Assurance

[user98Luke]

If this has been discussed here before, direct me that way. I have wondered for some time, why do so many reformed believers struggle with assurance of their salvation? Is it such a knowledge of depravity that it is hard to conceive The Creator saving them?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If this has been discussed here before, direct me that way. I have wondered for some time, why do so many reformed believers struggle with assurance of their salvation? Is it such a knowledge of depravity that it is hard to conceive The Creator saving them?

If you will, my first reaction to the query is another question or two. Do you ask because 1) this seems to you an issue for which Calvinists have a proclivity? Or 2) do you see this as a Christian issue generally, but one which Calvinists should be able to handle, and for some reason don't (in numbers significant to your notice)?

 

[C4MERON]

I know a dear brother who, being a confirmed arminian, firmly maintains that this is a very common malady of those who hold to a Calvinistic soteriology.
He says that it was common amongst the puritans and is common today; and one of the reasons being is that they (we) spend more time considering if we are numbered amongst the elect rather than resting in the free offer of God’s grace ‘available to all who believe’. I get no where in debating with him as he is far more knowledgeable than I. He seems to brush over the fact that, in regards perseverance, I do also acknowledge that not only is God sovereign over the ends but also the means, to wit, the warnings of scripture as well as the promises. Anyways I digress, to answer your question…I am unsure the likely reason. It may indeed, as you have already pointed out, an acute awareness of total depravity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David073]

Hmm I don’t know too many in the reformed camp who do, but I would say that it is normal to struggle with it, though that should not be the Christian’s disposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J.L. Allen]

I'd reckon that it is because Reformed theology takes sin very seriously and salvation from sin all the more. Introspection is common practice because spiritual self-awareness is prioritized. This is all good, but it needs to be heavily seasoned with the grace and truth of the Gospel.

 

[user98Luke]

If you will, my first reaction to the query is another question or two. Do you ask because 1) this seems to you an issue for which Calvinists have a proclivity? Or 2) do you see this as a Christian issue generally, but one which Calvinists should be able to handle, and for some reason don't (in numbers significant to your notice)?

I choose 1. I just never noticed it being a common struggle until I came to the reformed side of things, and I see people admitting struggle in this area or pastors/teachers sharing counsel for those struggling all the time.

 

[user98Luke]

I'd reckon that it is because Reformed theology takes sin very seriously and salvation from sin all the more. Introspection is common practice because spiritual self-awareness is prioritized. This is all good, but it needs to be heavily seasoned with the grace and truth of the Gospel.

This is what I was leaning towards. I think it’s a matter of that fuller spectrum of our depravity being taught in reformed teaching. Though what we would use to combat those doubtful thoughts is fully taught as well.

 

[Taylor]

He says that it was common amongst the puritans and is common today; and one of the reasons being is that they (we) spend more time considering if we are numbered amongst the elect rather than resting in the free offer of God’s grace ‘available to all who believe’. I get no where in debating with him…

I don’t think you should debate with him on this point. I think he’s right. This is why so many Reformed theological works that speak of assurance almost always have to make effort to say, "Do not try to find assurance by pondering whether or not you are elect. Just believe upon Christ." Reformed theology is absolutely right about election, but that doesn’t stop many from misapplying the doctrine to their musings about assurance.

I also think he’s right about some Puritan tendencies, especially the American "Puritans." When I took a class on Jonathan Edwards in seminary, we were required to read the account of David Brainerd. It was one of the most depressing things I’ve ever read. I grieved for Brainerd—a man with unmistakable holiness and piety who much of the time wondered if he was a child of the devil. It eventually killed him. This led me to write my final paper on Edwards' doctrine of assurance. I found some statements by him on the subject that were, shall we say, alarming. I love Edwards, but on this point sounded like a Roman Catholic at times.

 

[C4MERON]

I don’t think you should debate with him on this point. I think he’s right. This is why so many Reformed theological works that speak of assurance almost always have to make effort to say, "Do not try to find assurance by pondering whether or not you are elect. Just believe upon Christ." Reformed theology is absolutely right about election, but that doesn’t stop many from misapplying the doctrine to their musings about assurance.

Ah, sorry I meant more in general terms the debate of arminianism vs calvinism. A debate Im sure we all know winds up ‘unsolved’ with whomever takes it on.
But I see what you mean regarding the missaplication of the doctrine of election. That is indeed a sad tale of Brainerd’s fretful life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alexanderjames]

I think a deeper self examination, if done appropriately and prayerfully, leads to a fuller and deeper assurance of salvation which in turn produces more fruit of the Spirit.

