We believe a sacrament is the word united with material objects according to Christ's command. This, e.g. Baptism isn't just a bath, but the water united with the word in according to Christ's command. And the word in both cases is the preached law and gospel. As long as you (and others here) insist in dividing sacraments from the word, you won't understand Lutheranism. This does not mean you have to agree with Lutheranism, it is just that we don't have a category of "sacramentalism" which means something which is not the gospel, which your remarks plainly imply.If this is true, then wouldn't it go back to the question Steve asked in his post, "Was George Tiller saved"? In other words, if a Lutheran has received a valid baptism and is a faithful communicant receiving valid communion, then, if I understand you correctly, he'd be receiving the gospel as well. But what if this same Lutheran happened to be someone like George Tiller? It'd have to mean he was saved according to Lutheranism, wouldn't it? If this is so, then it'd seem to be a monumental injustice.
For this reason I do not agree when you say "...your position seems to add more than what the LCMS has said here" because belief in the gospel is believing the gospel, whether it is verbal or verbal with material things according to Christ's command for the remission of sins.
I have been speaking of subjective assurance. It has been acknowledged all around that the elect may not ever have subjective assurance, and the non-elect may believe they are assured. The touchstone is what you alluded to above: irresistible grace, and its cousin, perseverance of the saints. If one wants to know one is elect, one is pointed to "fruits". But the WCF itself allows for these fruits to be misinterpreted, and even allows for the elect to lose their assurance for a time, with the attendant advice to look for fruit to see if one is elect. In effect, the system is pointing one to one's self for proof to one's self--but that proof is not a solid as we would like.1. I think your interpretation of the WCF is reductionistic. As I've said before, the WCF's advice on the assurance of salvation isn't reduced to merely looking to oneself or one's fruits. Again, there are three grounds of assurance. None of these is reducible to one of the other three grounds.
- To quote John Frame on the WCF:
First, the Westminster Confession speaks of "the divine truth of the promises of salvation." Clearly, God promises eternal life to all who receive Christ (John 1:12; 3:15-18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; etc.). His promises are absolutely infallible. . . .
The second basis of assurance the Westminster Confession mentions is "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made." This ground corresponds to the doctrine of sanctification. When we introspect in this way, we are asking if indeed the Lord is sanctifying us. . . . God has promised to make his people holy (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 1:4). So, as we observe what God is doing within us, as we observe our own progress in sanctification, we "make [our] calling and election sure," as Peter says (2 Peter 1:10-11). . . .
The third ground of assurance, corresponding to the doctrine of adoption, is "the testimony of the Spirit to our adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are children of God." This confessional statement comes right out of Romans 8:16-17. This is to say that, in the end, our assurance is supernatural. Note in Romans 8 that it is not only the witness of our own Spirit but something over and above that, a witness of God's Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. Our scrutiny of God's promises and our own sanctification, in the end, is fallible. We make mistakes in our judgments. But the Spirit never makes a mistake. So, he persuades us that what we observe in God's Word and in our own lives is really true, really evidence of grace. - What's more, Frame anticipates your objection that "the system is pointing one to one's self for proof to one's self":
Many say that we should not look at ourselves but that we should look beyond ourselves, outward, at the work of Christ, at his word of promise. That was what we advised under the first ground of assurance, and certainly we should not look inward without looking outward at the same time. But it is important not only to look at God's promises but also to see how God is fulfilling those promises within us.
So it's not as if the WCF advises us to look solely to ourselves. The WCF's advice is not reducible to this point. - Btw, notice that the WCF bases these grounds of assurance in Scripture. For example, the third ground of assurance comes from Rom 8:16-17. In other words, there's an exegetical basis for what's said here. A little bit more on this in my next point.
- Why does Paul command us to "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!" (2 Cor 13:5)?
- Likewise, why does Peter in 2 Pet 1:5-11 list off qualities like "faith," "virtue," "knowledge," "self-control," "steadfastness," "godliness," "brotherly affection," and "love," and follow it with the exhortation, "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall," if looking for these qualities isn't in some way conducive to making our "calling and election sure"?
