Ii. The Doctrine Of Assurance In History
gripped their souls. Their spiritual life moves on the surface and is utterly lacking in real depth. In view of all this it can hardly be called superfluous to call attention to this important subject.
THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE IN
HISTORY a. At the Time of the Reformation THE Reformers rejoiced in the assurance of salvation as a tower of strength. This Christian certitude made them irresistible in their attacks on the church of Rome and adamant in resisting the onslaughts of the enemy. They were the first to place the doctrine of assurance, which they regarded as a precious jewel, prominently in the foreground; the first also to impress upon the people the necessity of personal assurance. This was one of their most important points of departure from the church that claimed to be the only ark of safety, and yet was totally unable to engender a feeling of security in the hearts of those that sought shelter in it. Augustine had already called attention to the fact that faith included assurance as to its objects, certainty respecting the objective truths of revelation.
And because Roman Catholic theologians generally took the same position, the Reformer found no occasion to differ from them on that score. The situation was quite different, however, in the matter of personal assurance. The prevailing tendency was to deny that this was in any sense included in what was called "the assurance of faith."
Some of the schoolmen, who accepted the tenets of SemiPelagianism, had already denied the possibility of the assurance of salvation, and in doing this could claim the merit of consistency.
Their view of the matter gradually gained the upper hand in the Roman Catholic church and was finally formulated by the Council of Trent. It declared that the assurance of being in a state of grace and of final salvation is impossible, except by some special revelation.
The position of the church of Rome is that such a revelation is enjoyed by very few, perhaps only by the martyr-saints. The great majority of believers must be satisfied with a mere moral probability.
This doctrine of perennial uncertainty respecting the highest interests of life is the natural consequence of the Semi-Pelagian doctrine of sin and grace, and of the practice of the church of Rome to make the forgiveness of sin largely dependent on the sacrament of penance and on the ministrations of a human intermediary. The Roman Catholic does not believe in the total depravity of man, and therefore cannot infer from the sparks of a higher life within himself, that God has begun the work of redemption. He looks upon faith primarily as a work of man, a mere assent to the truth accepted by the church, and not as a gift of divine grace, a trustful resting on the Saviour. Moreover, his faith is not directed altogether away from himself to the mercy of God revealed in Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, but is made to rest, at least in part, on the uncertain foundation of his own moral state, and on the good works which he accomplishes. Neither does he accept the doctrine of an absolute predestination, and the resulting truths, that the grace of God works only in the elect, and that by this grace the saints will persevere unto the end. He feels that even a present state of grace does not yet guarantee final salvation.
Moreover, the Roman Catholic church makes the forgiveness of sins dependent, not on an immediate divine act of pardon once for all, but on the sacrament of penance that must be repeated after every mortal sin, and on the absolution of the priest. With every new deadly sin the state of grace is lost. It can only be restored by the
sacrament of penance, and is lost again whenever a new mortal sin is committed. But this is not the only thing that makes assurance impossible. The confessional itself is hedged about with all kinds of uncertainties. The orders of the functioning priest may not be genuine, and this would make his absolution ineffectual. His intention may be at fault, and this would introduce another element of uncertainty. Then, too, the confessor may be ambiguous, equivocal, or indeterminate. He may overlook some of his sins and fail to mention them to the priest, in which case they would not be forgiven. It is no wonder therefore that, according to the church at Rome, the assurance of salvation is quite out of the question.
But the Roman Catholic church even goes a step farther: it regards personal assurance as undesirable. The real reason for this is, in all probability, that the church greatly profits by keeping the souls of the faithful in constant suspense. It reaps a rich harvest through the sacrament of penance. Of course, it does not assign this as a reason for its teaching on this point. It claims to consider it wholesome and beneficial for the Christian to entertain honest doubts in the high matters of justification and final salvation. Such doubts keep him from an overweening confidence in himself, minister to true humility of character, and serve as a more salutary restraint on the evil passions than joy and peace in believing could ever be. Möhler, one of the greatest Roman Catholic scholars of the previous century said:
"I think that, in the neighborhood of any man, who would declare himself under all circumstances assured of his salvation, I should feel very uncomfortable, and should probably have difficulty to put away the thought, that something like diabolical influence was here at play."
The Reformers with their emphasis on the doctrines of divine election, the total inability of man to do any spiritual good and to turn to God with a penitent heart, man's absolute dependence on the grace of God only for salvation, his justification by faith and not by the works of the law, and the perseverance of the saints—naturally took an entirely different position. In connection with the question of
assurance the leading topic of discussion between them and the Catholics was at first simply whether, without any special revelation, believers could and should be assured of their justification and salvation. The Catholics denied, and the Reformers affirmed this.
And on this point orthodox Protestant divines concurred with them ever since.
This is not the precise form, however, which the controversy finally assumed. The Roman Catholics gradually led it into a different channel. Some of the more reasonable among them did not dare to meet the question in its original form with a direct negative. They preferred to discuss the kind or the degree of assurance ordinarily attainable by believers. Thus the Reformers were led into a discussion of the nature and the grounds of Christian certitude. They claimed that the assurance possible was of the highest and most perfect description, a certainty like that with which men believe the plainly revealed truths of Scripture; that it was necessarily involved in justifying faith, was its distinguishing characteristic, and in fact belonged to its very essence.
Both Luther and Calvin used some very strong expressions on this point, expressions which seem to imply that one who lacks personal assurance cannot be regarded as a true believer, and that one having true faith cannot entertain doubts respecting his final salvation. Says
Calvin: "We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favour toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit." And again: "No man," I say, "is a believer but who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death." At the same time it is clear that he did not mean to teach that true believers never battle with doubts and uncertainties. Says he: "When we inculcate that faith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not of a certainty attended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no anxiety; but rather affirm that believers have a perpetual conflict with their own diffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid