Assurance: The Calvin—Puritan Distinction

There is no question that a difference in emphasis exists between the Reformers and the English and New England Puritans over the question of assurance. The Reformed tradition in Europe, in agreement with Calvin's exegesis, argued that assurance is the essence of faith. In other words, to trust in Christ is to have the assurance that "there is therefore now no condemnation." If saving faith is more than the conviction that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, but that he did this for me, then that conviction is synonymous with assurance. To trust in Christ alone for salvation is to be assured that he will fulfill his promise. If we are not assured, we are not trusting.

Of course, this was never to suggest that assurance is complete, any more than faith. Our faith and assurance may be weak, sometimes barely distinguishable, but it is impossible to truly exercise a justifying faith that does not contain the assurance that Christ's saving work has guaranteed what has been promised in one's own case.

In the Puritan context, however, the Reformed doctrine of assurance underwent a slight shift in emphasis. The Reformation had been a biblical response primarily to legalism, as justification in the medieval church was confused with sanctification and assurance was impossible because being rightly related to God depended on whether one cooperated with grace from day to day. The Reformers rightly emphasized the objective character of the gospel: Christ crucified outside of my own personal experience and behavior, two thousand years ago, as a once-and-for-all satisfaction of divine justice in my place. But before a generation passed, there were those who had embraced the Reformation because they saw in it an opportunity to be saved by what we today might call "easy-believism." All they had to do was assent to the teachings of the Reformed or the Lutheran churches, just as they had to the Roman church, and they could be "safe and secure from all alarm." Although the Reformers protested that this was merely "devil's faith," the stuff of which hypocrites were made, it seemed that the profession of these growing ranks of hypocrites risked proving Rome's point, that the evangelical doctrine promotes license and presumption.

It was in this setting that the English Puritans pastored, convinced that the believer's inner life, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the concerns of piety had been almost abandoned by those who, in fleeing Rome for the Reformation, had merely leaped from the frying pan into the fire. Even though the Puritans shared an identical theological system with the Reformed on the continent of Europe, the former insisted that it is a mistake to say that assurance is of the essence of faith. In one case, it encourages presumption among the hypocrites who think they are justified even though there are no fruits; in the other, it creates anxiety among those who, instead of worrying about whether they have enough works, are now wondering if they have enough assurance! Calvin insisted that it is not the degree of faith or assurance that secured justification, but even the weakest grasp of faith, like the father of the demon-possessed son, who replied to Christ's invitation to believe with moving honesty: "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). Nevertheless, the pastoral setting provided for a variety of applications and Puritanism on this score was a deviation, not from the theology of the Reformation, but from the practical pastoral counsel on the matter of assurance. For instance, few leaders from the Continental Reformed side of the assurance question were as intimately associated with the English Puritans as Zacharias Ursinus (1534—83), principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism. And yet, Ursinus, following Calvin's line, argued from a number of texts, "No man can indeed know, or judge with certainty from second causes [i.e., the fruit of conversion], or from events whether good or evil; for the external condition of men furnishes no safe criterion either of the favor or disapprobation of God....We may therefore be ignorant of our salvation, as far as it is dependent upon second causes, but we may know it in as far as God is pleased to reveal it unto us by His Word and Spirit."

This did not mean that one could not use evidences of true conversion to support one's assurance; nor did it mean that one could never be without such evidences. Even in committing great sinful acts, the truly converted man or woman is sorrowful and repentant. Nevertheless, it is always dangerous to build one's assurance on a foundation of works, even though one denies the place of works in justification.

As the Heidelberg Catechism is the most important representative document from the Continental consensus, so the Westminster Confession and Catechisms is the principal document from the Puritan and Presbyterian side of the assurance question. Again, this is not a matter of doctrine so much as of practical pastoral application of doctrine. Nevertheless, the shift from warning believers against introspection in an effort to discern evidences to encouraging it was very important practically. If assurance is not of the essence of saving faith, and it can be lost because of sin, sensitive persons will inevitably scrape their consciences raw until they find clues and, as Calvin warned, there will be no satisfaction with evidences; there will never be enough to secure the soul's confidence.

— Michael Horton, "Christ Crucified between Two Thieves," Christ the Lord (The Reformation and Lordship Salvation), ed. Michael Horton (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1992), 132—134 (italics original).

.....