- And why would John say things like, "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments" (1 John 2:3) or "If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him" (1 John 2:29)? After all, how can we know if we have kept God's commandments or if we are practicing righteousness without examining ourselves and/or having others examine us?
Also, looking for the Holy Spirit to testify with our spirits that we are God's children, John writes: "Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself" (1 John 5:10).
Now, John tells us precisely why he has written the letter of 1 John: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). Hence, from start to finish, 1 John is a letter dealing with the assurance of salvation. So that those who believe in Christ may know that they have eternal life.
In this letter, John exhorts believers to do several things so that they may know they have eternal life, but one of them is to look for evidence of sanctification in one's own life. It's not the only thing John mentions but it is one of the things.
It's practical, pastoral advice for any believer struggling over whether he's saved. These grounds of assurance aren't limited to the Reformed. We don't necessarily have to dispute over irresistible grace or perseverance of the saints in order to answer the question of how does one know if he is saved per se (although I can't see how God can save someone only to later lose that person, for e.g., but be that as it may for the moment).
A Christian struggling with whether he's saved can ask himself: (a) am I trusting in Christ, in the promises of Scripture; (b) do I see the fruit of the Spirit in my life (e.g. Gal 5:19-21 vs 22-24); and (c) does the Holy Spirit testify with my spirit that I'm a child of God, that is, do I cry "Abba! Father!" in my innermost being? Thus he can better determine if he's the real deal or a faker shaker.
"None of these is reducible to one of the other three grounds."
ReplyDeleteSounds like they reduce to one, if not none:
"First, the Westminster Confession speaks of "the divine truth of the promises of salvation."
Which doesn't tell you if the promise applies to you.
" So, as we observe what God is doing within us, as we observe our own progress in sanctification, we "make [our] calling and election sure,""
Except that when you combine that teaching with a teaching that lots of people who seemed to think God was working in them, actually fell away and thus they were mistaken, then the ground is reduced to nothing.
"This is to say that, in the end, our assurance is supernatural."
Except that we aren't told a way to distinguish between the supernatural version and the fake version, or at least in a way that distinguishes all the people that seemed like ourselves but ultimately fell away, so this again reduces to nothing in the Calvinist system.
Foose said:
ReplyDeleteWhich doesn't tell you if the promise applies to you.
From Frame:
"Clearly, God promises eternal life to all who receive Christ (John 1:12; 3:15-18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; etc.). His promises are absolutely infallible. How can we doubt them? To be sure, the promises don't explicitly contain your name or mine. But they contain our names implicitly; that is, they apply to us.
Let me give you a similar example. When the eight commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal," it doesn't mention my name. It doesn't say that John Frame should not steal. Does that mean that I am free to take your wallet? Well, of course not. Because "Thou shalt not steal" means "Everybody should not steal" or "Nobody should steal." That includes John Frame. So, although my name is not in the test explicitly, the text applies to me, which is to say that my name is there implicitly. The same is true with the promises of salvation. God promises salvation to everybody who believes. If you believe, then that promise is yours. God promises to save you. And that promise is infallible, certain. You dare not doubt it."
Except that when you combine that teaching with a teaching that lots of people who seemed to think God was working in them, actually fell away and thus they were mistaken, then the ground is reduced to nothing.
On the contrary, those who fell away did so by sinning in one way or another. They didn't pay attention to the warnings and admonitions in Scripture (which in fact strengthen faith in those who are saved). Since assurance is maintained and strengthened by walking in the light, those who no longer walk in the light aren't promised assurance. If sin is dominant in a person's life, then he's not entitled to assurance. There's no warrant for assurance if there's no faith. So the ground holds for those who continue to walk in the light.
Except that we aren't told a way to distinguish between the supernatural version and the fake version, or at least in a way that distinguishes all the people that seemed like ourselves but ultimately fell away, so this again reduces to nothing in the Calvinist system.
See above.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is that when you and Steve quote Scripture from 1 John 5 & 2 Cor 13, for example, they seem to be dismissed. I've not seen any of the Lutherans deal with these texts.
I wonder why.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteHere are two quotes from two separate Triablogue posts that mention assurance. They seem to me to be contradictory statements, but I remain open to the possibility that I am mistaken. I’d be interested in hearing your comments.
