The antinomian heresy

***QUOTE***

I have one question for the author of this post:

are you certain that you are elect?

# posted by Antonio : 1/11/2006 12:20 AM

***END-QUOTE***

i) This is a trick question. Antonio is trying to tilt the scales in his favor by skewing the question.

Calvinism does not assert that every that every Christian has the assurance of salvation. Rather, Calvinism, as represented, say, in the Westminster Confession, says that a Christian can have the assurance of salvation. That such assurance is possible if certain conditions are met, and that it’s possible to meet those conditions. Cf. Chapter 18.

So suppose I were to answer Antonio in the negative. That would not be inconsistent with Reformed theology.

ii) Another problem with Antonio’s question is that it’s simplistic. The proper answer is that a professing believer can be sure of his salvation if he has good reason to be sure of his salvation. But a professing believer cannot be sure of his salvation unless he has good reason to be sure of his salvation.

Assurance has its conditions. He can be sure if the conditions are met. He cannot be sure unless the conditions are met.

This can vary from person to person. It can also vary in the same of the same individual. When David was living in sin (the Bathsheba affair), he was not entitled to the assurance of salvation. When David was restored, he was entitled to the assurance of salvation.

iii) On related note, there is such a thing as false assurance. Assurance is not autonomous. Whether or not I’m justified in my assurance depends on the level of warrant, or absence thereof. Scripture warrants the assurance of salvation if and when I comply with the terms of Scripture.

iv) I’d add that this is not an issue distinctive to Calvinism. On the one hand, the Confession doesn’t limit the possible assurance of salvation to a Calvinist. Rather, it says that this is available to any “true believer.”

On the other hand, every theological tradition except for antinomianism draws a distinction between true and nominal believers.

v) In addition, although it’s useful to defend the stronger thesis that a Christian can be sure of his salvation, it is wrong of Antonio to turn this into a necessary condition of saving faith.

It is sufficient that I believe I’m saved, and that I have adequate grounds for so believing. Or, to recast this in negative terms, it’s sufficient that I have no good grounds for doubting my salvation.

vi) On a side note, it’s very revealing to see how defensive Antonio is to the antinomian label. To say that someone is an antinomian is not, in the first instance, a value-judgment, but simply a statement of fact. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Church, antinomianism is “a general name for the view that Christians are by grace set free from the need of observing any moral law.”

That’s an accurate description of Antonio’s position. While he believes that a Christian ought to keep the moral law, and there are consequences if he flouts the moral law, that does not affect his salvation.