Help understanding Paul Washer on assurance?

[mpb]

What most people see of Washer is what happens to be the most viewed stuff of his that circulates on YouTube and Facebook, and it’s often him at these big conferences preaching to wake up a sleeping church in the West that has lost the sight of the need for personal godliness. Those kind of talks are needed, and Washer is about the best the church has been blessed with in the last few decades to do so.

But of course, if that’s all you hear from him, you’re going to think he’s unbalanced, and if you constantly listen to that and nothing else, then it could be hard on the soul.

In a recent talk he gave (I believe the one for the PRTS graduation this year) he spoke about how at his church, his pastor had asked him to preach each Wednesday night. So he’s been doing a series on the immense love of Christ to His people. Washer noted how it’s way different than what people are used to him talking about, or what they expect from him. But he said those clips that get the most views are not what he focuses on most, and once someone is converted he just wants them to know and rest in Christ’s deep love for them. He said how some visitors came and listened to one of these talks and thought Washer had gone “soft.”

 

[Charles Johnson]

Where is the basis, the ground of our assurance? Is it in our works? In our degree of sanctification? Or is it in the complete, finished work of Christ? Our works may surely be an encouragement as the fruit of our salvation. But Christ's imputed righteousness alone is the sure ground of our assurance.

Assurance is knowing that one has received the redemption purchased by Christ and his imputed righteousness. You can't see that directly. The hypocrite and the believer can just as easily claim they have Christ's righteousness imputed to them, but only one can have assurance. What gives? Only the believer has true evidences in the form of good works. Again, as the synod of Dort says, assurance comes "by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on."

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not saying throw Washer under the bush. I also certainly see parallels between Washer and Beeke. As to whether that is "the true Washer" as opposed to the internet, I am simply going by his books. That seems fair enough.

I am around chapter 3. It's hit or miss. I don't disagree with him on looking for fruit, but he seems to think the general audience is living the carnal Corinthian life. I have a lot of sins in my life, but I am not sleeping with my step mom, getting drunk at the Lord's Supper, or denying the Resurrection. Moreover, as RHB published this book, I would imagine that most of those reading RHB literature aren't living the Corinthian life, either.

My next criticism deals with a more subtle point. He sometimes shifts between "conversion experience" and "looking for fruit of sanctification." The latter is biblical. The former can be okay, but it certainly isn't required. And while we should look for fruit in our lives, how do I know I have looked long enough or not enough? If someone is of a more tender conscious, he will certainly not be satisfied that he has good enough fruit. What's needed at this point is God's promise in his covenant seals

Side note: Dissertation/Thesis topic: Compare Klaas Schilder's emphasis on promise with Washer's emphasis on fruits.

 

[De Jager]

It is also possible, if there is a degree of emphasis issue with Washer, it could be due to Mrs. Washer discovering her conversion was false years into their marriage.

It is my opinion that if you listen to Paul Washer enough, you will doubt your own conversion. Whether his wife was actually unconverted or not, we will never know. He pushes back against nominal American evangelicalism, to his credit. That is the context out of which he rose to prominence. Interestingly enough, he gave the convocation address at the 2021 convocation at PRTS in Grand Rapids (Beeke's seminary). In his message, I noticed he pushed back against evangelicalism and church fads. While that was good, I felt it was a little bit like he didn't know his audience, as PRTS is essentially one of the most conservative reformed schools in the world. There is nothing broadly evangelical about that school or its students.

As for Beeke, he comes out of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, which are notorious for members which lack an assurance of salvation. To his credit he pushes back against that a lot and has written a lot of good things about assurance. I have his book "Knowing and Growing in Assurance of Faith" and I would recommend it. If I remember correctly, he describes the "meat and potatoes" of assurance as a combination of God's promises and recognizing spirit-wrought fruits. A conversion experience, or certain spiritual highs are more like gravy.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

As for Beeke, he comes out of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, which are notorious for members which lack an assurance of salvation. To his credit he pushes back against that a lot and has written a lot of good things about assurance.

Note, he has left that movement. He did a doctoral dissertation on this and fully defends the doctrine of assurance in the WCF and 3FU

 

[SavedSinner]

These are the second reformation churches, so they are not hyper-sacramental and never bought into the neo-Calvinist “presumptive regeneration” of Kuyper, as the CRC did. The churches that left the N.R.C. federation are the ones that formed the new Heritage Netherlands Reformed Churches. These are black-stocking churches that have become more enthusiastic about the Gospel, assurance and the Westminster Standards than most Presbyterians.