Steve said, “The fact that justification is contingent on faith, while assurance is contingent on obedience, does not imply that justification is contingent on obedience.” (Faith&Works-2)
Dr. Frame said, “Faith is an inward reality. But if it is there, you have a right to be assured. If you can honestly say, "I am trusting Jesus for my salvation, not my own works, not my family, not my church, but Jesus," then you can say without doubt that you are saved.” (Grounds of Assurance)
Steve indicates that assurance is contingent on obedience, while Dr. Frame indicates that assurance is not contingent on obedience but can be attained through the recognition of the inward reality of faith. To your way of thinking, are the statements by Steve and Dr. Frame reconcilable? I hope you consider this a fair question to ask.
Fisherman said:
ReplyDeleteSteve indicates that assurance is contingent on obedience, while Dr. Frame indicates that assurance is not contingent on obedience but can be attained through the recognition of the inward reality of faith. To your way of thinking, are the statements by Steve and Dr. Frame reconcilable? I hope you consider this a fair question to ask.
Hi Fisherman,
Thanks for your question. I think it's a fair one to ask.
Of course, Dr. Frame and Steve can answer as well, and I'm entirely sure answer far better than I could ever answer. Indeed, I'm just cribbing from them!
But for what it's worth my take is that the two statements are indeed reconcilable. In fact, I think it goes back to what Frame said in his "Grounds of assurance" post about the Reformed confessions looking at assurance from two different perspectives. The Heidelberg Catechism teaches (quoting Frame) that "assurance is of the essence of faith," while the WCF teaches that "assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith as to preclude periods of doubt."
For example, when we come to trust in Christ, we have assurance in our hearts that we are saved. We've moved from darkness into light. We were blind but now we see. So, here, yes, faith is an inward reality. At the same time, we're conscious we're still sinners. In a sense we're more acutely aware of our sinful nature and the sins we commit than we ever were before we were saved. What's more, we feel the pull of the world, the devil doesn't cease to tempt us in diverse ways, and if we give in then we feel guilt-ridden by the sins we commit. If we commit sins such as lying, stealing, murder, adultery, and so on, then our consciences will convict us as will the Holy Spirit. We will have no assurance. And, as I pointed out to Foose above, that's how it should be: we have no right to have assurance if we are not walking in the light. All these things and more can wear away our assurance of salvation - even if it ultimately doesn't take away our faith which is indeed an inward reality (because God's promise is "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" Phil 1:6). In short, sin and other things can erode our assurance that our faith in Christ is real. It doesn't mean our faith isn't real but that our assurance of our faith in Christ being real is deeply clouded and darkened by our sin.
So, on the one hand, the Heidelberg Catechism (like your quote from Frame) emphasizes that assurance is of the essence of faith. If one has faith, then it's implied one has assurance. This is true. But on the other hand, the WCF (like your quote from Steve) emphasizes that unless a believer is obeying God's commandments and walking in the light, then he has no right to assurance. This too is true. Thus both are true statements looking at assurance from two different but complementary perspectives as far as I understand it.
Or as Frame sums up: "The bigger picture is that if we believe in Christ, we have assurance in our heart; but that assurance can be weakened by sin of various kinds, so that our psychological feeling of assurance has its ups and downs. Assurance is logically implied in faith, but sin sometimes weakens our confidence that our faith is genuine. But God has given us adequate resources to return to a state of full assurance. He has given us his promises, his sanctifying work, and the Spirit's testimony. We have a right to assurance if we believe God's promises. When we are in doubt, we should keep coming back to those resources and to the means of grace, which we shall discuss in chapter 20: the Word, worship, prayer, and Christian fellowship."
I hope this made sense? If not, please feel free to ask again.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question "Was George Tiller saved" My answer is I don't know. But embedded in this question is a Calvinist understanding of salvation--if baptism actually brings God's grace, everyone baptized must therefore go to heaven.
Regarding "receiving the gospel". We receive the gospel when ever it is offered, we receive the benefits when and if we believe. And again, you are coming to this question with quite a few Calvinist presuppositions. We believe God offers grace in earnest to all when the gospel is preached, you believe he offers it in earnest only to the elect when the gospel is preached. Now, I don't expect you to believe what we say is true except for the purposes of discussion.
