EDWARD REISS SAID:
“Doubt is not assurance, in fact they are opposites.”
Opposites in the sense that they can’t coexist at the same time in the same individual. But a Christian can pass through different phases over the course of a lifetime.
“And when someone loses his assurance he is pointed to--himself to prove he is really elect.”
He is also pointed to the promises of God. You persistently misrepresent the Reformed position.
Why is that? Why are you unable to keep more than one idea in your head at a time?
“The promises are inoperative if we are not elect as they do not pertain to the elect--this is undisputed Calvinist doctrine.”
i) And why should the promises be operative for a reprobate? Why should the hellbound enjoy the assurance of salvation? What does that even mean?
ii) Since the promises are conditional, the promises are true for everyone. “If–then.” That relation is true for everyone.
“This means the real question is ‘am I elect?’”
No, that’s not the “real” question:
i) Since the promises are conditional, you don’t first have to determine whether or not you’re elect to see if you meet the terms of the promise.
Take: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).
You don’t have to know anything in advance about your elect status to know if that applies to you. For faith is the gateway.
If you believe it, then it applies to you. If you don’t believe it, then it doesn’t apply to you.
In that respect, the relevance of the promises is self-fulfilling.
ii) You don’t have to know that you’re elect to be elect. And if you are elect, then you enjoy all of the spiritual blessings of the elect. So you won’t find yourself in the spiritual dilemma you pose.
Your hypothetical conundrum doesn’t take into account the grace of election. Election itself is a gracious state.
“Lutherans have real assurance because every time God says he gives us his saving grace he really means it.”
i) And what he “really means” by saving grace in Lutheranism is resistible grace. But, of course, resistible grace may or may not be saving grace. Both the heavenbound and hellbound receive the same grace in the sacraments and the words of absolution. So in what sense is that “real” assurance. Assurance of what?
“There is no ‘if I am elect’ in Lutheranism.”
Since election is a biblical doctrine, then that omission means that Lutheran theology can’t make room for the teaching of Scripture.
“Steve interestingly mentioned 'nuance' in his latest post. Well, if he wants his claims to be treated with nuance he should practice what he preaches and not make each of his new posts sound like they have no relationship to what was discussed before and force a conversation which has stretched over more than a week into an un-nuanced side show.”
I stated my position with various qualifications from the inception of this thread.
“To the point, if Steve now wants to claim that even the elect may not know they are elect…”
There is no “now”–as if I suddenly introduced a key concession or qualification that wasn’t present in my original formulation. Rather, that’s something I’ve said all along.
Why don’t you pay attention to what people actually write?
“And if even the elect cannot be 100% sure he has quite simply lost the argument.”
i) I can only lose an argument which I made in the first place. Since I never said that all of God’s elect can always be sure of their salvation, there was no argument for me to lose. You keep burning straw men. You produce a lot of smoke in the process. But clouds of smoke do not amount to a reasoned argument.
ii) And you also belabor your false dichotomy, as though it’s a choice between all of God’s elect having the assurance of salvation all of the time, or none of God’s elect having the assurance of salvation at any time.
Why do you indulge in these simplistic caricatures? It’s a testament to the strength of the Reformed position that you can’t bring yourself to engage the actually position.
“From the article Steve cites.”
I didn’t post the material by Frame. Patrick Chan did. (Not that I object.)
“If the faithful (who for Calvinists can never loose their salvation) have doubt, they do not have assurance.”
They lack assurance at the time they doubt. Take the case of David when he committed adultery and murder.
“And to regain their assurance the very confession cited by Dr. Frame says to look for inward evidence.”
Why is Reiss chronically unable to honestly represent what people say? Did Frame limit the basis of assurance to “internal evidence”? No.
“The point all along is that the Calvinist system encourages and also claims we need to look into our inner evidence to prove our election, while in Lutheranism every time we hear the Gospel and believe it we are justified.”
