Pages

Monday, January 25, 2010

Lutherans on the run

On Saturday, Paul McCain did a post (“Why are some saved, and not others?”) over at First Things/Evangel in which he staged an attack on Calvinism.

I left some comments in the meta. (So did Frank Turk.) Apparently, McCain, having maneuvered himself into no-win situation, activated the autodestruct sequence. Suicide is better than surrender.

When a man deletes his own post in the face of reasoned criticisms, you couldn’t have a more spectacular concession speech.

Impotent to defend his position on an ecumenical blog like First Things/Evangel, where he can’t count on having a sympathetic ear, he retreated to the security of his own blog, where his post is safely housed behind a Lutheran moat.

I’ll repost some of the comments I left at smoldering rubble of his self-imploded post.

“Lutheranism, as does Sacred Scripture, simply does not answer the question why some are saved, and not others.”

Seems to me that Scripture does answer that question. For instance: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom 9:22, ESV).

“Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible God sincerely desires all to be saved and has predestined no one to damnation.”

i) Of course, this assumes the correct interpretation of whatever prooftexts you’re alluding to. Care to state your prooftexts and justify your interpretation?

ii) In addition, what about passages like, “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind’”?

Why would a statement like that not be a reference point in addressing the question your raise?

“Theologians throughout history have referred to this question as the ‘crux theologorum’ (‘the cross of the theologians’) because of the difficulty (and from the Lutheran perspective, the impossibility) of giving an answer to this question which is satisfactory to our human reason…So how do Lutherans answer this question? The answer is that Lutherans do not try to answer it, because (we believe) the Bible itself does not provide an answer to this question that is comprehensible to human reason…From a human perspective, there is no ‘rational’ or ‘logical’ way to put these two truths together. Lutherans believe and confess them not because they are ‘rational’ and ‘logical,’ but because this is what we find taught in Scripture.”

Suppose a synergist defended synergism on the same grounds. Synergism is a “crux theologorum.” On the one hand, Paul says we’re justified by faith alone. On the other hand, James says we’re justified by works. So we’re justified both by faith and works, law and grace.

From a human perspective, there is no ‘rational’ or ‘logical’ way to put these two truths together. Synergists believe and confess them not because they are ‘rational’ and ‘logical,’ but because this is what we find taught in Scripture.”

Back to McCain:

“Where Calvinists continue to go wrong, and always have, is that at the heart of their ‘system,’ which they find satisfying because it answers all the questions reason demands from God, is not Christ and His love, but the ‘Sovereignty’ of God, a God who creates some people for no other reason than to predestine them to go to hell, and others to go to heaven.”

I’m sure you wouldn’t make an accusation like that unless you could back it up with suitable evidence. Please quote 5 or 6 representative Reformed theologians who say that God creates the reprobate for no other reason than to predestine them to hell. I look forward to your documentation.

“I have yet to understand, after years of reading Calvinists, and listening to Calvinsts, talk about their theological system, why the birth, and death, of Christ was, or is, even logically necessary in their system.”

Perhaps it would facilitate discussion if you told us which Reformed Bible scholars, preachers, and theologians you’ve read or listened to. Names and titles would be appreciated.

“It is merely a means to an end in their system…”

According to Calvinism, a just God must punish sin. And a just God can only forgive sinners by first redeeming them. How is that illogical in relation to Reformed predestination?

“…Which puts Predestination, and in varying degrees they are forever obsessing over God’s predestinating sovereignty, when this is not dealt with much at all in the NT Scriptures.”

And Lutherans are forever obsessing over the Eucharist, which is dealt with less often in the NT than predestination is.

“Rather, the overwhelming truth of Scripture is the chief and most essential attribute of God is love and grace, revealed most clearly and certainly, in the Incarnate Son of God.”

i) Nothing is more gracious than unconditional election.

ii) So you have a rating system for the divine attributes. You think some divine attributes (love and grace) are more important than other divine attributes. Does love get an “A,” while justice only gets a C+ in your grade book?

iii) Speaking for myself, I don’t think that God is a contingent being for whom some attributes are less essential than others.

iv) Of course, universalists also think that love and grace are God’s preeminent attributes. So they’d accept your presupposition and go you one better.

“I’ve watched Calvinists twist and turn trying to explain away the simple assertions of Scripture, that ‘Christ died for all’ and other such texts that clearly teaching universal atonement.”

And universalists think that exclusivists like you twist and turn trying to explain away passages that clearly teach universal salvation.

“The question always to put to Calvinists is the question of certainty that they are, in fact, saved by God. They can not answer because Christ died for me.”

Since Lutherans believe that Christ died for everybody who is or will be in hell, how does universal atonement furnish any certainty, or even probability, that you are saved?

“They must always qualify that statement by reference to their repentance, or their life that gives evidence that they are among the predestined.”

God’s grace is subjective as well as objective. He regenerates and renews. Why do you distrust the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the faithful? Does the Holy Spirit bear false witness?

“It is a very sad and dreary system indeed.”

And it’s a very sad and dreary system which says the death of Christ makes no difference to whether or not you wind up in heaven or hell.

57 comments:

  1. "When a man deletes his own post in the face of reasoned criticisms, you couldn’t have a more spectacular concession speech."

    There's only one other blogger who I'm familiar with who's also done that: Michael Spencer also known as the Internet Monk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    Thanks for the follow-up on this. I remember some of his same arguments against Calvinism in the past. I took a post of his that you commented on and tried to apply his hermeneutics to the Nicene Creed.

    James Swan liked it. It may be worth looking at for a chuckle.
    http://hereiblog.com/the-mccainian-lutheran-nicene-creed/.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  3. TUAD,

    Dave Armstrong does that too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Please quote 5 or 6 representative Reformed theologians who say that God creates the reprobate for no other reason than to predestine them to hell."

    If God created them to be "vessels of wrath", He created them for no other reason then to send them to the fires of Hell, no? He made a reasonable conclusion.


    "According to Calvinism, a just God must punish sin."

    Then Calvinism isn't Christianity.

    God doesn't punish sin at all. He punishes unbelief. In fact, you can spend your life as a cannibal, or someone who murders children after raping them (or before, for that matter). So long as God gives you that "gift" of faith, none of it makes a bit of difference. The whole point of Christianity is that sinful behavior doesn't matter. Good works don't matter. Bad works don't matter. Just believe. In fact, the cards have been stacked so that you CAN'T live perfectly. God saw to that through devising a brilliant system whereby you inherit this "guilt" because someone 6,000 years ago ate an apple.


    "So you have a rating system for the divine attributes."

    God's sovereignty is the most important divine attribute to the Calvinist. Everything else is irrelevant. A God without mercy or compassion wouldn't bother the Calvinist, but a God without all the power? Forget it!


    "Since Lutherans believe that Christ died for everybody who is or will be in hell, how does universal atonement furnish any certainty, or even probability, that you are saved"

    How does limited atonement afford you any certainty that Christ died for you? Sure, you might believe He did, but believing something doesn't make it so. I can believe the moon is made of cheese ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. This ought to be good...