It brings much greater danger to understand more fully the depths of ones own depravity but a Christian well grounded in the truth should take these risks because God is for us not against us.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I choose 1. I just never noticed it being a common struggle until I came to the reformed side of things, and I see people admitting struggle in this area or pastors/teachers sharing counsel for those struggling all the time.

OK then. I don't think it is an uniquely or especially Calvinist struggle; however, I do think that it is the struggle of not a few genuine Christians; and many (perhaps like your own experience) who embrace the "Calvinist" interpretation do so because they were compelled to a deeper, fuller, more consistent grasp of divine revelation. This mark of a true Christian--a desire to know God in truth and to walk close to him without a false step--is already pronounced in them, already separating them from what could be described as a typical, often nominal Christianity.

I think people of similar bent, but whose search for that closer walk with God have not led them to Calvinism (instead, deeper into their own tradition's theologians; or to finding some other Confession), some of these end up with nearly the very same questions and doubts. The reason I think you have found them among the Calvinists so much could be because now you are surrounded by a greater concentration of people who are trained to have a passion for God. And that passion can lead to anxiety.

And, it is possible that the particular church, pastor, or sources of teaching one leans on can also be unhelpful when it comes to dealing with these anxieties. You may notice that while your original question used the adjective "reformed" before "believers," I replaced it with "Calvinist." I'm not being pedantic, nor am I challenging your own self-identification. But it is important to the discussion to realize that the predestinarian definition of "Reformed" is reductionist, and wrong.

Today, the American church scene has a fair number of Calvinist-primarily-or-exclusively-meaning-TULIP churches and pastors, partly due to a "resurgence" noted a few years ago, connected to the YRR movement and a few prominent mouthpieces (such as JohnPiper). The way many of these churches and men promise assurance isn't Reformed, because they are not Reformed. Such people are predestinarian after the manner of the Canons of Dordt, however they are more closely aligned with the pietistic strain of post-Reformation western religion and to Charismaticism, when it comes to describing and defining their religious practice.

Neither Pietism nor Charismaticism are especially objective in their orientation to spirituality. They are largely subjective, their focus being inward, looking within them for truth and for confidence. If they find what they are looking for--such as if they seek for tongues, or if they can count the number of days in a row they had and didn't skip their "quiet time"--their confidence is raised. If they imagine they should have come to a place where this or that sin is no longer such a strong attraction as it was, their confidence drops. If they imagine they might not be elect, because of X Y or Z, their confidence goes wholly out the window.

Such people are being encouraged to look at what they have, whether in gifts, in "fruits," or in doctrine; and to see in those things the evidence of God's work; and if those things are not increasing, the natural assumption is to doubt if the supposed blessings are actually sourced from the spring that never runs dry. But this whole approach is unReformed; it is anti-Reformed. It doesn't comport with our Confessed Faith as Reformed believers. It isn't even the faith expounded in the Canons, about which few who aren't in an actual Reformed Church that uses them know anything other than the acronym TULIP mediated through the teaching of a non-Reformed teacher.

Believers need to be taught to look away from themselves, and to take none of their assurance essentially from their practice of religion. That their practice should and will be for them a thing of joy (if properly used) is an added blessing of faith; but it is not the ground of assurance. Assurance comes from faith, and nothing else. It's strength is from Christ as the true Object, so if I need any assurance I have no other recourse than to look to him. He is found (according to his promise) by all who seek him through his appointed means: the word, sacraments, and prayer.

Hence, the benefit of a faithful church and ministry, which serve the people of faith by feeding them on the word, and strengthening them by the sacraments, in the context of communal prayer (worship). The fellowship of believers (communion of the saints) is the garden-bed of spiritual growth, but isn't strictly speaking one of the means of grace. Feed on Christ, come to him weekly (daily!) and find him where he promises to be, believe that he is true to his word and take it/him to heart.

Then you will have real assurance. Contemn his ordinances, and you contemn him. Who should be assured then, other than the complacent sinner having confidence in nothing but (possibly) the means themselves apart from their End? Sin's effect is to deaden the fear of God, to be corrosive to divine means actually detached from proper union, to promote carnal security or despair, its opposite. In any but the elect, sin leads to eternal death; at least for the elect sin simply eats away at assurance which is not "so of the essence of faith," that faith cannot be without it. The solution is singular: turn back to Jesus using his appointed means of grace.