Editor v. Pride, Ruthlessness, and Coercion: Assured of Faith (1)

Opening Statement of the Case

Bailiff:
All rise! The Court of Appeals for the Office of All Believers is now in session. Presiding is the Honorable Judge Freewoman’s Son, with the Honorable Judges Good Conscience and Justified Sinner. All persons having business before this Court are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting.

J. Son:
Please be seated.

Clerk:
The Court will now hear the matter of Case number 2021–26, Editor versus Pride, Ruthlessness, and Coercion on appeal from the prior judgment in Court De Facto. The appellant is representing himself pro se. Appearing for the appellee, Pride, Ruthlessness, and Coercion, is counsel Kinsman according to the Flesh.

J. Son:
The case before the Court is a dispute concerning a particular clause in Lord’s Day 32 of the Heidelberg Catechism, namely, “Also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith, by the fruits thereof.” This clause is part of the Catechism’s teaching in question and answer 86 about the necessity of good works for a Christian. For the sake of the Court, I will read that entire question and answer:

Q. 86. Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?

A. Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image; that so we may testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for His blessings, and that He may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof; and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ. (Confessions and Church Order, 120)

This case has come to the Court because Mr. Editor as the appellant objects to a prior judgment entered by Court De Facto that has construed the aforementioned clause in favor of the appellee, Pride, Ruthlessness, and Coercion. For the convenience of the Court, the appellee will be addressed hereafter as PRC.

The appellant’s objection consists in three parts. First, Mr. Editor objects to PRC’s doctrine about the nature of the assurance of faith in Lord’s Day 32. Mr. Editor contends that PRC erroneously commingles the substance of this assurance with the substance of faith.

Mr. Editor acknowledges that PRC may distinguish between the term assurance of faith and the term faith. However, according to Mr. Editor, PRC teaches by consequence that when a Christian gains the assurance of faith in Lord’s Day 32, he essentially gains what Lord’s Day 7 defines as “faith,” namely, “a certain knowledge…[and] an assured confidence…that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are, freely given by God” Confessions and Church Order, 90–91). Expressed negatively, PRC teaches that in what measure the Christian lacks assurance of faith, in the same measure he lacks knowledge and confidence of his election, his union with Jesus Christ, and his enjoyment of salvation.

Second, Mr. Editor objects to PRC’s doctrine about the nature of the relationship between the assurance of faith and good works as taught by Lord’s Day 32. Mr. Editor contends that PRC erroneously makes good works the ground for the Christian’s enjoyment of salvation.

Mr. Editor acknowledges that PRC literally may deny that good works are the ground or basis for the Christian’s enjoyment of salvation. However, according to Mr. Editor, PRC nullifies this orthodox statement by consequence when PRC construes the nature of the relationship between the assurance of faith and good works as a means to alleviate doubts, thus teaching this practical syllogism for the Christian: “If I struggle with doubts about my salvation, I need the assurance of faith. Lord’s Day 32 teaches me that good works are necessary to assure me of my faith. Therefore, I will examine my life for good works in order to deliver me from my doubts.”

Mr. Editor also insists that PRC literally nullifies the orthodox statement that good works are not the ground for the Christian’s enjoyment of salvation in statements such as these: “Good works have a minor, secondary, and supportive role in our being assured of our faith,”¹ and “We may become confident that we are truly believers as we see that faith has produced fruits…Why do I live godly? Partly because I don’t want to lose the assurance of my faith.”²

Third, Mr. Editor objects to how PRC applies the relationship between good works and the assurance of faith to the Christian’s new life of gratitude.

Mr. Editor objects to PRC’s application of Lord’s Day 32 to a Christian who is weak in faith, teaching that good works help a Christian to overcome his doubts of belonging to Jesus Christ and to become confident that he is a sincere believer. Mr. Editor objects to PRC’s application of Lord’s Day 32 to a Christian’s motivation for godly living, teaching that a Christian performs good works to avoid losing the assurance of his faith and requiring a minister to warn his congregation that the members will lose assurance of their salvation if they do not work.³ While PRC makes these erroneous applications, Mr. Editor insists that PRC also completely ignores the true and upright application to the Christian of Lord’s Day 32.

