Objectivity, Introspection and Assurance

I am a part of a group of pastors who often discuss theological matters and one of the recent hot topics of conversation in our circles has been the "Federal Vision," or "Auburn Avenue" theology.  And I don't plan on getting into the whole debate - I just wanted to raise one issue that is a big issue for the FV/AA folks and is one that I am personally very interested in.

That issue is the role of subjectivity and introspection in our search for assurance.  One of the emphases of FV/AA proponents is on the objectivity of the covenant.  As I understand it, one  of their concerns is to free us from the morbid introspection that characterizes so many evangelicals by reminding us to rely for assurance on the objective nature of the covenant promises rather than the subjective experiences of the Christian.

That's as far as I'll go here in talking about FV/AA but I will say that it brings up a good issue, one I have struggled with and am not sure I have fully resolved.

Strangely enough, this is a hot issue in the Reformed community.  I say strangely enough because, with our TULIP theology we place a great emphasis on the assurance that inheres to the "P" in the TULIP - the perseverance of the saints.  When speaking of the perseverance of the saints the emphasis is on God's perseverance with us, and not so much on our perseverance with Him.  Or, to say it another way, we persevere with Him because He perseveres with us.  Thus, our assurance is based on the promise of His working in us.  This assurance is set in opposition to the Arminian view that one can fall from grace.

But getting back to the strangeness of the issue, in reformed circles, there has been a good deal of debate about the subjective application of this doctrine of assurance.  That we can have assurance, we all affirm, how we attain that experience of assurance has been the subject of debate.

In his book, Christ the Lord, Mike Horton describes this in historical terms:

First, remember that the most decisive difference between the Reformers view of assurance and the Puritans' was on the question of whether assurance was of the essence of faith.  Calvin, for instance, did not assert that the believer never dobuted; nor did he argue that everyone had the same degree of confidence in the promise of forgiveness.  Nevertheless, he said, weak faith is still saving faith, and saving faith brings with it a cetaintly that Christ's righteousness has been imputed to my charge.  The Puritans, however, wanted to give more room to Christian experience, it seems.  Assurance could be attained and lost, depending on one's moral and spiritual condition.  There were things one could do, methods that could be employed to build assurane.  The question was never How am I saved?  They were perfectly evangelical and Protestant on that one.  Rather it was, How can I know that I'm saved?  The question was not, Must a person have works if he claims he has faith?  With Paul and James, both the Reformers and and the Puritans were certain that works are necessary consequences of saving faith.  But the Puritans' question was whether works were necessary conditions of the assurance of saving faith.

Horton takes Calvin's view over against the puritan view.  Not being a professional historian or authority on these matters I will only say that I have heard others say that the Puritans were not uniform in their view.  Some held to a view of assurance much like Calvin's.

But if I may take this a slightly different direction I would like to ask if the Puritan view parallels the views of Jonathan Edwards and his modern followers like John Piper, especially as concerns the subject of the affections.

Having said that, could I ask please, pretty please, that no one misinterpret me as being against Edwards and Piper.  I love Edwards and I am especially grateful to John Piper for popularizing his insights in our day.

But, I do think it is worth debating whether or not Edwards got it right in his view on the place of the affections.  I think he did, but then again, sometimes I think he didn't.

Edwards introduces his Treatise on the Religious Affections this way:

THERE is no question whatsoever, that is of greater importance to mankind, and what is more concerns every individual person to be well resolved in, than this: What are the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favor with God, and entitled to his eternal rewards? Or, which comes to the same thing, What is the nature of true religion? And wherein do lie the distinguishing notes of that virtue and holiness that is acceptable in the sight of God?

And he answers his own question as follows:

Hence the proposition or doctrine, that I would raise from these words, is this:

DOCTRINE. True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.

We see that the apostle, in observing and remarking the operations and exercises of religion in the Christians he wrote to, wherein their religion appeared to be true and of the right kind, when it had its greatest trial of what sort it was, being tried by persecution as gold is tried in the fire, and when their religion not only proved true, but was most pure, and cleansed from its dross and mixtures of that which was not true, and when religion appeared in them most in its genuine excellency and native beauty, and was found to praise, and honor, and glory; he singles out the religious affections of love and joy, that were then in exercise in them: these are the exercises of religion he takes notice of wherein their religion did thus appear true and pure, and in its proper glory.

Then, a quick scan of the table of contents to the Religious Affections will give you a good understanding of where he goes with this:

PART I. CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE AFFECTIONS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE IN RELIGION.

I. What the affections of the mind are

II. Evidence that true religion in great part consists in the affections

III. Inferences

PART II. SHOWING WHAT ARE NO CERTAIN SIGNS THAT RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS ARE GRACIOUS, OR THAT THEY ARE NOT.

I. That religious affections are very great, or raised very high, is no sign

II. That they have great effects on the body, is no sign

III. That they cause those who have them to be fluent, fervent, and abundant, in talking of the things of religion, is no sign

IV. That persons did not excite them of their own contrivance and by their own strength, is no sign

V. That they come with texts of Scripture, remarkably brought to the mind, is no sign

VI. That there is an appearance of love in them, is no sign

VII. Persons having religious affections of many kinds, accompanying one another, is no sign

VIII. That comforts and joys seem to follow awakenings and convictions of conscience, in a certain order, is no sign

IX. That they dispose persons to spend much time in religion, and to be zealously engaged in the external duties of worship, is no sign

X. That they much dispose persons with their mouths to praise and glorify God, is no sign

XI. That they make persons that have them exceeding confident that what they experience is divine, and that they are in a good estate, is no sign

XII. That the outward manifestations of them, and the relation persons give of them, are very affecting and pleasing to the godly, is no sign

PART III. SHOWING WHAT ARE DISTINGUISHING SIGNS OF TRULY GRACIOUS AND HOLY AFFECTIONS.

