Westminster Conference 2017

I'll be off to the Westminster Conference bright and early tomorrow morning. Early anyway.

I'm due to give a paper on A Child of Light Walking in Darkness: The Felt Presence of God. The Child of Light... bit in the title refers to a work by the Puritan Thomas Goodwin. It's essentially a series of sermons on Isaiah 50:10, with some extra 'box set' material thrown in for good measure.

My brief is to reflect on what Goodwin has to say on knowing, losing and then recovering a felt sense of God's presence and favour. Also interacting with the views of Goodwin's old pal, John Owen.

Getting hold of Owen's stuff is easy enough. Banner of Truth published his 16 Volume Works decades ago and they are still in print today. I purchased my set when a student at the London Seminary (1988-90).

Goodwin ain't so easy to obtain. Banner has only published Volume 8 of his Works. Odd titles are available as e-books, but not A Child of Light Walking in Darkness. Only realised that after I'd agreed to speak at the conference. Something of a problem. 

Handily, my old church history lecturer at the seminary, Robert Oliver lives nearby.  He is also a member of our local Ministers' Fraternal. Robert kindly lent me Volume 3 of Goodwin's Works, which includes A Child of Light...

Goodwin's piece isn't too long. Owen on Psalm 130 takes up most of Volume 6 of his Works. Took a while to wade through. But, as ever with Owen, was worth the effort. 

I was a bit unwell towards the end of September and into October, which slowed me down when it came to writing up the paper, but I got there in the end. 

I'm looking forward to hearing the other speakers (see here for the programme) and also to meeting up with some old friends at the conference. 

The Heart of Christ by Thomas Goodwin

The Heart of Christ Towards Sinners on Earth

by Thomas Goodwin, Kindle edition. 

On Sunday evenings I've been doing a series on Jesus our Prophet, Priest and King. In considering Jesus' High Priestly work I wanted to devote a sermon to Hebrews 4:15, with a special emphasis on our Lord's sympathy. The commentaries don't have a lot to say about that aspect of the verse, but I remembered finding Paul Cook's 1980 Westminster Conference paper, Thomas Goodwin: Mystic?' (see here) helpful in exploring the theme. Cook devotes careful attention to the title under review. Having read his piece I intended to look up the Puritan preacher's work for myself, but I'd never got round to it. The prospect of preaching on Hebrews 4:15 provided just the stimulus I needed to make that good. 

It really is a remarkable little work. Goodwin reflects on the heart of Christ towards his people as set out in Hebrews 4:15 biblically, theologically and pastorally. 

Biblically he reasons from expressions of Christ's heart towards his people during his earthly life and ministry, especially as found in the Farewell Discourse of the Gospel According to John, chapters 13-17.

Theologically Goodwin shows how each person of the Trinity is involved in fitting the person of Christ to act as our sympathetic High Priest. In addition he points out that the human nature of the exalted Son of God is endued with heightened intellectual, emotional and bodily powers. That makes him all the more able to sympathise with his suffering people.

Goodwin argues that during the 'days of his flesh' (Hebrews 5:7) the emotional life of the incarnate Son was subject to imperfection, This is not to deny that he was 'without sin' (Hebrews 4:15), but that during Christ's earthly ministry he suffered frailty of body and soul and knew what it was to be disquieted and perturbed (Hebrews 5:7). The glorified Jesus knows nothing of such emotional weaknesses, but that does not mean we should conceive of him as unemotional. "His perfection destroys not his affections, but only corrects and amends the imperfection of them." [Goodwin, Thomas (2015-06-04). The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth (Kindle Locations 1810-1811). Blue Letter Bible. Kindle Edition.]

In another sense Goodwin posits that even in his current glorified state Christ's emotional life remains in an imperfect state so long as his people are subjected to suffering in the world. He will only be perfectly happy when they are, "until he has filled them with all happiness and delivered them from all misery, himself remains under some kind of imperfection and answerably his affections also, which are suited to this his relation, have some want of imperfection in them, while they lie under misery, in comparison of what his heart shall have when they receive this fullness." [Goodwin, Thomas (2015-06-04). The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth (Kindle Locations 1855-1858). Blue Letter Bible. Kindle Edition.] Jesus will only know the totality of the fullness of the joy set before him for which he endured the cross when the last of God's many sons have been brought to glory.

