Introduction⤒🔗

In Lord’s Day 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism we confess that Christ grants us assurance of eternal life by his Holy Spirit. The fact that this is not merely a mysterious voice of the Spirit in our heart becomes clear from what the Catechism teaches in greater detail in Lord’s Day 7: that faith is a firm confidence that the Holy Spirit works in our hearts through the gospel. According to the Catechism, the assurance of faith is based on the work of the Spirit through Word and sacrament (see Lord’s Day 25). From this clear conviction in the Catechism the question arises: how should we understand this when the same Catechism says in q/a 86 (Lord’s Day 32) that we must also do good works such that “we ourselves may be assured of our faith by its fruits” (emphasis added)? Can the recognition of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives contribute to our assurance of faith?

Is this assurance not anchored in God’s firm promises, and would our attention to the fruits of the Spirit not lead to a weakening of what is so strongly expressed in the Catechism: the reformational sola fide, by faith alone?

In this contribution we want to reflect on what Calvin, the Canons of Dort (from here on referred to as CoD), and Father Brakel have said about the certainty of faith. We will conclude with a final consideration.

Calvin←⤒🔗

Over against to the Roman Catholic doctrine that no one in this life can be sure of his eternal salvation, except in extraordinary cases and through a special revelation.¹ Calvin has strongly emphasized that assurance belongs to the essence of faith. The teaching that a person will remain in doubt all his life and that he will live in uncertainty, especially with regard to the question of whether he will endure, Calvin classifies as “devilish and wicked.”

The position of the Reformer immediately becomes clear when we read how Calvin gives the well-known description of faith in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. He writes: “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” (III.2.7).²

According to Calvin, the assurance of faith rests entirely on the Word of God. He writes, “we must remember, that there is an inseparable relation between faith and the word, and that these can no more be disconnected from each other than rays of light from the sun.” The Word “is the basis on which it [faith] rests and is sustained. Declining from it, it falls. Take away the word, therefore, and no faith will remain” (III.2.6).

Although faith accepts the whole Word of the Lord, in Calvin’s judgment it focuses in particular on God’s gracious promise. That promise is “the foundation of faith,” “the proper target” of faith. “Faith is never decided until it attains to a free promise” (III.2.30).

Calvin knows that this confidence is not something that would come along with faith, as if it would belong to the “nature” of faith. It is the Holy Spirit who causes the Word of promise to enter our hearts and who gives us the assurance that what God promises us in his Word is really something in which we may share.

Calvin calls this work of the Spirit the “sealing,” “empowering,” and the “testimony” of the Spirit.³ The Reformer writes, “You see how he [Paul] teaches that the hearts of believers are stamped with the Spirit as with a seal, and calls it the Spirit of promise, because it ratifies the gospel to us” (III.2.36).

Through this working of the Holy Spirit, faith knows peace of mind and calms our conscience. The essence of faith, for Calvin, is the very personal trust, as we also find in q/a 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Calvin says: “The principal hinge on which faith turns is this: We must not suppose that any promises of mercy which the Lord offers are only true out of us, and not at all in us: we should rather make them ours by inwardly embracing them. In this way only is engendered that confidence which he elsewhere terms peace (Romans 5:1)” (III.2.16).

Although for Calvin, faith rests in the Word of God, and the foundation of faith is called the gracious promise; this does not mean that Calvin does not recognize that our faith can be strengthened when in our lives we notice that God fulfills his promise and shows us that he did not speak in vain.

With Calvin there is awareness of knowledge of faith derived from the Word, but also of knowledge based on religious experience.⁴ There is the testimony of the gospel, and there is also the testimony of the fruit of the gospel in our lives.

The following quote properly reflects Calvin’s understanding (III.14.18):

The accordance lies here, that when the point considered is the constitution and foundation of salvation, believers, without paying any respect to works, direct their eyes to the goodness of God alone. Nor do they turn to it only in the first instance, as to the commencement of blessedness, but rest in it as the completion. Conscience being thus founded, built up, and established is farther established by the consideration of works, inasmuch as they are proofs of God dwelling and reigning in us. Since, then, this confidence in works has no place unless you have previously fixed your whole confidence on the mercy of God, it should not seem contrary to that on which it depends…. But we forbid no believer to confirm and support this faith by the signs of the divine favor towards him.

I have italicized a few words in this quote, to explain how Calvin understands it. It is out of the question that Calvin bases the assurance of faith in observing the fruits and that for Calvin the believers’ confidence would depend on this: that we also would see in our lives that the Lord fulfills his promise.

