The Ethics of Assurance

William L Hendricks

14 years ago

The Ethics of Assurance
By William L. Hendricks

Dr. William L. Hendricks is Director of the Chair of Baptist Studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. He has been Professor of Theology at Southwestern, Golden Gate, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminaries.

Justification and Sanctification
Sanctification First and Foremost
Justification and Sanctification Concomitant
Justification First-Sanctification Follows
Justification Only=Universalism
The Ethical Implications of Christian Assurance
Endnotes

A major purpose of Christian faith communities is to announce the good news of the gospel. Closely related to this purpose is to provide instruction and guidance in living the Christian life. An essential part of Christian instruction is to lay out guidelines for Christian living and to provide assurance of God`s acceptance to the believer. In various times and in different ways Christian communities have answered the matter of assurance giving. I would like to explore four of the ways and some variations Christian communities have sought to assure believers of their salvation. Then, it will be helpful to ask about the ethical implications of these answers to the problem of Christian assurance.

Justification and Sanctification

One way of outlining the problem of Christian assurance is to relate two of the principal doctrines of the Christian life, Justification and Sanctification.

Justification may be defined as "the gracious action of God accepting persons as righteous in consequence of faith resting upon His redemptive activity in Christ."1

Justification involves amnesty, God`s declaration "announcing a new day when past failures are put away, debts and liabilities canceled, and guilt removed from those who otherwise must pay the price." (Kasemann)2 Justification is related to the idea of righteousness, God`s righteousness and the righteousness of humans seen through Christ. Justification in the New Testament is associated primarily with Paul. Whereas Justification is a declarative act of God, it is also warmly relational and it "begins a process of moral transformation associated with union with Christ that will ultimately reach its goal in the final homecoming of the people of God at the last day (Gal. 5:4; Phil. 1:11)."3 My one word definition of Justification is acceptance. When we accept God`s acceptance of us in Jesus Christ, the Christian journey begins. We are justified.

The term Sanctification, the Gemini twin of Justification, grows out of the elemental word of holiness. As God is holy; so God`s people are expected to be holy (Lev. 11:44). "The way of holiness follows God by imitation (Eph. 4:24)…believers are called to be saints (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 3:12)…Christians are to yield themselves to the righteousness of God for their sanctification to continue (Rom. 6:19-22)…(it) is the work within them of the Holy Spirit…"4

I define Sanctification as being set apart to a Holy God and gradually becoming like the God to whom we are set apart. This process, too, starts at the beginning of the Christian life. My one word definition for Sanctification is striving-striving to be like God with God`s help.

There has been much discussion as to how Justification and Sanctification are related in the Christian pilgrimage. The following chart is, admittedly, a simplification, but it will provide us with some paradigms significant for Christian assurance.

Let me explore, in a few paragraphs, the perspective of each of these ways and see how they relate to Christian assurance.

Sanctification First and Foremost

The major question of Christian assurance is how do I know God has accepted me and has secured my salvation? This is an intensely personal and all important question. Some interpreters of Paul have suggested that the sanctification first and foremost position is exemplified by the legalistic view of Saul the Pharisee.5 There were 614 requirements in the Mosaic law. There was a full set of prescriptions, handed down orally about each of these. The informed, conscientious Pharisee, such as Paul, knew these numerous requirements. The pre-conversion answer of Saul/Paul to the question as to how one could know for certain about God`s acceptance was: by keeping the law-all of the laws of God perfectly. Perhaps Romans 7 reflects this view. Romans 7:24 is surely the despairing cry of all legalist-perfectionists. People holding this view, and there is a residue of perfectionism in all compulsive-type people, can never do enough or be good enough to be fully accepted. Assurance of God`s acceptance is for many, at some time or another, a vexing problem. Can we ever have a clear conscience? Probably not. But Reinhold Niebuhr reminds us that we can have a consoled conscience.

The pre-reformation idea that the church could sell indulgences was a shameful success based on the anxiety about the state of the soul, one`s own and that of loved ones. The medieval idea, against which Luther rebelled, was that for remuneration the clergy could discern who was and who was not still in purgatory. In the hands of some greedy and self serving persons this system was a financial windfall. It was a terrible downfall for indigent Christians and faithful, unquestioning believers.6 The ethical dilemmas of such a belief should be obvious, but I will point them out in the concluding section. It should likewise be noted that this system and ideology is no longer an official teaching of the Roman Catholic church. It is an ethical impropriety for Protestants, including Baptists, to assert that it is.