Pastorally Goowdin  assures his readers that our sympathetic High Priest is able to do more than say, 'there, there' to his suffering people. His pity is joined with power (Hebrews 4:15, 7:25). "Come boldly (says the text), μετὰ   παῤῥησίας, even with open mouth, to lay open your complaints, and you shall find grace and mercy to help in time of need. Men love to see themselves pitied by friends, though they cannot help them; Christ can and will do both." [Goodwin, Thomas (2015-06-04). The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth (Kindle Locations 1971-1973). Blue Letter Bible. Kindle Edition.]

A gem of Puritan pastoral theology that points God's suffering people to the sympathetic, love-filled heart of Christ. 

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: what it is

See here and here for parts one and two of this series that has been left hanging in the air for some months. 

Having ruled out several deficient ways of understanding the believer's election in Christ, Goodwin proceeds to give his positive exposition of the subject. 

1. Christ, the federal head of the elect 

The Puritan divine construes election in Christ in federal terms. He does not use the language of "federal headship" that is often found later Reformed theology, but his treatment has a distinct federal flavour. "Jesus Christ in election is head of the elect. He was from the first considered and ordained by God as a Common Person, to represent us." (p. 70, Exposition of Ephesians: Chapter 1 to 2:10). Goodwin draws an analogy between Adam and Christ. All humanity were created in Adam. As the first man (1 Corinthians 15:47), Adam acted in a representative capacity. "Thus in choosing Christ God looked on him as a Common Person, as a second Adam, and chose us in him." (p. 71). But the fact that elect were chosen in Christ as a 'Common Person' does not mean that God's people were not chosen individually and personally. "God did not choose in the general... he knoweth the very persons fully and particularly; yea and distinctly viewed them when he elected them. And notwithstanding he thus chose us as distinct persons from Christ, yet still our election is in Christ. (p. 71). 

It is because the Son of God was chosen as Head of the elect in eternity that he assumed our nature and came to redeem the people of God in the fullness of time. But even prior to the incarnation Christ acted as Mediator of the covenant of grace. He was a Common Person to the fathers under the Old Testament, forgiving their sins by virtue of the atonement he would one day perform on their behalf (p. 73). 

Election in Christ is the foundation of the covenant of grace. "And so a covenant was struck between God and us, through Christ's representing us, as the covenant of works was between God and us considered in Adam. And thence it is that Christ, by the prophet Isaiah is called 'our covenant'." (p. 75). That believer's election is in Christ guarantees they will  receive the blessings of the covenant. Goodwin cites Paul's words in 2 Timothy 1:9, 'the grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.' If God chose his people in themselves, the apostle could have written that he purposed to give them grace before the world began. But Paul says that grace was actually given to the elect in Christ Jesus, as he stands as a 'Common Person' representing his people who are chosen in him. "God in the act of choosing us gave us to Christ, and in giving us to Christ he chose us." (p. 74). 

2. The order of election 

According to Goodwin, Christ was chosen first, and we in him. "Jesus Christ was the Head of election, and of the elect of God; and so in order of nature first, though in order of time we were elected in him. In the womb of election he, the Head came out first, and then we, the members." (p. 74). Note that in saying that Christ was chosen first and we in him, Goodwin is careful to say that he is speaking of an order of nature rather than time. This is because the expositor is mindful that Paul teaches that we were chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4), which Goodwin takes to mean "from eternity" (p. 77). He reasons, "Before the world was there was nothing but eternity. If you look past the world, you put your head up into eternity." (p. 77). Goodwin tentatively construes Paul's words in a slightly supralapsarian sense, agreeing with those who understood the words "before the foundation of the world" to refer to the order of God's decrees, not simply to the act of creation. He sees this as a further evidence of God's love for his elect, that "he chose you before he purposed the world; he preferred you to all the world." (p. 78). The seventeenth century Puritan almost anticipates modern day multiverse theory saying, "Value God and his love more than all the world, though there were millions of them." (p. 79). This might seem like rather abstract theologizing, but as ever with the Puritans, Goodwin's  theology is put to practical use,

Fear not the ruin of kingdoms, not of the world, for your being depends not on either of them; God chose you before all worlds. Let kingdoms totter, and mountains be thrown in the midst of the sea, 'we have a kingdom that cannot be shaken,' Heb. xii.28. (p. 80).