As to his doctrine Mr. Editor teaches, first, that assurance of faith in Lord’s Day 32 is of an entirely different substance from faith and stands in strict service of the theodicy, a revelation of God’s righteous judgment. By itself assurance consists of an approval by examination that vindicates a judgment already passed. Thus assurance of faith is the approbation of an elect sinner’s faith that vindicates God’s justice in declaring the elect sinner to be righteous by faith alone. Second, Mr. Editor teaches good works as evidences that approve faith. Third, Mr. Editor teaches that assurance of faith in Lord’s Day 32 must be applied to the Christian’s life of self-examination and responsibility to conduct Christian discipline.

The question for this Court is this: Did the prior judgment by Court De Facto err when it ruled in favor of the appellee?

The Court has before it the issue just stated. Mr. Editor, you are representing yourself in this matter. You may proceed with your argument.

 

Overview of Appellant’s Argument

Editor:
May it please the Court. This appeal concerns the correct interpretation and proper application of the clause in Lord’s Day 32 “also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof.”

This appeal is necessary because the prior judgment favoring the appellee subverts the entire body of the Heidelberg Catechism’s instruction and militates against the Reformed faith. The appellee exploits the contested clause to foist a fictitious, man-made doctrine into Lord’s Day 32 that is completely foreign to the sense of the Catechism. Furthermore, the appellee plays fast and loose with orthodox statements to conceal heterodox doctrine, so that by good words and fair speeches the appellee deceives the hearts of the simple. Rather than instructing Christians concerning their new, thankful lives of perfect liberty in Christ, the appellee uses this Lord’s Day—a Lord’s Day that lays the groundwork for the entire third section of the Catechism—to foment a spirit of bondage that suffocates the Christian life with its unbearable yoke of fear.

My doctrine has been introduced already by the Honorable Chief Judge. By a threefold argument this appeal will prove that my doctrine is the doctrine of the Heidelberg Catechism. The first aspect of my argument examines the contested clause in light of what question 86 indicates about the spiritual condition of the Christian who makes this confession. The second aspect of my argument examines the contested clause in light of its subordinate place in answer 86. The last aspect of my argument examines the contested clause in light of the purpose of Lord’s Day 32 as an introduction to the third section of the Catechism.

 

First Aspect of Appellant’s Argument

Editor:
My argument begins in question 86 of Lord’s Day 32, which reads as follows: “Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?”

Notice, first, that the Catechism does not ask simply, “Why must we do good works?” but the Catechism begins its question with a doctrinal statement. Notice, second, that the Catechism begins this doctrinal statement with the words “since then,” thereby indicating that this statement is grounded upon the entire instruction of the first two sections in the Catechism. Notice, third, that this doctrinal statement is not impersonal but represents the living confessions of Christians in whose hearts dwells the truth of the previous thirty-one Lord’s Days.

Why are these observations significant? Here the Catechism teaches as clear as the summer sky that those who confess “also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof” have first confessed “since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours.”

The appellee maintains that the contested clause in Lord’s Day 32 is for Christians who are overcome with doubts, for Christians who want to become convicted that they are believers, and for Christians who will lose the sense of God’s favor if they do not walk in a godly manner. Now, what question 86 demands from the appellee is to teach that such people also simultaneously confess “we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours.”

But who are these Christians in Lord’s Day 32?

Before the Christians in Lord’s Day 32 utter a syllable about assurance of faith, the same already have confessed “we are delivered.” The “are” in our received English text is significant. Its correspondent German verb sein forms in the original text a stative-passive construction that emphasizes an existing state or condition resulting from a completed action. The Catechism utilizes this grammatical construction to underscore the fully accomplished, spiritual reality that dwells in the hearts of these Christians by faith.