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Robert
    If God created them to be "vessels of wrath", He created them for no other reason then to send them to the fires of Hell, no? He made a reasonable conclusion.

    Please read the conclusion again wherein it states "for no other reason". I ask you to read Romans 9 and explain the verse in question... heck try the whole passage.

    God doesn't punish sin at all. He punishes unbelief.

    What Bible are you reading? God sent a flood (representative of His wrath) to destroy the earth because of man's sin (Gen 6?) and God's solution to the sinfulness was the ark, a type of Christ (1 Peter anyone?) Read Romans 1, and notice that it isn't ~unbelief~ that is punished, for Paul declares that all mankind ~knows~ God exists but fails to worship Him. And thus the engage in gross sinfulness. God's wrath is coming because of sin, just as in the days of Noah, the refuge, Christ our Ark, is the only refuge.

    Isaiah 13:9
    See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it.

    Also, do you somehow believe that unbelief is the 'unforgivable sin?'

    God's sovereignty is the most important divine attribute to the Calvinist. Everything else is irrelevant. A God without mercy or compassion wouldn't bother the Calvinist, but a God without all the power? Forget it!

    Does it bother you in the least that you cannot accurately define your opponents belief system and must result to such strawmen? Do yourself a favor, read Reformed writers before thinking yourself wise enough to post your thoughts publicly.

    How does limited atonement afford you any certainty that Christ died for you?

    Please provide a single instance in Scripture where "Christ died for you" is used as an evangelistic call. Do you think that the message that "Christ died for you" will shame sinners into believing in Him? Or do you think that Calvinists somehow doubt their adoption into God's family on the basis of limited atonement? Perhaps you've not heard of "unconditional election" wherein Calvinists recognize and celebrate that our salvation is a matter of God's grace alone? As with much of the "5 points" these things are part of the eternal plan of God and revealed to us not as something by which we glory in of ourselves, for we are miserable sinners saved only by the Sovereign hand of Triune God, (which includes Jesus by the way, in case you want to pull the old "you dont have Jesus at the center" trick.)

    So, to turn the argument around... if Christ's death and resurrection can in the end avail you of nothing if you fall in unbelief, what does it matter if Christ died for you?

    Or do you believe that Christ now is in heaven interceding on behalf of those who reject Him and shake their fist at Him from their torment in hell?

    Since you believe that Christ apparently died for each, and every, human who ever lived, including those God never chose to send the Gospel to... exactly what is it you believe Christ mediates for them?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "God doesn't punish sin at all. He punishes unbelief. In fact, you can spend your life as a cannibal, or someone who murders children after raping them (or before, for that matter). So long as God gives you that "gift" of faith, none of it makes a bit of difference. The whole point of Christianity is that sinful behavior doesn't matter. Good works don't matter. Bad works don't matter. Just believe. In fact, the cards have been stacked so that you CAN'T live perfectly. God saw to that through devising a brilliant system whereby you inherit this "guilt" because someone 6,000 years ago ate an apple."


    I get the feeling that Robert is not a Christian at all. He is here describing what he takes to be the Christian position (wild antinomianism) with sarcastic hostility.

    That said, I myself do not swallow the whole orthodox Calvinist 5-points position.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How would someone have reasonable confidence he is elect given a Calvinist system? (TULIP)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ed,

    Here's a good place to start:

    http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/calvinism-assurance-and-inerrancy/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert wrote: "God doesn't punish sin at all."

    If someone thinks that God doesn't punish sin at all, it is no wonder that they would oppose the gospel! After all the Gospel is premised on the need for a Savior to save people from punishment for sin.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  11. Several commenters have already dismantled Robert’s comments.

    “If God created them to be ‘vessels of wrath’, He created them for no other reason then to send them to the fires of Hell, no?”

    The fact that they have a hellish fate doesn’t mean they serve no other purpose while they’re still alive. You’re being illogical.

    And, in fact, Rom 9 gives such a reason. So God doesn’t damn them for the sake of damning them.

    “God doesn't punish sin at all. He punishes unbelief.”

    Unbelief is, itself, a sin. However, not all sins are sins of unbelief. (At least not directly.)

    “So long as God gives you that ‘gift’ of faith, none of it makes a bit of difference.”

    Faith in the Redeemer. So sinners must be redeemed before they can be forgiven. No atonement, no forgiveness.

    “The whole point of Christianity is that sinful behavior doesn't matter. Good works don't matter. Bad works don't matter.”

    Repentance is a prerequisite for salvation. Sanctification is a prerequisite for salvation.

    But it’s true that sinners, by being sinners, can’t very well merit their own salvation.

    “Just believe.”

    Although justification is by faith alone, salvation is not by faith alone.

    “In fact, the cards have been stacked so that you CAN'T live perfectly. God saw to that through devising a brilliant system whereby you inherit this ‘guilt’ because someone 6,000 years ago ate an apple.”

    And if Adam hadn’t fallen, you and I wouldn’t even be here. (Or your loved ones.) Other, unfallen branches, would take our place in the family tree of humanity. So I can’t complain.

    “God's sovereignty is the most important divine attribute to the Calvinist. Everything else is irrelevant. A God without mercy or compassion wouldn't bother the Calvinist, but a God without all the power? Forget it!”

    Your uninformed opinion is duly noted…and duly discounted. If ignorance were next to godliness, you’d be a saint.

    “How does limited atonement afford you any certainty that Christ died for you?”

    i) I see you can’t keep track of the argument. I was responding to McCain on his own terms. He suggested that unlimited atonement grounds the assurance of salvation. So the question at issue, as he framed it, is not whether limited atonement can afford you any certainty of salvation, but whether unlimited atonement can afford you any certainty of salvation. And since McCain believes in hell, the fact (according to him) that Christ died for everyone fails to ground the assurance of salvation.

    ii) Limited atonement alone is not the basis for the assurance of salvation. There are other factors, like a credible profession of faith. However, limited atonement, in conjunction with other factors, raises the assurance of salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve,

    This section seems to deal with my question:

    "So the question of whether or not Sam is elect translates immediately into the question of whether or not Sam has saving faith in Christ. Answer the latter and you’ve immediately answered the former.

    But how can Sam answer that question? Well, by applying various tests suggested in Scripture (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5). When Sam reflects on his own beliefs, do they include the beliefs that he is a sinner in need of a redeemer and that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, has indeed redeemed him by his atoning death and resurrection? Has he been baptized? Is he a member of a Christ-honoring local church? Does he regularly partake of the Lord’s Supper? Does his life show the fruits of repentance, good works, and love for his brothers and sisters in the faith? Does he no longer love the world? Is he growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Of course, these tests aren’t infallible. A professing Christian can deceive others and even himself. But the important point to see here is that the Calvinist is in no worse a position than the Arminian in this respect. "

    One cannot infallibly know one is elect, and one has to test to see if one is elect. The point in my question is not whether or not one may have an abstract system of doctrine that there are indeed elect, but how one knows for one's self one is elect. ISTM that one cannot know one is elect "infallibly". This is because "election", in the document you cited, is "proved" by "tests". By way of contrast, Lutherans look to historical acts and ask questions like "Did Christ die for me?" "Am I baptized?" "Do I receive communion" etc. The tests are nore in the empirical vein than in the theoretical.

    Philip Cary broke down the syllogisms in this way:

    The Standard Protestant Syllogism
    Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ is saved.
    Minor Premise: I believe in Christ.
    Conclusion: I am saved.

    Luther’s Syllogism
    Major premise: Christ told me, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
    Minor premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.
    Conclusion: I am baptized (i.e., I have new life in Christ).

    The article can be found here:

    http://tinyurl.com/ye67k3e

    So, ISTM that from a Lutheran perspective (and we would say a biblical perspective) the question regarding election is phrased incorrectly, that question is what has God done for me not how do I know I am really saved because God elects everyone who is saved. Calvinists cannot say with confidence "God saved me" without going through the tests outlined in the link you supplied, but since Christ never lies, we can infallibly know we are e.g. baptized.

    ReplyDelete
  13. * Did Christ die for me? --> Did Christ die to save repentant sinners?
    * Am I baptized? --> Did I repent and trust in Christ?
    * Do I receive communion etc. --> Do I bear fruit?


    What's the diff?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Brett,

    The difference is relying on historical acts vs. a subjective determination. You wrote "Did Christ die for me? --> Did Christ die to save repentant sinners?"

    The question from a Calvinist POV is whether or not one is a repentant sinner. And as Dr. Cary and the article to which Steve pointed me state, this is subject to a lot of tests who's outcome is in doubt. Also, as I am sure you know, the answer to the question "Did Christ die for me?" is always yes for Lutherans, but not for Calvinists. If you are not elect Christ did not die for you, which is precisely why one needs to show one has real, saving faith by the various tests.

    You wrote "Am I baptized? --> Did I repent and trust in Christ?"

    Again, it is the difference between an act in history by God and a subjective determination of one's status based on tests. Whether or not I am baptized is more an empirical question, at least for Lutherans, than a theoretical one, which it can be for e.g Baptists who are baptized based on faith. But how do we know our faith is real in the first place? This is the issue Cary deals with.

    You wrote: "Do I receive communion etc. --> Do I bear fruit?"

    Again a subjective determination is required as opposed to objective criteria. If you have the time I suggest you read Cary's article.

    The "Protestant" syllogism causes one to always examine himself to see if he is elect, while the "Lutheran" syllogism points him to verifiable acts in history bu God. While the difference may be subtle, I think it is also clear. I also this difference is why "double Predestination" is such a difficult issue. Calvinists frame the question in such a way that one is always looking into one's self to see if one's faith is real. Lutherans frame the question in such a way we are pointed to the sacraments instituted by Christ himself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1) That Christ died to save repentant sinners is an objective historical fact, not some subjective notion.
    2) My personal connection with that historical fact comes in an actual historical point where I exercise faith in Christ. Asking how I know I actually believe is like asking you how you know you were baptized. I was there, I remember it. What if the mode of your baptism was not right? What if you only dipped your foot in? Does that count? I am genuinely curious on this point, do you believe that every Lutheran who was ever baptized will be saved? Zero exceptions?
    3) How often do you have to take communion? Just once? 50% of Sundays? How regular before you will have "assurance?" What else did you have in mind with "etc"? How are these actual historical deeds different from the actual historical deeds that spring from my salvation?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Edward,

    What is the Lutheran's motivation for partaking of the sacraments?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brett,

    You wrote

    "1) That Christ died to save repentant sinners is an objective historical fact, not some subjective notion."

    That Christ died for repentent sinners is something with which I agree. But I also believe he died for all, which is why the existential question for a Calvinist is do I really have faith? For a ?utheran it is "Did Christ die for me?"

    "2) My personal connection with that historical fact comes in an actual historical point where I exercise faith in Christ. Asking how I know I actually believe is like asking you how you know you were baptized. I was there, I remember it. What if the mode of your baptism was not right? What if you only dipped your foot in? Does that count? I am genuinely curious on this point, do you believe that every Lutheran who was ever baptized will be saved? Zero exceptions? "

    It is not the same kind of question because by what measure can you say your experience is real? By what measure can you say your faith is real? If it is by fruits, the natural progression of the question is how much fruit is enough?

    As for me, I know the mode of my baptism is right because there were witnesses to my baptism. As to whether or not every Lutheran baptized is saved, I answer no. But that is beside the point, because even if I misuse my baptism it is still a baptism. From the Large Catechism:

    "For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God, even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament, even though they do not believe."

    Implicit in your statements are that experience validates the truth of your faith, which is in fact at we are diuscussing.

    "3) How often do you have to take communion? Just once? 50% of Sundays? How regular before you will have "assurance?" What else did you have in mind with "etc"? How are these actual historical deeds different from the actual historical deeds that spring from my salvation?"

    This question is stated in "Law" terms. How often I receive communion is not commanded by Christ, except for it to be "often". And to ask the question is to show again the difference berween the Lutheran approach and the Calvinist approach. For embedded in your question is that if I don't know exactly how often I receive communion I cannot be assured I receive enough. This is precisely what I have been talking about. An offer of grace from God in communion becomes a question as to whether or not I am sufficiently faithful in accepting it. FDo I do it enough? How often am I required to do it? etc. From our perspective, communion is a sort of "get" from God--when I receive communion I receive the forgiveness of sins, renewal etc. In the same way, when someone (even I) asks if I am one of the elect the anserr is "I am baptized..."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mark,

    Obedience and receiving grace.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What is the Lutheran's motivation for partaking of the sacraments?

    Edward: Obedience and receiving grace.

    So that I understand. Where you doing so to receive grace or because you already received grace?

    Were you obedient in faith or prior to or faith?

    ReplyDelete
  20. mark,

    "So that I understand. Where you doing so to receive grace or because you already received grace?

    Were you obedient in faith or prior to or faith?"

    By grace I have faith my sins are forgiven, and in faith I receive this forgiveness e.g. in absolution as well as communion.

    As to your second question, I don't see the dichotomy, because we can only be obedient in faith. Perhaps I don't understand the question?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I also believe he died for all, which is why the existential question for a Calvinist is do I really have faith? For a ?utheran it is 'Did Christ die for me?'"
    But since the death of Christ does not, by itself, select for whether you are saved, then you must face the same question. Faith is necessary in your system for salvation. If it is legitimate to ask “How we know we believed?” then it is also legitimate to ask that of Lutherans too.
    If it is by fruits, the natural progression of the question is how much fruit is enough?
    And if by communion, how much is enough?

    Implicit in your statements are that experience validates the truth of your faith, which is in fact at we are diuscussing.
    And how is your experience of baptism and communion different?

    This question is stated in "Law" terms. How often I receive communion is not commanded by Christ, except for it to be "often".
    And how much fruit is not commanded either except that we be "fruitful."

    And to ask the question is to show again the difference berween the Lutheran approach and the Calvinist approach. For embedded in your question is that if I don't know exactly how often I receive communion I cannot be assured I receive enough.
    Not really, I was just pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency. Why do you insist I need a certain number of fruits but are content yourself with communion being frequent?

    From our perspective, communion is a sort of "get" from God--when I receive communion I receive the forgiveness of sins, renewal etc.
    Eating the Lord's Supper is something you do. But you hold that although this is something you do, it is not your action of eating so much as God's grace through the elements that is the basis. Although I do good works, my assurance is not in me but in the grace of the Holy Spirit who produces these deeds in me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Edward,

    Thanks for answering. I just wanted to be sure I understood.

    When you say:

    By grace I have faith my sins are forgiven, and in faith I receive this forgiveness e.g. in absolution as well as communion.

    How do you know you have done so in faith? Have faith?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Brett,

    "But since the death of Christ does not, by itself, select for whether you are saved, then you must face the same question. Faith is necessary in your system for salvation. If it is legitimate to ask “How we know we believed?” then it is also legitimate to ask that of Lutherans too. "

    Not really, because the justifying faith in Jesus Christ is e.g. believing that I am baptized, that I am his child etc. It is a sort of thing I can come back to over and over. I know I believe because I do, just like I believe I live in the USA, what my father's name is etc. in other words, it i snot s reflection on the quality of faith, but whether or not I have faith, and faith here is believing that God has done for me what he says he has done for me.

    A Calvinist on the other hand, cannot say Christ died for him unless he knows he is one of the elect, which brings about the same kinds of questions we have been discussing.

    "Why do you insist I need a certain number of fruits but are content yourself with communion being frequent? "

    Because of th e"Protestant Syllogism". Here it is again for convenience:

    Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ is saved.
    Minor Premise: I believe in Christ.
    Conclusion: I am saved.

    How does one know he believes in Christ? By fruits, as you have said. Now, how many fruits are necessary for one to know one believes in Christ?

    Now, to modify the syllogism for the question at hand, the Lutheran syllogism regarding communion looks like this:

    Major Premise: Christ offers communion for forgiveness of sins
    Minor premise: I received communion.
    Conclusion: My sins are forgiven

    Now, if I understand Calvinism aright, the minor premise depends on whether or not one is elect or not. thus the syllogism looks like this:

    Major Premise: Christ offers communion to the elect
    Minor premise: I am one of the elect
    Conclusion: I have received communion and my sins are forgiven

    The whole system depends upon whether or not one is elect--or not, not on an objective event in history.

    "Eating the Lord's Supper is something you do. But you hold that although this is something you do, it is not your action of eating so much as God's grace through the elements that is the basis. Although I do good works, my assurance is not in me but in the grace of the Holy Spirit who produces these deeds in me."

    And on what is your assurance based upon? (I don't actually question your faith, BTW...) It has to be your own evaluation of the information you have. In lutheranism, the assurance is because salvation, faith, grace etc. are Extra Nos--it doesn't matter how I feel about my walk or about baptism, it matters what Christ does n history.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mark,

    "How do you know you have done so in faith? Have faith?"

    I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead and I am baptized. I believe Jesus Christ forgives my sins in communion. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in the Holy Spirit etc. I believe these things, but I do not have a psychoanalytical explanation as to "why". It is like, as I said, believing I live in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Edward,

    I believe you've just answered your own objection against Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  26. MArk,

    No, I haven't, because a Calvinist may think he believes, he may even believe in the historical facts, but if he is not one of the elect he doesn't really have faith, Jesus did not die for him, he was not baptized etc. A Lutheran, however, if he was baptized, is baptized even if he does not believe a word of it. If he receives communion he has received the body and blood of Christ even if he does not believe a word of it. I don't think I have answered my own objection because the issue is still, for a Calvinist, whether he has real faith, not whether he believes he has real faith, whether Christ actually died for him, not whether or not he believes Christ actually died for him.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Edward,

    If you have no faith, what benefit is baptism and communion?

    Can a Lutheran ever have a false faith?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Perhaps we are not talking the same thing at all. Justifying faith in Jesus Christ is believing you were baptized? My faith is in the perfect life, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Christ. It sounds like your faith is not in Christ but in baptism. Please offer some correction here because this sounds weird.
    Why can you return to your baptism but I cannot return to my conversion? I remember it quite distinctly. I remember everything about just as historically verifiable as your baptism (perhaps I have even more clarity of remembrance if you were baptized as a baby). You may remember being a a particular church in a certain city. I too remember the location of my conversion. You may remember which year, the time of year, day etc. So do I. You may remember being wet. I happen to remember being dry. Why do you insist that my conversion had no historical setting that I can remember while yours did?
    You're only confusing the question by continuing to go election. The question is assurance of salvation. We both hold that faith in Christ is necessary. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can ask how I know I believe, so can I. The only way to avoid this is to posit a radically different content of our faith (which I'm concerned you do).
    I'm not sure why your not following the parallels I am drawing. Let me try again:
    "How does one know he believes in Christ?" Since both systems require faith in Christ, both the Reformed and the Lutheran need to answer this question. Hence:
    "By fruits, as you have said." And by communion you have said.
    "Now, how many fruits are necessary for one to know one believes in Christ?" And how much communion is necessary for one to know one believes in Christ? If you only partake once a month is that enough? Once a year? Its still something you can remember.
    You insist that asking how much is to frame it incorrectly. I concur. You insist that communion is an empirical means of grace and I insist that works are an empirical result of grace.
    My assurance also is based in what Christ actually did in history, and how I partook in that work in actual history, which salvation is then worked out in actual concrete history. Its not based on my feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A Lutheran, however, if he was baptized, is baptized even if he does not believe a word of it. If he receives communion he has received the body and blood of Christ even if he does not believe a word of it.

    Are you suggesting that if a person is baptized and takes communion that he is saved regardless of what he believes? If a Muslim were baptized and ate communion but changed not his convictions, is he saved?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Brett and Mark,

    Perhaps we are talking bast one another. Brett had a longer post with more examples, so I will quote from his post and hopefully Mark's question will be answered too.

    "Justifying faith in Jesus Christ is believing you were baptized?"

    Justifying faith is believing Jesus' words in baptism are true--that I am baptized. Justifying faith in Jesus Christ is trusting in Jesus' words that he who eats his body and drinks his blood has forgiveness of sins. Justifying faith is believing that Jesus rose from the dead. In short, justifying faith is believing God tells the truth. It is like, as I keep saying :-), believing I am in the USA. Once I have established that fact I don't have to ask any questions about the quality of my belief, whether or not it is true, as it is established empirically. This is what I was trying to show with my baptism example.

    Which clarifies the issue a little:

    "Why can you return to your baptism but I cannot return to my conversion?"

    Because one's conversion in a Calvinist system depends on whether or not one has saving, or persevering, faith. If one doesn't have saving faith it was just a subjective feeling and no conversion at all.

    So, you can return to your conversion, but if the quality of your faith at the time of that conversion is not persevering faith there is objectively no "it" to return to.

    Now, if God is not a liar, then I am baptized and I receive his gifts because he said I am baptized and I receive his gifts. There is no "conditional" as it is an empirical fact whether or not I was baptized.

    "I concur. You insist that communion is an empirical means of grace and I insist that works are an empirical result of grace."

    The ungodly can do good works just like a Christian. The ungodly can receive communion just like a Christian, too. The difference is in the objectiveness of what we see--in the first case observing someone doing good works does not mean that person has persevering faith. In the second case it is a matter of looking at what is going on in the liturgy. This is why the quality of one's faith is so important in a Calvinist system; unless and until one has assurance one can never be sure one has persevering faith except by weighing factors which are difficult to measure in the best of circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So...
    Are you suggesting that if a person is baptized and takes communion that he is saved regardless of what he believes? If a Muslim were baptized and ate communion but changed not his convictions, is he saved?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Edward,

    Please correct any misunderstanding you find in this comment.

    The substantive difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism has nothing to do with "knowing I'm one of the elect". In both systems, "the elect" == "all those who are justified by grace through faith". (There's no such thing as someone who has justifying faith who is not elect; there's no such thing as someone who is elect who lacks justifying faith, except for someone who's preconversion.)

    It's redundant & circular to talk about "getting assurance of salvation by figuring out whether I'm one of the elect"--that translates to "getting assurance of salvation by figuring out whether I'm saved". Or, "knowing I'm saved by knowing I'm saved".

    The relevant question is, "How do I know that I'm saved?" And that translates to "How do I know that I have justifying faith?"

    As far as I can see:
    However a Lutheran answers the question, "How do I verify that I have justifying faith?", a Calvinist can answer precisely the same way.

    Note: If Lutherans believe that you can participate in the sacraments without saving faith but still be saved, then that's different. Then you can be saved even if you reject the existence of Jesus! (In that case, "How do I know that I'm saved?" wouldn't translate to "How do I know that I have justifying faith?")

    Also note: If Lutherans say, "It is impossible to be mistaken about whether you have saving faith" (i.e., "If you think you have saving faith, then you do"), then that probably is a substantive difference. At least, I doubt many Calvinists would agree. Still, I imagine a Calvinist could agree.

    Edward: If you want to disagree with that, it seems like you'd have to point to a difference on "saving faith"--an inherent difference between us on the content of the faith that justifies. But by my understanding of Calvinism, there is none. You become saved through hearing & trusting the promises of God in the Gospel of Jesus' death & resurrection--which can be presented without going into any theology that Lutherans & Calvinists disagree over.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Brett,

    "If a Muslim were baptized and ate communion but changed not his convictions, is he saved?"

    To put it like Luther did, the baptism and communion are correct, but the Muslim did not receive it correctly:

    "For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God's command and ordinance, and besides in God's name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it.

    Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith. Therefore they do us violence by exclaiming against us as though we preach against faith; while we alone insist upon it as being of such necessity that without it nothing can be received nor enjoyed."

    (Large Catechism Baptism)

    The Muslim was indeed baptized, but he calls God a liar because he does not believe this is according to God's ordinance; if he did he would no longer be Muslim. Faith does not make baptism because baptism is done by God. However, faith--understood according to the "Lutheran Syllogism" I cited before--receives the benefits of baptism.

    Now, a Calvinist may be baptized, but if he does not have the gift of perseverance then his belief is unbelief and he is no better than the Muslim. He did not receive the baptism rightly. But another way, unless one is sure one's faith is saving faith, one cannot be sure one was baptized--just like a Calvinist cannot be sure Christ died for him. This is because the validity of e.g. baptism depends not on God's truthfulness but the subjective state of the subject of the baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jugulum,

    The difference is that, for Calvinists, saving faith is necessary for the preaching of the Gospel, baptism or communion to be *valid*--only believers feed in faith on the body of Christ, only believers are in the covenant, Christ only died for believers etc. So, no matter our experiences it is a question as to whether or not one has the gift of perseverance. Without the gift of perseverance faith is in vain.

    For Lutherans, the Gospel preaching and sacraments are valid whether or not one has saving faith. Christ died for all. The difference between the saved and the damned is not that Christ didn't die for them, or that their baptism is invalid. It is because they don't believe in the objective realities in baptism, communion and receiving the Gospel.

    To put it another way, what is the quality of your faith that you have a brain?

    For Lutherans, the question is "Do I believe I have a brain?"

    From the Large Catechism again:

    "Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.

    Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.

    Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? ..."

    Notice how we are directed away from our subjective state and toward the objective acts within the Church. For Calvinism, if I understand it aright, if I do not come to God in faith there is no baptism, there is no communion, there is no salvation offered even if I think I believe--all these are invalid because no grace is really offered to those who are not elect. The whole thing depends on whether or not God subjectively calls me and whether or not I can know that fact for my own assurance. For Lutherans, that question does not arise because the "reality" depends on God's words and promises offered to all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ed,

    At the moment I have limited Internet access, so I won't attempt a detailed response until I'm 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Edward,

    I have to leave my computer, so this is a quick response. I've only read your first paragraph, where you describe what you think Calvinists believe.

    You concluded it with, "Without the gift of perseverance faith is in vain."

    You need to understand that we regard that sentence as a significant mischaracterization & misunderstanding. (I'm 99% sure the other Calvinists in the room will say the same.)

    You need to realize that, entirely aside from (1) who's right about soteriology in general, and aside from (2) who's right about assurance of salvation in particular, and even aside from (3) whether you think that sentence actually does apply to Calvinism.

    (To explain that last point: If Steve Hays says that Catholics believe in sola ecclesia, he knows they don't accept that description--he's saying, "This describes your view, even though you don't want to admit it.")

    So aside from all that, you need to be aware that we don't think that sentence is an accurate description. Maybe you are, and you're saying it like "sola ecclesia". But if you didn't already realize that, then you need to spend some more time understanding your interlocutors.

    -----------------

    To explain:

    Calvinism doesn't speak of someone believing in vain because he didn't persevere. All who presently believe will persevere. If a real prophet of God stated that John Smith trusts in the Gospel, then Calvinism concludes "therefore, we know John Smith will not fall away."

    To use a somewhat crass analogy: Perseverance isn't an extra ingredient in saving faith. It's not like, "apart from baking soda, your cookie won't rise". Perseverance isn't part of the recipe of saving faith--it's part of what happens when faith is present.

    As far as I know, we agree on the Gospel and we agree on what must be believed to be saved. We agree on the ingredients of the cookie. And a Calvinist baker would say, "If the cookie doesn't rise in the oven, then we know the dough didn't have all the ingredients." And also, "If the cookie has all the ingredients, it will rise in the oven."

    Lack of perseverance proves something about saving faith, but it's not part of saving faith.

    -----------

    I'll have to read the rest of your comment later, but I wanted to comment on the apparent misunderstanding in the first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Lockheed.

    You write: "Also, do you somehow believe that unbelief is the 'unforgivable sin?'"

    Well, not me, but Scripture seems to suggest as such.

    John 3:17
    "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."


    "Do you think that the message that "Christ died for you" will shame sinners into believing in Him?"

    Not believing, but accepting, yes. After all, the devils believe in the lordship and existence of Christ, yes? I don't think that's what you're asking, however. If someone truly, actually believed that the son of God was tortured for their sake, then yes, some might choose to follow Him.


    "Does it bother you in the least that you cannot accurately define your opponents belief system and must result to such strawmen?"

    Most Calvinists will admit that God need not show mercy to any human or any created thing. He need not have compassion on anyone. He could throw every last soul into Hell (which He would have predestined them for), and He'd still be worthy of adoration. Is this not true? Although this could be true in the Arminian system as well, it at least seems to offend their moral sensibilities. The Calvinist would be quite content with just such a scenario, however. I'm not attacking, just relaying what Calvinists have written and stated. Compassion is not necessary for God to be God, only sovereignty.


    "Perhaps you've not heard of "unconditional election" wherein Calvinists recognize and celebrate that our salvation is a matter of God's grace alone?"

    Of course I have. I'm just not certain how one reaches the conclusion that they're unconditionally elected. To what do they look? Their good and "Christlike" behavior despite any possible evil inward inclinations? If so, then good Hindus would be saved. Their belief that Christ saved them? If so, don't most Mormons, JW's and RC's believe the same? Must one have a perfect theological system?

    ReplyDelete
  38. EDWARD REISS SAID:

    “One cannot infallibly know one is elect, and one has to test to see if one is elect.”

    i) I don’t see the point of adding the adjective “infallible” to the noun “knowledge.”

    As long as you know something to be the case, why is it additionally necessary to infallible know something?

    If you infallibly know something, then you can’t be wrong. But as long as you’re right, why does it matter if you might have been wrong?

    I think you’re also conflating three distinct issues:

    a) Can one of the elect know that he’s elect?

    b) Can one of the elect not know that he’s elect?

    c) Can a nominal Christian mistakenly believe that he’s one of the elect?

    “The point in my question is not whether or not one may have an abstract system of doctrine that there are indeed elect, but how one knows for one's self one is elect.”

    The elect have an experience of saving grace whereas the reprobate do not.

    “This is because ‘election’, in the document you cited, is ‘proved’ by ‘tests’. By way of contrast, Lutherans look to historical acts and ask questions like ‘Did Christ die for me?’ ‘Am I baptized?’ ‘Do I receive communion’ etc. The tests are nore in the empirical vein than in the theoretical.”

    i) The problem with your empirical/historical tests is that both the heavenbound and the hellbound could past the test.

    In Lutheran theology, the atonement is universal, but salvation is not. Therefore, an affirmative answer to the question, “Did Christ die for me?” doesn’t answer the question of whether you’re saved or elect (unless you believe that it’s possible to lose one’s election).

    Likewise, in Lutheran theology (as I understand it), sacramental grace is resistible grace. Therefore, the fact that you were validly baptized, and the further fact you’re a regular communicant, receiving valid communion, doesn’t affirmatively answer the question of whether you’re saved or elect?

    So I don’t see how you’ve succeeded in solving the problem you pose for yourself.

    ii) I also don’t see why you would try to entirely eliminate subjective conditions as a grounds of assurance. Regeneration and sanctification are the work of the Spirit. Paul talks about the witness of the Spirit, who bears witness to our adoption as children of God. You don’t think the Spirit bears false witness, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Cont. “The Standard Protestant Syllogism…”

    That needs to be qualified. Bare belief isn’t synonymous with saving faith.

    “Luther’s Syllogism…”

    Since I’m basically Zwinglian in my sacramentology, I don’t accept the sacramental realism which underwrites this syllogism.

    But even if I did subscribe to sacramental realism, the fact remains that sacramental grace is resistible grace. As such, the fact that you’re in a state of sacramental grace today doesn’t mean you’re heavenbound.

    “Calvinists cannot say with confidence ‘God saved me’ without going through the tests outlined in the link you supplied, but since Christ never lies, we can infallibly know we are e.g. baptized.”

    Actually, I think that formulation gets the onus backwards. A born-again Christian has an experience of God’s saving grace. So the presumption is not that he should doubt his salvation unless he can prove it to himself.

    However, there can be times in the life of a born-again Christian when he goes through a crisis of faith. Suffers from acute self-doubt. At that point it’s useful for him to consider the marks of a true believer.

    So it’s not as if the assurance of salvation must normally overcome a presumption to the contrary. Rather, in those cases where a child of God is questioning his salvation, that’s a good time for him to consider the marks of a true believer.

    Doubt is not the default position. Faith is the default position. But Christians can go through dry spells.

    I haven’t taken the time to read through all your subsequent responses to other commenters. For now I’m just going to answer the questions you directed at me.

    Sorry if that means I’m inadvertently raising some issues which you address in response to other commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Edward,
    Earlier you said that "A Lutheran, however, if he was baptized, is baptized even if he does not believe a word of it. If he receives communion he has received the body and blood of Christ even if he does not believe a word of it." You seem to have done a complete reversal. Now it does no good because he "did not believe" since this is something that "faith apprehends." Per your new position:
    If baptism doesn't save you (which I am glad to hear you confess), then you cannot look to it for assurance of salvation in any sense different than how a Calvinist would look to Spirit wrought works. The baptism only acts as a means of grace based on your belief. The basis then has now shifted to a subjective element and is no longer tied to the more empirical nature of water itself. Your assurance is now based upon the subjective state of the individual. Your goal posts have shifted. For the Calvinist the question is how do you know you believe? That, as I have been saying, is also the question you have to answer as well.
    BTW I am in full agreement with what Steve and Jugulum have been saying as well. I particularly liked Jugulum's analogy of the Calvinist baker.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Brett,

    Ah, good. I tend to worry that I have an idiosyncratic understanding of Calvinism. :)

    I had another thought about the baker analogy--another way to apply it. Though it requires mixing the metaphor a bit.

    You can examine the dough to find out that it is cookie dough. (Which includes noticing that the ingredients are all present.) And we know based on God's promise that cookie dough will always rise in the oven--without fail. (God will make sure it rises, even with low-quality ingredients.) So if something doesn't rise, we know it wasn't cookie dough. But we could have found out the same thing before we put it in the oven, by verifying the ingredients.

    That doesn't mean we examine it for high-quality flour or the best chocolate chips. We're not examining it for the quality of the dough; we're verifying the fact that it is dough.


    Edward: When you try to make a distinction between Calvinism & Lutheranism on this point, it seems to depend on unintentionally mischaracterizing Calvinism. It's not about examining the quality of faith. The Calvinist's description of the nature of saving faith is the same as yours. When you describe saving faith, we say, "Right--and part of God's promise is that anyone with that kind of faith will end up persevering, based on God working all things in our lives to that end (ala Romans 8:28-30). Perseverance isn't part of the nature of saving faith--it's something God accomplishes."


