Help understanding Paul Washer on assurance?

[Eyedoc84]

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."

Sure, but I don’t understand your insistence that there is a contradiction when it can easily be read harmoniously. Especially considering they were meant to be complementary documents, not independent ones.

I’ll also add that Manton recommended that families learn the catechisms before the Confession. Surely some of that is due to the teaching nature of catechisms, but if you learned WLC before coming to the WCF, your perceived difficulty may not be as apparent.

 

[Eyedoc84]

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

Elaborate

 

[Taylor]

Sure, but I don’t understand your insistence that there is a contradiction when it can easily be read harmoniously. Especially considering they were meant to be complementary documents, not independent ones.

I’m not insisting. I’ve repeatedly said that this is my opinion, and that this is how the documents “seem to me” and “appear to me.” To me, there is a discrepancy—or at the very least a difference of some sort, whether or not it amounts to a difference in meaning. I don’t think they can be read entirely harmoniously for the reasons I have already given—again, my opinion. You disagree. And that’s fine. But I have not insisted upon anything.

 

[JH]

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

Would you mind fleshing that out? As one who has not read his entire systematic (primarily his sections on Desertion and Apostacy), I would like more info.

 

[De Jager]

Without having read Engelsma, what would he then conclude about the myriads of Christians who struggle with assurance? That they don't have true faith?

 

[De Jager]

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.

I don't see any contradiction in those statements.

 

[Taylor]

I don't see any contradiction in those statements.

I’m not sure I see contradiction, either. (And, for the record, I never used that word, even though it has been attributed to me twice now.) As I’ve said, though, I think the difference in language begs a question or two.

 

[arapahoepark]

Elaborate

Would you mind fleshing that out? As one who has not read his entire systematic (primarily his sections on Desertion and Apostacy), I would like more info.

A Brakel on Faith?

Unlike Grant, I haven't gone from beginning to end through the Christian's Reasonable service. Rather I have been treating it as a reference. Anyway, perusing through the Chapter: Concerning Faith A Brakel states in the picture: What is your take? Am I not informed of the context? I was under...

puritanboard.com

I thought faith is personal appropriation of Christ. Brakel seems to disagree.

 

[De Jager]

I’m not sure I see contradiction, either. (And, for the record, I never used that word, even though it has been attributed to me twice now.) As I’ve said, though, I think the difference in language begs a question or two.

Fair enough. I guess it is possible to read one as being a stronger statement than the other.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

It's late at night for me, but I want to say a bit more on this matter of assurance and faith, and hope I can be brief. There are such nuances in this, and seemingly contradictory statements from generally sterling men, and even – seemingly – between confessions, that there is no absolute safety or certainty save in Scripture and what one knows of it for oneself.

Indeed, one may have true faith and not assurance, for in "due time" the latter may appear, and that appearance may take years. When I was first saved at 26 yrs old, hearing the Gospel (a simple woman bearing strong Gospel witness to me) the Holy Spirit manifested the presence of Christ to me such that it was with me as with a seer I’d later read, Charles Spurgeon, who said, “I looked at Him, and He looked at me, and we were one forever.” From that moment on, I was His. And yet I was subsequently subjected to teaching which cast a spell, so to speak, over my mind which clouded any distinct assurance. Still, the sealing of the Spirit at that moment of my regeneration kept a flame of hope alive in me that was not extinguished even during ignominious backslidings. Somehow I knew the One who came to me would keep me. I wouldn't call it assurance – such as we are talking of here – just hope, or some kind of deep knowing. Song of Solomon 8:6 has these words, "for love is strong as death". His initial presence left an indelible mark on my soul.

At any rate, I would agree with Prof Engelsma that it is by the hearing of the Spirit-anointed Gospel promises, the word of God's righteousness given to men in Christ thus giving them right standing before Him, that fills the heart with assurance He will always keep them, and enable them to persevere in faith and holiness until the end, though they may fall again and again.

During a dark period recently, this one portion of Scripture alone buoyed my heart above the threatening waters: "Nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus!" (Rom 8:39)

What a blessing for a soul, or a church, to be given such teaching – enabling all the elect in a congregation to luxuriate in the immersion of His saving love and power, week after week!

