Chapter 13 was reviewed here (just for DW’s convenience, as he has not replied to that one just yet). Some other posts of mine on assurance can be found here. This post is a review of chapter 14 of “Reformed” Is Not Enough, by Douglas Wilson.
Wilson’s chapter on assurance has many fine things in it. I especially appreciate the fact that he didn’t just say, “Look to your baptism for assurance.” The following are the main characteristics of someone who is assured of their salvation: he is holding fast to Jesus Christ, he has the gift of the Holy Spirit, he loves his brothers, is humble in mind, delights in the means of grace, understands spiritual things, is obedient, and is chastened for disobedience. These are the “bullet points” of the chapter. A few other comments of his require some comment. He defines “morbid introspection” as something which “holds up the mirror of self and spews forth doubts” (p. 125). This is contrasted with true self-examination, which “holds up the mirror of the Word and asks honest questions” (ibid.). Questions have answers, whereas doubts exclude answers (pp. 125-126). I believe that this contrast is intended to help people avoid wallowing in themselves, which I think Wilson would argue (and I would agree with him) is one of the main problems of modern “evangelicalism,” especially as it is a function of the Enlightenment (or, as my brother is fond of saying, the Endarkenment) synergizing with Christianity.
A few points of criticism are necessary, however. One of them involves a somewhat ambiguous statement of Wilson’s: “Objective assurance is never found through trying to peer into the secret counsels of God, or into the murky recesses of one’s own heart” (p. 130). Now, with regard to the first part of that sentence, ambiguity exists: does “peer(ing) into the secret counsels of God” imply trying to see into the Book of Life to see if one’s name is in fact written there? Or does it mean that we should not use the doctrine of decretal election as part of our assurance? Nowhere in this chapter does Wilson argue that the doctrine of election plays any part in our assurance. Without answering the direction of ambiguity, I will say this: the doctrine of decretal election provides assurance for the doubting Christian (although it provides no assurance for the backslidden Christian). Election says that nothing can take the believer out of God’s hand. Now, election is not the only thing that provides assurance. The things that Wilson has listed contribute, as do all the means of grace (some of which Wilson listed, though not all). Assurance, in other words, is the result of many, many things working together in the believer’s life.
The second point of question that I have concerns this statement: “And so a Christian searching for biblical assurance should take these passages of Scripture, see how they are all fulfilled in the font and Table, and then rest in his salvation” (p. 130). Surely we do not want to say that all the promises that Wilson listed in Scripture passages quoted are fulfilled only in the font and Table. Of course, they are primarily fulfilled in Jesus Christ, in Whom all promises are yes and amen. Wilson does say in this context that the Word always accompanies Sacrament. That helps, but does not quite fully alleviate the limitation Wilson has put on those promises. Secondly, even in the Sacraments, the promises are fulfilled when one has the thing signified by the font and Table, not primarily when one receives the sign. They can and often do happen at the same time (especially at the Table). But they do not have to occur at the same time.
I think Wilson and I would both agree that our primary means of assurance is looking to Jesus Christ. At least, I would hope we would agree on that. The differences can be chalked up to a difference in our views of how Christ is appropriated. I don’t know if Wilson would deny that election is a source of assurance. Maybe he just forgot to mention it. A lot depends on how the ambiguity mentioned above on the “secret counsels” statement is resolved.
davejes1979
glwjohnson
greenbaggins
jeffhutchinson
Wes White
Andrew Webb
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
Tony S said,
September 12, 2007 at 11:25 am
I don’t think that election in and of itself is assuring. Pointing out that none of the elect will fall away doesn’t comfort the person who doubts whether they are one of the elect.
On the other hand to the person who has a legitimate confidence in their profession of faith, then yes election can help assure them of the future.
greenbaggins said,
September 12, 2007 at 11:35 am
It’s a fair question, Tony. I will answer it this way: election provides assurance to the doubting person, because they can know that if they ever truly believed in Jesus, they always will. Election says to them that they can look over the course of their lives to see if there is even a glimmer of faith anywhere. If there is, then they can be assured that their salvation does not depend on themselves and on the strength of their faith, but rather it depends on the strong arms of Jesus, who will lose not one of His lambs. Of course, one must be careful to distinguish true saving faith from the so-called “historical-but-not-true” faith, which is the subject of another post.
Sam Steinmann said,
September 12, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’m with Tony–I do not see election as a doctrine that is helpful for assurance. It just shifts the question from “am I saved” to “am I one of the elect”–and both are unanswerable before the judgment.
Election says to them that they can look over the course of their lives to see if there is even a glimmer of faith anywhere, because they can know that if they ever truly believed in Jesus, they always will. (a not-quite quote)
This seems to me to be contrary to Hebrews 6–those who fell away really tasted of the grace (gift) of God–and to Westmeinster larger Catechism q 68. “All the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may … have some common operations of the Spirit.”