I. Truly gracious affections arise from divine influences and operations on the heart

II. Their ground is the excellent  nature of divine things, not self-interest

III. They are  founded on the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things.

IV. They arise from the mind's being enlightened to understand or apprehend divine things.

V. They are attended with a conviction of the reality and certainty of divine things.

VI. They are attended with evangelical humiliation.

VII. They are attended with a change of nature.

VIII. They are attended with the lamblike, dovelike spirit and temper of Jesus Christ

IX. They are attended with a Christian tenderness of spirit.

X. They have beautiful symmetry and proportion.

XI. The higher they are raised, the more is a longing of soul after spiritual attainments increased.

XII. They have their exercise and fruit in Christian practice

• 1. Christian practice and holy life is a sign of sincerity to others
• 2. Christian practice is the chief evidence to ourselves, much to be preferred to the method of the first convictions, enlightenings, comforts, or any immanent discoveries or exercises of grace whatsoever

Whereas the earlier Puritans may have focused on works, or one's moral and spiritual condition, Edwards focus, at least in the Religious Affections, was more inward, looking not so much at behavior and obedience, but the condition of one's heart.  In my mind, Edwards and the Puritans that Horton describes above were operating from the same principle - that one must look at oneself for evidence of salvation or assurance.  This evidence may take the form of affections or obedience, but the locus for assurance was in the person.

And, this view corresponds with a good deal of Scripture.

Matthew 7:16:
¹⁶ You will recognize them by their fruits.

II Corinthians 13:5:
⁵ Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? —unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

James 2:14:
¹⁴ What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

I like to think that Edwards (and Piper by extension) is right on, but  he is right on in the sense that he has only accurately captured one thread of biblical teaching.  Yes indeed, fruitbearing is a major plank in our assurance and it is right to examine ourselves to see if we have fruit.

But there is another thread that Horton captures on page 145 of Christ the Lord in this quote from Calvin's Institutes:

The grace of God and the certainty of salvation and faith neither arise from nor depend on our obedience.

This also corresponds with a thread of biblical teaching.  In I Cor. 4:3-4 Paul says:

³ But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. ⁴I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

After bemoaning the lack of fruit in his life and affection for Christ Paul finds solace in the fact that the work of Christ justifies him and provides assurance of freedom from condemnation.  Romans 7:24-8:2 says:

²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from ^gthis body of death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ² For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free e in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

When considering Edwards work on the religious affections I sometimes think of Martin Luther's famous line "love God, sometimes I hate Him!"  I wonder what this would mean in Edwards' scheme?  On the days that Luther "loved God" would he have assurance and on the days he hated God would he not?  Besides that, we would have to get into a discussion of how one knows he is loving or hating.

When I read the list of Edwards distinguishing signs of truly gracious affections I frankly can get depressed.  Some days I think I have some of them, more often than not I don't.   And while I affirm that some level of introspection can be profitable, it's usually not a pleasant experience for me. 

Ultimately I believe we need to affirm that both views have a place.  The Westminster Confession of Faith takes account of both perspectives in Chapter 19, paragraph 2.

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible Assurance',' faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, 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^.

Smith, M. H. 1996, c1990. Westminster Confession of Faith. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation.; Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, 1996. (electronic ed.). Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press: Greenville SC

Assurance comes from reliance on the promises of salvation (Calvin), and the inward evidences of graces and the testimony of the Spirit (Edwards).

But still I would give the greater weight to reliances on the promises. 

I am currently taking a class on counseling from David Powlison at Westminster Seminary in Philly and for those of you who have not heard him do this, he has this presentation he offers on what your driving habits reveal about the real you.  He specifically talks about our reactions to being stuck in traffic.  He spends about 20-30 minutes talking about all of the idols and sinful motives that can be revealed in the way we respond to a traffic jam.  Its enough to make a peson downright neurotic, although I realize we aren't supposed to use that word in a "Biblical Counseling" class.

So I asked him how we can live with this kind of understanding and not become morbid introspectionists.  He chuckled and said that introspection is not the goal, nor is over analysis.  The goal is to move outward toward love for Christ and others.  So he said that maybe we should give ourselves 45 seconds to a minute or so for introspection, then move forward to looking at what love for God and neighbor would look like in any given situation.

That's pretty good analogical advice when dealing with assurance.  We need some introspection, a la Edwards and Piper, but we need to not stay there.  When struggling with assurance maybe we need to set aside "x" amount of time for introspection to identify sin, and then turn our attention to the promises of God.  This dovetails with M'Cheyne's advice to take 10 looks at the cross for every one look we take at sin.

On a sidenote, I want to say a word just in case an Edwardian, Calvinian or Puritan scholar shows up and reads this post.  I understand that I have only picked out snippets from Edwards and that my mention of Calvin and the Puritans have been filtered through Horton's lens.  I will confess that I have never gotten all the way through the Religious Affections, though I have tried, oh how I have tried.  Most of my knowledge of the Religious Affections comes through summaries I have read and through popularizers of Edwards.  I also understand that Edwards, Calvin and the Puritans views are more complex than I have represented here and that they don't fall into the tidy little categories I have given.  Further, I want to again ask that no one accuse me of bashing Edwards or Piper or the Puritans.  I will continue to read Piper and recommend him and will try with all my might to slog through Edwards and Puritan writings and will continue to cultivate my own religious affections.  But I do think that, without the balance offered here, such an attempt to cultivate the affections can lead to despondency and paralysis.  Utimately we must look only to Christ for our assurance, just as we look only to Him for our justification.