 

[JP Wallace]

Where is the basis, the ground of our assurance? Is it in our works? In our degree of sanctification? Or is it in the complete, finished work of Christ? Our works may surely be an encouragement as the fruit of our salvation. But Christ's imputed righteousness alone is the sure ground of our assurance.

Lily

I appreciate your determined and proper attachment to imputed righteousness, but with respect the position you espouse here is rather reductionistic (not wrong per se) and perhaps this is why you are rather vehemently against Washer. The Westminister Confession in fact asserts a threefold ground of assurance and the imputed righteosness is not expressly one of them (though is necessarily tied up in the first. Here is 18;2 annotated to highlight the three grounds:

"(WCF 18:2 WCS) "This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon (GROUND ONE the divine truth of the promises of salvation (GROUND TWO the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, (GROUND THREE) 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."

So essentially the grounds of assurance are:

1) the resolute belief and faith in the promises of the Gospel - which of course includes fundamentally the reality that what is offered is acceptance with God on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness, but also that Christ bore our penalty at the cross etc.. etc..
2) the inward evidences of of faith and grace in life. (note the proof texts - (WCF 18:2 WCS) "2 Pet. 1:4,5,10,11; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 3:14; 2 Cor. 1:12.")
3) the inward testimony of he Spirit.

 

[RamistThomist]

We can also make a distinction between certainty and certitude. Geisler makes this distinction in terms of epistemology and I have found it helpful. Certainty is objective. Certitude is not. I have certainty of God's assurance to me because of his promise and covenant seals, not because of how intensely I can feel. My certitude, however, can waver depending on growth in grace, indwelling sin, etc.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Charlie, you wrote (post 27),

Let me point out that the Synod of Dort also taught that assurance admits degrees and is dependent upon holiness.
"Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on."

and I'm glad you did. To be sure, Engelsma also takes his confessional standards seriously.

Our Faith is indeed an experiential matter. When first regenerated – made alive to God upon the preaching of the Gospel – I had no conception of "assurance of faith", and it was not until I began reading the Scripture that I became aware of the teaching. The spiritual milieu I was initially in was Arminian, and I thought one could lose their salvation, although I saw John 10:27, 28 clearly challenged that – and I could not believe that He whose presence appeared to me by the Holy Spirit would utterly forsake me. "In due time", as I matured – and came into contact with the Doctrines of Grace – I became convinced as regards "assurance".

So yes, "though by various stages and in differing measure(s)", I eventually gained full assurance. This was not "earned" or merited by arduous strivings – though there were those at times – as my early years were preponderantly marked by backsliddenness and grievous failures / sins. Arminianism, Pelagianism (a la Finney), and perfectionism (a la John Wesley) are spiritual killers. Nonetheless, the Shepherd was faithful in keeping this wretched sheep.

When I was introduced to the Doctrines of Grace (the 5 points of Calvinism), after some 25 years in a terrible wilderness (I wrote of all this in my book), this was revolutionary, and the Spirit of God increasingly bore witness to me of God's graciousness to His children in Christ. When set free from this prison of error, I was like a lion let out of a cage, now passionate for the Reformed truths.

And the years (now some 28 further) have given me to refine my understanding. Although I am growing a bit feeble as I approach 80 (in March of '22), the power of the Gospel is the more precious to me – and more evident, for I am still tossed to and fro in the vicissitudes of life, spiritually and physically, and my only hope is in Christ my Saviour and the benefits of being in Him, which – in essence – derive from Justification and Sanctification. Trusting in the psalmist's words (David, I believe) I carry on (Psalm 71:9, 18) hoping – even with failing strength – to bear fruit.

All this to flesh out Dort 1.12 quoted above. Full assurance, if the preacher knows it by the Spirit and the word, the Spirit may convey it to the hearers of the Gospel. This Engelsma knows, and I seek to follow suit.

 

[Taylor]

I just finished reading Engelsma's booklet (~50 pages), and I highly recommend it. Personally, it confirmed some worries I had some years ago of some of the Puritans.

 

[MountainPilgrim]

If someone is of a more tender conscious, he will certainly not be satisfied that he has good enough fruit. What's needed at this point is God's promise in his covenant seals

Unfortunately, this is what I have seen. While Washer may not be entirely off the mark, the emphases in his popular teaching - when not rightly categorized or taken with a healthy dose of grace - can and do lead people to undue despair. I have seen men who were raised under pietistic influences struggle with assurance in an abundantly unhealthy way due to Washer's influence. For those with a solid confessional foundation, and read through an appropriate lens, Washer can be instructive and helpful; but for those without such, he can be quite condemning indeed.

