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.
EDWARD REISS SAID:
ReplyDelete“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.
Thanks for the reply. For the sake of discussion, let me toss an argument or two of Gordon Clark’s on the table.
ReplyDeleteSteve mentioned that a 2-year old believes in his parents. While I don’t specifically recall him talking about very young children, Clark argues that to believe in a person is to believe the propositional content of what that person says. So to say that a child believes in his parents would mean that the child believes the propositional content of what his parents tell him, thus the object of belief is still propositional.
Perhaps Clark would categorize the relationship of a very young child (such as 2-year old) to his parents as some sort of emotional bond rather than a relationship involving faith.
I know that you are familiar with Clark’s writings; I’m just wondering how you might respond to Clark’s argument in this case.
WHEAT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve mentioned that a 2-year old believes in his parents. While I don’t specifically recall him talking about very young children, Clark argues that to believe in a person is to believe the propositional content of what that person says. So to say that a child believes in his parents would mean that the child believes the propositional content of what his parents tell him, thus the object of belief is still propositional."
The question is whether that's a plausible account of a child psychology.
What do we start with? Do we start with our knowledge of young children. Or do we start with a canned model of belief, then cut-and-tailor real life examples to fit that model?
"Perhaps Clark would categorize the relationship of a very young child (such as 2-year old) to his parents as some sort of emotional bond rather than a relationship involving faith."
Assuming that a young child has caring, conscientious parents, doesn't he trust his parents? Indeed, isn't that a defining characteristic of young children?
So, yes, I'd say he has faith in his parents.
And if that doesn't square with Clark's model of belief, then so much the worse for Clark's model.
I have thought that if Judas would have indeed repented so much that would have wanted to die, there would have actually been an "orthodox" way for him to do it.
ReplyDeleteHe could have ran to the Calvary and right then and there openly declare himself as follower of Jesus (something Peter himself was too fearful to do), beg His forgiveness just like the the repentant thief did, and die a martyr's death at the hands of Romans.
If Judas had done this, Christ would have probably forgiven him, I believe.
But Judas apparently did not dare to see Christ's face again (being under demonic influence), and thus chose a selfish lonely suicide instead - and suicide can be seen as the ultimate act of "works-righteousness".
For people with pagan mentality try to wash their guilt away with their own blood (like the disgraced Japanese still do).
Well, I am a bold fella, especially after realizing just how close my own came to be totally annihilated by the foreigners polities from D.C throughout American history.
ReplyDeleteI believe the unforgivable sin is assigned to the unbeliever.
You take the "un" from unforgivable and the "un" from unbeliever and what do you have before God?
You have a believer whose sin is forgivable.
There is no such a thing as a "nominal Christian".
ReplyDeleteOne is either in Christ..or he is not.
And who are we to say who the strong Christians are, since "all our righteous deeds are as filty rags"?
Dis not Christ HImself turn many away who were doing works in His name? (depart from Me, I never knew you")
Baptism isn't a sure fore way to Heaven because we can abandon our Baptisms.
But St. paul clearly tells us that those who have been Baptized, have put on Christ."
That is clear enough to me. So is Romans 6.
The Calvinist answer is to look to yourself. To work harder. To strive more and to examine yourself for that inner...whatever (works, feelings, etc.).
The Lutheran way is to look OUTSIDE of yourself and to God's promises. That is exactly why I believe our Lord commanded that we do the Sacraments (He really is the One who 'does them'...to us)
Luther told us to "return to our Baptisms...daily."
No lucky charms there. Just a return (a repentance) and a re-trusting of what God has done for us on the cross, in His Supper, and in our Baptisms.
So I would say that Ed has a good understanding of that, and that he is trying to help others towards that same understanding and the comfort, the assurance, which we can have in what God has done for us.
Thanks!
"A broken and contrite heart God will not despise," Psalm 51 tells us. Judas seemed to have a contrite heart. If God didn't accept his contrition, can we be sure he will accept ours?
ReplyDeletePat said:
ReplyDelete"Judas seemed to have a contrite heart. If God didn't accept his contrition, can we be sure he will accept ours?"
Me:
Judas is also called the 'son of perdition' and one who would wish 'that he had never been born'.
looking for infallible assurance is a fools errand. Exceptions to the rule can be observed in both baptism and works. That hardly solves the issue (unless you are promoting infallible assurance as Edward was). The question is, "to what does scripture ask us to look for assurance? How will we know if we love God?"
ReplyDeleteMatthew 25: 34-35 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Jn 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Jn 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jn 11:10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.
Jn 13:35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Heb 6:9-11 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. 10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end,
1 Jn 1:6-7 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
1 Jn 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
1 Jn 2:10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.
1 Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
1 Jn 3:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
1 Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God
1 Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Jn 4:12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
1 Jn 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
1 Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and 3everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
1 Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
1 Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Seems pretty clear to me.