Why does Reiss keep burning the same straw man in defiance of explicit textual statements to the contrary? Shouldn’t there at least be a moratorium on how often he’s allowed to burn the same straw man? Can’t he at least pick on another straw man from time to time? It isn’t fair to the poor little strawman to be subjected to the same torture day after day.
“And by ‘we’ I mean everyone who believes at any time has possession of the gifts of God when he believes. Whether is believes tomorrow is tomorrow's problem.”
So the gifts of God are refundable gifts. And Lutheran assurance boils down to:
“At 12:01 PM I have the assurance of salvation–which is no assurance that at 12:02 PM I will still have the assurance of salvation. Saved today, damned tomorrow!”
Paul McCain said...
“Ed, If I were you, I would simply totally and completely ignore Hays and all such Reformed Watchbloggers.”
So why did McCain then proceed to leave several comments over at Triablogue?
“Hays has attempted to pounce on my posts several times over at the EVANGEL blog on First Things' site.”
McCain is a pansy who covets the freedom to fire away at other positions he while retains immunity from any return-fire.
“Calvinists finally do not have any assurance of salvation, beyond their own sensation/feeling of faith. In other words, it is finally faith in faith, not Christ, upon which they build their hope of salvation. It is really tragic and every single time I press a Calvinist on this point the same thing happens: they keep telling me that they feel they have faith, therefore, they must be part of the elect.”
If you want to see a textbook example of personal insecurity, go no further than the fact that McCain deleted his own post over at Evangel because he couldn’t defend his attack on Calvinism in the face of reasoned criticism.
McCain is a hothouse plant who wilts the moment you remove him from the climate-controlled environs of his Lutheran greenhouse.
Well said Steve. I really can't come up with a good reason Edward Reiss continually makes these inaccurate characatures of the Reformed position even after he has been corrected multiple times. It makes me wonder why someone would keep up this line of argumentation after repeatedly being corrected as to his misunderstanding of your position. Either he suffers from a complete failure in reading comprehension (which I highly doubt), or he has no legitimate answer for the responses you gave. It only makes sense that it's the latter, since he insists on attacking a straw man form of Assurance. Keep up the good work, I really enjoy reading your critiques on RCism - especially the epistemic issues.
ReplyDeleteDiscipled,
ReplyDeleteputting all seriousness aside, for a moment, you asked in a rhetorical flourish and then made a comment about it, above:::> "....I really can't come up with a good reason...". "....It only makes sense that it's the latter, since he insists on attacking a straw man form of Assurance.".
Two reasons I can cite; one, he's a hay bailer and has lots of straw available to him to burn up; and two, that's all he has.
You have to admire him though. It gives new meaning to the P in TULIP, "perseverance of the Saints". Who knows, he could be one of God's Elect and just doesn't know it yet? I hope he gets there before the end of his days, seeing it's a waste of God's Good promises being in this state he finds himself in and being.
As they say, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood!". Notice, however, it does not imply that we will not wrestle "with" them though!
Doesn't this argument lend to the issue of forensics and the foundational nature of the legal aspects of Justification?
It has been noted by some theologians that there has been an active attempt to dislodge the legal aspects of Christ's civil Life from the meaning of the Sacrament so that our focus is on a wafer and we never get down to the True mystical purpose of remembrances?
Christ kept the Laws of God sinlessly after being born into Adam's race, a son of Adam.
He rose from the dead sinless perfection defeating the anti-Christ nature in this world today.
He, right now, sits at the Very Right Righteous Right Hand of Sinless Eternity, making the redemption from the curse of the Law available to all who will call upon the Name of the Lord.
The only way I will pass to that place is through His perfections as the son of Adam. Albeit, He did trick the devils into thinking that is all He was and with their knowledge of defeats time and time and time and time again, He seemed an easy target to them, too.
Now, though I am sinful wearing the same law of sin and death in my members as He, I too am set free from the curse of the Law by Him becoming a curse redemptively, which I willfully have broken myself and now, by being robed in His Righteousness, His Work, not mine, I now, here, in this life remaining for me, can enter into all the Promises of God found in Christ Jesus My Lord and enjoy them now and into Eternity that is to come.