What is this fully accomplished, spiritual reality wherein they dwell—“we are delivered”? The original German word for “delivered” is erlöset, which brings the redemptive nature of the Christian’s deliverance to the foreground. The redemptive nature of the Christian’s deliverance is addressed in Galatians 4:4–7:

4. When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

7. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

When the Christians in Lord’s Day 32 confess “we are delivered,” they mean that they are redeemed from being under the law. To be redeemed from being under the law refers, first, to a spiritual state. The spiritual state of these Christians, negatively, is that the law no longer has any legal authority over them. Though the law discovers them as sinners, the law cannot condemn them and the law cannot consign them to death because they have been bought with a price. The spiritual state of these Christians, positively, is that they belong with body and soul, both in life and death, unto their faithful savior Jesus Christ, who with his precious blood fully satisfied for all their sins. They are bought as those whom God foreknew and predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. Their unpayable sin-debt—their debts in Adam and the debts that they daily increase by their own sinful natures—is paid in full.

Who, then, are the Christians in Lord’s Day 32 who confess “we are delivered”? To understand their confession you must observe what dwells in their hearts by faith. What dwells in their hearts is an eternally complete act manifested in the fullness of time at Calvary when God smelled the sweet savor of his satisfied justice personally accomplished in our flesh by his only-begotten Son; when Jesus brought the law’s rigorous demand of perfection to completion and swallowed the last bitter dregs of the law’s infinite wrath against sin; when God and his Christ exclaimed together, “It is finished!” This fully accomplished act of almighty power and divine grace has laid hold upon the hearts of these Christians and ushered them into a new spiritual state of redemption from the law.

Second, to be redeemed from being under the law refers especially to a spiritual condition supplied by the aforementioned spiritual state. The spiritual condition of these Christians is perfect emancipation from being under the law. This means, first, that these Christians are not regulated by the law as though they were under an external code that dictates every last detail of their lives. Rather, these Christians do what they want from the heart, and what they want from the heart is good. Second, emancipation from being under the law means that these Christians so freely drink from God’s cup of salvation and so unencumberedly walk in the light of God’s countenance that they never can be told by any law, spirit, or man, “If you don’t do good works, then you cannot enjoy your salvation!”

The spiritual condition of these Christians, therefore, is Christ’s own spiritual condition as the only-begotten Son. Can the law have any power over God’s Son, so that the law says to him, “You must walk in a way of good works in order to have fellowship with God”? Can the law have any power over the Lord Jesus Christ, so that it says to him, “If you don’t do good works, then I will remove the light of God’s countenance from you”? Can the law do that? No! The very suggestion that the law ever could do that is too gross a blasphemy, for the Lord is risen, and he never can see corruption!

Who, then, are the Christians in Lord’s Day 32 who confess “we are delivered”? Before these Christians utter a syllable about assurance of faith, what dwells in their hearts is the glorious liberty of the sons of God. What dwells in their hearts is that eternally complete act of which Christ first spoke when he prayed, “Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). What dwells in their hearts is what God manifested in the fullness of time when he raised Jesus Christ from the dead and declared, “Thou art my Son! I will make known unto thee the ways of life. I will make thee full of joy with my countenance.” This fully accomplished act of almighty power and divine grace has laid hold upon the hearts of these Christians and ushered them as adopted sons into heavenly places to sit with their redeemer and partake of his own glorious liberty, truly and presently.

The evidence of this glorious liberty is reflected in the confession “we are delivered.” The evidence of their liberty is how these Christians walk with one another. Being delivered from all their misery as nobodies—ungodly sinners—and justified by faith alone before God’s tribunal, they also live with one another as nobodies. They are delivered from the impossible burden of trying to be somebodies. Their liberty is that they do not have to try to be anything other than ungodly sinners before one another. And when one of them falls, they will come to restore the lapsed, understanding themselves to be least deserving of God’s mercy.