The heart of the believer rests in God’s promises. That is the way in which it has certainty and confidence. But this assurance of faith is confirmed and strengthened by the consideration of the works.

In response to Rome, the Genevan Reformer did not disregard good works, but he knew of the connection between assurance of faith and sanctification. Is it not a great encouragement and consolation for God’s children when they observe and experience the fruit of the Spirit in their lives; that the Lord is doing what he promises?⁵ Calvin wanted to honour our good works fully as fruits of the Holy Spirit. That is why he calls them “signs of [God’s] calling,” from which the saints may even conclude their election (see III.14.20).

No, Calvin does not claim that the certainty of the election is based on observing these signs. He emphatically commands the faithful to derive the assurance of their election from the word of the gospel (III.24.7), and he stresses that Christ is the mirror in which we ought to contemplate our election (III.24.5).

When we believe the gospel, we are also sure of our election. This certainty may be sustained and confirmed by observing good works as signs of God’s election.

So Calvin does not propose two ways to arrive at assurance of faith: the way of resting in God’s promises and the way of reflecting on the fruits of faith.⁶ Calvin emphasizes that by believing the gospel we can be assured of our justification and election. The testimony of good works is a “secondary administration,” a tool of secondary importance to reinforce the assurance!⁷

J. van Genderen sums up Calvin’s understanding well when he writes: “When we ask how we arrive at certainty, Calvin states: ‘Only by believing in God’s gracious promise in Christ, for this is the only foundation of the assurance of salvation.’ Calvin takes into account — also in his definition — the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit assures our hearts of the gracious adoption as children. That is the most profound reason for the personal assurance of salvation. And in the new life we ​​can also find evidence and proof that God is working in us. However, this cannot be identified with the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Our certainty is not accomplished by it either. Yet, it can be strengthened by it.⁸

The Canons of Dort←⤒🔗

The matter of the assurance of faith has also been extensively discussed at the great Synod of Dort (1618-1619). There was also a clear reason for this. The Remonstrants were convinced that in this life the believers has no absolute certainty of their election and salvation. We read in the CoD Chapter V, Rejection of Errors 7, that they taught, “In this life there is no fruit, consciousness, or certainty of the unchangeable election to glory, except such as is based upon a changeable and uncertain condition.” In CoD Chapter V, Rejection of Errors 5, their notions regarding the certainty of perseverance are worded in this way: “Without a special revelation we can have no certainty of future perseverance in this life.”

In contrast to the affirmative language of the Reformers, the Remonstrants argued that it is in fact praiseworthy when someone doubts the certainty of perseverance (see CoD Chapter V, Rejection of Errors 6).

When reading through the Acts of the Synod of Dort, one makes the curious discovery that the matter of the certainty of election and perseverance has been approached in different ways. Sometimes there is a strong emphasis on God’s promises, but more often attention is focused on the fruits of faith and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

With regard to the latter, the judgment of the three Dutch professors, Polyander, Thysius, and Walleus, can be called characteristic. Over against the fifth proposition of the Remonstrants they judged as follows: “Although in the elect, when it comes to their powerful calling, there is not always an experience of election; and that same experience after that calling; by reason of various weaknesses, anxieties, and struggles of conscience to which they are often subjected in this life; may appear as sometimes weak, dark, and somewhat degraded, it is such that they are nevertheless no less assured of their election i.e., their vigorous calling and justification, through their faith, by the fruits of their faith, and by the internal sealing of the Holy Spirit, and they ought to be assured according to the occasion and measure of their faith which they have been given by God.”⁹

The opinion of the delegates from Gelderland is also closely in line with what Polyander, Thysius, and Walleus are saying: “Yes, we state that everyone needs to adjudge his election as coming from the fruit of the tree, from the works of faith, and both from the internal and external holiness, that is, from the Spirit who adopts us as children and from the sanctification and from the works of that Spirit, and may not adjudge this in any other way.”¹⁰

The position of professor Gomarus is striking. This personal judgment strikes us even more when we remember that Gomarus, in his writings, takes the position that the certainty of faith rests on the experience of faith and therefore he gives the characteristics — that is, the fruits of faith — a prominent place.¹¹

Whatever the case may be, it is Gomarus who, as the only one of the Dutch professors evaluating the first article of the Remonstrants, puts God’s promise first when it concerns the assurance of the election!

