Pages

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The witness of the Spirit

I’ve been having a friendly discussion with Edward Reiss, an adroit and thoughtful Lutheran apologist. For a couple of reasons I’m going to transfer my part of the dialogue to a separate thread.

For one thing, it’s simply outgrown the confines of the combox. Of course, a new thread may well generate a new round of activity in this combox. But I’d like to initially block out my position without having to chop it up to fit the Blogger word-limit constraints.

Also, before I respond to Ed’s specific queries and objections, I’d like to situate the discussion in a larger framework.

I’ll begin with an overview (1-2), followed by what I already said in response to Ed (3), followed by my response to his newer comments.

1.The Witness of the Spirit

i) Let’s begin with a bit of exegetical theology. As I understand Rom 8:15-16 and Gal 4:6, a Christian should normally experience the assurance of salvation. The assurance of salvation ought to be the default setting.

It’s not that a Christian should ordinarily begin in a state of doubt, then perform spiritual exercises to gradually attain the goal of assurance.

Rather, regeneration and sanctification confer a distinctive religious experience. An experience of God’s gracious presence in the life of the newborn believer. The Holy Spirit makes us conscious of our adoptive status as sons of God. We normally enjoy that personal knowledge of God’s favor toward us.

For an exegetical defense of this interpretation, cf. G. Fee, Galatians (Deo 2007), 150-56; T. Schreiner, Romans (Baker 1998), 423-27.

We don’t have to run through a batter of tests to be aware of this. Ordinarily, this should be a spontaneous, irrepressible datum of our mental life.

We don’t have to get up every morning and run through a self-diagnostic to find out if our salvation snuck away while we slept.

ii) As such, the witness of the Spirit has evidentiary value. Indeed, Paul introduces this theme in a polemical context (Gal 4:6). He invokes the witness of the Spirit as an argument from religious experience–to rebut the Judaizers. That’s not the only argument he uses to rebut the Judaizers. He also gives some Scriptural arguments. But that’s one of the arguments which he deploys.

This doesn’t mean the witness of the Spirit is purely evidentiary. First and foremost, God adopts us to save us–while the witness of the Spirit is one effect of adoption. And it can functional evidentially.

iii) Likewise, this doesn’t mean we need to inspect the evidence on a regular basis–to see if it’s still there. Rather, that type of evidence is available to true believers in case the occasion arises.

It functions like tacit knowledge. Something you know, whether or not you give it any thought. A background condition which we can also bring into the foreground.

There are degrees of awareness. A continuum of experience which ranges from subliminal perception to acute self-consciousness. For example, there’s a sense in which we’re always aware of time (except when we sleep), but there are situations in which we’re more aware of time than others.

iv) Contrariwise, there can be impediments to the assurance of salvation. Various circumstances can intrude to cloud our ordinary perception of God’s providential presence and favor. Textbook cases include the Psalmist in Ps 88 and John the Baptist in Mt 11:2-6.

v) Moreover, even where the assurance of salvation is “automatic,” that is still dependent on the prior act of faith, including a bit of logical inference. Take Jn 3:16. That contains a promise. But it’s a conditional promise. A promise to believers.

To appropriate that promise, you have to draw an inference from the general promise to your doxastic state. Do you believe it or not? If you do, then it’s true for you.

2. Westminster on assurance

To my knowledge, there are three factors feeding into the Westminster doctrine of assurance: (i) polemical theology; (ii) pastoral theology and (iii) exegetical theology.

i) Polemical theology

The WCF is, in part, responding to the Tridentine doctrine of assurance. Except for extraordinary cases, involving private revelation, Trent denies the possibility of assurance in the life of the average believer.

The WCF counters this by affirming the possibility of such assurance. What Rome says is impossible, Westminster says is possible.

ii) Pastoral theology

However, the WCF also draws a distinction between the possibility of assurance and the necessity of assurance. Put another way, it distinguishes between saving faith and the assurance of salvation.

It probably does this because it is trying to make allowance for “cases of conscience.” Puritans like Richard Sibbes and Richard Baxter wrote extensively on “cases of conscience.”

What should a pastor tell a parishioner who is going through a dry spell? Who is suffering from acute self-doubt?

To tell him that the assurance of salvation is a necessary condition of saving faith would drive an already despairing parishioner over the edge. That would be counterproductive advice to a struggling believer.

So the WCF is attempting to be merciful in both directions. On the one hand, it would be merciless to rob Christians of the possibility of assurance. On the other hand, it would be equally merciless to insist on the necessity of assurance.

The WCF is striving to avoid two equal, but opposite errors.

iii) Exegetical theology

The WCF also tries to stay within the confines of Scripture, as it understands the relevant Scriptures. It doesn’t begin by postulating a desired result, then inventing a dogma that services that postulate.

Christians are entitled to whatever degree of assurance the Bible authorizes. No more and no less. We can’t begin with some a priori goal, and then make up our theology to achieve the goal. Rather, we must remain within the boundaries of whatever God has revealed on this subject.

I’d also add that there are, to my knowledge, some variations in Reformed theology on the presumption of assurance. For example, Herman Bavinck, the Dutch-Reformed theologian, once wrote a pamphlet on assurance in which he was critical of the Puritans’ morbid introspection (as he saw it).

3. Previous replies

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 more 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?

“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.

4. New replies

EDWARD REISS SAID:

“First there is the doctrine of ‘effectual calling’, which is a very important idea in the WC…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.”

i) The reprobate can be (ineffectively) called by the Word. But the reprobate were never called by the Spirit.

