Archive for Assurance

FV, TR, Presumption, Assurance, and Despair

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 19, 2008 by Ron Smith

I do not intend to make an argument here. There is plenty of that elsewhere on this blog and in numerous other sources. I just want to point out something that occurred to me this morning that I find interesting and maybe helpful concerning FV and TR perspectives. If I lost you on that last sentence, reading on might help define for you some distinctions between FV and TR emphases.

The TR brethren typically frame God’s promises in the context of eternal, decretal election, while the FV brethren typically frame God’s promises in the context of historical, outward, objective covenant. The TR believe that the FV “covenant promises” lead to presumption, while the FV believe that the TR “election promises” lead to despair.

The TR brethren typically frame scriptural warnings in the context of reprobation, while the FV brethren typically frame scriptural warnings in the context of historical, outward, objective covenant. The TR believe that the FV “covenant warnings” lead to despair, while the FV believe that the TR “hypothetical warnings” (only a reality for the reprobate, hypothetical for the elect) lead to presumption.

So for the FV, promises and warnings are typically framed in the same context (covenant), while for the TR, promises and warnings are typically framed in opposing contexts (election/reprobation).

Note what the PCA Study Committee on FV/NPP/AAT considers the FV position promotes:

“The Committee views the FV position as ultimately leading to presumption or despair, not assurance. At the heart of their belief is the view that water baptism serves as the means for uniting each participant to Jesus; those baptized receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation except final perseverance. Our concern is that some of those who are baptized will simply presume on God’s grace, “continuing in the covenant” without “apostatizing” but also without justifying faith (cf. Matthew 22:1-14); others will be driven to despair, working for a salvation out of “covenant faithfulness” instead of resting and receiving Jesus alone for their salvation.” ~ “The Report” pg 34

Their concern is a legitimate one. We can agree on this. Where we disagree is that I don’t see this concern as something unique to the FV.

Election vs. Covenant Promises
For the TR, affirming the promises that accompany baptism (Acts 2:38-39) *to all baptized Christians, head for head*,  will lead the Christian to presume that he is “in” on the basis of his baptism and that this status is sufficient for salvation.

For the FV, affirming the promises that accompany baptism *only for the elect* will lead the Christian to wonder in despair if that includes him individually. A contemporary Christian folk band of a reformed baptist persuasion by the name of Caedmon’s Call expresses this sentiment in a song entitled “Prove me wrong”. The song’s opening verse goes like this:

Sometimes I fear maybe I’m not chosen
You’ve hardened my heart like Pharaoh
That would explain why life is so hard for me

And I am sad Esau hated
Crying against what’s fated
Saying father, please, is there any left for me

Hypothetical vs. Actual Warnings
For the TR, expressing the scriptural warnings that accompany baptism (Acts 2:40) *to all baptized Christians, head for head* in a “this could happen to you” fashion denies all sorts of Calvinistic points of doctrine and leads the Christian to despair, constantly wondering whether or not he will be able to do the work of covenant faithfulness sufficient for eternal salvation.

For the FV, expressing scriptural warnings in a hypothetical, “you’re elect, this can’t happen to you” fashion is akin to teaching a child he cannot be physically hurt or killed. The child, presuming himself to be impervious to harm, will attempt more and more dangerous feats until he inevitably proves his teacher wrong. Likewise, the Christian, presuming himself to be impervious to spiritual harm, will attempt more and more feats dangerous to his soul until he finally falls away in his sin.

Presumption, Assurance, and Despair
I think both persuasions can agree that there is a continuum of faith and fear with presumption on one end (faith without fear), despair on the other end (fear without faith), and assurance somewhere in between (faith and fear). Saving faith trembles (WCF XIV.II). I also think we can all admit that there are challenges to both systems that can lend toward one extreme or the other or both. Are there no presumptuous or disparaged among the TRs? Are all the congregants in FV churches fully assured of their salvation? No and no.

The main challenge I see is the number and diversity of souls being ministered to. To put it in the simplest terms I can think of, innately, some folks are too happy and some folks are too sad. The former spend too much time beholding God’s goodness and not enough time beholding His severity (Romans 11:22), and the latter have the opposite problem. There are those who tend to doubt their salvation and need to be encouraged with covenant promises, and there are those who tend to think church membership is salvific in itself and need to be threatened with scriptural warnings. And because there is a heteronomos at work in our members, those who need badly to give heed to the warnings typically latch on to the promises and vice versa.

One of the criticisms I constantly see coming from the most outspoken FV critics as well as those brothers who don’t know any better is that the FV has made the gospel confusing. I think we FVers can agree with the TR sentiment that the gospel is simple and should be presented clearly and plainly. We don’t deny this. But can the TRs brothers agree with the FV sentiment that people are complex?

The Aim of Covenant Promises and Scriptural Warnings
All that to get to this. The aim of covenant promises is to produce faith. The aim of scriptural warnings is to produce fear. These respective ends are what God intended them for. The interesting thing that occured to me this morning is that the TR brethren’s complaint against the typical FV application of promises and warnings is essentially that of over achievement. The FV application of promises, in the mind of the TR, leads to too much faith and not enough fear (presumption), while the FV application of scriptural warnings leads to too much fear and not enough faith (despair). Conversely, the FV complaint against the TR application of promises and scriptural warnings is that it (albeit unintentionally) tends to produce in the hearer the exact oppostite of what God intended.

