Search for Assurance - Part 2

In this part I want to muse a bit on a three-way approach to the issue of assurance that is very common. I can guarantee that just about any book or sermon that touches on assurance will refer to one, two or all three of these facets (This clip is a typical example that refers to them all). I will outline each one briefly and give some personal reflections on each.

1. The Promises of Scripture.

This approach emphasises the promises made about salvation in scripture. Some examples would be John 3:16, John 5:24, John 6:37, Acts 10:43, Romans 10:13, Ephesians 1:7, 1 John 1:9 & Revelation 21:6. Integral to this is also the objective work of Christ on the cross and trusting that he died for you.

The reasoning then follows

1. I believe and trust in Jesus

2. I must be saved

I appreciate the strength in this approach. However, there are some problems with it. Scripture makes clear that head faith is not enough. James infamously says ‘You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless.’ (James 2:19-20) In addition to this are Jesus’ terrifying words ‘Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23). It would seem than that simply resting in the promises is not enough to produce assurance.

As well as this, I personally have difficulty in trusting in the work of Christ because I am sometimes a little confused as to what exactly he achieved there. To quote the Tim Hughes song “I’ll never know how much it cost, to see my sin upon that cross.” The question is, was my sin upon that cross? Again, this is where theological confusion comes in (see Part 1). I have done a fair amount of reading on penal substitutionary atonement (the doctrine that states that Jesus bore the punishment for our sins on the cross) and I’ve even written an essay assessing the main objections to it. Despite the shrill philosophical arguments and more sophisticated biblical arguments against it, I still reckon it is there in scripture, in some form or another. Still, I don’t have absolute confidence about it. This is ironic when considering the fact that a lot of people reject this atonement model first and foremost because they don’t like it (rather than on biblical grounds). With me though, I have no moral objections to it - indeed, it seems pretty good news if Jesus has paid the penalty for all my sins. However, it is the scriptural arguments that make me uncertain.

2. Evidences of Sanctification

This second approach to assurance calls for an examination of one’s own life to see the fruits of repentance and change. Often the book of 1 John is quoted hear as containing a series of ‘tests’ by which you may know you have eternal life. Referring back to my ‘rant’ in part one, you will find many shrill sermons online which involve slamming this book on a congregation, accompanied by the exhortation from 2 Corinthians 13:5 “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith” (quoted quite out of context, of course).

I have my reservations about some of the ways this interpretation of 1 John manifests itself. After all, John’s reason for writing is so that his readers might know that they have eternal life (5:13). He does not say ‘Your church is full of false Christians so I am writing this letter for you to all individually scrutinize your lives against’. He already seems quite sure of their eternal status (2:12-14). In fact, it is highly likely that his audience had been infiltrated by a group of gnostic false teachers. After failing to win the church over, the gnostics seem to have left, perhaps in a judgemental manner (2:19). Seeing as the Christians would have been shaken by this, John is writing to reassure them that they are in fact the real deal.

That said, there is no doubt that John talks a lot about things that characterise Christians and that it is by such things that ‘we know that we know him’. Christians

- Obey Christ’s commandments (1 John 2:3-6).

- Love one another (1 John 3:14).

- Don’t make a practice of sinning (1 John 3:6)

- Don’t love the world (1 John 2:15).

I certainly understand sentiment here, and that these are things that ought to characterise a Christian’s life. However, I fail to see how these can be the basis of assurance for myself or anyone. Sure, I have a certain amount of obedience to Christ’s commands, though I often fail to live up to them (by the standards of the sermon on the mount anyway). Similarly, there are times when I show love and care towards Christians, but there are still many times when I fail. Again with sinning, I don’t commit that many bad and obvious sins, but when you take into account sins of thought and omission you might well say that I practice sin. As for loving the world, it seems that preachers seem to interpret the word ‘world’ to suit whatever they have a pet peeve against. What constitutes loving the world? Watching TV? Going to the pub? Owning apple products?

It’s not just that I have trouble trying to confidently see these things in my life. Is there anyone who can honestly look at their life and say “yep, I’m obeying all the commandments, yep, I’m loving all my brethren, yep, I’m not sinning” ? With the exception of some whack job arminian sinless perfection folks (who are in my opinion self deceived) I don’t think anyone can say that. The best anyone can say is surely “I’m striving to love and obey and put sin to death and I’m making progress but still stumbling”.

Thus I’m really unsure about relying on these ‘Tests of life’ (as they have been called) from 1 John to produce assurance. The answers are always going to be somewhat subjective. I think maybe Calvin had a good take on this one (more on that in Part 3).

There is another personal comment to make on the whole changed life approach. Having grown up in a Christian family, and come to faith quite slowly (and never really rebelled), it’s very difficult to point back and say ‘I was once this horrible person but now Jesus has saved me’. The majority of the values I hold today I have always been encouraged to practice for as long as I can remember.

3. The Witness of the Holy Spirit.

I touched upon this in Part 1 and there is no doubt that the New Testament often speaks about the Holy Spirit in relation to matters of Assurance. The witness of the Spirit is eluded to in passages such as Romans 8:16 and Galatians 4:6. Different people have different takes on what the witness of the Spirit is but for now, I want to focus on the view that sees it as some kind of existential sense within oneself. This seems to have been the view of John Wesley (and subsequent Methodists). He famously had an experience at a church on Aldersgate Street in 1738 where the preface to Luther’s commentary on Romans was being read. He recalls

“I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”

What I find interesting is the claim (made by some) that Wesley was not saved up until this point, despite years of Christian service. This presumably means that God ignored him for all that time.

This short article (from a magazine which name goes all the way back to Wesley) summarises this position on assurance nicely. According to the writer, you cannot have assurance until you have had this Holy Spirit experience. He even says that lack of it is evidence that you are not right with God. This is similar to a brief conversation I once had with the bible teacher David Pawson. On asking him about assurance, he told me that I won’t get any assurance until I have been filled with the Spirit.

The immediate problem for me here is that I have never had this kind of experience. I have prayed for it (in fact, I do on an almost daily basis) but it does not occur. If this witness of the Spirit is so key to salvation then I can only conclude that God has shunned and rejected me. Of course, the hard line reply here is “Have you repented of every known sin?” which just sends one into morbid introspection. Anyway, I thought you couldn’t put sin to death without the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:13b)?

However, I do have my doubts that this subjective experience is really so crucial. I think there is surely a danger in attaching something so important to a fluctuating experience that can be so easily confused with emotions. It is no wonder that Wesley and co were accused of “enthusiasm”.

So this three legged stool doesn’t seem all that supporting or helpful for me at all in my search for assurance. Where do I go from here? What hope do I have? Why do I indeed still call myself a Christian? I will explore these questions in Part 3.