The calling of the Word can either be effective (in the case of the elect), or ineffective–in the case of the reprobate. But there is no ineffective calling of the Spirit. Only effective calling.

ii) Keep in mind, to, that the Word can serve more than one purpose. It can harden as well as soften.

In that sense, the Word is always effective, but in different ways depending on the target. The Word is effective in helping to harden the reprobate, but as the Word is effective in helping to soften the elect.

“From the same Chapter X of the WC we see that the first is a possibility… Notice they never ‘truly’ come to Christ, though they have some operations of the Spirit, even though they believe they are effectively called.”

i) Keep in mind that the Confessional terminology is a combination of Scriptural usage and theological jargon.

“Calling” is basically a Pauline category. The WCF lifts that term from Pauline usage. However, the Confession is using the term as a rough synonym for genuine conversion, which includes regeneration (a Johannine category) as well as the reflexive effect of regeneration (e.g. acts of faith and repentance on the part of the regenerate).

This, in turn, is distinguished from “common” operations of the Spirit.

So the reprobate don’t have the same spiritual experience as the elect/regenerate.

ii) Yes, it’s possible for the reprobate to be self-deluded about their salvation. But most theological traditions allow for the possibility of spiritual self-deception. This isn’t distinctive to Calvinism.

And one could cite various examples from Scripture of false teachers who mistakenly assume that they are truly saved. Indeed, there’s a divine irony in this. False teachers view themselves as the true believers, while they view true believers as false believers.

iii) There are also examples in Scripture of non-soteric spiritual gifts. The Spirit of God might give an artisan (Bezaleel) the talent he needs to construct the tabernacle and its furnishings. He might give a Jewish king (e.g. Solomon, Saul) the wisdom and/or courage he needs to lead and defend his subjects. He might inspire an unbeliever (e.g. Balaam, Caiaphas) to utter a true prophecy.

So these are not makeshift distinctions. The Bible itself distinguishes between soteric and non-soteric spiritual endowments.

iv) The Westminster Divines reflect the philosophical/theological resources and historical circumstances of their time and place. If we were writing today, we might use somewhat different formulations.

“Which also means they are not justified.”

True. Justification is reserved for heaven-bound believers. Justification would be pretty worthless if it also applies to the damned.

“The ones effectually called are the only ones justified, indeed the only ones Christ actually died for.”

True.

“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.”

i) Who does the “they” refer to? Syntactically, I’d expect the “they” to refer back to the subjects of the previous sentence. But you’ve already defined that group as consisting of those, and only those, who were effectively called. So you can’t very well say that those who were effectively called may not even know they are ineffectively called.

ii) Syntax aside, I guess you meant to refer to a different group: the reprobate.

Assuming that’s what you mean, you say that they may live what appear to be godly lives.

But why do you find that suggestion objectionable? Surely there are nominal Christians who go through the motions. Perfunctory piety. They may even be quite devout in their way–yet the moment some of them suffer a bit of adversity, their faith evaporates on contact. Surely that’s a common phenomenon in church history. And Jesus refers to that phenomenon in the parable of the sower.

I’ll grant you that this may be disturbing, but we can’t wish it away just because it’s disturbing.

iii) Also, to say they were “ineffectively called” is equivocal. They may have been ineffectively called by the word, inasmuch as they were exposed to the Gospel, but it didn’t take root.

But this doesn’t mean they were ineffectively called by the Spirit, which they mistook for the effective call of the Spirit. For the Spirit never called to the reprobate.

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

i) Why do you think a Christian should be sure of his election regardless of his situation? Was David entitled to the assurance of salvation when he was a backslider? When he committed adultery with the wife of soldier under his command, then engineered the death of her husband to cover his tracks?

The assurance of salvation is not unconditional, and I see no good reason why it ought to be.

ii) You’re also creating a false dichotomy. To say that not every elect believer is certain of his election doesn’t imply that no elect believer is certain of his election.

iii) Moreover, the fact that some true believers have to take stock of their condition to achieve the assurance of salvation doesn’t mean that every true believer must do so. Rather, this is dealing with the situation of true believers who, for whatever reason, lack the assurance of salvation.

“So, a Christian can fall into grievous 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 grievous sin, though logically we cannot exclude that possibility since all depends on God's decree).”

The decree decrees means as well as ends.

“How does one know he is one of the elect?”

I’m not clear on why you’re preoccupied with knowing if one is “elect.” Why not ask how one knows he’s “saved”?

A Calvinist can know that he’s elect in the same way he can know he’s saved.

“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.”

But surely there are hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, who 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.

We can cite various examples in church history. And they have their counterparts in Bible history as well. That may be disturbing, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

“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.”

Why do you think the quality of one’s faith should have absolutely no bearing on the assurance of salvation? Do you think Caiaphas was entitled to the assurance of salvation? Or the Borgia popes? Or charlatan faith-healers?

“The system outlined here causes us to reflect on the *quality* of our faith, since both the elect and the non-elect may do grievous 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.”

The phenomenology can be very similar. But the psychology is dissimilar.

“Indeed, one could be one of the elect and at the last moment of one's life disbelieve and end up in hell.”

No. According to Calvinism the elect can never end up in hell. Not a single one.

“It is this reflection upon the quality of our faith which I believe is the problem. On a practical level it calls everything into question.”

There are two opposing errors we need to avoid. And you only have eyes for one of the errors. At one extreme is the error of denying that any Christian can enjoy the assurance of salvation.

But at the other extreme is the error of giving false assurance to hypocrites, closet apostates, and nominal believers.

“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?”

Let us suppose there are two individuals in front of us. One is sober while the other is stoned. Both claim to be sober. How can you tell the difference? How can the individual tell the difference?