“And when someone loses his assurance he is pointed to--himself to prove he is really elect.”
ReplyDelete"i lay it down fully and broadly, as God's truth, that a true Christian, a converted man, may reach such a comfortable degree of faith in Christ, that in general he shall feel entirely confident as to the pardon and safety of his sou, shall seldom be troubled with doubts, seldom be distracted with fears, seldom be distressed by anxious questionings and, in short, though vexed by many an inward conflict with sin, shall look forward to death without trembling, and to judgment without dismay. This, I say, is the doctrine of the Bible. ....
I know that many have not attained assurance, at whose feet I would gladly sit both in earth and heaven. Perhaps the Lord sees something in the natural temperament of some of His children, which makes assurance not good for them. Perhaps, in order to be kept in spiritual health, they need to be kept very low. God only knows. Still, after every allowance, I fear there are many believers without an assured hope, whose case may too often be explained..." -JC Ryle
I have doubts at times. mainly when a trial comes along, and the darkness of this world, my flesh, and the devil all work overtime to tempt, and entangle me in sin.
At these times, I cry to the Lord that I believe, but help my unbelief.
He meets me there. Sometimes I don't even cry out to Him, and He rescues me.
We serve a omnipotent sovereign Lord of lords, who is gracious, and full of loving-kindness for His children; His saints.
It is a shame Mr. Hays finds it necessary to post things that are untrue in order to make his point. No posts were taken down at Evangel. A new one was put up this morning.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Calvinism, which trying to get clear definitions from can be like trying to herd cats or nail jello to a wall, there is one convenient source for understanding what historic, genuine Lutheranism is.
http://www.bookofconcord.org
Best wishes on your studies.
It has been my observation, for years, that when a person has to resort to a host of ad hominems he is fundamentally insecure about his position.
The childish behaviors Mr. Hays and fellow TR Watchbloggers continue to display on the Internet is truly sad to witness.
Paul McCain said...
ReplyDelete"It is a shame Mr. Hays finds it necessary to post things that are untrue in order to make his point. No posts were taken down at Evangel. A new one was put up this morning."
Really? Then what happened to your First Things/Evangel post entitled "Why are some saved, and not others?"
Paul McCain said...
ReplyDelete"It has been my observation, for years, that when a person has to resort to a host of ad hominems he is fundamentally insecure about his position."
Given Luther's abundant ad hominem invective, I take it that Luther was fundamentally insecure about the tenets of Lutheran theology.
"like trying to herd cats"
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult, but there are those rare men who have the gumption to take on this incredible task.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
"Unlike Calvinism, which trying to get clear definitions from can be like trying to herd cats or nail jello to a wall, there is one convenient source for understanding what historic, genuine Lutheranism is."
ReplyDeleteMcCain doesn't always like to present what historic, genuine Lutheranism is, as we demonstrated here: link. Check out his lovely comment in the comment box too.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI am happy you admit doubt is not assurance. But you give away the game again when you say a Christian can pass from assurance to non-assurance. Flopping between assurance and non-assurance is not assuring at all.
That a Calvinist can lose his assurance and regain it (if he is elect) is something I have maintained all along. I am happy you are finally coming around to my way of seeing things. The next step is to admit you look within yourself for assurance you are elect.
Your rejoinder is "He is also pointed to the promises of God". Unfortunately for the Calvinist position, if one does not have psychological assurance there is a real chance there is no promise from God for the individual because experiencing rebirth etc. are in the theoretical realm unless one knows one is elect. So, how can the Calvinist see if God's promises apply to him, that he is elect?
You know the answer--look into himself for "internal evidence" as the WC says. No matter how many times you say otherwise, a Calvinist has to look into himself for evidence of his election. It is right in your own confessions.
Tcheuss. :-D