As I understand it there are two key views on assurance. One from William Perkins, Richard Sibbes and Thomas Goodwin and the other from John Owen. What are the key distinctions and their pastoral implications?
As I understand it there are two key views on assurance. One from William Perkins, Richard Sibbes and Thomas Goodwin and the other from John Owen. What are the key distinctions and their pastoral implications?
I'm not convinced it's a real difference; it could be a difference in the way the matter is stated. It comes down to this -- whether the Spirit bearing witness with the believer's spirit comes through the process of Word and self-examination, or whether it is an extra element. In the former, the witness is the Spirit's enabling the believer to draw the conclusion of the syllogism, which confirms he is a true believer and Christ is his. In the latter, the witness is an independent work of the Spirit, adding to the conclusion. The latter certainly leaves open a door for fanaticism; and I would regard it as safer to say the work of the Spirit is always connected with the Word. Having said that, the theologians I have read all qualify their statement so as to not allow it to lead to an extreme, and by the time they make their qualification it seems they only mean that the Spirit's work is an assurance based on the Word and self-examination. Hence my inclination to understand the difference as a verbal one. Connected with this subject is a question concerning the nature of the assistance of the Spirit in prayer (Rom. 8:26-27). Theologians seem to fall down on the same two sides.