The fact is that one is lucid while the other is deluded. Both may claim to be in the same condition, but both are not.

There is nothing the sober individual to say or do to convince the stoned individual that he is stoned.

But should the sober individual doubt his own sobriety because he can entertain a hypothetical scenario in which, for one he knows, he might be stoned, but imagine that he’s sober?

We can iterate these sceptical, brain-in-vat scenarios into infinite regress, but those are paper doubts, not real doubts. They betray an overactive imagination.

“But since we all sin, and the WC confession says even the elect can sin grievously, how would the elect who sinned grievously experience saving grace?”

How does a drunk know when he’s sober? After he dries out.

“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.”

Keep in mind that our perception of objective reality is a subjective impression. There’s an irreducibly subjective element to the way in which we process reality. That’s part of our finitude. Of what it means to be a creature.

“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.”

And what’s the problem with that? It’s like complaining that antivenom is only effective for snakebite victims. True. And how is that a problem?

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

i) That’s a very truncated statement of what the WCF actually says.

ii) A problem with the Lutheran alternative is that the death of Christ is not commensurate with the forgiveness of Christ. Christ died for all, but all are not forgiven. For the damned suffer divine judgment rather than divine forgiveness.

Unless you go so far as to say that one can be both forgiven and still be damned–in which case I don’t see the differential value between status of an unforgiven hellion and the status of a forgiven hellion.

“SO, the Lutheran asks not ‘Do I believe in Christ and have inward evidence?’ but ‘Is what Christ says true?’”

True for whom? Believers or unbelievers? Does Christ promise eternal salvation to impenitent unbelievers?

“The difference is that the Lutheran can have confidence Christ actually died for him...”

And what benefit does that confer? Bultmann in hell can have confidence that Christ died for him.

“A Lutheran can determine if he is baptized by looking at empirical data…”

And what benefit does that confer? Bultmann in hell can determine if he is baptized by remembering his baptismal certificate.

Seems to me a Lutheran is in the equivalent position of a test subject in a double blind experiment. Is he receiving the cure, or is he receiving the placebo? You may say it’s “real,” but if “real” medicine is no more effective than the placebo, then what difference does it make?

“For Lutherans, ‘Am I elect?’ is a question of secondary importance, the real question is do I believe the Gospel…”

Up to a point, a Calvinist could say the same thing. But what benefit does the Gospel confer? If you can lose your salvation, then that scrapes the sheen clean off your statement.

“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.”

It’s a tradeoff between a lesser benefit for more, or a greater benefit for fewer.

Take two hypothetical cases. In both cases we have 100 terminal cancer patients. In one case a drug is administered to all patients, which will extend the lives of all patients by 10 years. In another case, drug is administered to 50 patients which will cure all 50 patients.

In one case, all die, but everyone lives longer than if no one received treatment. In the other case, half die, and half are healed.

Which is better? To cure only half of them, or to cure none of them, but extend the lives of all of them?

There is no simple answer to that question. Each is better than the other in one important respect, but worse than the other in another important respect.

Likewise, we can debate the hypothetical merits or demerits of respective soteriologies, but all that counts is which tradeoff God has actually chosen to put in place.

27 comments:

  1. Just from the sidelines,

    I would say that this is a non sequitur?

    "....Notice they never ‘truly’ come to Christ, though they have some operations of the Spirit, even though they believe they are effectively called.”

    Nobody comes to Christ. He comes to His Own. Everybody experiences the operations of the Spirit. He is here. Cf Genesis 1:2. And everybody is "effectively" called.

    Those Whom the Holy Spirit convicts are effectively called. Those Whom He was sent to and comes to and enlightens, regenerates and sanctifies their spirit, soul and body are effectively called too because they see Him now, Our Righteousness, sitting at His Eternal Right Hand. Those, these that are with Satan, his angels have been rightfully effectively called.

    Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
    Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
    Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
    Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

    For me, the proposition is simple because the Holy Spirit has made it simple. I was blind and now I see. Without Him and His operation in my life, nothing in this Book we read as the Bible makes a whole bunch of sense!

    I can clearly remember, [after coming into His understanding of Christ, that operation of the Holy Spirit], putting down the Bible after I read the Book of Exodus for the very first time. It shook me and I doubted.

    It wasn't something I was inclined to believe ever happened. By the gentle operation of the Holy Spirit, though, that inclination has happily disappeared from any reasonable or logical understanding of those events I have a belief happened, now.

    Makes no difference to one who does not have the Holy Spirit opening their mind to understand the consequences of their unbelief. They will come to trial and be convicted of their unbelief no matter how moral and right their life is in their own eyes. They will protest their innocence, no doubt? Makes no difference to the demons either. They believe and tremble.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is one more point you make that I would underscore with Peter's Words:::>

    "....iii) Moreover, the fact that some true believers have to take stock of their condition to achieve the assurance of salvation doesn’t mean that every true believer must do so....".


    Yes, not every "true" believer must do so as Peter indicates here:

    1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
    1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
    1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
    1Pe 1:6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,
    1Pe 1:7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    Peter makes an admission, I suppose from further reflection on the trials and tribulations that got him that far, penning this epistle to the chosen Elect he was sent to shepherd, "if necessary"!

    Well, why is it necessary that God treats His Elect this way?

    I do not believe that is the case. It is the case though, "if necessary".