The view of Gomarus is, “The believers are assured in this life of their saving election, not only under the condition of ‘if they will persist’; but also fully, for they are sure that they will persevere by the grace of God and Christ; Romans 8:39; and that, out of the general promise of God, he will give perseverance to all true believers… and also from the special sense of faith that belongs particularly to the elect… and from the testimony of the Holy Spirit… and from a true desire to be diligent in doing good works out of faith and love; 2 Peter 1:10.”¹²

The question arises: was there indeed a serious contrast? Has there been a contradiction at the Synod of Dort between brothers who, when it came to the assurance of election and perseverance, mentioned the fruits of faith, and brothers who put God’s promises first? I have the impression that this was not the case. As evidence of this, note the judgment of the Dutch professors with regard to the certainty of perseverance.¹³

The professors stated that “although the truly believing and born-again man, because of many causes, is subject to various doubts and disturbances of the mind in this life, he can still be sure of his perseverance and salvation from the revealed Word of God.”¹⁴

The brothers from Utrecht, when they speak of the assurance of the believers’ perseverance, also put the promises of God first.¹⁵

The statements of the Dutch professors make it clear that it is impossible to say that, at the Synod of Dort, the marks are put prominently as the way to come to assurance of faith. The people at Dort did not yet reason as later became the case with men of the Further Reformation (also known as Continuing or Second Reformation). At Dort we still remain in the spiritual climate of, for example, Jean Taffin, the court preacher of William of Orange. Taffin constantly reminds people to live in reliance on God’s Word, but at the same time he speaks very freely about the marks of recognition of faith.¹⁶

The fact that there is a certain open-mindedness of people alternately pointing to God’s promises and to the fruits of faith, is something that I also see as coming to the fore in the Canons of Dort themselves.

In CoD Chapter V, Article 10, it is said that the assurance of perseverance is not produced “by a certain private revelation besides or outside the Word, but by faith in the promises of God… by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God; and, finally, by the serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience.” Here God’s promises come first.

The order in CoD Chapter V, Rejection of Errors 5 is different: “The Holy Scriptures, however, always deduce this assurance…from the marks peculiar to the children of God and from the very constant promises of God.” Here the marks are mentioned for the first time. However, the proof of Scripture — again an example of alternating argumentation!—refers first to Romans 8:39 (the promise) and then to 1 John 3:24 (the marks).

J. de Boer disregards the varying modes of expression of the fathers of Dort, and he is of the opinion that the marks constitute “the testimony of the Canons regarding the assurance of salvation.”¹⁷

The observation of this alternating wording can help us to better understand the controversial passage of CoD Chapter I, Article 12: “The elect in due time, though in various stages and in different measure, are made certain of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation. They attain this assurance, however, not by inquisitively prying into the hidden and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unfailing fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God . . . ”

Here some people have noted a clear deflection from the line of Calvin. Especially the judgment of Karl Barth is not insignificant.¹⁸

If, however, CoD Chapter I, Article 12 would really indicate a contrast with regard to the certainty by God’s promises, then it would be rather incomprehensible that the same fathers of Dort put the assurance based on these promises as first in CoD Chapter V, Artilce10.

One should not read CoD Chapter I, Article 12, as if one were reading a passage from the writings of an “ancient scribe” of the later Further Reformation! In Dort there is still no question of a desperate emphasis on the fruits of faith when it comes to the certainty of election and perseverance.

Indeed, CoD Chapter I, Article 12 speaks about becoming certain of one’s election by noticing the unmistakable fruits. However, this passage needs to be read in light of CoD Chapter I, Rejection of Errors 7. The struggle with the Remonstrants was, among other things, about whether in this life there is “fruit” and “experience” of being elected toward salvation.

In CoD Chapter I, Rejection of Errors 7, the consciousness — that is, the experience — of the saints, is contrasted with the thinking of the Remonstrants. This awareness is also dealt with in CoD Chapter I, Article 12. The fathers of Dort have confessed that there is indeed certainty, experience and fruit of the election. In that framework they spoke of “observing in themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unfailing fruits of election.”

With Dort we have not yet arrived at what happened later in the (Dutch) Further Reformation!¹⁹

The fruits of faith are indeed given greater emphasis than with Calvin. In my opinion, the latter spoke about this in a more muted way!

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711)←⤒🔗

The Dutch Further Reformation was a movement that has profoundly influenced the spiritual climate of the Netherlands. Anyone who speaks about the questions of the certainty of faith cannot ignore or bypass this movement.