3. Chosen in him

And so Thomas Goodwin offers a federal explanation of election in Christ. Jesus is not the meritorious cause of our election. God chose his people simply out of love and free grace. But neither is union with Christ merely the goal of election. The Puritan would not have agreed with the words of Louis Berkhof, that Christ was merely  'the mediate cause of the realisation of election' (see here). The elect were chosen in Christ as a Common Person, the second Adam, the Head of God's new humanity who cannot be considered, even in the predestinating decree of God apart from Christ or outside of Christ, "For God chose you in him; the being you had was in him before the world was." (p. 77). As Herman Bavinck put it,

It is not that Christ was thereby the ground and foundation of election; but the election of the church is the very first benefit bestowed on the church; and even this benefit already occurred in union with Christ, and above all it has its goal, not as its foundation, that all other benefits - rebirth, faith and so forth - will be imparted to the church by Christ. In this sense, then, the election of Christ logically precedes our own. (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, p. 404) 

Besides a certain "holy Baines" (p. 70) or "Mr. Baines" (p. 78) Goodwin refrains from citing sources for his views on election in Christ. But what he says is certainly in keeping with the teaching of John Calvin. Admittedly, Goodwin's highly developed federalist construction is not found in the Reformer, but Calvin insisted that we are not chosen in ourselves, to the end that we might be united to Christ, but we are loved and elected in him. Hence it is foolish, harmful and dangerous to contemplate election apart from Christ. He is the mirror of our election,

But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. (The Institutes of the Christian Religion III:24:5). 

Robert Letham, who  is critical of Berkhof's stance on election in Christ argues, "Thus, our entire salvation is received in Christ, election included. Union with Christ is existent at the point of our election in eternity." (The Work of Christ, Robert Letham, IVP, 1993, p. 55-56). Salvation is by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Prior to faith in Christ a person remains subject to the wrath of God upon their sin (Ephesians 2:3 cf. John 3:36). But the gift of faith itself is granted by virtue of the people of God being chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-4). Goodwin comments, "if all be given us in Christ, then faith also [is given us], as we are considered already chosen in Christ" (p. 66).

The Puritan expositor's Christocentric doctrine of election is grounded in sound biblical exegesis and is consistent with the best insights of Reformed theology. It is deeply pastoral, pointing the believer to Christ in whom we are chosen, rather than leaving us mystified and unsure in the face of God's inscrutable decree. Above all, Goodwin gives due honour to the God, who gave us grace in Christ Jesus before the world was made. He calls us to love the electing God more than a million worlds.

In the next and concluding post in this series I plan to consider what Goodwin has to say on God's purpose in electing his people in Christ. 

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: what it's not

Following the introductory post, we now delve right into Goodwin's exposition of Ephesians 1:4. As he opens up the text, the Puritan scholar first of all explains what is not meant by "chosen in him". This is a good place to start as election in Christ is often misunderstood. Only after having dealt with a number of misconceptions does our painstaking expositor give attention to the positive meaning of Paul's words. I won't go into all the ins and outs of Goodwin's engagement with what he takes be inadequate explanations of the text in question. Suffice to say that he is especially concerned to rule out the following  three lines of interpretation:

1. God did not choose people because he foreknew they would believe in Christ

The Arminian understanding of the verse says that God chooses people on the basis of foreknown faith in Christ. As we might expect, good Calvinist as he was, Goodwin objects to this construction. But he does so not on simply on the basis of cast iron Calvinistic logic, imposing his pre-packaged Reformed theology on the text. Rather he rejects to the Arminian view for sophisticated exegetical reasons. 

First  because it would mean that if God chooses on the basis of faith foreseen, then election is not of persons, but of graces. God did not choose propositions, 'He that believes shall be saved', but persons, 'chose us in him'. This admittedly isn't Goodwin's strongest argument. An Arminian might object that they teach that God chooses people who believe, not the faith of those who believe, but this is only the first point in a cumulatively persuasive case. 

Second, Goodwin brings contextual considerations into view. In Ephesians 1:3-4 Paul says that, 'God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ...according as he has chosen us in him'. If faith is one of the blessings that is bestowed upon us 'in Christ', then it cannot properly be said that God chose to save those whom he foreknew would believe in Christ. It is only because a person is already in Christ in some sense that he is blessed with the gift of faith. 