 

[Pilgrim]

What Puritans clearly said that assurance is of the essence of faith?

We can't establish the truth by counting noses, but if we find ourselves on the side of those with bad theology otherwise, maybe we ought to take another look.

Assurance is of the essence of faith:

Sandemanians
Various Hyper-Calvinists and those who are "hyper-adjacent" e.g. PRCA
Old Dallas Seminary dispensationalists (Chafer, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, etc.)
Tullian Tchvidjian and his defenders
Gordon Clark and John Robbins, who were in large agreement with the most extreme old DTS "free gracers" on this
R.T. Kendall

Assurance is not of the essence of faith:

Westminster Standards
J.C. Ryle
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
All or almost all of the Puritans
Too many others to mention -- before this thread, I assumed that arguing that assurance is of the essence of faith was the kind of argument that would have been shut down here since the Puritans so obviously rejected it.

This may seem dismissive, but if we don't identify with the alleged "pietism" of the Second Reformation over the alleged stance of the First or Magisterial Reformation on this, then why are we here? (I understand that the differences may be overblown, but some who argue that assurance is of the essence of faith cite early Reformers here and there and argue that the Puritans got it wrong and were guilty of "morbid introspectionism.")

At least for those of us who aren't theocratic or theonomic, the Puritan teaching on the Christian life, including assurance, is basically THE main reason for studying them.

The Puritans aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth, but after all, this IS the Puritanboard.

 

[RamistThomist]

At least for those of us who aren't theocratic or theonomic, the Puritan teaching on the Christian life, including assurance, is basically THE main reason for studying them.

While I disagree with any overemphasis on introspection, I do agree with you on that being the reason for studying them.

As to assurance is the essence of faith, my own take on it is that the first generation had different problems than the later ones. The later generation had to deal with the horrors of Cartesian certainty and the waning of certitude. Given that, they couldn't say assurance was the essence of faith.

 

[Taylor]

Assurance is of the essence of faith:

Sandemanians
Various Hyper-Calvinists and those who are "hyper-adjacent" e.g. PRCA
Old Dallas Seminary dispensationalists (Chafer, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, etc.)
Tullian Tchvidjian and his defenders
Gordon Clark and John Robbins, who were in large agreement with the most extreme old DTS "free gracers" on this
R.T. Kendall

Doesn’t this list beg the question, though? The argument is that the most orthodox in our history held to this understanding—Calvin and Heidelberg, just to make two titans. It seems to me we can say Turretin did, as well, unless I’m reading him wrong.

 

[De Jager]

Doesn’t this list beg the question, though? The argument is that the most orthodox in our history held to this understanding—Calvin and Heidelberg, just to make two titans. It seems to me we can say Turretin did, as well, unless I’m reading him wrong.

I believe you are right on Calvin and Heidelberg. The question then is what do you do with those who struggle with assurance? Are they considered unconverted? Or do we make a distinction between little assurance and full assurance, i.e. can assurance be present in various degrees? Does Calvin or Heidelberg allow for this?

 

[iainduguid]

I believe you are right on Calvin and Heidelberg. The question then is what do you do with those who struggle with assurance? Are they considered unconverted? Or do we make a distinction between little assurance and full assurance, i.e. can assurance be present in various degrees? Does Calvin or Heidelberg allow for this?

I think you have two different, complementary perspectives.

Those who stress assurance being of the essence of faith are often approaching the question from a more theoretical perspective: if salvation is genuinely by faith alone and not by works, then (contra Roman Catholicism) every believer may and should have full assurance. If there is no "performance" in our salvation - nothing in my hand I bring/simply to thy cross I cling - then there is no reason why even the simplest believer should not have full assurance. Christ is sufficient: just look to him.

Those who stress degrees of assurance tend to approach the question from a more pastoral/experiential perspective. The fact is that many believers do struggle to have assurance. Theoretically, they shouldn't perhaps, but they do. And lacking assurance doesn't necessarily make you an unbeliever. Healthy faith should tend toward assurance, to be sure, but even an unhealthy, immature, or weak faith may nonetheless be a genuine faith in the Christ who saves us.