    Some are just devout, righteous, holy sinful creatures who lived their whole lives to have a glimspe of Him the Holy Spirit promised them they would have:::>

    Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
    Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

    and

    Luk 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
    Luk 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
    Luk 2:27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law,
    Luk 2:28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
    Luk 2:29 "Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;
    Luk 2:30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
    Luk 2:31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
    Luk 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel."

    and why not remember:::>

    Luk 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,
    Luk 2:37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
    Luk 2:38 And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

    Now I suppose she was under weight? :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. For reference, Steve has written several posts on the topic:

    * Without a doubt
    * Election & assurance
    * "Calvinism's Unassuring Assurance"?
    * Do we know we're saved?
    * Religious affections

    These are the ones of which I'm aware but there could be others.

    Also, speaking of Bavinck, I don't know to which pamphlet Steve is referring. But "The Certainty of Faith" (PDF) might be a relevant read.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i enjoyed assurance until a certain event in my life. now i struggle with the thought that i have commmitted the unforgivable sin...this crushes any assurance. but, oh how i long for jesus' assurance every day. is it possible to be saved without assurance?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, it's possible to be saved without assurance.

    Moreover, those who commit the unforgivable sin never give it a second thought. It's only those who never commit the unforgivable sin who torment themselves with unfounded fears in this respect.

    You have nothing to fear. Had you committed the unforgivable sin, you'd be far too hardened to worry about it.

    The devil is simply trying to rob you of your Christian joy. Tell the devil to go to hell!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zwinglian sacrament...ordiananceology? That is the weak point in your presentation. Receiving holy Baptism connects one with a promise which is true for all of life. The Sacrament of the Eucharist, received in our great need as sinners, when so received recognizing the presence of Christ, provides comfort and assurance. Thirdly, corporate confession and absolution in the Church'[s liturgy provides the opportunity to acknowledge sin and hear the benefits of Christ once again presented. Calvin, Luther, and Cranmer maintained that. I fear many self-proclaimed Reformed are revivalists and subjectivists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CB,

    All you've given me is a string of disputable assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rach,

    The best thing I can say to you is that Jesus Christ died for you, and I can say that unreservedly.

    In fact, it is on this issue that the argument turnes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve,

    "Moreover, those who commit the unforgivable sin never give it a second thought. It's only those who never commit the unforgivable sin who torment themselves with unfounded fears in this respect."

    I am not sure this is true. It is possible for someone who is not one of the elect to have remorse, and not repentance and subjectively experience this remorse as if it was repentance. Of course, if one is not one of the elect one cannot ever repent. I would also point out that you have pointed rach back to himself--because of his "inner testimony" that he cares about his sin. Instead we should point him to Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  10. natamillc,

    "For me, the proposition is simple because the Holy Spirit has made it simple. I was blind and now I see. Without Him and His operation in my life, nothing in this Book we read as the Bible makes a whole bunch of sense!"

    If you don't know you "see", you cannot be sure Christ died for you. It boils down to that. The WCF allows for self deception in this matter. None of the reformed here can tell rach that Christ died for him, instead they have to point to inner evidence instead of "Extra Nos".

    Contrariwise, a Lutheran minister can say Christ died to the one tormented by his sins, that he is indeed baptized and a child of Christ, and that if he believes this his sins are forgiven. IOW, there is a reason no Reformed person has simply said that.

    This is because we have different doctrines of justification by faith alone, though there is overlap.

    I understand that it is possible for one to be elect and not know it, it is just that the "L" in TULIP brings in a measure of uncertainty--especially if, as Steve seems to agree, one not of the elect can believe e does have the gift of perseverance. To resolve these issues for ourselves--i.e. not only in an abstract manner--we need to prove to ourselves our faith is true. This is what the Cary article is about. Lutherans ask different questions--does Christ lie? No. Well, Christ said I am baptized, so I have the gift of eternal life. Is God untrue? No. Then he earnestly wishes my salvation through Jesus Christ. as his Apostles have told us. For a Calvinist, there is a qualification for each of those because God only wills his elect to be saved, the promises in baptism (whether or not one has a Magisterial Reformation view of Baptism or an Anabaptist one) is only offered and valid for his elect, never those he has decreed to damnation.

    Now, if Calvinism is true, then too bad--that's just how it is. But Lutherans do not have the same issues, nor does Lutheranism encourage the reflection on the quality of faith that Calvimism does.

    ReplyDelete
  11. EDWARD REISS SAID:

    “I am not sure this is true. It is possible for someone who is not one of the elect to have remorse, and not repentance and subjectively experience this remorse as if it was repentance. Of course, if one is not one of the elect one cannot ever repent.”

    i) I’m not dealing with the generic notion of remorse. Rather, I’m dealing with the specific question of individuals who are anxious or even despairing over the prospect that they may have committed the unforgivable sin.

    I’m not aware of reprobates who fret over that question. Does Gore Vidal fret over that question?

    ii) It’s also useless to tell such a person that Christ died for him. To begin with, I daresay that many or most individuals who fret over the unforgivable sin have been associated with churches which teach universal atonement. And, by definition, the unforgivable sin is unforgivable even if Christ died for the sinner who committed that particular sin. So that’s the wrong answer.

    “I would also point out that you have pointed rach back to himself--because of his ‘inner testimony’ that he cares about his sin. Instead we should point him to Christ.”

    That’s futile advice. Unless you feel the weight of sin, you feel no need of a Savior.

    “Well, Christ said I am baptized, so I have the gift of eternal life.”

    But elsewhere you admit that baptism is no guarantee of salvation. So that statement is duplicitous.

    “But Lutherans do not have the same issues, nor does Lutheranism encourage the reflection on the quality of faith that Calvimism does.”

    Which is a recipe for nominal Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve wrote in the prior thread, “Bare belief isn’t synonymous with saving faith.”

    Do you agree with Gordon Clark when he says that belief must always have a proposition as its proper object?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve,

    You wrote: "I’m not dealing with the generic notion of remorse. Rather, I’m dealing with the specific question of individuals who are anxious or even despairing over the prospect that they may have committed the unforgivable sin.