Third, Goodwin reflects on the fact that according to Paul in Ephesians 1:4, God chose us in Christ, 'that we should be holy and without blame before him'. He reasons that God did not choose his people because he foresaw their holiness. Rather, he chose them in order that they might be made holy. Faith, like holiness is a fruit of election, not its cause. Goodwin cites Acts 13:48. And so he thoughtfully refutes the traditional Arminian interpretation of Paul's words. 

2. God did not choose people because of what Christ would do for them

Next, Goodwin considers the proposal that the elect are chosen for the sake of Christ's merit. While it is true that we have 'redemption by his blood' (Ephesians 1:7), this is not the cause of our election. Scripture never suggests that this is the case. And as Goodwin points out, making Christ's passion the meritorious cause of election undermines the sovereign freedom of God's grace. The expositor refers to Ephesians 1:5, 'according to the good pleasure of his will'. Christ's merits are the cause of our salvation, but not the reason why God chose us to be saved. If grace was merited by Christ, then God was in some way obligated to save us. Goodwin rightly regards any such a construction 'a derogation from God's free grace'.  

Goodwin identifies this second view as belonging to 'Popish divines and interpreters'. But Charles Hodge comes dangerously close to this position in his commentary on Ephesians, saying, 'It was in Christ as their head and representative that they were chosen to holiness and eternal life, and, therefore in virtue of what he was to do on their behalf.' (emphasis added, p. 31, Baker, 1980 repr.) Similarly, Hendriksen argues that God was able to chose unworthy sinners because Christ would 'in their stead...satisfy all the requirements of the law'. (author's emphasis, p. 76, Banner 1990 repr.). But this is to put the cart of redemption before the horse of God's free and unconditional love for sinners. Hendriksen almost makes election a matter of divine justice rather than grace, which is plain contrary to 2 Timothy 1:9 etc.  

The Father did not need the Son to satisfy his justice to win his electing love for his people. Goodwin does not make this point, but his case is bolstered when we take the words "in love" at the end of Ephesians 1:4 together with "having predestined us" in Ephesians 1:5, "in love having predestined us" (cf. Romans 8:29). Scripture does not teach that God loved the world because his only begotten Son gave himself up to the cross for sinners. Rather, it is the other way round. God so loved the world that he have his only begotten Son (John 3:16). As John Murray writes, "It was in pursuance of electing love that God sent his Son into the world... in election there is the assurance that God loved sinners from eternity, that he loved sinners with such invincible love that he did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for them." (p. 127, Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume one, Banner of Truth, 1989 repr). 

Goodwin rightly saw that any suggestion that Christ's redemptive suffering was the meritorious cause of our election runs counter to the Bible's insistence on God's free and gracious love for sinners.  

3.  God did not chose people in order that they might be united to Christ 

Finally, Goodwin refutes the idea that what Paul means by 'chosen in him' is that God chose us in eternity in order that we might be united to Christ in the fullness of time. Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof rightly says that, 'Christ as Mediator is not the impelling, moving, or meritorious cause of election'. But he has not caught Paul's drift when he states that Christ is merely the 'mediate cause of the realisation of election.' (p. 114, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1984). As Goodwin insists, Paul did not write that God has chosen us to be in Christ, making union with Christ the goal, much less 'the mediate cause of the realisation of election'. The text simply says that we were chosen 'in him' before the foundation of the world. John Murray is one with Goodwin on this, "those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find "union with Christ"; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset." (p. 162, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Banner of Truth, 1979). 

Goodwin's exposition of election in Christ in Ephesians 1:4-5 not only excludes erroneous Arminian readings of the text. His careful exegesis of Paul's words and nuanced theological thinking also provide a necessary corrective to some defective explanations of election in Christ within the Reformed tradition. 

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: introduction

Those words, 'he hath chosen us in him' have bred more controversy than any so few words almost in the whole Bible and do therefore require some time to open them. (Thomas Goodwin, Exposition of Ephesians, p. 65).   