 

[py3ak]

Following up on Dr. Duguid's good post above, it seems to me that a danger in these discussions is of embracing a false dichotomy, one that the divergence in Westminster's language from Confession to Larger Catechism should actually prevent. Herman Bavinck's discussion in Reformed Ethics is very profitable from a Biblical, theological, pastoral, and historical perspective.

Of course assurance is of the essence of faith. What sense would it make to say that uncertainty belongs to belief? Nothing is more certain than God's word, and being persuaded of its truth is the highest form of knowledge available to us in this life.

Of course the experience of doubt is compatible with saving faith. We're not saved by subjective certitude, after all, and none of us enjoy perfect spiritual health.

When the question is put in terms of Christian experience, of course assurance is not so of the essence of faith that it prevents all struggle and conflict; but that qualifier is important, because the weakness of the actual state of belief in a believer doesn't pertain to the nature of faith. And so when the question is explicitly about if true believers are always [subjectively] assured of their present being in the estate of grace, the answer must be that assurance of grace and salvation are not of the essence of faith. Faith can absolutely exist without excluding doubts and fears, though uncertainty is opposite to the nature of faith.

To cite Bavinck:

According to Erskine, assurance belongs to the nature of faith, as does resting [in God] and trusting God. Though the believer does not always feel assured, "is not always actually staying and resting ... in the Lord," and "is not always trusting," none of this affects the nature of faith any more than the nature of the eye as an organ of seeing is changed when someone momentarily closes both eyes and cannot see. One needs only to remove the impediments, the unbelief, etc., and immediately assurance of faith returns. It is for precisely that reason that we must maintain that doubt is unbelief and sin and conflicts entirely with the nature of faith. All of us must thus endeavor to come to the full assurance of faith and strive to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10), grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), and become strong in grace (2 Tim. 2:1).

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Ethics [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic], 2019: 413-414)

 

[Deleted member 11889]

After my reading of what @iainduguid and @py3ak just wrote, part of me wants to see the thread closed so that the discussion can end on that high note. Thank you, gentlemen.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I know the discussion is on Paul Washer in particular and the nature of assurance in general.

It occurs to me that a conversation I heard recently between Sinclair Ferguson on the Theology on the Go podcast points (in part) to one of the issues many Reformed people have in discussing any theological topic. He was pointing out how Hugh Ross' writings serve to remind us of the mooring that our theology has in the Covenant of Grace. I often think many discussions about faith or assurance tend to leave their mooring in the Covenant of Grace and are taken up independently as if they can be considered without understanding how Christ's Mediatorial Offices operate to secure and grant these Evangelical graces to believers. Conversations between the neophyte or the nomist or the antinomian with the preacher of the The Marrow of Modern Divinity come to mind.

We tend to discuss the issue of works, for instance, in the abstract, quite apart from their connection to whether a person is in the Covenant of Works or in the Covenant of Grace. It is the same thing with the Law itself.

Once we move apart from the ground of the Covenant and start to discuss faith or works or assurance then we are divorcing them from the whole Christ and how He works them together in the believer.

This is why a person operating from a lack of Covenantal understanding can read some Puritans (or their followers) and see only in them a morbid introspection.

One can say that assurance is of the essence of faith because it is the instrument by which we lay hold of the whole Christ in Whom assurance is found. It is a sinner, however, united to the Whole Christ and while sanctification is also of that essence of being united to Christ, it moves in fits and starts. We see the flesh still warring within our members and we are called repeatedly by the Scriptures to reckon who we are in this Christ as His Mediatorial offices of Prophet, Priest, and King are being outworked visibly and invisibly in the lives of Saints.

I can't speak about Washer, but I can say that one cannot judge a particular "reaction" to any sermon based on the hearer who is operating in a way that chops up theological bits like faith, assurance, good works, sanctification, etc as if they are to be tossed about in the mind as propositions to be logically understood without reference to the fact that they are all within the outworkings of the Mediator.