There are theologians who esteem this movement very positively. They are of the opinion that in the Further Reformation, the lines of the great Reformation of the sixteenth century became more developed, especially in regards to pneumatology, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.²⁰

Others have little appreciation for this movement and evaluate it as a further distancing from the teaching of the Reformers.²¹

The beginning of the Dutch Further Reformation can be traced to shortly before the great Synod of Dort. The well-known pastors J. Taffin (1528-1602) and G.C. Udemans (1581-1649) are the first representatives of this movement. The men of the Further Reformation envisioned a continuing reformation of personal life and of society. The Reformed doctrine had to be maintained not only against Remonstrant errors, but it also had to be experienced in all areas of life.

The plea of ​​the Further Reformation for a true practice of godliness clearly has as background the ecclesiastical civic character of the Dutch Reformed church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Whoever reads the acts of the provincial synods of that time discovers how deplorable the Christian lifestyle had become in many congregations.²²

“Of the two million citizens of the Republic living north of the rivers, in the year 1600 hardly a tenth of them were Calvinist. Most of the others had become members of the Reformed Church nominally, but they had not changed inwardly.”²³

If one wants to do justice to the Further Reformation, then one will have to regard it primarily as a movement that wished to make a common front based on the Word of the Lord against “the spirit of the times.”

S. van der Linde wrote,

The protest of the Dutch Further Reformation is not primarily against a dogmatism that would extinguish the Spirit, but much more against a certain vitalism [a zest for dangerous living], as well as secularization, which grieves the Spirit.

The Further Reformation finds itself opposed to this vitalism, expressed in a vibrant form of “joie de vivre” and a desire for absolute freedom without bounds, in many varied expressions.²⁴

The preachers of this movement struggled to pass on the blessings of the Reformation of the sixteenth century to the hearts and lives of their hearers. In a church in which many were only Christians in name, they insisted on a personal and experiential knowledge of the truth and of the fellowship with Christ.

They did not hide the fact that this knowledge had to be revealed inevitably in all of our actions: “A powerful revival for conversion and renewal is emphasized to the congregation and brought home continuously: people have the words of truth, but where are the deeds…?! In this way the men of the Further Reformation sound the trumpet of repentance, urging the people with prophetic fire toward a reformation of life.”²⁵

From the outset, the men of the Further Reformation pointed to the fruits of true faith as evidence that someone really knows the truth personally. However, we may not lose sight of the fact that this emphasis on the marks had its place in the context of their struggle to bring people to the true practice of godliness. In a later phase of the Further Reformation this aspect moves to the background and the marks almost exclusively take their place on the way to certainty of faith.²⁶

From the number of men in this movement we pay special attention to the famous Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711). Father Brakel, together with Bernardus Smytegelt, belongs to the most beloved preachers of the Further Reformation. His main book, Redelyke Godtsdienst, which was first published in 1700, experienced an exceptional number of reprints and had a great influence. Father Brakel was no stranger to the group of the Seceders.²⁷

For a long time his main work was regarded as a standard work, in which the truth of Scripture was explained in an experiential way.²⁸

With à Brakel we clearly see the characteristics or marks coming to the fore when it comes to the question of how someone arrives at certainty of his or her faith.

Although à Brakel not only views faith as an intellectual consent to the truths of the gospel, but also regards the confidence of the heart as essential for faith, he still is of the opinion that “assurance” is not necessarily inherent to faith. The “assurance” is a result of faith. When someone is active in the practice of the deeds of faith and finds himself doing them, only then the assurance will follow that Jesus died for him.²⁹

Father à Brakel recognizes different ways to come to the certainty of faith.³⁰ But the first and most important is that of the conclusion from the characteristics, that of the so-called syllogism: man tests himself by the Word, and by comparing himself with that Word, he discovers that he is born again and lives by the Spirit of Christ. From that he concludes, on the basis of God’s Word, that he finds himself in the state of grace and that the promises are for him.³¹

In order to help people with this needed self-examination, à Brakel discusses extensively the “characteristics of the saving faith.” Self-examination is indispensable for knowing whether one is a child of God or a child of the devil.

