Consoling the inconsolable

From the meta:


STEVE SAID:
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!


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.


STEVE SAID:
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.

1/30/2010 7:22 PM
STEVE SAID:
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.

1/30/2010 7:23 PM
STEVE SAID:
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 Julian 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.


STEVE SAID:
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.

2/01/2010 8:55 AM
STEVE SAID:
“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.


STEVE SAID:
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.