    BTW, Brett--"based on" might not be the best verb, when you said "The baptism only acts as a means of grace based on your belief." That could imply that our belief is part of what makes the grace work. (This is like the distinction between "saved by faith" and "saved by grace through faith".) But change it to "in conjunction with your faith", and you're on firmer ground.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jugulum, thanks for the correction. I was not describing my own position, rather I was going with what I thought Edward was saying. But there is a good chance that your correction still sticks as I look at it more closely.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Re: Perseverance

    Another way of describing the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance: In one sense, the Christian is perfectly capable of falling way. There's nothing about me that would prevent me from falling away. I know I'm weak, and my faith could easily fail.

    That's why we need the Spirit to help us in our weakness, as in Rom 8:26-30. We won't fall, because God prevents it, perfectly.

    So we can't fall, in a similar sense that Jesus' bones couldn't be broken. That doesn't mean his bones had the physical properties of Wolverine's adamantium skeleton--it means God would not allow bone-breaking force to be applied to Jesus' bones.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jugulum writes: "We won't fall, because God prevents it, perfectly"

    So what do you make of the instances where you sin with intent?

    I'm not talking about the involuntary movements of passion that you might describe as sinful but rather the intentional things you've done or said as a Christian acting with full knowledge.

    Now, there are some who believe it's possible (even common) for Christians to reach a sinless existence.

    For everyone else, though, if God doesn't keep you from falling away in action, why must one conclude He'd keep you from falling away in terms of faith?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Unless we lose our salvation from an instance of sinning with intent, that isn't really relevant, is it?

    Were you asking it simply as an tangential question? (An interesting & important one, but still tangential?)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve,

    "I don’t see the point of adding the adjective “infallible” to the noun “knowledge.”

    As long as you know something to be the case, why is it additionally necessary to infallible know something?

    If you infallibly know something, then you can’t be wrong. But as long as you’re right, why does it matter if you might have been wrong?

    I think you’re also conflating three distinct issues:"

    I got the idea from the westminster Confession and expanded on it a bit:

    First there is the doctrine of "effectual calling", which is a very important idea in the WC. We read in Chapter X:

    "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace."

    So there is a call, and an effective call. An "ineffective" call is not ineffective because the one called has rejected the message, but because God has not ordained his salvation from the beginning. Is it possible to be ineffectively called and believe you are effectively called, or believe you are not ineffectively called and be effectively called? Yes, it is, an dI think that is a problem. From the same Chapter X of the WC we see that the first is a possibility:

    "Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God."

    Notice they never "truly" come to Christ, though they have some operations of the Spirit, even though they believe they are effectively called, which also means they are not justified:

    WC Chapter XI:

    "Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."

    The ones effectually called are the only ones justified, indeed the only ones Christ actually died for. But they may not even know they are ineffectively called, and live what appear to be godly lives but the whole time not really have the Holy Spirit and salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So, perhaps one can be *sure* that he is elect by applying some tests to his regenerated life?

    Unfortunately, no:

    WC Chapter XVII:

    "Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; ad for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and prevalancy others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves."

    So, a Christian can fall into grevious sin and yet, because of his election, will be saved in the end. (I don't mean here that he continues during all his days to be in grevious sin, though logically we cannot exclude that possibility since all depends on God's decree).

    How dows one know he is one of the elect?

    WC Chapter XVIII

    "Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.

    This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

    Only those who truly believe in the Lord, love him in sincerity and endeavor to walk in good conscience *MAY* in this life be *certainly* assured they are in a state of grace. This assurance is *infallible* and founded upon the divine promises. Or stated in another way, we can infallibly know we are saved depending on how we see our walk with God.

    Now, I hope you can see how this would cause one to reflect on the quality of one's faith so as to gain the assurance one is elect. This is the first syllogism. And for those not infallibly assured, there is this:

    "True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair."

    The system outlined here causes us to reflect on the *quality* of our faith, since both the elect and the non-elect may do grevious sins, may to all appearances display operations of the Spirit, may have lives which to all intents and purposes look very godly. But in the case of the non-elect it doesn't mean anything because they have been decreed to be damned. Indeed, one could be one of the elect and at the last moment of one's life disbelieve and end up in hell. It is this relection aupon the quality of our faith which I believe is the problem. On a practical level it calls everything into question.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You wrote:

    "The elect have an experience of saving grace whereas the reprobate do not."

    And how does one test the experience? Let us suppose there are two good Christians in front of us, one is elect and one is not. Both claim to have experience of saving grace. How can you tell the difference? How can the individuals tell the difference?

    Look for fruit!

    But since we all sin, and the WC confession says even the elect can sin greviously, how would the elect who sinned greviously "experience saving grace"? It is a subjective test and a subjective standard, which is why it causes believers to reflect on the quality of their faith to determine if they are elect. They have nothing objective outside themselves to turn to. Perhaps they could be pointed to the Scriptures and the promises in the Scriptures, but if they are not elect the promises are not for them--indeed only the condemnations apply to them in an objective sense. This is not the way it is for Lutherans. As the Epitome says:

    "But it must be learned alone from the holy Gospel concerning Christ, in which it is clearly testified that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, and that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and believe in the Lord Christ. Rom. 11:32; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2."

    The WC states we should look at "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made" wheras Lutherans point us to the Gospel itself for assurance--Christ died for you! Christ rose for you! Christ forgives you!

    SO, the Lutheran asks not "Do I believe in Christ and have inward evidence?" but "Is what Christ says true?" Once the empirical question is resolved "belief" and "trust" should follow. Just like if I investigate whether or not I live in the USA "belief" and "trust" follow. Of course, we agree that this belief and trust is a gift of God--as to RCs! To deny the Gospel is like denying I live in the USA--it is a denial of the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You wrote:

    " The problem with your empirical/historical tests is that both the heavenbound and the hellbound could past the test.

    In Lutheran theology, the atonement is universal, but salvation is not. Therefore, an affirmative answer to the question, “Did Christ die for me?” doesn’t answer the question of whether you’re saved or elect (unless you believe that it’s possible to lose one’s election).

    Likewise, in Lutheran theology (as I understand it), sacramental grace is resistible grace. Therefore, the fact that you were validly baptized, and the further fact you’re a regular communicant, receiving valid communion, doesn’t affirmatively answer the question of whether you’re saved or elect?

    So I don’t see how you’ve succeeded in solving the problem you pose for yourself."

    The difference is that the Lutheran can have confidence Christ actually died for him, where a Calvinist cannot have that confidence *unless he has subjective assurance he is elect*. A Lutheeran can determine if he is baptized by looking at empirical data, a Calvinist could doubt his baptism if believes he does not have enough fruit, if he is in serious sin, or if God has turned his face away from him for a while. This does not make baptism an automatic ticket into heaven, but it is something to which we always have access because of its objective reality "extra nos". This goes to your point Re: Election, and goes back the the syllogisms I posted before. For Lutherans, "Am I elect?" is a question of secondary importance, the real question is do I believe the Gospel, do I believe Christ died for me etc. The answer, objectively for Lutherans, is yes.

