Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Upstate without a paddle

EDWARD REISS SAID:

“I am happy you admit doubt is not assurance.”

As if I ever said otherwise.

“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.”

Is there some reason you habitually frame issues in the most simplistic terms possible? To be in a state of doubt is not assurance at the time of doubt, or for the particular individual who happens in a state of doubt.

That’s irrelevant to other cases where an individual was never in a state of doubt, or in cases where he recovered from a state of doubt.

Why are you unable to bring any degree of sophistication to the analysis? Why do you chronically disregard essential distinctions? You seem to be intelligent, so I’m puzzled by why you find it necessary to invariably revert to the most simple-minded discussion of a complex issue.

“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.”

And, once again we’re back to your congenital dissembling. This is not a position which I “finally came around to,” as if you managed to back me down and wring some fatal concession from my dying lips.

I drew the same distinctions in my 1/28 post on “The witness of the Spirit,” and that, in turn, referred back to an earlier exchange in which I also drawing the same distinctions.

Why do you imagine that telling the truth about someone’s stated position is optional for you? Why do you imagine that you’re exempt from Christian ethics?

Is this a reflection of how Lutheran antinomianism conditions the Lutheran to cut corners on morality? How Lutheran theology deadens the conscience? Indeed, that’s a predictable consequence of rejecting self-examination.

“The next step is to admit you look within yourself for assurance you are elect.”

There is more than one basis for assurance, as I’ve explained repeatedly.

“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?”

Why do you keep posing questions I’ve already answered? The promises are conditional. Therefore, the promises apply to every individual who complies with the terms of the promise.

One of your problems is that you begin with your idiosyncratic redefinition of a “promise,” impute that idiosyncratic definition to the Calvinist, then act as though this generates some internal tension for his position. You lack the critical detachment to examine the opposing position on its own terms. Instead, you keep viewing it through the lens of your Lutheran presuppositions.

“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.”

i) I was the one who discussed the Westminster doctrine of assurance in my 1/28 post (see above). Don’t pretend that you’re bringing something to my attention that I hadn’t already dealt with.

ii) And the WCF doesn’t limit itself to internal evidence. You act as if the Westminster Divines shared your eccentric definition of what constitutes a promise. Then, based on your extraneous construction, which you impute to them, you proceed to collapse the objective grounds into the subjective grounds. But that’s just an exercise in mirror-reading–as you glimpse your own reflection at the bottom of the well.

10 comments:

  1. Steve,

    "That’s irrelevant to other cases where an individual was never in a state of doubt, or in cases where he recovered from a state of doubt."

    You are coming closer to the truth. :-)

    Like doubt not being assurance, flopping between assurance and doubt is not assurance either. it is flopping and is not at all reassuring. This should be elementary.

    "Why do you keep posing questions I’ve already answered? The promises are conditional. Therefore, the promises apply to every individual who complies with the terms of the promise."

    The promises are conditional on one's election. And evidence of one's election comes from examining one's "inner evidence", which the WCF explicitly says. No one can "comply" if he is not elect. If one is not elected in the Calvinist system there is no promise at all--none, nada, zip. Christ didn't die for the non-elect, the promises don't apply to the non-elect, the non-elect are condemned to hell for their sins. This is the "L" in TULIP Calvinism. So the promise, being only to the elect, naturally raises the question "Am I elect or not?" So appeals to a promise don't really help a Calvinist unless he is sure he is elect, because absent election there is no promise at all because the promises simply don't apply to him if he is not elect. This is why the various Calvinist confessions spend effort on explaining how one can know he is elect, it is because it is a legitimate question to ask and the answer given, look at internal evidence, is not comforting at all.

    "And the WCF doesn’t limit itself to internal evidence. You act as if the Westminster Divines shared your eccentric definition of what constitutes a promise. Then, based on your extraneous construction, which you impute to them, you proceed to collapse the objective grounds into the subjective grounds. But that’s just an exercise in mirror-reading–as you glimpse your own reflection at the bottom of the well."