The detailed representation of the characteristics are then summarized by à Brakel as follows:

Therefore, do you perceive that upon a sensible view of your sinful and condemnable condition, you have taken refuge to, and with many prayers and supplications continue to take refuge to Jesus Christ? Have you taken refuge to him out of a heartfelt desire to be reconciled to God and to be in this state of sonship; to live in communion with God, in peace of conscience, in love to God, and in fear before him; to attain to the disposition and exercise of sanctification; to battle continually against sin; to be preserved in your faith; and to enjoy eternal felicity? Have you thus taken refuge in Jesus Christ, knowing him to be a complete Surety who is fully qualified to save, as One who in his goodness calls and invites you by means of the gospel, as One who offers himself so that he may communicate this fullness to you, and as One who is true and Almighty? I repeat, have you taken refuge in him, received him, surrendered yourself to him, and are you conscious of all these emotions (of which you can be conscious if you but take notice of them)? You may then conclude as follows: I believe.³²

Even when it comes to the assurance of election, à Brakel points the way of observing the characteristics: “One does not come to the assurance by ascending into heaven and by being able beforehand to look into the Book of Life whether one would find his name…. But one comes to this assurance by the Word where one will find clear descriptions of those that have been chosen: when someone then observes those qualities in himself he can conclude from this that he is elected.”³³

Although à Brakel certainly recognizes the hearty invitation to entrust oneself to Christ, it is undeniable that in the person’s observation within himself of the characteristics he regards these as the road to certainty of faith.³⁴ Such certainty is not inherent in faith, but becomes a consequence of faith. If someone wants to know whether he is a believer, whether the promises of the gospel truly belong to him, whether he is chosen, then he is shown the path of reflection and conclusion.³⁵

With Father Brakel, there is clearly a deviation from Calvin’s teaching and the wording of the Canons of Dort.³⁶ With à Brakel the marks in terms of the certainty of faith take a prominent and decisive place. In addition, his concept of faith moves away from the Reformational speaking about faith as being certain, being personally very certain of God’s firm promises.

With Father Brakel we discover a development that ultimately started to characterize the Further Reformation: the attention for the marks, for the converted man in his manifestations and errors; a development that would come to full growth with people like F.A. Lampe, W. Schortinghuis, and T. van der Groe.³⁷

Concluding Remarks←⤒🔗

We have seen that people within the Reformed tradition have judged very differently about the meaning of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in regard to the certainty of faith. While Calvin spoke reticently and with caution, at the Synod of Dort more attention was given to good works, to the fruit of God’s grace in our life, over against the sentiments of the Remonstrants. In our opinion, this is not an issue where there is a clear contrast between Calvin’s teaching and the Canons. With à Brakel, the man of the Further Reformation, this is indeed the case when he believes that by observing the marks within a person, one arrives at personal certainty.

The question arises: how should we understand answer 86 from the Heidelberg Catechism when it is said there that we must also do good works so that “we ourselves may be assured of our faith by its fruits?” Is the noticing of the fruits regarded here as the way to come to ultimate certainty, or should we understand this phrase the way Calvin understood it?³⁸ Dr. A. Kuyper chooses the former in his well-known commentary on the catechism. He writes:

Not objectively, but subjectively everything depends on my faith. Whether I know that everything has been acquired very objectively does not help me as long as I do not know that I personally share in that salvation. So how is this decided? I believe; all right, but there is also such a thing as the appearance of faith. Well, how can I know now whether my faith is a genuine faith, or — as it was termed in earlier days — a sincere faith? And now the Catechism answers this — and with it Voetius and every good Reformed person: Certainty in this regard can be acquired from the good works. If there is some plant growing in my vineyard, and you claim that this is a wild ivy, and I maintain that if it is a real vine, our dispute is automatically settled if there are bunches of grapes hanging on its branches in the month of September. And the same applies here. It belongs to the nature of faith to produce fruit. The fruit worked by faith cannot do anything but grow on the branches of faith. Therefore, when it is certain that grapes are actually beginning to bud at the tendrils of my soul, then all uncertainty has been removed. In the production of that fruit I receive definite proof that there is faith — indeed true faith in me.³⁹

I can only read that Kuyper believes that noticing the fruits of the Spirit convinces us of the authenticity of our faith and that that noticing ultimately brings God’s children to certainty.