    I’m not aware of reprobates who fret over that question. Does Gore Vidal fret over that question?"

    Is it possible for a reprobate to have an outwardly good life? Is every reprobate like Gore Vidal? I would answer yes and no respectively.

    And the question is raised by the WCF itself when it says "X/IV. 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..."

    Again, they have operations of the Spirit yet they never *truly* come to Christ. Thi smeans a Christian could be repentant and still have doubts he is aceptable for the sake of Christ because if he i snot elect he only had "some common operations of the Spirit".

    So it would appear than not all reprobates are like Gore Vidal. Neither are they all like Stalin, Robspierre, Ivan the Terrible, Caligula or other monsters from history. Nor is there a guarantee the elect will always exhibit a godly life:

    "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...."

    (WCF XVIII/IV)

    Did Judas fret over his acts to betray Christ? Scripture says yes, though he committed suicide.

    The point is that the test of "Do I feel bad about it" will always be ambiguous because unless one is one of the elect and knows it, it all may be nothing more than a feeling one brought out of one's self. So, given the Calvinist system, only the ones who have been told by the HS that he is one of the elect can really have any assurance--everyone else has to look into one's self for "internal" evidence:

    "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."..

    Lutheranism looks to the external evicence of Christ's acts on our behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve,

    You wrote: "It’s also useless to tell such a person that Christ died for him. To begin with, I daresay that many or most individuals who fret over the unforgivable sin have been associated with churches which teach universal atonement. And, by definition, the unforgivable sin is unforgivable even if Christ died for the sinner who committed that particular sin. So that’s the wrong answer."

    I don't think it is ever useless to tell someone Christ died for him, as thatr is the Gospel in a nutshell--at least according to us. But don't you see ow potentially dangerous it is to tell such a one to look into himself for "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made" when he is tormented by doubts of his salvation? It is better by far to point him to the promises, wouldn't you agree?

    “I would also point out that you have pointed rach back to himself--because of his ‘inner testimony’ that he cares about his sin. Instead we should point him to Christ.”

    That’s futile advice. Unless you feel the weight of sin, you feel no need of a Savior. "

    Not futile, because it is the weight of sin to which the acts of Christ in history are directed. As I said, the difference between us is because we have different doctrines.

    You said: "But elsewhere you admit that baptism is no guarantee of salvation. So that statement is duplicitous."

    Why is it duplicitous to tell someone what has happened in hoistory? As I cited Luther, a baptism is valid even if we do not receive it correctly--yet because it is always valid we always have access to it. So telling someone that he is baptized is analogous to telling someone that, since he is hungry, he should use the food we provided for him which he has neglected. In the case of baptism as well as that of the food, there is an objective reality to which we have access.

    You wrote: "Which is a recipe for nominal Christians."

    There is a difference between reflective faith as something we do and reflective faith as a necessary component of our assurance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ed:

    "....natamillc,

    "For me, the proposition is simple because the Holy Spirit has made it simple. I was blind and now I see. Without Him and His operation in my life, nothing in this Book we read as the Bible makes a whole bunch of sense!"

    Ok. Now what?

    Let me ask a favor and a question.

    Would you exegete this verse?

    Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.


    Would you explain to me how you are literally washed with His Blood?

    ReplyDelete
  16. natamillc,

    You cited a quote by me of you in your message. Was that your intention? Because I am not sure how your question pertains to the discussion here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. EDWARD REISS SAID:

    “Is it possible for a reprobate to have an outwardly good life? Is every reprobate like Gore Vidal? I would answer yes and no respectively.”

    You’re dissimulating. The question at issue was a very specific question–concerning the unforgivable sin.

    What type of person worries about committing the unforgivable sin? Someone who believes the Bible and has a very particular interpretation of that passage. That’s who.

    “And the question is raised by the WCF itself…”

    Once again, you’re dissimulating. The question at issue was about the unforgivable sin. That’s not what the WCF is addressing here.

    “Again, they have operations of the Spirit yet they never *truly* come to Christ. Thi smeans a Christian could be repentant and still have doubts he is aceptable for the sake of Christ because if he i snot elect he only had ‘some common operations of the Spirit.’”

    i) Once more, you’re dissimulating. The WCF isn’t dealing with the unforgivable sin.

    ii) Moreover, there is, indeed, a distinction between nominal Christians and genuine Christians–just as there was, in the OT, a distinction between nominal Jews and pious Jews. Those who only received physical circumcision and those who also received circumcision of the heart.

    John the Baptist draws that sort of distinction in Mt 3. If Lutheran theology can’t honor that Biblical distinction, then so much the worse for Lutheran theology.

    “So it would appear than not all reprobates are like Gore Vidal. Neither are they all like Stalin, Robspierre, Ivan the Terrible, Caligula or other monsters from history.”

    Once again, you’re dissimulating–since that’s irrelevant to the unforgivable sin.

    “Nor is there a guarantee the elect will always exhibit a godly life.”

    Which is irrelevant to what I said.

    “Did Judas fret over his acts to betray Christ? Scripture says yes, though he committed suicide.”

    i) Once more, you’re dissimulating. Judas wasn’t fretting over the unforgivable sin.

    ii) Moreover, you’re assuming that he was guilt-stricken. In context, it’s more likely that his suicide was a symptom and side-effect of his demonic possession (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:2,27). Suicidal impulses are common among those who suffer from occult bondage.

