at the beginning about those promises and what each person of the Trinity promises to do for those who are baptized.

The Canons of Dort speak about assurance in 5.10 and one of the grounds of assurance is "faith in the promises of God, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort."

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.

What do you think?

I can't speak for my Presby brethren, but it sounds like what you are encouraging your people to look for assurance in their faith in what God has promised as 'signed and sealed' in baptism. By doing so you are still encouraging your people to have assurance in their faith and not in their 'covenantal obedience'.

I don't think they could in the sense that a traditional Protestant does probably something more akin to the catholic doctrine of moral assurance (I do good so I must be saved).

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?

My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.

That is not orthodox, imo, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...but a large number of others within the reformed faith.

For someone who values citations I would have thought you would have provided some. The only source you have provided for your claim is one paragraph within one chapter of the WCF. And that source, in my opinion, is slightly out of context.

I did not quote the wcf to support that claim...Why would I quote the wcf to support something that I already called unorthodox?
Sorry for being unclear.

I quoted the wcf to show that those who, along with the FV, hold to a position of works only as the basis for assurance are wrong...not to support thier claim...

my point was and is only this...The works/assurance position is not DISTINCT to the FV alone.

Is there anyone here that thinks that it is?

One of the reasons for the FV is that there has been a certian infiltration of reformed thought that has lead to the sacraments and the Church not receiving the theological primacy that they should rightly enjoy.

It is to be welcomed that these issues are now being discussed. We should see the Church as a physical expression of God's love for his people with the physical aspect being of real importance and the sacraments are more than symbols, they have a real meaning and impact.

If the Reformed Church had not attempted to find common ground with mainstream evangelical and baptistic elements by neglecting these important distinctives of a true church but had instead been content with the historic faith of the reformation then I doubt these unbalanced and dangerous FV doctrines would have gained the following that they have.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.

3. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, 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, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:

CHAPTER XVIII.
Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, 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: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

III. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; 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, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

Thanks...I agree.

I quoted the wcf to show that the FV position and the "puritan work ethic" (proof of salvation position) were opposed to it..

NOT to support it.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by MOSES

My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.

That is not orthodox, imo, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...but a large number of others within the reformed faith.

For someone who values citations I would have thought you would have provided some. The only source you have provided for your claim is one paragraph within one chapter of the WCF. And that source, in my opinion, is slightly out of context.

I did not quote the wcf to support that claim...Why would I quote the wcf to support something that I already called unorthodox?
Sorry for being unclear.

I quoted the wcf to show that those who, along with the FV, hold to a position of works only as the basis for assurance are wrong...not to support thier claim...

my point was and is only this...The works/assurance position is not DISTINCT to the FV alone.

Is there anyone here that thinks that it is?

I am VERY confused by what you have posted in this thread.

You cited the WCF when I asked a question about assurance.

You weren't clear about what the purpose was in your citation, but it LOOKED like you were citing it as evidence that the WCF authors believed that works were the basis for assurance, a position that you now claim is unorthodox. It very much seemed to me (and apparently to others) that you were using it to prove that a works-assurance was something not limited to today's FV, but was present nearer the Reformation than today.

What is your position on what the WCF teaches, then? Why did you cite it in response to my question?

The Canons of Dort (5.10) mention three grounds for assurance of preservation:

1) Faith in the promises of God (see my post above)

2) The testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God

3) The serious and holy pursuit of a good conscience and of good works.

The Canons (1.12) also mention the following grounds with respect to the assurance of election:

Observing in themselves the unfailing fruits of election such as,

1) True faith in Christ
2) A childlike fear of God
3) A godly sorrow for sin
4) A hungering and thirsting after righteousness

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.

Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:

CHAPTER XVIII.
Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.

I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, 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: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

III. This infallible assurance doth 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: 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. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; 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, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

Thanks...I agree.

I quoted the wcf to show that the FV position and the "puritan work ethic" (proof of salvation position) were opposed to it..

NOT to support it.

It would have been helpful for you to state your reason for the citation, then, instead of just saying "listen to the WCF". Previously you sounded as though you supported works-assurance, which made your citation of the WCF without comment even more confusing.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

I am VERY confused by what you have posted in this thread.

You cited the WCF when I asked a question about assurance.

You weren't clear about what the purpose was in your citation, but it LOOKED like you were citing it as evidence that the WCF authors believed that works were the basis for assurance, a position that you now claim is unorthodox. It very much seemed to me (and apparently to others) that you were using it to prove that a works-assurance was something not limited to today's FV, but was present nearer the Reformation than today.

What is your position on what the WCF teaches, then? Why did you cite it in response to my question?

I did not know if you were asking me personally, or if you were asking me about another's position (e,g, the FV and other like puritans)...SO...I simpy pointed you to the wcf...which you obviously already knew contains the best answer in the assurance debate.

Again...I was not citing it to support either the FV or other puritans view on assurance...but quite the contrary.

Perhaps you thought I was because you thought I was defending the FV position because I started out by saying that their position on assurance is NOT unique or distinct to them alone...

Sorry...I think have everyone..I was not even paying much attention to this thread, my fault...I simply wanted to point out that the FV position of assurance is not all that unique.

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

Well, this is sort of hairy. While I am a vocal opponent of The Federal Vision, it is true that if one is not 'abiding in Christ' they have no biblical grounds of assurance until they 'get things right' (even though they may truly be saved, I am speaking only to the issue of the biblical grounds of assurance).

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I think where they get things confused is by placing the emphasis upon the individual to keep the faith instead of emphasizing that it is God's power that keeps us in the faith. However, they affirm it is God's power that keeps those elected from eternity to salvation, but since no one has any idea if they are truly saved and being kept by God or if their profession is in vain and cannot truly know in any practical way their true standing until they stand before God in judgment, we are left with a hairy problem regarding the biblical teaching regarding assurance. The practical end is a very works focused view of the faith instead of a living in grace through faith. One inevitably emphasizes man's performance, while the other emphasizes God's grace and power in the life of the believer. It is all a matter of mis-placed emphasis.

In conclusion, they in effect place what ought to be in the front seat behind the drivers wheel in the trunk, where what is in the trunk should be in the drivers seat. This is also the fundamental error of the New Perspectives on Paul (The Cristus Victor view of the atonement places penal substitutionary atonement in the trunk). Historical orthodoxy is in many ways affirmed but deprecated to a lesser place to make room for these innovations. This of course, if consistently followed and thought out, leas to a completely different view of the gospel and the church.

I write this knowing that most if not all Federal Vision proponents would think that I have mischaracterized their position but after much digging in their material I find no way to escape my comments as the logical end of their 'discussion'.

Originally Posted by Poimen

In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:

"by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."

"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"

Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

The Wiki article says this about Weber's book/article:

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:
According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.
The manner in which this paradox was resolved, Weber argued, was the investment of this money, which gave an extreme boost to nascent capitalism.

Todd said this:

but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...

You said this:

This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism...

Is this the source you are using to support your view that 'all of Calvinism' shares the views of the FV on assurance?

Originally Posted by MOSES

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans... perhaps it would help to study some Puritan and Reformed works on assurance instead.

Originally Posted by KMK

Is this the source you are using to support your view that 'all of Calvinism' shares the views of the FV on assurance?

Bam...That is it, now I know why everyone got so confused. In post 8 I said:

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism

I meant "within"....that is, the assurance and works belief was (has been) found within Calvinism historically...not that it was part of Calvinism as a whole.

So again, is the FV view of assurance distinct to it alone? Is the FV view a NEW invention....

My thought...there are sources out there which would indicate the answer is ...NO.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans.

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by MOSES

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)

I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans.

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by MOSES

Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:

biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves

David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.

I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?

First, let me say this. I think the quote, which you copy in your question, is coming from the position that Lutheranism is the Reformed faith...That the puritans have strayed because of the emphais on works.
(Is there not a real and historical debate that Lutherans can do as they please, e.g., live like the devil, beause their assurance is in the gospel alone,,,but the Calvinist rejected that and said no "we must work our our salvation. . ." and emphasized good works...?)


note: I quoted David Beckel above to show that others see Calvinists and puritans as looking to works for assurance...and I did that to show that Max Weber is not the only one.
Heck...I even seen a documentary on the reformation that taught that many in the Calvinist camp looked to works for assurance..
MY whole point is that this is not new with the FV.

KMK
To answer your question...I would say NO, as it relates to the quote. Puritans who placed an emphasis on works in assurance were not suddenly "non-reformed" because of that emphasis, imo.