Kuyper’s explanation of the phrase from q/a 86 (Lord’s Day 32) has old antecedents. When we consult the famous Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism of Ursinus,⁴⁰ we read almost the same content. In this Commentary it is said, in the explanation of answer 86, that we also must do good works “that we may be assured of the fact that we have obtained the forgiveness of sins through Christ, and that we are justified for his sake.”⁴¹

Our election is confirmed by doing good works. “We are, therefore, assured of our election by our justification; and that we are justified in Christ, (which benefit is never granted unto the elect without sanctification) we know from faith; of which we are, again, assured by the fruits of faith, which are good works, new obedience and true repentance.”⁴²

In Ursinus’ Commentary, we also find the idea that good works prove the genuineness of faith, and that the observation of these fruits of faith leads to the ultimate assurance.⁴³

It is difficult to find out exactly how the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism meant the phrase in answer 86. This is also not decisive: we should not read the Catechism as a confessional writing based on the intent of its authors, but in the light of Scripture.

When we practice the latter, then we will certainly not be allowed to understand answer 86 in the sense that the observance of the fruits of the Holy Spirit will lead to the ultimate certainty. In Scripture, believing means having unconditional trust in God’s promises (see Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:20, 21). This trust implies the certainty of personally having part in what the Lord promises. He who believes knows that the Son of God has loved him and has given himself for him (Galatians 2:20). He has peace with God (Romans 5:1), glories in the hope of the glory of God (Romans 8:18) and is assured that nothing will separate him from God’s love (Romans 8:39).

It is therefore entirely in line with Scripture, when the Catechism describes true faith in q/a 21 (Lord’s Day 7) with the words: “True faith is a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word. At the same time it is a firm confidence that not only to others, but also to me, God has granted forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, out of mere grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. This faith the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel.”⁴⁴

K. Schilder, Heidelbergsche Catechismus, II, Goes 1949, page 481, rightly points out that the same “I” is speaking, both with regard to accepting it as true and in expressing confidence, namely the believer. It seems to me an improvement that the Reformed Church Book no longer refers to James 2:19, but instead to Romans 4:20, 21; Hebrews 11:1, 3; James 1:6.

For Ursinus’ view of the historic faith, see C. Graafland, ibid., pages 122 and following.

The Catechism follows Calvin’s path. God’s promises of forgiveness and eternal life are addressed very personally. He who accepts them in faith knows that he shares in Christ’s salvation. H. Bavinck rightly says: “But he who embraces the gospel with a true faith is sure of his own salvation to the same degree and strength with which he does this, and vice versa; the one is in close connection with the other and depends on it.”⁴⁵

The Catechism knows that God’s children do not have complete faith. In answer 81 it is said of those who come to the Lord’s Supper with the right attitude that they “desire more and more to strengthen their faith.”

It is striking, however, that when it comes to strengthening faith the Catechism does not point to marks or good works, but to the work of the Holy Spirit in the preaching and in the sacraments. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper “assures” us.⁴⁶. Those who want to be relieved of doubt and of little faith, the Catechism refers to the preaching of the holy gospel and the use of the sacraments (see Lord’s Day 25, q/a 65). That is the way in which the Holy Spirit “assures” us of eternal life (see Lord’s Day 1, q/a 1).

When in answer 86 a connection is made between doing good works and being assured of one’s faith, then we must not overlook the context in which the Catechism makes this connection. The Catechism does not deal here with the question of how we arrive at ultimate certainty, but with the life of gratitude.

Christ renews us by his Spirit into his image. This renewal, this work of Christ through his Spirit, becomes visible in our lives: our neighbour will notice our godly walk. But we too discover how the Spirit of Christ is working in our lives. And that is how we are sure of the fruits of our faith. Observing the work of the Spirit strengthens and confirms us in what we already knew: we are branches on the heavenly Vine; we share in the grace of the Spirit.⁴⁷ In the life of gratitude there is a “recognizing” (see 1 John 2:3, 5; 1 John 3:19) and a “knowing” (see 1 John 3:14). But it is the recognition and knowing of those who wholeheartedly believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus. This recognition and knowledge convince us even more that we were born of God.

To believe is to trust; to be certain that God’s promises apply to us. Such trust can and will be strengthened by observing the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, Rev. M.J.C. Blok gives an excellent explanation of the phrase from answer 86 (Lord’s Day 32), when he remarks, “Thus we are not professing here that we can be cured of unbelief and doubt by seeing our good works. Whoever doubts and lets go of God’s promises in unbelief, will no longer see anything. Such a person has lost everything. We can only be delivered from our unbelief by looking at Christ and his Word alone. Whoever does this will see something. He faces no doubts or obstacles. The fruits of faith come as ‘proof of the pudding’: what I already knew, is confirmed even more strongly for me: God is busy in my heart and in my life!”⁴⁸