The evidence of this glorious liberty is reflected in that threefold ascription of their entire deliverance to God and not to themselves: “merely of grace” and “through Christ” and “without any merit of ours.” Such liberal praise from one’s lips only arises after a heart has been freely supplied out of God’s eternal election with Christ’s heavenly abundance and after a mind has been released from all notions that good works increase, maintain, or come into the explanation for such blessedness.

And the evidence of this glorious liberty is especially reflected in this question: “Why must we still do good works?” That question gives the indisputable evidence of those who deeply understand their liberty as adopted sons of God.

Your children who dwell in your house are always asking the question, why? They want to know their parents’ plans and purposes. The children are genuinely interested in why their parents do what they do. A hundred times a day they ask, why? So too in question 86. This is a question asked by children who are genuinely interested in their heavenly Father’s purpose for good works. They ask as babes and not as the wise and prudent. They simply want to understand why. They ask as the free sons of God and not as sons of the bondwoman. They desire to be in God’s house. They do not want the tents of sin. Lacking nothing, they ask, why?

One will never understand this question if his confession is that he has fellowship with God only in the way of his good works. One will never ask this question truthfully if his confession is that God forgives him in the way of his repenting first. And those who confess that they must be active in obtaining their Christian comfort because “God does not drop assurance out of the sky on us and now we have it forever and it can never be taken away from us and we have nothing to worry about as regards this matter of the assurance of our faith”⁴—these persons are of corrupt and proud minds, groping about in darkness, delighting in the bondage of death, seeking out persons upon whom they can bind grievous burdens.

Let PRC now give the meaning of this Christian confession: “We are delivered from our misery.” Let PRC explain how it can be that Lord’s Day 32 is for the Christian who is overcome with doubts when the same Christian confesses that his present spiritual state and condition is deliverance from all doubt. Let PRC explain how it can be that this Lord’s Day is for the Christian who wants to become convicted that he is a believer when the same Christian confesses that his present spiritual state and condition is that he is adopted for Christ’s sake? Let PRC explain how it can be that this Lord’s Day is for the Christian who can lose the light of God’s countenance if he does not do good works when the same Christian confesses that his present spiritual blessedness is entirely apart from any of his good works.

If PRC does not have answers to these questions, then neither can PRC begin to teach the answer to question 86!

J. Son:
Mr. Editor, how does the clause in answer 86 “also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof” harmonize with the doctrinal statement in question 86: “Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours”? More specifically, explain how this assurance of faith does not imply want or lack in these Christians.

Editor:
Certainly. The original German word that our received English translation has rendered as “assured” is the adjective gewiss, which Langenscheidt translates as “certain.”⁵ This particular word simply expresses the certainty and reality of a proposition without implying any want or lack of something.

This word “assured” in Lord’s Day 32 is entirely different from another word translated as assured in the Catechism. The latter word is always used in connection with the Christian’s need. It is the word used in Lord’s Day 1: That “by His Holy Spirit, [Christ] also assures me of eternal life.” It is the word used in Lord’s Day 16: “That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by His inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies…hath delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell.” It is the word used in Lord’s Day 27: That baptism is God’s “divine pledge and sign” whereby He may assure “us that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really as we are externally washed with water.” It is the word used in Lord’s Day 29: That by the Lord’s supper Christ assures “us that we are as really partakers of His true body and blood (by the operation of the Holy Ghost) as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs” (Confessions and Church Order, 83–84, 100, 110, 115; emphasis added).

If a Christian stands in any misery, then there is an assurance that he needs, but it is an assurance found in the second section of the Catechism and not in Lord’s Day 32. This Lord’s Day assumes that the Christian is delivered by faith from all misery and possesses the assurance of the Catechism’s second section. The assurance of faith in Lord’s Day 32 is of an entirely different essence.

I plan on explaining more fully what the Catechism means by assurance of faith in this Lord’s Day in the second part of my argument. May I continue to do this?

J. Son:
The Court will recess at this time. The matter will continue in the next issue of Sword and Shield, when the Court will reconvene and the appellant may resume his argument. Counsel for the appellee will then have an opportunity to respond. The Court is adjourned.