    As for perseverance, we don't know nor can we know.

    You wrote:

    "But even if I did subscribe to sacramental realism, the fact remains that sacramental grace is resistible grace. As such, the fact that you’re in a state of sacramental grace today doesn’t mean you’re heavenbound."

    I never said it means I am automatically heaven bound. I am arguing for the objective reality of the Gospel proclamation for all. Let's put aside sacraments for a moment and concentrate on preaching. when the Gospel is preached, if I am not elect it doesn't matter if I believe then, because my faith is not real and does not have the gift of perseverance. There was indeed no effective grace offered--and effective grace is the only kind which matters ultimately in a Calvinist system.

    Lutherans affirm grace is resistable, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Brett,

    I did not reverse mysaelf. The poiunt is the validity of the baptism, not its subjective effectiveness. For calvinists, though the subjective effectiveness is the whole point.

    Jugulum,

    "When you try to make a distinction between Calvinism & Lutheranism on this point, it seems to depend on unintentionally mischaracterizing Calvinism. It's not about examining the quality of faith. The Calvinist's description of the nature of saving faith is the same as yours. When you describe saving faith, we say, "Right--and part of God's promise is that anyone with that kind of faith will end up persevering, based on God working all things in our lives to that end (ala Romans 8:28-30). Perseverance isn't part of the nature of saving faith--it's something God accomplishes."

    I don't thinj the description of saving faith is alike. We don't have a doctrine of an "effective call", and we this believe Christ died for all. I think the doctrine of JBFA sounds similar until we unpack it. And ultimately, we differ because Lutherans believe Christ died for all while Calvinists don't. Also, I don't mean to imply that reflecting on one's faith is the essence of Calvinism. What I mean to say is that Calvinism leads one to reflect on the quality of one's faith to determine for one's self whether or not one is elect. And being one of the elect is really the whole deal, which makes reflecting on the quality of one's faith quite important in Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Edward,

    "I don't thinj the description of saving faith is alike. We don't have a doctrine of an "effective call","

    That's precisely why I started by saying:

    "You become saved through hearing & trusting the promises of God in the Gospel of Jesus' death & resurrection--which can be presented without going into any theology that Lutherans & Calvinists disagree over."

    In other words, the gospel message doesn't have to include a single thing about the distinctives in TULIP.

    "and we this believe Christ died for all."

    Wait... You're giving your description of what Lutherans think "saving faith" is. And you're saying "saving faith" includes accepting the Lutheran understanding of the atonement? Part of saving faith itself is actually incompatible with Calvinistic atonement?

    Is that really what you intended to say? I've met a Lutheran before who does think Calvinists have a different gospel because of Particular Redemption, but unless you say so outright--that Calvinists trust in a different gospel--I'm going to assume that wasn't your intent.

    Setting that aside: I understand "saving faith" to be trusting in the promises of God in the gospel--e.g. any one of the apostolic proclamations in Acts. Which doesn't have to include any awareness of the nature of God's drawing grace, or of how the Atonement relates to those who die without having believed. It is enough to know that God has raised Christ from his death, and calls us to repent and call on the name of Christ--to "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". We trust that Christ came so that whoever believes will be saved.

    ----

    So... In this attempt to assert a difference between the Calvinist & Lutheran understanding of "saving faith", you had to bring in things that I doubt even you believe are part of saving faith.

    So I'm still unable to understand your perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Jugulum,


    I wrote:

    "and we this believe Christ died for all."

    You replied:

    "Wait... You're giving your description of what Lutherans think "saving faith" is. And you're saying "saving faith" includes accepting the Lutheran understanding of the atonement? Part of saving faith itself is actually incompatible with Calvinistic atonement?"

    Saving faith is not faith that Christ died for all. Saving faith is trust in the promises offered in the Gospel. I know yo uagree with that as stated but it "works out" differently for Calvinists and Lutherans. The difference, which so far I have not seen you engage, is that within Calvinism one cannot say Christ died for him unless one has subjective, infallible assurance that he or she is one of the elect which is an "event" in the life of a Christian which one can recall. For Lutherans this question does not arise because our doctrine is that Christ died for all, so *everyone* can say Christ died for him throughout his whole life. Thus, to gain assurance that Christ died for him the Calvinist has to look to "the inward evidence of those graces" (WC XVIII), the "event" of conversion which one experiences subjectively, rather than to the objective fact Christ died for him because until one is assured it is an open question whether indeed Christ did die for him. To be honest, if TULIP is true this should not bother Calvinists at all as the "L" in TULIP necessitates that there are people for whome Christ did not die.

    "I've met a Lutheran before who does think Calvinists have a different gospel because of Particular Redemption, but unless you say so outright--that Calvinists trust in a different gospel--I'm going to assume that wasn't your intent."

    The Calvinist Gospel is "different", but it can still "work". IOW, it is different such that I believe Calvinists are heterodox, but they are Christians. I am confident Calvinists return the favor. :-)

    "I understand "saving faith" to be trusting in the promises of God in the gospel--e.g. any one of the apostolic proclamations in Acts. Which doesn't have to include any awareness of the nature of God's drawing grace, or of how the Atonement relates to those who die without having believed. It is enough to know that God has raised Christ from his death, and calls us to repent and call on the name of Christ--to "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". We trust that Christ came so that whoever believes will be saved."

    OK, but as I said above the "L" necessitates some level of doubt until I am sure Christ died for *me*. In a Lutheran system this is not the case because Christ died for all. This does not neccessitate the Lutheran system being right, but I think it does necessitate that we acknowledge that there is a nuance which brings about a different approach to sin and redemption as well as how a Christian lives his life. And this is why the article by Cary states, and I think correctly, that the Calvinist system engenders a reflection on the quality of one's faith while the Lutheran system points one to receiving the Gospel--because if perseverance is not also granted there is actually no faith at all.

    BTW, did you read the Cary article?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Jug writes: "Unless we lose our salvation from an instance of sinning with intent, that isn't really relevant, is it? "

    What do you think this passage is saying?

    Hebrews 10:26
    "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

    I'm not suggesting this is a pleasant passage, but it doesn't look too good in terms of your question.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Robert,

    I'm curious--do you customarily use the KJV?

    It's important, because I asked about "an instance of sinning with intent". And the wording you quoted does seem to include even an instance.

    But if these translations are valid, there's a sense of "keep on sinning deliberately".

    So it looks like he's primarily talking about someone who receives knowledge of the truth, but remains unrepentant. Not someone who ever commits a single sin deliberately after conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi Ed,

    You can find my latest reply here:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/witness-of-spirit.html

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jugulum, I tend towards the KJV as it's considered by many to the most authoritative and reliable of translations.

    As you've pointed out, a word or two here and there can change the entire meaning of a sentence. In this particular one, the difference is hardly trivial, is it?

    To say "I did something intentionally" and "I did something persistently" don't really mean the same things at all, do they?

    I must confess my ignorance of Greek and Hebrew. If you can provide the original text, I'd be interested to see the comparisons on this.

    ReplyDelete