It must be  remembered, however, that Puritanism was a diverse movement. The leading figures—Perkins, Owen, Ames, Goodwin, Sibbes, and Hooker, were Reformed pastors who simply wanted to breathe new life into "dead orthodoxy," by showing how the objective work of Christ for us related to the subjective work of Christ in us...For the Reformers, and for the better Puritans, the accent fell on judicial verdict, not moral renewal, although both were clearly taught as inseparable acts of God.

— ibid., 140—141.

Calvin on "Lordship Salvation"

The Reformers regarded the doctrine of justification as the cardo (Latin for "hinge") upon which the whole of Christian doctrine hangs. It is the cardinal doctrine based on the words of the Apsotle Paul, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). So a sinner is justified before God by grace, through faith in Christ.

Now faith consists of three elements: notitia (knowledge of the objective person and work of Christ in the economy of redemption), assensus (belief that these objective facts are true), and fiducia (trusting personally in the efficacy and sufficiency of Christ and His work). These three work together to form the content of saving faith. Remove "fiducia" and you get the Hodges/Ryrie/Stanley formula for antinomian, semi-Pelagian, "free grace" faith, wherein assent to fact is all that's needed to be justified (Lose your faith down the line? No worries. A one-time expression of belief is the sole requirement for salvation. But heavenly rewards? You need lots of good works for that!). On the other hand, replace "fiducia" with "the determination of the will to obey truth" (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 173) and you get JMac's semi-legalistic, works-based faith. It is clear that the former kind of faith best describes the Apostle James' "devil's faith", warranting no further exposition here, while the latter expression confuses justification with sanctification, something which I believe merits discussion.

Christ's 33 years of life and subsequent death earned for His elect both justification and sanctification. The sinner who puts faith in Christ is justified in the sight of God by virtue of Christ's active and passive obedience; the former fulfilling for him the requirement of perfect holiness/obedience and the latter appeasing the wrath of God. But what of personal obedience and good works? If sanctification is the domain of these two, wherein the Christian is conformed more and more into the likeness of Christ through the Holy Spirit, can a person who appears to lack personal holiness have the assurance of salvation?

Firstly, it must be asserted that the elect, by virtue of union with Christ, must by necessity be justified and sanctified. In other words, sanctification always flows from justification, but they are distinct. This distinction is no small point to make for on it hangs the issue of assurance. Michael Horton states, referring to the "lordship salvation" debate between Hodges and JMac, "This question of assurance is at the root of the present controversy. After all, it is not enough to be saved by grace. We must also have assurance that we are saved by grace" (Christ the Lord, p. 51). Secondly, given this distinction, it is apparent that assurance is chiefly concerned with justification—with the question of "Has my faith really saved me?" Given the Reformed definition of faith above, it can be seen that the nature of saving faith is objective and outward-oriented. It is not one's faith per se that saves, but Christ upon whom this faith rests.

So then, is assurance of salvation grounded on faith itself or on the fruits of faith (obedience and good works)? I will let John Calvin give the answer:

Now if we ask in what way the conscience can be made quiet before God, we shall find the only way to be that unmerited righteousness be conferred upon us as a gift of God. Let us ever bear in mind Solomon's question: "Who will say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" [Prov. 20:9]. Surely there is no one who is not sunken in infinite filth! Let even the most perfect man descend into his conscience and call his deeds to account, what then will be the outcome for him? Will he sweetly rest as if all things were well composed between him and God and not, rather, be torn by dire torments, since if he judged by works, he will feel grounds for condemnation within himself? The conscience, if it looks to God, must either have sure peace with his judgment or be besieged by the terrors of hell. Therefore we profit nothing in discussing righteousness unless we establish a righteousness so steadfast that it can support our soul in the judgment of God....For no one can ever confidently trust in it [one's obedience—M.H.] because no one will ever come to be really convinced in his own mind that he has satisfied the law, as surely no one ever fully satisfied it through works....First, then, doubt would enter the minds of all men, and at length despair, while each one reckoned for himself how great a weight of debt still pressed upon him, and how far away he was from the condition laid down for him. See faith already oppressed and extinguished!...Therefore, on this point [assurance—M.H.] we must establish, and as it were, deeply fix all our hope, paying no regard to our works, to seek any help from them...For, as regards justification, faith is something merely passive, bringing nothing of ours [not even repentance and a determination of the will to obey—M.H.] to the recovering of God's favor but receiving from Christ that which we lack (Institutes, 3.13.3—5, cited in Michael Horton, Christ the Lord, p. 52—53).