Steven Carr said,
September 12, 2007 at 11:59 am
I am interested in the fact that the puritans weren’t mentioned in connection with “morbid introspection.” Often they are, although, in all the books I have read by Puritans, I have not come across anything that would fit Wilson’s definition of “morbid introspection.” I actually prefer the term “naval gazing” myself, just because its a more colorful term. I haven’t even come across such naval gazing in Thomas Shepherd’s works, who is at times considered the ring-leader of morbid introspection. I guess my question is why accuse the Puritans of morbid introspection, or even, can we rightfully accuse the Puritans of morbid introspection? If this is off track of the post, I apologize.
Steve
Matt Beatty said,
September 12, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Lane,
I wanted to ask a question of you, but it seems a couple of chaps have already beaten me to the punch. You wrote: “I will answer it this way: election provides assurance to the doubting person, because they can know that if they ever truly believed in Jesus, they always will.”
I don’t see how you’re getting from A to B. Like Tony and Sam, this appears to be inadequate. May I ask you, in all sincerity, on what basis would you grant a doubting soul assurance? It seems fine to say that none of God’s elect will fall (which I would unreservedly affirm), but moving to “I’m one of the elect” is a different matter entirely, isn’t it?
What role, if any, do passages like 1John 2:3 play? (“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.”) On the surface, this would appear to grant a significant place to fruitfulness/faithfulness in the Christian’s assurance, contrary to what we hear from some quarters these days. The fruitfulness/faithfulness earns absolutely nothing, of course, but serves to identify the type of tree that is growing.
Additionally, WCF 16.2 says that “These good works… strengthen their assurance…” In my conversations with PCA folk these days, no one seems to bring this confessional truth to the table with them. I may be saying more than the Confession does in rooting one’s assurance (subjectively viewed) more in one’s obedience and not in the decree, but I’m not getting how its possible to do otherwise. I affirm that one’s SALVATION is rooted only in the person and work of Christ and that knowing this is, in a very real way, helpful, but again, like Sam and Tony, to say that this is sufficient for promoting a godly assurance seems inadequate to me.
If I’ve erred, please show me where or how.
Thanks!
greenbaggins said,
September 12, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The post above already made this clear: assurance is based on many, many things. The doctrine of election does not give assurance *apart from* all the other things that feed into it. This would be my answer as to how one gets from A to B. If one is living an obedient life (Matt, I even included obedience in the post: did you happen to skip that part of it?), and the fruit is there, then the doctrine of election provides the assurance that one who is saved does not become non-saved. Isn’t that assuring? So, when I say that election provides assurance to the one who is doubting, I do not mean that election is supposed to do that all by itself. It works in tandem with all the other means of grace and assurance of which the WS speak.
greenbaggins said,
September 12, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Steve, your question is excellent and on-topic. I have a hunch that many people confuse the *thoroughness* of self-examination proposed by the Puritans with wallowing in sin. Every Puritan I have read on this topic always says “Look to Christ.” But they say that in conjunction with saying, “you need to feel the weight of your own depravity.”
Joe Brancaleone said,
September 12, 2007 at 2:05 pm
In reflecting upon Paul’s approach to the church at Corinth, I think that decretal election along with other firm promises concerning the glorification of the saints do factor into giving hope to the backslidden Christian. Not only such promises, but they seem to be foundational if I am understanding “backslidden” correctly (maybe I’m not, does it refer to apostacy?). The Corinthians had in a great many ways conformed to the sinful patterns of their pagan culture. Some were visiting temple prostitutes, there were divisions and lawsuits, lovelessness, all kinds of what I am guessing are things we would call “backsliding”.
Yet Paul saw it necessary to begin with appealing to the Corinthians’ heavenly status, as “sanctified”, that God will “sustain you to the end”, “guiltless”, and so forth.
To be sure, Paul goes on to rebuke and admonish them to live out that sanctified status. And so the exhortations to the ones in sexual sin to “glorify God in your body” must accompany the assurances he began with as to the promise of glorification.
Joshua said,
September 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm
greenbaggins:
I take issue with a couple things you write.
“Election says that nothing can take the believer out of God’s hand.” I disagree. Election says that nothing can take the elect out of God’s hands. This is true, but interesting. This is the reason Wilson doesn’t consider decretal election when ministering to a covanent member.
“Secondly, even in the Sacraments, the promises are fulfilled when one has the thing signified by the font and Table, not primarily when one receives the sign.” This is to say that the elect have what is signified when they recieve what is signified, rather than the sign. Again, true but boring.
SteveV said,
September 12, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Sam Steinmann said,
“I’m with Tony–I do not see election as a doctrine that is helpful for assurance. It just shifts the question from “am I saved” to “am I one of the elect”–and both are unanswerable before the judgment.”
If both are unanswerable, then there can be no assurance and the discussion ends there. But, neither Wilson nor Kiester would say that those questions are unanswerable before the judgment. And for good reason. As is being discussed, the Bible offers us many ways to find sure and comforting answers to those questions.
Matt Beatty said,
September 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for your response, Lane. Perhaps you could mention a passage of Scripture (or two!) that speaks of assurance being derived from one’s election to support your position? I’m thinking of a parallel, complementary text to 1John 2:3?
Thanks again.
Kyle said,
September 12, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Eph. 1:1-14
Rom. 8:28-39
May we not draw assurance from these passages?