    “The point is that the test of "Do I feel bad about it" will always be ambiguous because unless one is one of the elect and knows it, it all may be nothing more than a feeling one brought out of one's self.”

    i) Unbelievers aren’t afraid of “sinning.” They don’t feel guilty about “sinning.” “Sin” is a Biblical category. They disbelieve the Bible.

    They may feel guilty about “wrongs,” but not about “sins”–especially a theological sin like the unforgivable sin.

    Since they don’t believe in the Holy Spirit, they don’t believe it’s possible to sin against the Holy Spirit.

    ii) There are anxieties and guilt-feelings which only a believer can feel.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cont. “So, given the Calvinist system, only the ones who have been told by the HS that he is one of the elect can really have any assurance--everyone else has to look into one's self for ‘internal’ evidence.”

    i) You deliberately misrepresent the “Calvinist system” when you habitually divorce the “internal” evidence from its external object–God’s promises.

    ii) The Gospel promises are not unconditional promises. Rather, the Gospel promises are conditional promises.

    They are promises to and for believers. They are not promises to Caligula or Stalin or Ivan the Terrible (to use your own examples).

    They can only become promises to and for unbelievers if and when unbelievers cease to be unbelievers. Gospel promises must be appropriated by faith.

    “Lutheranism looks to the external evicence of Christ's acts on our behalf.”

    And according to Lutheranism, Christ acts on behalf of the damned as well as the saints.

    So what do his acts on our behalf evidence, exactly? Nothing to distinguish one man’s eternal fate from another’s.

    “I don't think it is ever useless to tell someone Christ died for him…”

    That’s a malicious distortion of what I said. I gave a reason for my statement. And I was answering you on your own grounds in the process.

    You respond by giving a deviously butchered version of what I actually said.

    “But don't you see ow potentially dangerous it is to tell such a one to look into himself for ‘the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made’ when he is tormented by doubts of his salvation?”

    It’s a good thing that you’re a Lutheran layman rather than a Lutheran pastor. What you’re trying to do here, which is truly despicable, is to exploit someone’s vulnerability to score theological points. I guess it’s all the same to you if you drove someone to suicide to score points.

    I told the individual in question that he/she had no reason to fear. And I gave a perfectly sound reason. Those who commit the unforgivable sin are too hardened to give it a second thought.

    If you want to attack Calvinism, go right ahead. But do not, I repeat, do not abuse this individual’s anxiety as a pretext to score theological points.

    I will not permit you to do that here. I only responded at all because it was necessary to repair any damage you may have done. I hope it wasn’t irreparable.

    “It is better by far to point him to the promises, wouldn't you agree?”

    No, I wouldn’t agree. If someone fears that he committed the unforgivable sin, then pointing him to promises of forgiveness is pointless. For if he really committed the unforgivable sin, then he crossed a line of no return. No forgiveness in this age or the next, remember?

    So it’s necessary to challenge the premise.

    You’d make a lousy pastor. You have no capacity to listen to the individual across the table. Instead, you try to stamp everyone with your cookie-cutter bromide regardless of what they specifically told you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cont. “Not futile, because it is the weight of sin to which the acts of Christ in history are directed. As I said, the difference between us is because we have different doctrines.”

    Once again, you’re dissimulating. Was I referring to the “weight of sin” in the sense of objective culpability? No.

    I was making the obvious point that unless someone feels guilty, feels “sinful,” then he has no motivation to turn to Christ.

    Is there some reason you can’t honestly represent what people tell you? Do you always try to win a debate at any cost, by any expedient?

    “Why is it duplicitous to tell someone what has happened in hoistory?”

    Now you prop up one duplicitous statement with another duplicitous statement.

    What was I responding to? Remember? Your statement that: “Well, Christ said I am baptized, so I have the gift of eternal life.”

    That is false assurance. And it’s false assurance on your own grounds since you yourself don’t actually believe that everyone who been baptized is heaven-bound. So you made a very deceptive statement. And what is worse, you made it on a subject of utmost importance.

    You then respond with a bait-and-switch: “Why is it duplicitous to tell someone what has happened in hoistory…”–as if that’s what you originally said, as if that follows from what you originally said, as if that’s what I was responding to.

    “So telling someone that he is baptized is analogous to telling someone that, since he is hungry, he should use the food we provided for him which he has neglected. In the case of baptism as well as that of the food, there is an objective reality to which we have access.”

    Once more, you’re dissimulating. You originally said: “Well, Christ said I am baptized, so I have the gift of eternal life.”

    That’s an indicative statement. Fait accompli. Done deal.

    Which is altogether different from treating baptism as merely a provision that an individual is then encouraged to take advantage of.

    But your basic problem in all of this is that you seek a formulaic shortcut to the assurance of salvation.

    Many theological traditions are guilty of this. They all have their gimmicks, viz. “I know I’m saved because I responded to the alter call on such-and-such a date.” “I know I’m saved because my church preserves apostolic succession.” “I know I’m saved because I was baptized as a baby!” “I know I’m saved because I’m a covenant child!” “I know I’m saved because I still observe the Gregorian calendar.” “I know I’m saved because I celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday instead of Sunday.” “I know I’m saved because I only use the KJV.”

    The gimmick varies, but the psychology is interchangeable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ed,

    You took a part of my comment and cited it and gave an explantion of your views. I am assuming you did that to enhance or correct my views of the workings of the Holy Spirit in those He is sent to?

    I am now asking, "now what"? Is there anything more that you have in mind to add to what you have already written?

    And further, I asked you to exegete a passage from Hebrews.

    What else, then?

    It's a simple proposition for me. I was blind and now I see.

    Would you like me to clarify that I was not born physiologically blind, just spiritually blind and then by the Sanctification work of the Spirit reading the Bible started to make sense whereas before, when I read it, I had no clue what I was reading?