Perhaps the most persistent example of assurance by stages in modern society is Scientology. The practice of "clearing" a Scientology initiate is, in many ways analogous to the Medieval practice of indulgences. According to the teachings of Scientology the engrams, encoded remembrances in the brain, can be erased or cleared by a "cleared" Scientologist using an e-meter while interrogating an initiate. According to the testimonies of some Scientology initiates this is a costly process and one is not cleared, justified, until adequate paid sessions have been accomplished. To non Scientologists this practice seems a return to the Medieval concept of selling indulgences.7

Sanctification first and foremost, the way of legalism is to earn divine favor. It seems one can never do enough to be accepted by God. In such a view assurance is not really possible. One can never pay enough. It is the religious version of the company store. One is always paying out. There is never anything left over.

Justification and Sanctification Concomitant

A second way justification and sanctification are related is that they are concomitant. This means that you are justified to the intent you are sanctified and vice versa. If there are no evidences of the Christian life you cannot be justified and you have not had salvation or you have lost your salvation because you did not accomplish evidences of the Christian life. This is the perspective of Roman Catholicism. Baptists refer to this as falling from grace. In this perspective assurance is a tenuous condition that is always in peril of being taken away.

Other concomitant perspectives that see the individual justified to the extent that one is sanctified are those of John Wesley and traditions growing out of Methodism. The idea of these groups is that the church cannot give a definitive, life-long guarantee of Christian assurance. By intentional sinning and laxness of Christian morality persons may fall from grace. Justification is not fully effective unless Sanctification is appropriately accomplished.8 For some Wesleyans, Christian perfection is to be accomplished in this life. Right wing holiness groups see perfection happening by a second instantaneous work of Sanctification accomplished in the believer by the Holy Spirit.9 The difficulty with this view is that it leads to a narrow definition of sin. If people are permitted to define sin as a few counter-cultural actions (drinking, smoking, dancing, etc) as the essence of sin, then obviously they can live "without sin." The fallacy of such a view is that sin is a deeper disposition of the human condition. It affects all of life-attitude as well as action.

Justification First-Sanctification Follows

The classical Protestant position of the magisterial reformers is that first believers must be justified, be aware that they are accepted by God; then they are sanctified which is the journey of striving with God`s help to be like God. The argument is that believers must first know of God`s acceptance and God`s power in assisting the believer before the believer can have the assurance and help necessary for living a growing Christian life. This is the Protestant view shared by Lutherans, the Reformed or Presbyterians, and Baptists.10

This position affirms that the salvation of humankind lies with God, who enables belief and who holds believers in faith and assists by the work of the Holy Spirit in producing appropriate Christian conduct. The true believer cannot fall away from the grace of God, for God`s holding power is stronger than human rebellion. Two parenthetical problems have arisen because of this perspective that justification comes first and then sanctification follows.

Antinomianism. If God completely justifies and accepts humans in Christ, and if their faith is God`s gift and cannot be invalidated, then does it really matter how the believers live? If grace overcomes law (nomos), cannot the believer be (anti-nomos) against law and not fear any legal repercussions while living luxuriantly in God`s acceptance? Such an extreme perspective is called antinomianism and if taken to its logical conclusion it would be ruinous to Christian morality. Despite some extreme statements, Luther did not advocate such a view, although there were controversies in early Lutheranism which grew out of antinomian tendences.11

Calvin and Assurance. It is surprising that Calvin discusses sanctification before justification. In Book III of the Institutes he speaks first of the secret working of the Holy Spirit (Chapter I) in affecting our regeneration by faith (Chapter II). After some polemical remarks (Chapters II-V) Calvin turns to the life of the Christian (Chapter VI) which consists of self denial (Chapter VII), bearing the cross (Chapter VIII) and meditation on the future life (Chapter IX). Only then does Clavin take up justification (Chapter XI-XX) and finally come to the doctrine of predestination (Chapter XXI-XXV).12