There is no such a thing as a "nominal Christian".
ReplyDeleteOne is either in Christ..or he is not.
And who are we to say who the strong Christians are, since "all our righteous deeds are as filty rags"?
"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
Dis not Christ HImself turn many away who were doing works in His name? (depart from Me, I never knew you")
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Baptism isn't a sure fore way to Heaven because we can abandon our Baptisms.
But St. paul clearly tells us that those who have been Baptized, have put on Christ."
That is clear enough to me. So is Romans 6.
The Calvinist answer is to look to yourself .
Perhaps you mean to say, "The biblical answer is to look to our obedience."
by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
To strive more and to examine yourself for that inner...whatever (works, feelings, etc.).
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
The Lutheran way is to look OUTSIDE of yourself and to God's promises. That is exactly why I believe our Lord commanded that we do the Sacraments (He really is the One who 'does them'...to us)
And yet, "Baptism isn't a sure fore way to Heaven because we can abandon our Baptisms."
Luther told us to "return to our Baptisms...daily."
The apostle John said, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death."
No lucky charms there. Just a return (a repentance) and a re-trusting of what God has done for us on the cross, in His Supper, and in our Baptisms.
So I would say that Ed has a good understanding of that, and that he is trying to help others towards that same understanding and the comfort, the assurance, which we can have in what God has done for us.
I would say that Ed's not reading his Bible
Would you really want to stand before the Living God and fall back upon 'your works'?
ReplyDeleteI sure wouldn't.
Thanks...I'll stick to what the Lord has done for me in my baptism.
I have put on Christ in my Baptism.
How much more of a Christian does one need to be???
THEOLDADAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“There is no such a thing as a ‘nominal Christian’. One is either in Christ..or he is not.”
I take it that you’re ignorant of standard terminology. A nominal Christian is a professing Christian who is not, however, a true believer.
Do Lutherans think that every professing Christian, however perfunctory his faith, is a true believer?
“And who are we to say who the strong Christians are, since ‘all our righteous deeds are as filty rags’?”
Since St. Paul admonished the strong brethren to be gentle to the weak brethren, Christians would be unable to obey his directive if it were impossible to distinguish one from the other.
“Dis not Christ HImself turn many away who were doing works in His name? (‘depart from Me, I never knew you’)”
There are multiple grounds for assurance in Scripture.
“Baptism isn't a sure fore way to Heaven because we can abandon our Baptisms.”
So by your own admission, you can’t ground the assurance of salvation in baptism.
“But St. paul clearly tells us that those who have been Baptized, have put on Christ.’ That is clear enough to me. So is Romans 6.”
What’s clear is your selective, one-sided prooftexting.
“The Calvinist answer is to look to yourself. To work harder.”
What Reformed preachers or theologians have you actually read, anyway? Your attempt to describe Calvinism resembles Richard Dawkins attempt to describe Christianity. You sound as though you got all your information filtered through hostile thirdhand sources. Lutheran caricatures of Calvinism.
If, in fact, you hand any firsthand acquaintance with Reformed theology, then it’s obvious that you didn’t grasp what you read or heard.
“To strive more and to examine yourself for that inner...whatever (works, feelings, etc.).”
i) To begin with, Scripture itself treats introspection as a legitimate spiritual exercise.
ii) Moreover, there’s nothing wrong with “doing” certain things–like prayer, Christian fellowship, Bible reading, and other means of grace–to foster the assurance of salvation in case that’s lacking in one’s life.
“The Lutheran way is to look OUTSIDE of yourself and to God's promises.”
Sorry to disillusion you, but Lutherans don’t own the copyright to God’s promises. Calvinists also look to God’s promises in Scripture.
“That is exactly why I believe our Lord commanded that we do the Sacraments (He really is the One who 'does them'...to us).”
Sorry to disillusion you, but Lutherans don’t own the patent to the sacraments. Calvinists also celebrate baptism and communion.
“Luther told us to ‘return to our Baptisms...daily.’”
And whatever Luther says, God says. Who needs the Bible when we’ve got Luther? He’s the seal of the prophets.
“No lucky charms there. Just a return (a repentance) and a re-trusting of what God has done for us on the cross, in His Supper, and in our Baptisms.”
To the contrary, you have the same superstitious veneration of the sacraments as idolatrous Israelites abode in the ark of the covenant (1 Sam 4) and the Nehushtan (2 Kgs 18:4).
Indeed, you’re no different than a Catholic clutching his crucifix and prayer beads.
Are you not tracking with the conversation? Why did you entirely switch the subject? The question is not "how does one get saved?" or "On what basis will one stand before God on the day of judgment?"
