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.