Calvin gives strong emphasis to Christian assurance which is made possible wholly by God`s Spirit when by faith believers deny themselves, bear the cross, and set their goal on the future. Prayer is the verification of faith. So good so far! Calvin`s eloquence in commanding assurance to sanctified Christian living is among the most edifying in all Christian literature.13

The Cold Comfort of Calvinism. It is in Calvin`s discussion of justification and election that he seems to take back with one hand the assurance he gave with the other, in the section on sanctification. Moreover, there is no mistaking that God`s justification of the unrighteous is central to Calvin`s system.14 Moreover, behind both the imputed righteousness of God and the Holy Spirit`s work of regeneration in the elect stands Calvin`s doctrine of double decrees election itself. I would argue that in Calvin`s doctrine of predestination and double-decree doctrine of election Calvin removes the possibility of Christian assurance in the present life. Calvin`s doctrines of both sanctification and justification are thoroughly theocentric, sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit. Justification is the declaration of God. Both are because of Christ and happen through Christ`s vicarious death. Whereas, this theocentric emphasis seems extreme, leaving the will and freedom of humans out of consideration, these views would not necessarily rule out Christian assurance.

But the death knell to positive Christian assurance in Calvin is his teaching that humans cannot know who is and who is not elect.15 We cannot enter into God`s secrets. It is impious to want to. Faith is supposed to be "a sufficient witness to our salvation…it would be a horrible sacrilege to seek a higher assurance…."16

If double predestination is the means of God`s dealings with humanity and if we cannot know who is and who is not elect, then all of the comfort offered to Christians in Calvin`s section on regeneration and justification is cold comfort indeed.

Justification Only=Universalism

Universalism is the belief that all persons everywhere and in all times are justified by Christ whether they know it or not and whether they accept it or not. This view is as old as Origen17 and as recent as Nels F.S. Ferre18 and Ethelbert Staufer.

In such a view there is no intrinsic reason for sanctification, good works, or the moral life except for their own inherent rewards. There is no ethical ought in universalism. There are two great twentieth century theologians who espouse incipient universalism: Karl Barth,19 in the first half of the twentieth century and Jurgen Moltmann20 in the second half of the twentieth century. However, both deny that they are universalists. Barth denies universalism on the premise that he cannot tell God that God must save everyone.21 Moltmann responds to the question about universalism by the cryptic comment that he, Moltmann, may be a universalist but That God is not.22 If all are saved what is the basis of Ethics? Barth`s response is that we do good out of gratitude to God for God`s gracious salvation in Christ.

The Ethical Implications of Christian Assurance

How is confidence in Divine acceptance, the possession of a consoled conscience, and the steadfast hope of eternal felicity obtained? The answers drawn from the foregoing discussion range as follow: (1) one never can do enough to obtain them although one must strive earnestly and constantly to do so-legalism; (2) assurance is the gift of God, but may be lost dependent upon one`s actions-an insecure path; (3) assurance is the gift of God in tandem with human effort and cannot be lost-most classical Protestantism including Baptists; (4) because we are justified we need not worry about our actions-antinomianism; (5) because we cannot discern who is elect and who is not, we cannot finally have assurance in this life-Calvin; (6) God accepts all automatically so assurance is automatically available-universalism.

Who or what are the purveyors of Christian assurance? The answer to this question is multiple and mixed. For many Christians, assurance rests on filling divine requirements, or those of a religious guru, or those of an ecclesiastical system, or those of a demanding minister.

For others Christian assurance rests on certain interpretations of Scripture, prescribed religious feelings or emotions, or the pronouncements of assurance by ecclesiastical representatives. In reality and for the most part, Christian assurance is related to all of the above.

Certain ethical questions may be asked about the pluriform sources and purveyors of Christian assurance as these may range across the suggested relationships of justification and sanctification, the two doctrines of the Christian life that have traditionally been the flash points of Christian assurance. I will mention three questions.

1.Is it appropriate for ecclesiastical institutions or individuals representing the churches, (or God, or the Bible) to use the insecurities of laity, especially those who are less able or less informed, to obtain profit or privilege for themselves? My response is that such is an ethical impropriety. I am not referring to blatant examples in times past, such as crass medieval indulgences. What of the money raising schemes of televangelists and the electronic church? Just as germane are the more subtle inducements and endowments of pastors who use their places of spiritual influence to receive personal gain for assurances given. Knowing when and how to "rebuke sin," tread on toes, or provide confident words, or purvey indulgent reassurances to special persons are areas needing the constant exploration of sensitive clergy consciences. The answers to this dilemma are varied and, it seems to me, constantly in need of attention if ministers are to have the confidence of their calling and to act ethically in speaking about Christian assurance.