    The WCF states we should look for inner evidence which may be there depending on whether or not we are elect; and we may deceive ourselves even if we are not elect. That is not very assuring at all. Somehow you turn this internal evidence of an external election into external evidence because of a promise which applies only to the elect, who may know they are elect via internal evidence. As I said, this is not very assuring. But in the Calvinist system there is no promise for the non-elect who behave like sinners--which is like an elect person from whom God withdraw's his possibly "infallible" (WCF again) assurance. Its all right there.

    Now regarding the promise, how much sin is enough to question one's election? And can you justify it from the Scriptures? Since you cannot show any such precise measurement from the Scriptures, you are left with trying to guess if your holiness and "inner evidence" is enough to prove to yourself you are elect.

    By contrast, every time I am absolved I can be 100% sure it is for me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Edward Reiss said...

    “Like doubt not being assurance, flopping between assurance and doubt is not assurance either. it is flopping and is not at all reassuring. This should be elementary.”

    As usual, you simply repeat the same boneheaded objection you’ve raised time and again as if I hadn’t responded to that objection. You don’t interact with my response. Instead, you just repeat yourself. You’re not an opponent who ever debates a position in good faith. I guess that’s because you’re an antinomian Lutheran.

    However, it’s impossible to make any headway with a theological opponent who persistently refuses to acknowledge and address what has been said in specific response to his objections.

    “The promises are conditional on one's election.”

    No. As I’ve explained to you on several occasions now, the promises are conditional on the terms of the promises. We have a number of gospel promises in Scripture which are framed in general, conditional terms. I gave you some specific examples in my 2/4 “Upstart Lutheran” post, viz.

    "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).

    “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).

    "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31).

    “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. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’" (Rom 10:9-13).
    But, of course, you’re deaf to what your opponent tells you. You imagine that you have this dandy, knockdown argument against Calvinism, so every time I say something that doesn’t go according to your scripted lines, you simply swap out what I said and swap in what you want to say.

    It isn’t possible to have a productive discussion with a theological opponent who has absolutely no capacity to listen.

    “And evidence of one's election comes from examining one's ‘inner evidence’, which the WCF explicitly says.”

    Another one of your persistent half-truths. The WCF cites three grounds which you invariable misrepresent as only one ground. But because you’re an antinomian Lutheran, you have no respect for the truth. You feel free to misrepresent the opposing position with impunity.

    “No one can ‘comply’ if he is not elect.”

    Of course, that’s equivocal. You confound the order of knowing with the order of being.

    One doesn’t have to know one’s elect to be elect. And if one is elect, then one can comply with the promises. Compliance with the promises doesn’t not require a prior assessment of one’s elect status. Either you believe the promise or you don’t. Not knowing one’s elect status doesn’t prevent you from believing the promise since the conditions of the promise aren’t framed in such terms.

    You don’t have to know whether or not you’re elect before you can repent or believe the promise. To take a comparison, suppose my car battery is dead. But not knowing that doesn’t prevent me from attempting to start my car in the morning. I can still put my key in the ignition, turn the key, and see what happens. And (to continue the metaphor), the car will start in the case of the elect. But that is based on what they actually are, and not what they happen to believe about themselves.

    However, you refuse to hear that because it doesn’t play into your script.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “If one is not elected in the Calvinist system there is no promise at all--none, nada, zip.”

    False. We have general, conditional promises in Scripture. These are true for the elect and reprobate alike.

    “Christ didn't die for the non-elect, the promises don't apply to the non-elect, the non-elect are condemned to hell for their sins.”

    Gospel promises like Jn 3:16, Acts 2:21, Acts 16:31, and Rom 10:9-13 aren’t framed in those terms.

    But you don’t care what the Bible says. You don’t begin with the concrete promises of Scripture. Rather, you begin with your abstract preconception of what a promise ought to be, then you superimpose that tendentious definition on the discussion.

    The rest of your paragraph merely piggybacks on your eccentric, illogical unscriptural definition of a promise.

    “And we may deceive ourselves even if we are not elect.”

    Whether the reprobate can deceive themselves has no bearing on whether the assurance of salvation in accessible to the elect. Your argument is transparently fallacious.

    The rest of your paragraph merely repeats the same mistake you’ve been making all along. Unfortunately, you’re unteachable. You have no capacity to learn. You merely treat us to a repeat performance of your parakeet impersonation. Parroting the same rote objections regardless of how often they may be rebutted.