The other week I started a series of sermons on "Union with Christ". Beginning at the beginning, or even before the Beginning, the first message was on Ephesians 1:3-6, "Chosen in Christ". In the course of sermon prep I looked up several modern commentaries, (F.F. Bruce, NICNT, F. Foukles, Tyndale,  & J. R. W. Stott, BST), but none of them had anything much to say on election in Christ. So, I pulled Lloyd-Jones' God's Ultimate Purpose off the shelf and glanced through his sermon on Ephesians 1:4 entitled, Chosen in Him. The good Doctor has some helpful things to say about election and predestination in general, but, despite the title, did not expound what Paul meant by "chosen in him". In desperation I turned to Hendrickson, who at least discusses what "chosen in him means", but virtually makes Christ the meritorious cause of our election, which isn't quite right. Charles Hodge is better in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, explaining the phrase in terms of Christ's federal headship, but, again he veers towards saying that God chose us in virtue of what Christ would do for us. This undermines Scripture's witness to election as God's purely gratuitous and loving choice of his people. 

In this instance, works of systematic theology provided a better guide as to the meaning of Paul's words than the Bible commentators. John Murray's treatment of Ephesians 1:4 in Redemption Accomplished and Applied stuck in my mind from reading him some years back (see this post). It wasn't too long ago that I'd studied Herman Bavinck on The Divine Counsel in The Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2 (see here). Also, Oliver Crisp gives valuable attention to this matter in his God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (reviewed here). It only goes to show that simply relying on commentators in sermon prep can prove inadequate. Wider theological reading can really enrich our understanding of Scripture. But one commentator did not let me down. It was the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who, in his day was regarded as the "Greatest Pulpit Exegete of St. Paul". Reading him was like entering another world where deep theological reflection go hand in hand with a sustained and detailed exegesis of the text. You'll find his work on Ephesians 1:4 in his Exposition of Ephesians: Chapter 1 to 2:10. In a series of posts I hope to try and sketch out something of Goodwin's insightful teaching on election in Christ. 

2009 Westminster Conference

Calvin, Geneva & Revival

The Programme of the 2009 Puritan Conference:

Tuesday, 8th December, 2009
10.30 am - John Calvin’s agenda: Issues in the separation from Rome
Garry Williams
1.15 pm - Calvin as commentator and theologian
Don Carson
3.40 pm - 1859 - A Year of Grace
Stephen Clarke

Wednesday, 9th December, 2009
10.30 am - Elizabeth and Calvin
Robert Oliver
1.15 pm - Darwin Before and After
Ken Brownell
3.40 pm - The Moravians and Missionary passion
Bruce Jenkins

See website for more info and brochure.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Mark Jones

This is the sixth in our series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

Mark Jones

GD: Hello Mark Jones, and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

MJ: Thanks, Guy, for the chance to share something with your readers. I am 28 years old; I am married (five years to Barbara) and have two children (Katie [3] and Joshua [1]). Currently I am finishing up my PhD thesis on Thomas Goodwin’s Christology at Leiden University (hope to be done by May 09) and I also Pastor a PCA church in Vancouver, Canada. Other than that, I’m a huge Liverpool F.C fan!

GD: Your surname implies a Welsh origin. Are you a member of the great Welsh diaspora?

MJ: Unfortunately, I am not. My father was adopted, so the name is by adoption; I think I’m part Irish, but I try to keep that hidden, if possible ;)

GD: Ah well. Your can trust me with your Irish secret, I'm a Pastor. Your blog is called "Thomas Goodwin". What made you start blogging?

MJ: Crawford Gribben suggested to me that I start a blog devoted to Goodwin during the course of my PhD studies; he’s responsible, then.

GD: So he's to blame. What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

MJ: I’m not really an expert on blogs, but as far as I can tell there are basically two sorts: ones that share news and others which try to say something meaningful. On the whole, the “news sharers” are where I frequent most often, just to stay up-to-date on the latest news; the blogs, like my own, that try to say something meaningful (i.e. original thought) are made up of more bad than good, in my opinion. I think the weaknesses of blogs have been well-documented; all I will say, however, is that they can be an incredible waste of time for both the blogger and reader; I would hate to cause someone else to sin!

GD: Maybe we should call this to a halt right now. But then again, which blogs have you found most helpful?

MJ: I don’t really have any favourites; I do, however, enjoy reading anything Carl Trueman (see his Blogging in the name of the Lord interview here) writes at Reformation 21; he’s by far the most interesting of that gang!

GD: Why are you so drawn to the Puritan Thomas Goodwin?

MJ: Because he’s not John Owen! Actually, to be honest, it was Crawford’s fault; I was supposed to do my PhD under him at Manchester (until he decided to move to Trinity College) and he suggested Goodwin; I went for it and I haven’t regretted the decision at all. Goodwin hasn’t received the attention that Owen has in last ten years; I think in many ways Goodwin was Owen’s superior, not just in age!