I have noticed his popularity among the New Calvinist/YRR crowd seems to revolve around the trend of focusing more on our depravity than our new nature. There is a tendency to seek out teachers, sermons, books, etc. who will make one feel utterly convicted and left with little hope, as though the worse one views his condition, the driven he will be, and thus the more holy he can become. There is an interesting sort of spiritual masochism that somehow likes to be "beat up" and left in the gutter so as to sufficiently motivate one to strive all the more for holiness. So once was I, and I am thankful to have learned a more full and beautiful view of the Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude model of the Christian life - yes, the Heidelberg was massively influential in this journey.

Another dangerous trend I have seen is Washer's popularity among those who wish to emulate him by making it their goal to, "show nominal Christians that they aren't really saved." That has its place, but I've rarely seen it done well. Sadly, more often than not, it is the young Believer who is left condemned. The Gospel isn't often emphasized, and when it is, it is always with a caveat, a "but" which applied honestly, would leave us all questioning our eternal condition.

I am all for the use of the Law to demonstrate our need for the Gospel, and as a model for our Christian lives, but what I have seen more often leaves the Brother in his despair than lifts him up with the promises of the finished work of Christ. It can easily become all guilt, no grace, which is indeed dangerous to those of more tender conscience, as Jacob said.

I do not condemn Washer, and recognize his teaching may indeed be exactly what many need. Yet, I think what he gets wrong has such a potential to overshadow what he gets right that I would not recommend him lightly. There are others who can and do teach that which Washer gets right in a more balanced, confessional, and gracious way.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I've never read much of Paul Washer. I keep seeing guys praise him for making you feel horrible. I don't know if that is true, but how would he present assurance of salvation?

I really liked his preaching 10 years ago when I was at seminary. I believe he's become a more humbler man over the last decade.

 

[RamistThomist]

Charlie, you wrote (post 27),


and I'm glad you did. To be sure, Engelsma also takes his confessional standards seriously.

Our Faith is indeed an experiential matter. When first regenerated – made alive to God upon the preaching of the Gospel – I had no conception of "assurance of faith", and it was not until I began reading the Scripture that I became aware of the teaching. The spiritual milieu I was initially in was Arminian, and I thought one could lose their salvation, although I saw John 10:27, 28 clearly challenged that – and I could not believe that He whose presence appeared to me by the Holy Spirit would utterly forsake me. "In due time", as I matured – and came into contact with the Doctrines of Grace – I became convinced as regards "assurance".

So yes, "though by various stages and in differing measure(s)", I eventually gained full assurance. This was not "earned" or merited by arduous strivings – though there were those at times – as my early years were preponderantly marked by backsliddenness and grievous failures / sins. Arminianism, Pelagianism (a la Finney), and perfectionism (a la John Wesley) are spiritual killers. Nonetheless, the Shepherd was faithful in keeping this wretched sheep.

When I was introduced to the Doctrines of Grace (the 5 points of Calvinism), after some 25 years in a terrible wilderness (I wrote of all this in my book), this was revolutionary, and the Spirit of God increasingly bore witness to me of God's graciousness to His children in Christ. When set free from this prison of error, I was as a lion let out of a cage, now passionate for the Reformed truths.

And the years (now some 28 further) have given me to refine my understanding. Although I am growing a bit feeble as I approach 80 (in March of '22), the power of the Gospel is the more precious to me – and more evident, for I am still tossed to and fro in the vicissitudes of life, spiritually and physically, and my only hope is in Christ my Saviour and the benefits of being in Him, which – in essence – derive from Justification and Sanctification. Trusting in the psalmist's words (David, I believe) I carry on (Psalm 71:9, 18) hoping – even with failing strength – to bear fruit.

All this to flesh out Dort 1.12 quoted above. Full assurance, if the preacher knows it by the Spirit and the word, the Spirit may convey it to the hearers of the Gospel. This Engelsma knows, and I seek follow suit.

On a similar point, do you know of any sermons Engelsma preached on assurance?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

He probably did, Jacob; I will look around.

 

[JH]

In perusing the topic of Engelsma and the PRC in general, I came across this podcast by Thomas Sullivan out of Grand Rapids, whom I know has been narrating Reformed Puritan works for about 30 years or so. Providentially this podcast was recorded only a month ago. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91211814436027

He also has another lecture where he briefly mentions the history of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Hoeksema, the CRC/PRC, and Beeke/Engelsma conflict on the topic of assurance.

- his part about said controversy starts at around 33:44.

I've personally found both resources to settle the controversy for me. I personally find it hard to cast off many learned men of renown for Engelsma and others. From what I understood, one of the tenets of the PRC is that assurance belongs to the essence of faith. They appeal to Calvin for this, however, what Calvin meant by this (bearing in mind the historical context, this idea was contra Rome) is the part that's actually debated.