    “Now regarding the promise, how much sin is enough to question one's election? And can you justify it from the Scriptures? Since you cannot show any such precise measurement from the Scriptures, you are left with trying to guess if your holiness and "inner evidence" is enough to prove to yourself you are elect.”

    Another example of Lutheran apriorism. You have a canon within a canon. You effectively excise any passages of Scripture that don’t conform to your Lutheran dogma of assurance.

    The onus is not on me to justify Scripture. The onus is not on me to justify the Biblical structure of assurance. If there are borderline cases, so be it. That’s a fact of life. I didn’t make the world or reveal the parameters of assurance.

    “By contrast, every time I am absolved I can be 100% sure it is for me.”

    i) Of course, that’s a classic example of dead formalism. Instead of loving God or trusting God, you reduce the walk of faith to a magic formula. Just say the “right” words in the “right” order.

    ii) And it doesn’t work even on its own level since Biblical absolution is contingent on faith, fidelity, and contrition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    "However, it’s impossible to make any headway with a theological opponent who persistently refuses to acknowledge and address what has been said in specific response to his objections."

    Merely asserting your POV as fact is not proof. Your reply completely ignores God's election and "Limited Atonement". This is because th e"L" means that the promises are not for everyone, they are only for the elect. This is shown in WCF X.

    "One doesn’t have to know one’s elect to be elect. And if one is elect, then one can comply with the promises. Compliance with the promises doesn’t not require a prior assessment of one’s elect status. Either you believe the promise or you don’t. Not knowing one’s elect status doesn’t prevent you from believing the promise since the conditions of the promise aren’t framed in such terms."

    I never said anything about one having to know one is elect.

    Regarding th epromises, those are not saving promises, Steve. You are equivocating here. It is quite obvious we are talking about saving promises, which for Calvinists is only for the elect.

    "False. We have general, conditional promises in Scripture. These are true for the elect and reprobate alike. "

    Which is not a promise of salvation. Again, WCF X shows my point nicely. Those not elected cannot be saved. The condition is not based on our receiving the promises but on God's decree.
    So, there is no promise for those not called. Perhaps you are equivocating because there is some general "benefit" for those consigned to hell by God's decree, but that is besides the point and a completely semantic argument anyway. The confessions clearly state subjective assurance is via examination of one's "inner evidence", and that the non-elect can deceive themselves regarding their election. This is an assurance disaster as one cannot know if one is or is not elect, and you even admit one can flop back and forth to boot!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Edward Reiss said...

    “Merely asserting your POV as fact is not proof.”

    I didn’t “merely assert” it. Rather, I argued the point. You’re inability to tell the difference between an assertion and an argument is one of your many intellectual impediments throughout our exchange.

    “Your reply completely ignores God's election and ‘Limited Atonement’.”

    That’s blatantly and demonstrably false. I specifically interacted with your appeals to election and limited atonement. Your persistent lack of reading comprehension is impressive, but impedes rather than facilitates the discussion.

    Since you’re reasonably intelligent, I’m puzzled by why you resort to these obtuse rejoinders. Just scroll up and see where I responded to those very points.

    “This is because th e’L’ means that the promises are not for everyone, they are only for the elect.”

    I provided you with a detailed explanation for why that is false. As usual, you present no counterargument. Merely repeating yourself does nothing to advance the argument or rebut my counterargument.

    “Regarding th epromises, those are not saving promises, Steve. You are equivocating here. It is quite obvious we are talking about saving promises, which for Calvinists is only for the elect.”

    I quoted (twice now!) specific “saving promises” from Scripture. These promises are general, conditional promises. What’s quite obvious is your congenital inability to muster anything resembling a counterargument. As usual, you just repeat yourself with emphasis.

    “Which is not a promise of salvation.”

    That simply begs the question. You have your made-up definition of what constitutes a “promise of salvation”–which you don’t attempt to derive from Scripture or square with Scripture.

    “Those not elected cannot be saved.”

    Irrelevant to the stated terms of the promise.

    “The condition is not based on our receiving the promises but on God's decree.”

    The conditions are the stipulations in the actual wording of the promise. Try not to be so muddleheaded.

    “Perhaps you are equivocating because there is some general ‘benefit’ for those consigned to hell by God's decree.”