Incidentally, though not related to assurance, per se, this is the issue that is roiling within my own denomination and "Side B" Christianity. It's yet another example of sinners not grasping what it means that they have been brought from death (in Adam) to life (in Christ). It changes the entire conversation. It changes the whole outlook on what the Law, works, holiness, etc looks like. When one loses the plot (Covenant) then it affects everything and people even forget that sinners are united to the whole Christ and what that really means for the way we talk about ourselves to include our doubts, our sins, our works, etc.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say of the PRCA they're hyper-adjacent to Hyper-Calvinists – if I'm reading you right. That canard (to put it mildly) re the PRCA being hyper-calvinists I thought would have been put to rest on the PB for some time now.

Various Hyper-Calvinists and those who are "hyper-adjacent" e.g. PRCA

 

[LilyG]

I know the discussion is on Paul Washer in particular and the nature of assurance in general.

It occurs to me that a conversation I heard recently between Sinclair Ferguson on the Theology on the Go podcast points (in part) to one of the issues many Reformed people have in discussing any theological topic. He was pointing out how Hugh Ross' writings serve to remind us of the mooring that our theology has in the Covenant of Grace. I often think many discussions about faith or assurance tend to leave their mooring in the Covenant of Grace and are taken up independently as if they can be considered without understanding how Christ's Mediatorial Offices operate to secure and grant these Evangelical graces to believers. Conversations between the neophyte or the nomist or the antinomian with the preacher of the The Marrow of Modern Divinity come to mind.

We tend to discuss the issue of works, for instance, in the abstract, quite apart from their connection to whether a person is in the Covenant of Works or in the Covenant of Grace. It is the same thing with the Law itself.

Once we move apart from the ground of the Covenant and start to discuss faith or works or assurance then we are divorcing them from the whole Christ and how He works them together in the believer.

This is why a person operating from a lack of Covenantal understanding can read some Puritans (or their followers) and see only in them a morbid introspection.

One can say that assurance is of the essence of faith because it is the instrument by which we lay hold of the whole Christ in Whom assurance is found. It is a sinner, however, united to the Whole Christ and while sanctification is also of that essence of being united to Christ, it moves in fits and starts. We see the flesh still warring within our members and we are called repeatedly by the Scriptures to reckon who we are in this Christ as His Mediatorial offices of Prophet, Priest, and King are being outworked visibly and invisibly in the lives of Saints.

I can't speak about Washer, but I can say that one cannot judge a particular "reaction" to any sermon based on the hearer who is operating in a way that chops up theological bits like faith, assurance, good works, sanctification, etc as if they are to be tossed about in the mind as propositions to be logically understood without reference to the fact that they are all within the outworkings of the Mediator.

Incidentally, though not related to assurance, per se, this is the issue that is roiling within my own denomination and "Side B" Christianity. It's yet another example of sinners not grasping what it means that they have been brought from death (in Adam) to life (in Christ). It changes the entire conversation. It changes the whole outlook on what the Law, works, holiness, etc looks like. When one loses the plot (Covenant) then it affects everything and people even forget that sinners are united to the whole Christ and what that really means for the way we talk about ourselves to include our doubts, our sins, our works, etc.

I really need to remember that. Thank you! That is helpful.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

We tend to discuss the issue of works, for instance, in the abstract, quite apart from their connection to whether a person is in the Covenant of Works or in the Covenant of Grace. It is the same thing with the Law itself.

Once we move apart from the ground of the Covenant and start to discuss faith or works or assurance then we are divorcing them from the whole Christ and how He works them together in the believer.

This is why a person operating from a lack of Covenantal understanding can read some Puritans (or their followers) and see only in them a morbid introspection.

Rich I think you have got to the key issue here. I am not sure where Washer stands on covenant theology but my experience with the MacArthur dispensationalists is they have an ordo salutis, but no pactum salutis, and no historia salutis. Therefore they have a theologically distorted framework for their doctrine of assurance. I did wonder if Paul Washer is affected by this?

 

[lifelong_sinner]

Hello all. Paul washer in my opinion, is one of the better preachers for me to listen to online. I do find that his teachings do cut to the bone, of which i like. I dont care to listen to a lot of preachers saying how we are all ok, and that life is great. I want the old hellfire and brimstone teaching. I like that because as a false convert, i fully understand that judgment day will be extremely bad for myself and others.
Teaching that everything is gonna work out doesnt make people see just how depraved we really are. You want to see truly regenerated people?? Teach the gospel fiercely and truthful so that others can understand the need for Jesus. Despair can be a powerful tool.