 

[De Jager]

Note, he has left that movement. He did a doctoral dissertation on this and fully defends the doctrine of assurance in the WCF and 3FU

Yes, you are correct. That's what I meant by he "came out of".

He is a minister in the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations.

I appreciate Joel Beeke a lot. I think his background in the NRC and seeing some of the struggles that certain members had with obtaining assurance led to his interest in the topic.

 

[De Jager]

In perusing the topic of Engelsma and the PRC in general, I came across this podcast by Thomas Sullivan out of Grand Rapids, whom I know has been narrating Reformed Puritan works for about 30 years or so. Providentially this podcast was recorded only a month ago. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91211814436027

He also has another lecture where he briefly mentions the history of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Hoeksema, the CRC/PRC, and Beeke/Engelsma conflict on the topic of assurance.

- his part about said controversy starts at around 33:44.

I've personally found both resources to settle the controversy for me. I personally find it hard to cast off many learned men of renown for Engelsma and others. From what I understood, one of the tenets of the PRC is that assurance belongs to the essence of faith. They appeal to Calvin for this, however, what Calvin meant by this (bearing in mind the historical context, this idea was contra Rome) is the part that's actually debated.

My minister (URC) told me that the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism believed that assurance belonged to the essence of faith. Refer to QA 21.

However, he also noted that this assurance would vary in degrees. Consider a small sapling and a full-grown oak. There is quite a difference between the two but in both situations you have an Oak tree, albeit in the one very young and tender, and in the other full and developed.

Personally, I believe that it is possible to have a lack of assurance and yet still have true faith, otherwise the apostle's command to "make our calling and election sure" would seem to not make much sense. That admonishment to me implies a lack of assurance. However, what I will also say is that the Bible knows nothing of a morbid introspection in which assurance is only rarely obtained and is reserved for the most pietistic saints. That's an abuse that is foreign to the pages of scripture but one that I have dealt with personally. For that, I am glad for someone like Beeke who can dismantle that type of thinking. My personal experience is that Washer does not help in that area for me.

At the end of the day I think each man's background explains a bit of how they deal with the topic of assurance.

Beeke came out of a hyper-calvinistic background with many poor, burdened saints who struggled with assurance - so his thrust is to provide Biblical comfort and lead them to an assurance of true faith

Washer is confronting false conversions and American evangelicalism - so in essence his thrust is to cause unconverted people to doubt their salvation.

That's my take, and I mean no ill will toward either man.

 

[JH]

My minister (URC) told me that the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism believed that assurance belonged to the essence of faith. Refer to QA 21.

Gotcha. Do you think we should then conclude that the Heidelberg differs from the Westminster? Consider WCF 18.3

 

[Taylor]

Gotcha. Do you think we should then conclude that the Heidelberg differs from the Westminster? Consider WCF 18.3

If I may be so bold, it appears at least on the surface that Westminster differs from Westminster:

"This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith..." (WCF 18.3).​

​

"Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith..." (WLC 81).​

These are two statements I have never been able to reconcile. The Confession seems to say that assurance is not of the essence of saving faith to some extent, while the Larger Catechism says that assurance is to no extent the essence of saving faith.

 

[JH]

While I do not have a quick response, I would have to assume that there is no intended contradiction. I would have to do more research into Larger Catechism commentaries, but I did pull down David Dickson in the meantime as to why assurance does not belong to the essence of faith (WCF 18.3)

 

[Taylor]

While I do not have a quick response, I would have to assume that there is no intended contradiction. I would have to do more research into Larger Catechism commentaries, but I did pull down David Dickson in the meantime as to why assurance does not belong to the essence of faith (WCF 18.3)

View attachment 8448

The first point there concerning Eph. 1:13-14 is something Engelsma takes serious issue with, and I think he may be right. Even though he uses the KJV, he criticizes its translation in Eph. 1:13 as misleading. He argues that the sealing of the Spirit does not happen after belief, but at and with belief. Again, I think he is right. Look at the difference, for example, between the KJV and the ESV here:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..." (KJV).​

​

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..." (ESV).​

 

[JH]

The first point there concerning Eph. 1:13-14 is something Engelsma takes serious issue with, and I think he may be right. Even though he uses the KJV, he criticizes its translation in Eph. 1:13 as misleading. He argues that the sealing of the Spirit does not happen after belief, but at and with belief. Again, I think he is right. Look at the difference, for example, between the KJV and the ESV here:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..." (KJV).​

​

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..." (ESV).​

One of the resources I linked (if I remember correctly, the first one from Sullivan), he recollects not a single Puritan who interpreted it in such a fashion, besides Goodwin. And I personally do not know of any other Puritans who interpreted akin to some sort of Pentecostal second blessing. If you find any, please let me know

 

[Taylor]

...not a single Puritan who interpreted it in such a fashion, besides Goodwin.