ReplyDeleteI do not rest on my own works, but on the finished work of Christ. I too have been baptized into Christ and am clothed in his righteousness. It is on that basis that I stand. "this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." But if the question arises (and it has for this was the subject of these posts), "How do you know that you know him?" I answer with scripture, "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
They are not the basis of our salvation, but scripture regularly set forth our Spirit wrought works as a point of assurance. And as Steve has said, why should a person who continues to live a completely unchanged and depraved life have assurance?
Steve,
ReplyDelete"Indeed, you’re no different than a Catholic clutching his crucifix and prayer beads."
With all due respect, that is utterly ridiculous.
And Calvinists do not have the same regard for the Sacraments.
"Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, so how could He be present in the bread and the wine?"
Does that sound familiar?
It makes God into a puny god.
I have knowm and still know plenty of Calvinists who are 'on the God project'. That has much more in common with R. Catholicism than Lutheran will ever have.
Good luck with your spiritual navel gazing, Steve.
Those of us who actually trust in Christ do not have to go there.
THEOLDADAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“And Calvinists do not have the same regard for the Sacraments.”
True. I don’t subscribe to the Real Rabbit’s Foot or baptismal Rabbit’s-footsie.
“’Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, so how could He be present in the bread and the wine?’ Does that sound familiar? It makes God into a puny god.”
I see. So you don’t actually subscribe to the real presence of the True Body & Blood.
Instead, you subscribe to the presence of Jesus’ divinity in the bread in wine. Why bother with an Incarnation at all?
“Good luck with your spiritual navel gazing, Steve.”
Good luck with your spiritual Rabbit’s-foot, Theoldadam.
“Those of us who actually trust in Christ do not have to go there.”
But you don’t trust in Christ. You really put your trust in a wafer.
I should have known you would mischaracterize the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments.
ReplyDeleteYou are just ignorant about it, Steve, and you refuse to listen to us when we try to explain it.
There is NO guarantee in the Sacraments. WE CAN WALK AWAY FROM GOD AND HIS PROMISES (that He gives us in the Sacraments).
Those promises are still valid and good...but if we abandon them, then what good are they?
Rabbit's foot. Give me a break.
THEOLDADAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"I should have known you would mischaracterize the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments. You are just ignorant about it, Steve, and you refuse to listen to us when we try to explain it. There is NO guarantee in the Sacraments."
Which is why you can't ground your assurance of salvation in the sacraments. Something I've been saying all along.
You're just illiterate, Theoldadam.
Part I of III
ReplyDeleteLuther well recognized all enthusiasts and thereby theologies of glory function basically the same, be the Rome, Calvinist, Baptist or Islam – they fundamentally look inward for the work of God and not extra nos. This they do for they see that “grace” is this kind of infusa gratia (official roman terminology) or the “conversion/regeneration” that is a “secret” operation of the “spirit” upon the soul with the Word (or sacrament) as nothing more than a kind of appendage. Here we see that the Pope, heterodoxies of all colors, Islam, secular religion, etc… all function the same way. Restoration is ultimately unto the “law” by some “infusion” called “grace” that now “enables” one to “do” or “believe” (faith as a work or coin to merit salvation). In the trio of theologies of glory (enthusiasm, god withinness) parading itself around as “christain” – Rome, Arminianism, and Calvinism – this infused grace (by any other name) comes either ex opera operato via the sacraments as a kind of “means” of “pouring it into you (Rome); or in the creation as the “grace to use ‘free will’” (arminianism); or by that secretive elective operation of the “Holy Spirit” to rebirth/convert (calvinism). Other religions adhere more closely to the arminian infusa. Thus we see all enthused religions, theologies of glory, display the same fallen religion namely that man’s problem is mostly a matter of needing to “improve” himself via the law and its just a matter of how to get so called “grace” (the infusa gratia) INTO that man so that the so called “gospel” may now serve the so called “law”. This is opposed by orthodoxy, Luther, Lutheran confessions and true Christianity on every single point in which Christianity is NOT a repair job, rather the law serves the Gospel and man’s problem is not “needing grace” to do or even believe, but a grace that is the utter forgiveness of his sins, real sin not just pretend sin. Herman Sasse was right in saying that if one gets the sacraments wrong, one will of necessity get the rest of scripture wrong, as well as Luther saying that Christianity is a tapestry of which if one removes one single thread the entirety is ruined.
This can be discovered by assessing where a religion sees its individual “pro me”, its either utterly objective in the Word and sacraments or some enthusiast concept (false christian or rank pagan) the “god withinness”, which also is the source of all gnostcism.
What does the “pro me” mean? Of course this is somewhat easy to answer in Lutheran theology, it is the essence of the Gospel or Good News, but in PARTICULAR to participate in it NOT just “hear about it”. It is thus truly GOOD NEWS when it comes TO you and FOR you, as opposed to some other guy or gal “over there”. It may be seen like this by way of an earthly analogy, if Bob down the street wins the multi-million dollar lottery that is good news objectively and in general, but it is only truly GOOD NEWS TO and FOR Bob, not me or you. But if you or I win that same lottery then the general good news does in fact become GOOD NEWS TO and FOR me and you. I think we can all see the difference here as it is fairly obvious. The pro me is kind of the subjective side of the equation if we can carefully use the term “subjective” with the “pro me” rightly and not wrongly as in other heterodox confessions.