"..the WCF's advice on the assurance of salvation isn't reduced to merely looking to oneself or one's fruits. Again, there are three grounds of assurance. None of these is reducible to one of the other three grounds."
Yes, it does point one to the promises etc. But then to know the promises apply to one, one would have to know one is elect. Otherwise they may not. And that is a problem because it does not seem very assuring at all, especially compared to Lutheranism's "sacramentalism" where the promise is offered to all and the benefits applied to those who believe. In other words, in all cases where the minister says "In the stead and by the command of my lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen!" they promise if for me. There is no question because we don't believe in Limited Atonement.
And that is a very, very big difference.
Edward Reiss said:
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question "Was George Tiller saved" My answer is I don't know. But embedded in this question is a Calvinist understanding of salvation--if baptism actually brings God's grace, everyone baptized must therefore go to heaven.
Regarding "receiving the gospel". We receive the gospel when ever it is offered, we receive the benefits when and if we believe. And again, you are coming to this question with quite a few Calvinist presuppositions. We believe God offers grace in earnest to all when the gospel is preached, you believe he offers it in earnest only to the elect when the gospel is preached. Now, I don't expect you to believe what we say is true except for the purposes of discussion.
. . . And that is a problem because it does not seem very assuring at all, especially compared to Lutheranism's "sacramentalism" where the promise is offered to all and the benefits applied to those who believe. In other words, in all cases where the minister says "In the stead and by the command of my lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen!" they promise if for me. There is no question because we don't believe in Limited Atonement. And that is a very, very big difference.
1. So given your previous statement "We believe a sacrament is the word united with material objects according to Christ's command," and your new statements here, wouldn't this then imply grace is resistible (as Steve has previously pointed out)? If grace is resistible, and if it's true Christ died for everyone as you likewise imply here, then how does this achieve assurance of salvation for Lutherans? If, for the sake of argument, we agree it's true Christ died for all and at the same time that it's possible to resist grace such as grace given in the word/sacraments, then I don't see how there's assurance of salvation in Lutheranism - and, again, I say this based on Lutheran presuppositions alone.
2. Btw, for whatever reason (good or bad), I notice you didn't deal with the verses I cited above (e.g. Rom 8:16-17; 2 Cor 13:5; 2 Pet 1:5-11; verses in 1 John). I find that odd because in my view the exegetical theology is central to this debate.
"..the WCF's advice on the assurance of salvation isn't reduced to merely looking to oneself or one's fruits. Again, there are three grounds of assurance. None of these is reducible to one of the other three grounds."
Yes, it does point one to the promises etc.
Of course, I didn't say it didn't point one to the promises. Rather, I said it isn't reducible to one of the promises.
But then to know the promises apply to one, one would have to know one is elect.
1. I'm afraid that's incorrect. One doesn't need to know one is saved before he can trust in Christ. Instead, if one trusts in Christ, then one is saved and can know one is saved.
2. Also, I think it confuses ontology and epistemology. We know the elect exist, but we don't know if we're saved and therefore elect before we trust in Christ.
3. On a more practical level, please see the above quote from Frame which begins with "Clearly, God promises eternal life to all who receive Christ."
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYes, Lutherans believe grace is resistible.
"If grace is resistible, and if it's true Christ died for everyone as you likewise imply here, then how does this achieve assurance of salvation for Lutherans? "
Because of two things.
1) God earnestly offers grace to all who hear the gospel, and
2) When I believe that, I am justified.
There is no question as to whether or not it is really for me, and no introspection necessary to prove to myself it is for me, it is for me because Christ does not lie in e.g baptism.
"I'm afraid that's incorrect. One doesn't need to know one is saved before he can trust in Christ. Instead, if one trusts in Christ, then one is saved and can know one is saved. "
OK, but this is not the question I was asking. The question is that, given the doctrine of limited atonement, one cannot know if one has the gift of perseverance just because one believes today, it could be just self-deception. Absent election by God, one can never be sure one's faith is "true" faith, as the WCF states. The WCF allows for the possibility we may deceive ourselves regarding if we believe and hence if we are elect. This moves the question for the individual to one of how one can know he is elect, which means he looks into himself for assurance. This is a different question than if he is objectively elect, BTW.