So if both the TR and FV brethren’s concerns on this matter are granted, which I am willing to do for more than the sake of argument, who is misusing God’s Word? Who is using God’s promises and warnings in the way they were intended to be used (even if in an imbalanced way, giving more heed to one or the other), and who is using them in a way contrary to God’s design?

13 Comments »

On Faith and Presumption

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on March 25, 2008 by Ron Smith

g__k__chesterton.jpg“Paganism declared that virtue was in a balance; Christianity declared it was in a conflict: the collision of two passions apparently opposite. Of course they were not really inconsistent; but they were such that it was hard to hold simultaneously. Let us follow for a moment the clue of the martyr and the suicide; and take the case of courage. No quality has ever so much addled the brains and tangled the definitions of merely rational sages. Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. “He that will lose his life, the same shall save it,” is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers. It might be printed in an Alpine guide or a drill book. This paradox is the whole principle of courage; even of quite earthly or quite brutal courage. A man cut off by the sea may save his life if he will risk it on the precipice.

He can only get away from death by continually stepping within an inch of it. A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine. No philosopher, I fancy, has ever expressed this romantic riddle with adequate lucidity, and I certainly have not done so. But Christianity has done more: it has marked the limits of it in the awful graves of the suicide and the hero, showing the distance between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the sake of dying. And it has held up ever since above the European lances the banner of the mystery of chivalry: the Christian courage, which is a disdain of death; not the Chinese courage, which is a disdain of life.”GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chapter VI. THE PARADOXES OF CHRISTIANITY

Upon reading this, my mind immediately went to the paradox of fear and faith.

We must always have faith in God’s promises and never doubt them, for this sin angers Him (Psalm 78:21-22). But we must also fear Him and not presume on our covenant standing that we do not have to work out our salvation (Philippians 2:12). There seems to be a need for balance here. There are those who have an unhealthy amount of fear and little faith. This is doubt. But there is also a sort of faith that has no fear. This is the presumptuous sort of faith Paul rebukes in Romans 11

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

I was recently warned on this thread over at Green Baggins that I was teaching my children to “presume” upon God’s grace. My answer to that is simply that there is no room for presumption where there is fear. Faith without fear is presumption or arrogance, as the apostle put it.

So the remedy for presumption in our children is a healthy dose of warning and fear. But if there is too much of that, they begin to doubt. The way we cure doubt is by declaring to them God’s promises and assuring them that those promises are theirs as God’s children in Christ. They need to be taught both to have faith and to fear. Saving faith both trembles at the threatenings, and embraces the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. (WCF XIV.II)

1 Comment »

Common Anti-FV Misconception #2

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on March 23, 2008 by Ron Smith
baptism.jpgAn exhortation to a baptized covenant member that they can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God’s promises made at their baptism is tantamount to teaching baptismal regeneration.

First, I have two credible examples of this teaching of baptismal assurance being found within historic reformed orthodoxy; one from Luther, and the other from Calvin.

Second, I have two examples of this teaching being equivocated with the assumption that everyone who is baptized is elect.

The first is in a comment from reformedmusings over at Green Baggins. Upon my stating that we can teach our children to believe the promises of God made at their baptism, reformedmusings responds,

“Since not everyone who is baptized is saved, I wonder how far you can take your assertion. The Confession and Catechisms are clear that not everyone in the covenant of grace broadly considered receives the benefits of regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. How do you explain that to kids who are taught that they should assume they are saved from infancy because of their baptism?”

Note how my use of the word “believe” is translated to “assume”. I would say that teaching a child that they cannot fall away from the faith is teaching them to “assume”, but that is for another post. Let me just add here that teaching a child that they must continue in faith to the end precludes any assumptions about their covenant status, but includes faith in God’s promises about their covenant status.

The second example is from one GeneMBridges commenting on Triablogue. My question was,“Would you agree that every baptized Christian can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God’s promises?” The response from GeneMBridges was that this rejected the “mixed” nature of the covenant and was tantamount to baptismal regeneration.

Now to the rebuttal. Read carefully. I will try to be as clear as possible.

Encouraging a baptized Christian that they can look to their baptism in faith and be assured of God’s promises is not the same as saying that everyone who is baptized is elect or regenerate. It is only saying that everyone who is baptized and looks to their baptism in faith is elect and regenerate.

If one does not mix Gospel promises with faith, he cannot receive the fruit of those promises. (Hebrews 4:2)

4 Comments »

Nevertheless, I am baptized

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on March 23, 2008 by Ron Smith

More baptismal assurance from Luther: 

“Thus we must regard Baptism and make it profitable to ourselves, that when our sins and conscience oppress us, we strengthen ourselves and take comfort and say: Nevertheless I am baptized; but if I am baptized, it is promised me that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.”~ Martin Luther, The Large Catechism, XIIIA. Part Fourth Of Infant Baptism.

1 Comment »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started