Part II of III
ReplyDeleteThus it is critical where the “pro me” is found. It is critical that the pro me be grounded objectively in something utterly, completely and entirely objective, sure and certain. For men seek God, so they think, by their works of one of three ways always; via fallen human reason (were Calvinist astray from the Word), affections (seen more in charismatic and semi reason neutral religions), and experiences (seen more in charismatic religions) rather than the objective Word and objective Sacrament which has the Word.
I was reading a definition over on http://lutheranwiktionary.org/tiki-index.php about Arminianism. In the definition we read, “Although Arminianism arose in reaction against Calvinism, they share much in common. Both have a low view of the Holy Sacraments (In reality a non or false view) and emphasize subjectivity–personal election in the case of Calvinism, personal decision in the case of Arminianism. Both incline toward legalism–for the Calvinist, to ensure that he is persevering in his election; for the Arminian, to exercise his free will with the assistance of God’s grace.” Right there it struck me, “There it is the Calvinistic and Arminian “pro me”, per se, their “real sacrament” if you will, where their assurance (false) lay. Rather than in the sacraments where the Gospel comes to and for me personally, am really washed and forgiven of sin, really and truly receive that very body and very blood that was given for my forgiveness of sin for real not symbolically, the Calvinist and Arminian “pro me”, due to, I would say, NO view of the holy sacraments as opposed to a “low view”, goes and directs men’s souls elsewhere (as do all forms of theologies of glory that avoid the Cross). For all men individually must know “what about me”, its nice about “that guy over there” but what about me. And lest we forget “that guy over there” is thinking the exact same thing, “that’s fine about that guy over there…but what about me”. There is no theoretical “guy over there” that is not concerned with his own “pro me”. All sinners must be concerned at ground zero with “pro me”. It is only AFTER the “pro me” of the Gospel becomes really and truly “for me” that the “for me” worry is dissipated and a man is free to sacrifice his life for the neighbor. All other pursuit of “good works” is folly, pagan and rank unbelief.
Thus, we find that the Calvinistic “pro me”, how I know I am saved personally as opposed to that guy over there, is in the PERSONAL election and for the Arminian it is not much different in that the “pro me” is in the PERSONAL decision. Of course both of these are a fools errand since the Gospel is given in neither and thus this theology of glory “pro me” begets what it always begets a drudgery and slogging along of outward “good works” to , to ensure that one is persevering in his election (Calvinistic) or , to ensure that one does not fall away from salvation (Arminian). There is no Word or better Gospel Word given in this kind of “election” or “exercise of the free will”, in fact just the opposite, condemnation. If one insists on looking inward to one’s heart one will find eventually the truth of one’s heart and see in reality nothing but death, condemnation and hell…for that is the state of the fallen heart. No wonder no sure and certainty of salvation can be garnered by looking at this heart.
Part III of III
ReplyDeleteNo wonder that starring into a dark tunnel all that is seen is darkness. The light is extra nos, outside of us, in the Gospel, every bit of it, in the sacraments. This sacrament (the Lord’s Supper) is the Gospel, said Luther. And so it is for it gives what it says and it gives it TO you/me and FOR you/me and the object for FAITH to cling to is what it says it is, the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. Faith clings to NOTHING else than Christ alone, any other clinging is false faith and not real faith. Faith does not cling to signs and symbols, THAT would be the very definition of idolatry!
Where the Word has been put in water, bread and wine there faith is and faith alone “sees, detects and knows” salvation and Christ are for it, the senses of experience, affections or human reason are utterly blind to this thus they wrestle with the Word of God, think Him impossible attempt to ascend high into heaven as enthused gnostics tend to do and there seek out god in the nude bringing their works via reason, affections or experiences with them. These are the “other garments” the King never gave them to where at the great wedding feast and not the garments of baptism or the real and true flesh and blood of Christ eaten and drank in which Christ says you HAVE eternal life, I am in you and you abide in Me.
All articles of faith ask us to believe an absurdity because via our fallen senses of reason, affections and experiences we have utterly lost the knowledge of God. These are not just faith for the sake of blind faith but anchored in the Word of God that commands us that they are so (e.g. “Take eat/drink this is My body/blood…given/shed…FOR YOU…for the forgiveness of sins). There are no words of God that say, “This is NOT the body and blood of Christ….”.
This is why orthodoxy does not commune nor worship with heterodoxy (mixed praise) nor ever will nor ever can, to do so would be to bear witness agaisnt Christ and Him crucified pro me.
L