GD: Goodwin was famously one of the five Indy "dissenting brethren" at the Westminster Assembly. Have his Independent views on Church government made you re-evaluate your Presbyterianism?

MJ: Actually, I’ve never been the most convinced Presbyterian; Presbyterians make Acts 15 say a lot more than it does – I hope no one from my Presbytery reads this – and then there are different types of Presbyterianism. I’m quite comfortable with the “Congregationalism” of the 17th Century, which is quite close to modern-day Presbyterianism. Modern-day “Congregationalism”, however, is not what I think Goodwin or Owen envisaged.

GD: Interesting answer. I tend to be olde Indy as in John Ownen's The True Nature of a Gospel Church - Works Volume 16) rather than new Congie. Right, what is Thomas Goodwin's distinctive contribution to Christology?

MJ: Hmmm ... you can read my book when it comes out next year in September! It would be hard to identify a “distinctive” contribution in Goodwin; I would say his understanding of the glory of Christ in both his divine and human natures, especially in light of Christ’s heavenly reward, is something that Goodwin devotes a lot of attention to in a way that brings out the richness of his Christology.

GD: Do you agree with Goodwin's exegesis of Ephesians 1:13 - that the sealing of the Spirit is a post-conversion experience of assurance?

MJ: No. I think Goodwin misinterpreted Eph. 1:13; part of the problem is the KJV translation; part of the problem was Sibbes influence; and part of the problem was Goodwin’s own conversion experience, I think.

GD: Do you accept Goodwin's view that the witness of the Spirit is the highest form of assurance, over and above faith in the promises and the evidence of grace in the heart (see here)?

MJ: Well, this is a complex issue in Goodwin; I commend to everyone Michael Horton’s study on Goodwin’s doctrine of assurance. Goodwin wrote: “I have come to this pass now that signs will do me no good alone; I have trusted too much in habitual grace for assurance of justification; I tell you Christ is worth all”. The subjective element of assurance had overshadowed the objective aspect in Goodwin’s day. I think he’s trying to bring a corrective here; but, I don’t think he succeeds because even the witness of the Spirit can be subjective. There’s lots to say on this issue, but I think Calvin basically got it right and Goodwin didn’t!

GD: I think it’s the other way round, but there we are. How would you advise a believer struggling with assurance of salvation?

MJ: As a Pastor, I know that every case must be judged on its own merits. That said, I think that the Scriptures are clear that the subjective and objective aspects of assurance are helpful. I think the Psalms need to be read and re-read; it’s amazing how often the Psalms will speak to our spiritual state in a way that no other portion of Scripture does. Plus, singing the Psalms leaves a Christian with little doubt which side he/she is on! Prayer, too, is immensely helpful in terms of assurance. But, Goodwin is right; Christ is worth all; and so I would say the objective work of Christ must be uppermost in one’s heart and mind.

GD: What do contemporary Evangelicals have to learn from the Puritans regarding the danger of identifying a political party or cause with the kingdom of God?

MJ: I think we need to be careful with our eschatology; the Puritans, Goodwin especially, had horrible eschatology. Goodwin thought he was living on the verge of eschatological glory (1650-1700s); he thus interpreted a lot of the political events in light of the book of Revelation. A lot of the madness among certain evangelicals today is basically a re-run of the seventeenth century, most of them just don’t know it! In light of history, we need to be very cautious with our ideas of how politics relate to the kingdom of God.

GD: Wise words. Now, if time travel were possible, which figure in post-biblical church history would you like to meet (apart from Goodwin!), and what would you say to him?

MJ: Wow, what a question. I think I’d like to meet George Whitefield and ask him to preach! He must be one of the greatest preachers who has ever lived.

GD: No arguments there. The great Puritan preachers like Thomas Goodwin and John Owen were pastor-theologians. Today, the Reformed churches are blessed with theologians and pastors, but there seem to be few pastor-theologians. What can be done to rectify this?

MJ: Owen and Goodwin were operating with incredible “hard drives”. I really don’t like the present understanding that the scholars in the Seminaries are the experts! Seminary profs are like warm-up drivers; Pastors are the ones who do the formula one racing; the best theologians in the church, historically, have been Pastors. The problem is that for Pastors it is so incredibly hard to keep up-to-date with all the relevant scholarship. I don’t know how some of these Pastors write so many books AND care for their flock. Of course, if one is simply a “Teaching Pastor” (though, I don’t understand how anyone can really preach effectively to their congregation if they don’t know them) then it may be possible to be a Pastor-Theologian. So, I guess my answer is that maybe we should get rid of Seminaries ... but that’s perhaps too bold an idea!