2.How can the religious communities of all of the perspectives represented above hold in balance the following elements necessary to an authentic understanding of Christian assurance?

The command of God, how it is perceived; how it
is interpreted.

The desirability of Christian moral codes and action.

The need of the human community for divine acceptance and assurance.

The promise of the Gospel and the life styles which best represent its fruits.

The avoidance of giving too easy an assurance, cheap grace, versus requiring too much which leads to the dynamics of despair.

3.Where does the final arbitration for vouchsafing Christian assurance lie?

With God, particularly the Holy Spirit?

With Scripture as expressing the word and will of God?

With the Church as the colony of God on earth?

With the ministry as the called representatives of God?

With the individual and that person`s own internal psycho-spiritual makeup?

How do these inter-relate and how are they brought to bear in the lives of the people of God There are more than a life time of ethical decisions to be determined in the arena and application of Christian assurance.

The next time the reader sings or hears the Gospel song, "Blessed Assurance," here are some things to think about.

Endnotes

1 See Vincent Taylor quoted by Ralph Martin, "Justification" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. by Bruce M. Metgger and Michael Coogan. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 405-06.

2 Ibid., p. 406.

3 Ibid.

4 Geofrey Wainwright "Holiness," The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 268.

5 See H.J. Schoeps, Paul the Apostle. Trans by Harold Knight, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 24-50, for a discussion of Paul`s view of the law. Schoeps and others (Sandmel) suggest that Paul`s legalism was not a normative way in which Judaism, then and now regarded Torah.

6 For a contrast of Medieval and Modern Catholic views of Christian personal ethics see The Catholic Tradition: 2000 Years of Great Writings, "Personal Ethics," Vols. 1 and 2. Edited by Charles J. Dollen, et. al. (n.p.: McGrath Publishing Col, 1979). Contrast Vol. 1, Chapter 6, "Early Irish Penstential Documents" and Vol. 2, Chapter 4, "Sin, Liberty and Law" by Louis Monden.

7 On the beliefs and practices of Scientology see Time Magazine, (April 5, 1976), pp. 56 ff; Christianity Today, (Sept. 17, 1982), pp. 32 ff.

8 See the dialogue between Zinzendorf and Wesley, Jurgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 167-171.

9 See Thomas George Farkas. "William H. Durham and the Sanctification Controversy in Early American Pentecostalism, 1906-1916" a Ph.D. Dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1993.

10 See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 Vols (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), for a Lutheran perspective see II, 79-80; 110-111; for a Reformed perspective see II, 307-355, 623; for a Baptist position see "The Baptist Faith and Message," (Nashville: The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1963), articles IV and V. It will also be noted that Luther`s extreme stress lead to antinomianism which will be discussed in the next section and Colvin`s double predestination lack of assurance position which will be discussed below in a parenthesis entitled, "The Cold Comfort of Calvinism."

11 See J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, 2 Vols., (Philadelphia: The Muklenberg Press, 1946), I, 291-295.

12 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols., Vol XX of "The Library of Christian Classics," translated by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960) II, pp. 535-1008.

13 I am indebted for these sections on Calvin to Francis Wendel`s classic work, Calvin: Origin and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. by Philip Mairet (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963), pp. 195-232.

14 Institutes, III, XI, I.

15 Wendel, p. 266.

16 These words from Calvin`s commentary on John 6:40, quoted in Wendel, p. 270, seem to evacuate all of the absolute assurance from Christian experiences.

17 On Origen, See Neve, I,

18 On Ferre and Universalism see James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2 Vols., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eardmans, 1955), II, 793-806.

19 Church Dogmatics, 4 Vols., trans by G.W. Bromily, et.al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

20 Jurgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: A Christian Eschatology, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996).

21 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, pt. 3, first half, 477.

22 A comment made by Moltmann in a plenary session of the A.A.R., New Orleans, LA, Nov. 23, 1996.