    In fact, after I was enlightened, I read the Book of Exodus and it shook me to the core and I began doubting God and what He was bringing me to rationally believe. I now read the Book of Exodus and marvel that God can do all those things that that book reveals done by Him.

    Amazing, isn't it?

    Anyway, go ahead and explain more of what you meant after citing a portion of what I commented above seeing you selected something I commented in here.

    Or, what you wrote after, is that enough of an explanation for me, in your view, to reconsider what I wrote and posted in here?

    Or what, as in, now what Ed? Do you want more from me why I am asking you to exegete Hebrews 9:14 and explain how you are washed, that is, your conscience is cleansed by the "blood" of Jesus?

    How does the Blood of Jesus cleanse one's conscience these days?

    ReplyDelete
  21. WHEAT SAID:

    "Do you agree with Gordon Clark when he says that belief must always have a proposition as its proper object?"

    i) That's overstated, A 2-year old believes in his parents. Has faith in them. But that doesn't involve a conscious proposition.

    ii) Doctrinal propositions are a necessary component of saving faith.

    iii) However, there is more to saving faith than orthodox belief. There must also be an appropriate attitude towards the truth.

    The devil knows the truth, but he hates it. And he lives in willful defiance of the truth.

    Saving faith includes a trustful attitude towards revealed truth.

    Moreover, the Bible often speaks of a spiritual yearnings. A longing for God's presence. That also goes beyond mere belief.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Natamlls,

    You wrote: "Or, what you wrote after, is that enough of an explanation for me, in your view, to reconsider what I wrote and posted in here?"

    I think I have explained myself here. Anyway, the discussion seems to be generating more heat than I would like, so I will bow out. Nothing personal to anyone here, it is just that in the previous thread, while there were disagreements, everyone was cordial. Now, my actions get called despicable and I have a series of assettions stated as fact. I don't want to make people angry--really I don't. My remarks to RACH were to comfort him/her. If he/she believes I was using him/her, I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve,

    You wrote: "You’re dissimulating. The question at issue was a very specific question–concerning the unforgivable sin."

    I simply reject that categorization. I am pointing out that a reprobate can lead an outwardly good life and a Christian can lead a more or less dissolute life--as the WCF states BTW. Given that, my point is quite relevant.

    "What type of person worries about committing the unforgivable sin? Someone who believes the Bible and has a very particular interpretation of that passage. That’s who."

    And again we are pointed to the quality of our faith to prove to ourselves we are real Christians, instead of to the promises of Christ. This is because it is an open question as to whether or not Christ died for a given person.

    I used the example of Judas. If you saw him after he betrayed Christ and had remorse and before he killed himself, would you be able to peer into his soul and see he is a reprobate? I don't think so, but perhaps you can. So, it is easy to extrapolate that to other reprobates. IOW, you have not shown a reprobate could be sorry for his sins and yet not be justified. Nor could you tell such a one Jesus died for him, as I keep pointing out. This is because of "TULIP" Calvinism. In fact, I don’t see why this is even controversial--a Calvinist cannot tell anyone Christ died for him unless he somehow infallibly knows he is one of the elect.

    You wrote: "Moreover, there is, indeed, a distinction between nominal Christians and genuine Christians–just as there was, in the OT, a distinction between nominal Jews and pious Jews. Those who only received physical circumcision and those who also received circumcision of the heart."

    And unless a pastor can peer into someone's heart, he does not know if Christ died for him. You are once again either having the Christian look inside himself or perhaps have another look into his heart to discern if he is a "genuine" Christian. I do not doubt there is such a distinction; I just doubt our ability to know who this side of eternity is in what camp.

    "Unbelievers aren’t afraid of “sinning.” They don’t feel guilty about “sinning.” “Sin” is a Biblical category. They disbelieve the Bible."

    I am not so sure of that. You assert it, but shouldn't that be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

    "It’s a good thing that you’re a Lutheran layman rather than a Lutheran pastor. What you’re trying to do here, which is truly despicable, is to exploit someone’s vulnerability to score theological points. I guess it’s all the same to you if you drove someone to suicide to score points."

    I did no such thing. I told him Jesus died for him. That is, in a nutshell, the gospel promises. You disagree, but that hardly makes my actions "despicable".

    "You’d make a lousy pastor. You have no capacity to listen to the individual across the table. Instead, you try to stamp everyone with your cookie-cutter bromide regardless of what they specifically told you."

    Ad hominem remarks are not strong arguments.

    Tchuess

    ReplyDelete
  24. EDWARD REISS SAID:

    “I simply reject that categorization.”

    The unforgivable sin is a biblical category. If Lutheran theology can’t make room for biblical categories, then so much the worse for Lutheran theology.

    “I am pointing out that a reprobate can lead an outwardly good life and a Christian can lead a more or less dissolute life--as the WCF states BTW.”

    In Calvinism, a true believer can be a backslider. However, God also restores his backslidden children through divine chastisement.

    “Given that, my point is quite relevant.”

    It’s totally irrelevant to the unforgivable sin.

    “And again we are pointed to the quality of our faith to prove to ourselves we are real Christians, instead of to the promises of Christ.”

    The Bible itself encourages a measure of introspection and self-examination, viz. 2 Cor 13:5-6; 1 Jn 3:14; 5:10 (see commentaries by M. J. Harris on 2 Cor and Yarbrough for exegesis).

    If Lutheran theology can’t make room for biblical counsel, then so much the worse for Lutheran theology.

    “I used the example of Judas. If you saw him after he betrayed Christ and had remorse and before he killed himself, would you be able to peer into his soul and see he is a reprobate? I don't think so, but perhaps you can. So, it is easy to extrapolate that to other reprobates.”