I'm not familiar enough with the entire Puritan corpus to know. Maybe Engelsma is giving too much weight to Goodwin here. However, didn't Dickson in the above-cited text interpret it so?

 

[JH]

I'm not familiar enough with the entire Puritan corpus to know. Maybe Engelsma is giving too much weight to Goodwin here. However, didn't Dickson in the above-cited text interpret it so?

I think more research would be profitable to figure out what historical commentators thought upon the emphasis of "after". I have a hard time imagining it to be something that comes much later than regeneration itself, but I imagine "after" to refer to a consequential sort of ordeal. I'm not quite sure how to put it into words, but I've never stumbled much or even put much emphasis into the term "after" in that passage. Because interpreting Scripture with Scripture (WCF 1.9), we also know that a person can only believe after the Spirit has begun working in them. And in one sense I think this almost pries into the mysteries of God's salvation, in relation to the ordo salutis. "Which comes first", one might ask, "faith, or repentance?" And I think this discussion (specifically in regards to this passage) is very similar to that.

Going to family worship, so I may not respond immediately.

 

[Eyedoc84]

If I may be so bold, it appears at least on the surface that Westminster differs from Westminster:

"This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith..." (WCF 18.3).​

​

"Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith..." (WLC 81).​

These are two statements I have never been able to reconcile. The Confession seems to say that assurance is not of the essence of saving faith to some extent, while the Larger Catechism says that assurance is to no extent the essence of saving faith.

Taylor, they say the same thing. Think of the Confession as answering the question, “Doth infallible assurance belong to the essence of faith?”

Ans: “It doth not so belong.”

 

[Taylor]

Taylor, they say the same thing.

I don't think so. At the very least, there is a difference in clarity. But I think there is a difference in meaning. WCF 18:3 to me very clearly means: "This infallible assurance doth not [to such a degree/in such a way] belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, etc.," whereas WLC 81 is a flat-out denial.

Think of the Confession as answering the question, “Doth infallible assurance belong to the essence of faith?”

Ans: “It doth not so belong.”

I would agree, except that this is superimposing a paradigm upon the WCF that is not there. It is not answering a question (like the Catechisms), but making statements. Furthermore, the "answer" to the "question" in the WCF is not a bare denial, but a denial with an adverbial modifier (i.e., "so") and further qualifying remarks. It is not, it appears to me, that clear cut.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Rutherford's writings against the antinomians go into detail on this matter. The antinomians at the time of the assembly claimed that faith was being persuaded that Christ died for oneself, even against all evidence. See Rutherford's Christ Dying.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I don't think so. At the very least, there is a difference in clarity. But I think there is a difference in meaning. WCF 18:3 to me very clearly means: "This infallible assurance doth not [to such a degree/in such a way] belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, etc.," whereas WLC 81 is a flat-out denial.


I would agree, except that this is superimposing a paradigm upon the WCF that is not there. It is not answering a question (like the Catechisms), but making statements. Furthermore, the "answer" to the "question" in the WCF is not a bare denial, but a denial with an adverbial modifier (i.e., "so") and further qualifying remarks. It is not, it appears to me, that clear cut.

I was not superimposing a paradigm, rather using an example to display a different understanding of the word “so” than what you are presuming.

I think the best approach is to assume that if I’m interpreting the documents in such a way that I reach contradictory conclusions, maybe the problem is with how I’m reading them, and not that the Divines were sloppy or contradicting themselves.

 

[Taylor]

I think the best approach is to assume that if I’m interpreting the documents in such a way that I reach contradictory conclusions, maybe the problem is with how I’m reading them, and not that the Divines were sloppy or contradicting themselves.

Of course. And I am the first to recognize the superiority of the Divines to me in every conceivable way. However, they were not infallible. To say that they could have missed a small discrepancy is not outside the realm of possibility, nor should we find it incredible or upsetting. In the end, all I have to work with are the words they left behind. None of them or their contemporaries are around for me to inquire of them what they meant. At bare minimum, in my opinion, they did not do us any favors using different language between the WCF and the WLC when using the same topic. We cannot deny that one says "does not so belong" and the other says "does not belong."

 

[arapahoepark]

As helpful as A Brakel is, this understanding really turned me off from him regarding the definition of faith.