"Also, I think it confuses ontology and epistemology. We know the elect exist, but we don't know if we're saved and therefore elect before we trust in Christ."
Knowing the elect exist doesn't grant any assurance to an individual unless he knows he is elect. That is the issue. How do I know I am elect and receive assurance?
"On a more practical level, please see the above quote from Frame which begins with "Clearly, God promises eternal life to all who receive Christ.""
How does one know one truly receives Christ? How does our own deception and the doctrine of limited atonement fit into this?
It is, according to the WCF, by looking for fruits. This is an internal interrogation of the quality of one's faith.
Patrick: "Clearly, God promises eternal life to all who receive Christ"
ReplyDeleteBut you don't know if you've received Christ. Even if you think you have, people like you who confess to thinking the same thing fall away. Moving the problem along onto another criteria that you also don't know if it applies to you, doesn't help.
" When the eight commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal," it doesn't mention my name."
That assumes you know what stealing is. But we don't have the objective criteria for receiving Christ that we do for stealing.
" those who no longer walk in the light aren't promised assurance"
Doesn't help for Calvinists, because people who seemed to think they were walking in the light, fell away, thus they were never walking in the light. Thus Calvinist assurance can be false. Non-Calvinists don't have to posit this.
Edward Reiss said:
ReplyDeleteThe question is that, given the doctrine of limited atonement, one cannot know if one has the gift of perseverance just because one believes today, it could be just self-deception.
Okay, but just because it's possible for professing Christians to be self-deceived doesn't prove the grounds of assurance wrong for authentic Christians.
Absent election by God, one can never be sure one's faith is "true" faith, as the WCF states.
It seems like you're saying, "Unless I know I'm elect, I can't know I'm saved." But that's not the right way to look at it. That's not the way Calvinism looks at it. Rather, if we want to know whether we're elect, then we have to know if we're trusting in Christ. If we're trusting in Christ, then we're saved. If we're saved, then we're elect. So the starting point is not "How do I know I'm elect?" but "Do I trust in Christ alone?". If I do trust in Christ alone for my salvation, then I'm saved and can know I'm saved. More on this below.
The WCF allows for the possibility we may deceive ourselves regarding if we believe and hence if we are elect.
1. Again, just because it's possible for professing Christians to be self-deceived doesn't prove the grounds of assurance wrong. The grounds of assurance are meant to assure authentic Christians. Inauthentic Christians shouldn't be assured even though they can falsely assure themselves in a diversity of ways. But just because inauthentic Christians can deceive themselves that they're Christians when they're not doesn't then somehow negate authentic Christians looking to the promises in Scripture, seeing if the Holy Spirit is bearing fruit in their lives, and seeing if the Holy Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they're God's children to gain assurance of salvation.
2. BTW, it's also possible for authentic Christians to have no assurance. But this likewise does not negate the validity of the grounds of assurance.
This moves the question for the individual to one of how one can know he is elect, which means he looks into himself for assurance.
1. Again, it seems like you're saying, "Unless I know I'm elect, I can't know I'm saved." But why do you start there? Calvinists don't start there. Calvinists don't try and peer into God's mind to see whether they're elect before they come to Christ. They simply come to Christ.
2. Once again, it's reductionistic to say it boils down to one looking into oneself for assurance as I've explained more than once now.
Knowing the elect exist doesn't grant any assurance to an individual unless he knows he is elect. That is the issue. How do I know I am elect and receive assurance?
ReplyDelete1. Again, you're starting from the wrong place. You don't look to see if you're elect before you trust in Christ. You trust in Christ. Then you're saved plus gain assurance you're saved. For example, John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Therefore, if I believe (trust) in Christ, then I'm saved and I can know I'm saved. And if I'm saved, then I'm elect. It's that simple.
2. But how do I know I'm saved if I trust in Christ alone? Because the Bible tells me so (the promises of Scripture such as if I trust in Christ I'm saved), because I have the fruits of the Spirit (e.g. peace with God), and because the Holy Spirit testifies with my spirit that I'm saved. As the Heidelberg Catechism notes, "assurance is of the essence of faith."