    Now you’re confusing first-party assurance with second-party assurance. In the nature of the case, I only have direct access to my own mental states. The fact that I can’t be sure of someone else’s salvation doesn’t mean I can’t be sure of my own. Those are obviously two different issues.

    Indeed, I discussed that distinction in some detail in the article (by James Anderson) that I referred you to. See the combox. So you’re raising objections I already dealt with.

    “IOW, you have not shown a reprobate could be sorry for his sins and yet not be justified.”

    Is it your position that the damned are justified? Isn’t justification contingent on saving faith? Was Suleiman the Magnificent justified by faith in Christ?

    “Nor could you tell such a one Jesus died for him, as I keep pointing out.”

    So I can’t tell Judas that Christ died for him. Big deal.

    “Calvinism. In fact, I don’t see why this is even controversial--a Calvinist cannot tell anyone Christ died for him unless he somehow infallibly knows he is one of the elect.”

    It isn’t my duty to give a second party that blanket assurance. A second party is responsible for his own assurance. I have no right to give him proxy assurance regardless of his spiritual status.

    ReplyDelete
  25. “And unless a pastor can peer into someone's heart, he does not know if Christ died for him.”

    It’s not the job of a pastor to take that upon himself. Christ is the mediator, not the pastor.

    “You are once again either having the Christian look inside himself or perhaps have another look into his heart to discern if he is a ‘genuine’ Christian.’”

    i) He’s “looking inside himself” in the same way he might examine a scan of his pacemaker. Although the pacemaker is inside of him, it didn’t originate with him. It was put there by someone else.

    To see if the pacemaker is functioning properly isn’t an exercise in self-reliance.

    Likewise, both John and Paul tell us that Christians normally enjoy the inner witness of Spirit. And they introduce this in polemical settings where that’s a ground of assurance and evidence of salvation (Gal 4:6; 1 Jn 5:10).

    What’s “inside us” (the work of the Spirit) isn’t “us.” We’re not looking at ourselves, any more than scanning a pacemaker is looking at ourselves.

    If Lutheran theology can’t make room biblical modes of spiritual attestation, then so much the worse for biblical theology.

    ii) And you have a habit of dishonestly reducing the Reformed grounds of assurance to subjective grounds, even though, in Reformed theology, the subjective grounds and the objective grounds are complementary.

    “I am not so sure of that. You assert it, but shouldn't that be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?”

    It follows from the definition of an unbeliever. But if Lutheran theology can’t distinguish between believers and unbelievers, then so much the worse for Lutheran theology.

    “I did no such thing. I told him Jesus died for him. That is, in a nutshell, the gospel promises. You disagree, but that hardly makes my actions ‘despicable.’”

    i) You’re using a vulnerable individual as a theological football to score points. Yes, that’s despicable.

    ii) If universal atonement is the gospel in a nutshell, then it’s odd that none of the evangelistic sermons in Acts say, “Christ died for you!”

    iii) As I said before, if somebody fears that he committed the unforgivable sin, then telling him that Christ died for him does nothing to assuage his fears since that’s impotent to absolve the unforgivable sin.

    You, however, refuse to engage the argument because you can’t accommodate anything that doesn’t shoehorn into the preset parameters of your Lutheran system.

    “Ad hominem remarks are not strong arguments.”

    Is there something about Lutheran theology that makes you that utterly sociopathic?

    A person is not an argument. A vulnerable individual isn’t cannon fodder for you to win the argument.

    If Lutheranism is that callous and tone-deaf to the rudiments of pastoral theology, then to hell with Lutheranism.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve,

    Your post is full of mere assertions with no back up. You are free to do so, but I am under no obligation to take such arguments seriously.

    Then I get this:

    "Is there something about Lutheran theology that makes you that utterly sociopathic?

    A person is not an argument. A vulnerable individual isn’t cannon fodder for you to win the argument.

    If Lutheranism is that callous and tone-deaf to the rudiments of pastoral theology, then to hell with Lutheranism."

    I have not used anyone as canon fodder. I pointed out what was lacking in the comfort offered here by the Reformed. If pointing someone to his savior is "callous" and "sociopathic" according to you, well, good luck with that approach!

    Tscheuss!

    ReplyDelete
  27. EDWARD REISS SAID:

    “Your post is full of mere assertions with no back up. You are free to do so, but I am under no obligation to take such arguments seriously.”

    i) To the contrary, I repeatedly answered you on your very own grounds. I also gave exegetical arguments. And I also pointed you to my detailed comments in the post by James Anderson.

    Your theological system lacks the internal resources to respond. All you can do is to repeat yourself.

    ii) If, for example, you think the category of an “unforgivable sin” is “mere assertion,” even though there’s a type of sin which Scripture explicitly describes in those terms, than that’s your problem, not mine.

    Calvinism didn’t invent the category of the “unforgivable sin.” That’s not a Reformed distinctive. That’s a commonplace of evangelical theology in general.

    “If pointing someone to his savior is ‘callous’ and ‘sociopathic’ according to you, well, good luck with that approach!”

    Once again, this exposes the fact that Lutheran theology has nothing in reserve. “Pointing someone to his savior” if he fears he committed the unforgivable sin is cruel advice since, if he committed the unforgivable sin, then his case is hopeless.

    Lutheran theology is evidently incapable of dealing with a situation like this. It has nothing to fall back on. It can’t deal with the specific demands of the issue at hand.

    Instead, it simply defaults to its pat answers–even though that’s wholly unresponsive to the individual’s concrete situation.

    ReplyDelete