Look...

Exploring Boston: Where are you looking for assurance?

There’s a taste in your mouth when you hear the term “Puritan.” Right?

Describe it real fast. Sour? Bland? Bitter?

You’re not alone if you feel this way. Many haven’t read the Puritans. But for those who have dipped their pinky toe into the ocean of their writings, they take away a Pharisee-esque vibe, where doubt is fueled by excessive introspection. Assurance? Nowhere to be found.

Let me ask another question:

Did Puritanism breed doubt?

In other words, was there anything inherent to the Puritan movement or their practical theology that caused hyperintrospection and a lack of assurance? Or was this simply part of the musing of a few individuals?

Many accuse Puritans of constantly looking inward and focusing on works to obtain or maintain assurance of faith. While a few Puritans fell into this trap, the Puritans' theology developed from a Christ-centered perspective on assurance.

The Source

The Puritans were those who submitted to the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, interestingly, a method for attaining assurance used language different from that of the Westminster Confession itself.

The method was called “The Practical and Mystical Syllogism.” The practical syllogism focused on the sanctification and new obedience in the daily life of the believer, which confirmed assurance of salvation. The mystical syllogism focused on the inward moves of grace and new desires, which bolstered assurance. Here is one of them:

“Major premise: According to Scripture, only those who possess saving faith will receive the Spirit’s testimony that their lives manifest fruits of sanctification and good works.

Minor premise: I cannot deny that by the grace of God I have received the Spirit’s testimony.

Conclusion: Consequently, I may be assured that I am a partaker of saving faith.”

In a previous post, the Puritan Thomas Boston is seen to look within briefly and apply these very elements. However, what overwhelms Boston’s writings is a constant view of the Lord Jesus and His sufficiency rather than whether his performance accords with godliness or his heart is inclined to Christ enough. And this is largely due to WCF 16.2, which is the lens through which one should view this syllogism:

“These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness; strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end eternal life.”

The language is important and is what the Puritans built the syllogism on. Good works—evidence of a “lively faith”—strengthen their assurance. What the confession never asserts is that good works or repentance or emotional stirrings or sorrows for sin or love for God are the ground of one’s assurance. This would be to ground one’s assurance in law. The law, being the standard of true holiness and, thus, one’s ultimate death sentence outside of Christ, can never be the ground of true assurance since it requires personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience to every line of it.

Unfortunately, one could understand why someone can take the syllogism and make inward graces and outward works the ground of their assurance rather than Christ crucified. The syllogism ends with, “consequently, I may be assured…” There’s a sense in which, if someone doesn’t have the lens of the confession while looking at the syllogism, one may take away that good works ground my assurance.

But the Westminster divines, following the precision of Scripture, sought to make the believer’s sole ground of both justification and assurance, the sure promises of God in the gospel (Christ crucified) and the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. It’s only after one has firmly fixed their eyes on Christ that they can now look inward to see if they are bearing true fruit of repentance unto life.

The confession, the writings which gave rise to the confession, and all subsequent writings must be taken together. Therefore, I would contend that Puritanism does not inherently breed doubt and a lack of assurance, though there were a handful of Puritans, perhaps even Boston, who may have fallen into the trap of hyperintrospection. It likely stemmed from a misunderstanding of the syllogism. The Puritans didn’t encourage hyperintrospection theologically, but through tone and emphasis. By emphasizing one thing, some may have missed the main thing.

Joel Beeke, writing extensively on William Perkins, who was called “The Father of Puritanism,” noted,

“For Perkins, the ‘practical syllogism,’ and what was later called the reflex act of faith, never pointed away from Christ, the Spirit, or saving faith, but through Spirit-worked faith was chained to Christ. Perkins advises those troubled by satanic temptation that they are not of the elect to defend themselves by remembering ‘not to behold faith, but the object of faith, which is Christ.’ Because all of salvation was Christocentric and part of an unbreakable divine chain, Perkins could speak of the syllogismus practicus as an ‘infallible certainty.’”

In sum, according to Puritan theology and pastoral application, Christ and His work are the sole ground of assurance, and our good works serve to strengthen and bolster our assurance. The believer can be encouraged by the works produced in him/her by God, but must never place all hope in them.

But What About Passages on Self-examination?

There is, of course, a healthy kind of introspection. But primarily, in the New Testament, the believer is called to look to Christ rather than within. Out of all places in Scripture, we’re explicitly told to examine ourselves only twice (2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10), and in context, this is after looking to Christ and the great, precious promises made by Him. But some can be tempted to misapply such passages.

In 2 Corinthians, Paul’s apostleship has been constantly doubted and examined by the Corinthian believers. Thus, he calls believers to examine if they have truly believed the gospel since they’re doubting him, the very preacher who brought them the message. The logic from Paul is, “If you’re doubting me and my apostleship, then you ought to put yourselves to the test since you’re likely doubting my gospel I preached to you. Have you truly believed?”

In 2 Peter, we see qualities that flow from one who has believed the promise. If these qualities are lacking, the believer is invited to examine whether they have been effectually called; however, Peter’s tone throughout the passage is one of assurance and confidence in the faith of the believers he is addressing.

In other words, these passages have a context and are heavy on the work of Christ rather than the performance of believers. One must not pull these out of context to risk crafting a “prove yourself” gospel which smacks of moralism and encourages self-dependence.

Believers are called to run the race with endurance, laying aside weight and sin, while looking unto Jesus, not how well they are running (Hebrews 12:2). An easy trap for Christians to fall into is a constant looking at self to examine performance, which can be a breeding ground for doubting one’s salvation.

Parting Encouragement

Dear believer, don’t risk smuggling works into the back door of the gospel by grounding your assurance in your performance. Some of you are doing that, and you’re exhausted. This happens unknowingly when you’ve been taught to constantly examine yourself through “are you really saved?” kinds of preaching.

Don’t look for something within to ground your assurance. But look away. Look away from yourself. Look to Christ. For every one look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ.¹ You and those around you will be greatly helped if you do.

1. Thanks, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, for this line.