3. And as I've continued to harp on this entire time, everything goes back to exegetical theology. That's the foundation for all these "Calvinistic" grounds of assurance. The best way to settle the disagreements then is to go back to the Bible. For starters, perhaps you can respond to the verses I cite in my original post above.
How does one know one truly receives Christ? How does our own deception and the doctrine of limited atonement fit into this?
I think I've pretty much repeated myself enough times in response to this question that it'll hopefully be crystal clear to you now.
It is, according to the WCF, by looking for fruits. This is an internal interrogation of the quality of one's faith.
I don't know how many times I've said this now, but this is reductionistic. The WCF does not say this is the sole grounds of assurance! And I haven't seen any argument from you for why you've decided to boil it down to this one point. Again, I've quoted the WCF several times now. I don't know how much clearer I can get. There are three grounds of assurance. One of them is not at all internal but looking to the external promises of Scripture. So I'm not sure why you keep ignoring what the WCF actually says.
Foose said:
ReplyDeleteBut you don't know if you've received Christ. Even if you think you have, people like you who confess to thinking the same thing fall away. Moving the problem along onto another criteria that you also don't know if it applies to you, doesn't help.
What criteria would that be?
That assumes you know what stealing is.
This is a silly statement. Especially for a professing Christian - which I presume you are. Why should I have to define what stealing is for you? A working definition of stealing should be something a professing Christian of all people would know! If you honestly think I have to define what stealing is before we can progress with the discussion, then, sorry, but I'd rather not waste my time here with you.
But we don't have the objective criteria for receiving Christ that we do for stealing.
1. Such is your assertion. Where's your argument?
2. Even if you were correct, you haven't shown how it's unique to Calvinism. After all, it's not as if Scripture doesn't apply to Lutheranism. Or do you think "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3:16) wouldn't also apply to you as a Lutheran because "we don't have the objective criteria for receiving Christ that we do for stealing"? So, even if you were correct, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.
Doesn't help for Calvinists, because people who seemed to think they were walking in the light, fell away, thus they were never walking in the light.
You're just repeating what you originally said without taking into consideration what I said in response.
Thus Calvinist assurance can be false. Non-Calvinists don't have to posit this.
So you assert without argument. Again. It'd be nice if you interacted with what I said above.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to reply.
Patrick,
ReplyDelete"You trust in Christ. Then you're saved plus gain assurance you're saved."
The WCF says we can decieve ourselves--both the elect who may not even get assurance and the wicked who may think they really have assurance. And then there is the issue of how one knows one trusts in Christ, AKA assurance. How one knows is by looking for fruits.
"Again, just because it's possible for professing Christians to be self-deceived doesn't prove the grounds of assurance wrong. The grounds of assurance are meant to assure authentic Christians. Inauthentic Christians shouldn't be assured even though they can falsely assure themselves in a diversity of ways. But just because inauthentic Christians can deceive themselves that they're Christians when they're not doesn't then somehow negate authentic Christians looking to the promises in Scripture, seeing if the Holy Spirit is bearing fruit in their lives, and seeing if the Holy Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they're God's children to gain assurance of salvation."
The confession allows for true Christians to lose their assurance. So, where does one look for evidence one is elect? it is not the gospel promise, because that is only for the elect. It is within one's self, and this is theologically dangerous.
"The WCF does not say this is the sole grounds of assurance!"
I never said it is the "sole ground" for assurance, but it is the only ground which an individual can grasp assurance for himself on a subjective level, as it is the only way he can know if what Jesus Christ did on the cross is for him.
You keep conflating objective justification with how a subject knows he is justified. It is the latter in which the Calvinist system points one to himself for subjective assurance as opposed to the promises, as the Confessions themselves say. If one is not elect it doesn't matter what one feels or thinks. There is even a concept within Calvinism of "temporary faith", which is fatal to any assurance at all.
Claiming you have refuted me over and over when you have not addressed the issue is no refutation at all.
Edward Reiss said:
ReplyDeleteClaiming you have refuted me over and over when you have not addressed the issue is no refutation at all.
Well, at this point, the best thing to do is let readers decide who's repeating what over and over again, and who's got the better Scriptural argument.