 

[RamistThomist]

Hello all. Paul washer in my opinion, is one of the better preachers for me to listen to online. I do find that his teachings do cut to the bone, of which i like. I dont care to listen to a lot of preachers saying how we are all ok, and that life is great. I want the old hellfire and brimstone teaching. I like that because as a false convert, i fully understand that judgment day will be extremely bad for myself and others.
Teaching that everything is gonna work out doesnt make people see just how depraved we really are. You want to see truly regenerated people?? Teach the gospel fiercely and truthful so that others can understand the need for Jesus. Despair can be a powerful tool.

If he came to my church and preached that, I would walk out. Our church works hard to nurture our covenant children in God's promises. That approach would teach my daughter to doubt God's covenant promise to be God to her.

 

[Pilgrim]

Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say of the PRCA they're hyper-adjacent to Hyper-Calvinists – if I'm reading you right. That canard (to put it mildly) re the PRCA being hyper-calvinists I thought would have been put to rest on the PB for some time now.

I think basically what I meant was that they hold some things in common with hypers, such as the denial of the free offer. In my experience, hypers (various hyper-Calvinist Baptists) or “ultra high” Calvinists (such as Clark) are somewhat more likely to argue that assurance is of the essence of faith. On the other hand, I don’t think that someone like Pink agreed with them on that despite their taking his side against Murray et al. (As with the Puritans, I tend to agree with Murray that Pink’s writings on the Christian life are perhaps his most valuable.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pilgrim]

If he came to my church and preached that, I would walk out. Our church works hard to nurture our covenant children in God's promises. That approach would teach my daughter to doubt God's covenant promise to be God to her.

Would you say the same about Beeke and others in that school of thought (HRC, Free Reformed, etc)? Is there never any place for self-examination?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Is there never any place for self-examination?

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! 2 Cor 13:5 [LSB]

 

[Claudiu]

If he came to my church and preached that, I would walk out. Our church works hard to nurture our covenant children in God's promises. That approach would teach my daughter to doubt God's covenant promise to be God to her.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[alexanderjames]

Hello all. Paul washer in my opinion, is one of the better preachers for me to listen to online. I do find that his teachings do cut to the bone, of which i like. I dont care to listen to a lot of preachers saying how we are all ok, and that life is great. I want the old hellfire and brimstone teaching. I like that because as a false convert, i fully understand that judgment day will be extremely bad for myself and others.
Teaching that everything is gonna work out doesnt make people see just how depraved we really are. You want to see truly regenerated people?? Teach the gospel fiercely and truthful so that others can understand the need for Jesus. Despair can be a powerful tool.

I hope by this you don't mean that you are still a false convert and that you despair of salvation?
And when you say despair, I hope you mean despairing in our own flesh, so that we may look only to Christ and rest in Him.

 

[Solparvus]

If Washer came to my church and preached on self-examination and the perils of false conversion, my words to my children would be, "Listen up. Because of what you are about to hear, your father is a true Christian."

Interestingly, this last Tuesday I spoke to a brother with a deeply tender and scrupulous conscience. The week before he had listened to Washer, I believe it was on self-examination, and found great comfort and assurance from him. At a time when I was in an extremely fearful state, Washer was the first light of truth to help me crawl out of my despair.

I don't listen to Washer much anymore. He's an itinerant, and an internet preacher doesn't make a suitable diet, and itinerants don't have messages tailored to feed over the long-term. Understandable for the circumstances. But I'd love to love Christ as much as Washer seems to.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich I think you have got to the key issue here. I am not sure where Washer stands on covenant theology but my experience with the MacArthur dispensationalists is they have an ordo salutis, but no pactum salutis, and no historia salutis. Therefore they have a theologically distorted framework for their doctrine of assurance. I did wonder if Paul Washer is affected by this?

That's possible. After some time of reflecting upon this, a CT understanding with Christ the Mediator at the center unties all the knots people tend to get into on these topics. Without the Covenant in view, a person is bound to fall into either antinomianism (insisting that all talk of works or fruits of faith or rewards, etc are a "violation of the Gospel") or neonomianism (wanting us to get really serious about the law and collapsing faith into faithfulness).