GD: Maybe. Now, you recently advised your readers, "Master at least one systematician; but if you decide to take my advice, I would say that Bavinck's your man!" Why is Bavinck the best for systematic theology?

MJ: I think Bavinck combines systematics with historical theology better than anyone. He’s not always exegetically rigorous, but he gives you a good sweep of the history of doctrine. I like being able to read ST and HT in one go! Saves me time.

GD: There is no doubt lots of time to be saved reading by Bavinck’s four volume dogmatics. Who is your favourite contemporary Reformed theologian?

MJ: I think Richard Gaffin is probably the best Reformed theologian we have right now; he’s influenced me a lot; the Reformed world is lacking high calibre systematicians; where are the Warfield’s or the Hodge’s? I really enjoy Carl Trueman’s work, too. But he’s a historian, not really a theologian.

GD: I’ve a lot of respect for Gaffin’s rich exegetical approach to theology. With him you don’t just get a dollop of doctrine followed by a string of proof texts. Trueman is a very stimulating and provocative church historian. What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

MJ: I’ll go for two: Goodwin’s “The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth” is one of the very best books I’ve ever read; it really is a “must-read”, and I don’t say that lightly. What amazing Christology; and Goodwin combines rich theology with pastoral care for his readers. I also think that Willem van Asselt’s book on Cocceius is probably the best book I’ve ever read in the field of Historical Theology. His book has an uncanny ability to humble anyone in the field of HT. It was worth the $200 I paid!

GD: Care to name your top three songs or pieces of music (not necessarily Christian)?

MJ: I like African music (Johnny Clegg and Savuka) because of my African roots (I was born in South Africa). Other than that, I really like listening to my congregation sing, especially when they sing Acapella; there’s nothing better than hearing human voices praise God.

GD: What is the biggest problem facing Reformed Evangelicalism at this time and how should we respond?

MJ: Our preaching is boring; I’m a huge fan of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his view of preaching; we’ve become too academic and so many Reformed “sermons” are lectures. We are also very bad at application; many of our preachers couldn’t convict a fly. We need to pray that God will raise up great preachers, not young Reformed guys who know their so-called “five-points”.

GD: Amen to that, brother! And thanks, Mark for dropping by for this enjoyable conversation.

Only one more Blogging in the name of the Lord interview to go in this set. Who will grace the hot seat for the series grand finale? You'll have to wait and see....

Thomas Goodwin's perspective on assurance of salvation

Thomas Goodwin's teaching on assurance of salvation might be helpfully to analysed using John Frame's tri-perspectival approach to theology. For Goodwin, there are three aspects to assurance of salvation: 1) Faith in the promise of the gospel. 2) The testimony of grace- transformed life. 3) The direct witness of the Spirit.

The first point corresponds to John Frame's normative perspective. Saving faith places its trust in the authoritative promise of God found in Scripture, the 'norming norm'. The second point is in the realm of the situational perspective. With grace in his heart, the believer seeks to practice the gospel in every given situation. The third point brings in the existential perspective. It is about the believer's experience of the direct and personal witness of the Spirit, assuring him that he is a child of God.

Now, as Frame insists, while his three perspectives may be distinguished, they should not be divided. So with assurance, a profession of faith alone, apart from a changed life is no basis for assurance. Faith without works is dead. On the other hand, to focus on searching for grace in the heart, while loosing sight of the objective promise of salvation in Christ, is introspective and dangerous. We must also say that the Spirit will not give experiential assurance to those without genuine faith that works by love. All three perspectives must therefore be brought into play when seeking assurance of salvation, the normative - faith in Christ. The situational - the evidence of new life. And the existential - the witness of the Spirit. Yet, as assurance is about Christian experience, the most vital aspect is the direct witness of the Spirit, Romans 8:15-16.

Westminster Confession of Faith XVIII:II

"This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;but an infallible assurance of 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."

For more on Goodwin and assurance see my Thomas Goodwin: His Life, Times, and Quest for Assurance, under Articles About Goodwin, here.