    No, that is not what I said. I carefully spelled out exactly what I meant.

    “The confessions clearly state subjective assurance is via examination of one's ‘inner evidence’, and that the non-elect can deceive themselves regarding their election.”

    i) I’ve walked you through this before. As usual, you’re too mentally blinkered to even address what I already said. By definition, “assurance” is subjective. But that doesn’t mean the grounds of assurance are primarily or exclusively subjective. Try not to be so chronically illogical.

    ii) I’ve also explained on several occasions now why it’s a non sequitur to draw inferences from the condition of the reprobate to the condition of the elect. As usual, you simply default to the same stale objection as if nothing was said by way of response. What’s your problem, Ed? Did you stop thinking or learning at the age of 10? Why are you intellectually impervious to (a) first acknowledging, and (b) then addressing an explanation when I answer you on your very own terms?

    “This is an assurance disaster as one cannot know if one is or is not elect, and you even admit one can flop back and forth to boot!”

    This simply continues your intellectually indolent repetition of formulaic objections that I’ve specifically sorted out and then dismantled time and again. Try to take your brain out cruise control and learn how to adapt to the actual state of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    The confessions I cited agree with me, in plain English. It is really quite that simple. Somehow you re-interpret "inward evidence" for election as meaning something other than "inward evidence", and pretend that we are not directed to this inward evidence despite the fact the Reformed confessions say we should look at inward evidence. You bring up ephemeral promises which have nothing to do with salvation to "prove" there are promises for the non-elect--despite the fact an elementary examination of the context shows what I mean by "promises". You claim you "explain" things, but it is really your own opinion stated as fact. These are not the tactics of someone confident of his views, to put it mildly.

    You can call me any name you like, stop your ears, claim victory, play the victim, make up stories, pretend that volume is proof; anything you like. Nothing you say changes the clear meaning of the confessions I cited.

    Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Edward Reiss said...

    “The confessions I cited agree with me, in plain English. It is really quite that simple.”

    To the contrary, you willfully oversimplify what they actually say, as I’ve documented.

    “Somehow you re-interpret ‘inward evidence’ for election as meaning something other than ‘inward evidence’, and pretend that we are not directed to this inward evidence despite the fact the Reformed confessions say we should look at inward evidence.”

    For some reason you can only keep one idea in your head at a time. At no point did I “reinterpret” internal evidence as equivalent to or synonymous with external evidence. Rather, as the WCF explicitly states, the basis of assurance is grounded in both internal and external indicia. That isn’t a case of treating one basis as interchangeable with another. Rather, that’s a case of treating multiple grounds as complementary. Why you are too hardheaded to absorb that explicit and elementary distinction in a reflection of your own psychological makeup rather than the sources you ostensibly cite.

    “You bring up ephemeral promises which have nothing to do with salvation to ‘prove’ there are promises for the non-elect--despite the fact an elementary examination of the context shows what I mean by "promises’".

    i) If you’re citing the WCF, then the relevant context is what the Westminster divines mean by “promises,” and not what a Lutheran epologist means by “promises.”

    ii) Moreover, it’s quite revealing that you think the following statements from Scripture are “ephemeral” promises which have “nothing to do with salvation”:

    "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).

    “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).

    "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31).

    “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. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’" (Rom 10:9-13).

    Moving along:

    “You claim you ‘explain’ things, but it is really your own opinion stated as fact.”

    That characterization is, itself, your opinion stated as fact.

    “These are not the tactics of someone confident of his views, to put it mildly.”

    i) And since you just did exactly what you accuse me of doing, then you must not be confident of your own views, to put it mildly.

    ii) Moreover, another telltale sign of somebody who isn’t confident of his views is when, like you, he simply offers dismissive, tendentious characterizations of what his opponents said rather than offering an actual counterargument.

    “You can call me any name you like, stop your ears, claim victory, play the victim, make up stories, pretend that volume is proof; anything you like. Nothing you say changes the clear meaning of the confessions I cited.”

    To assert the “clear meaning” of your interpretation is just that–your self-serving claim, minus the supporting argument.

    And when somebody like you habitually misrepresents his sources, habitually misrepresents what his opponent said, then that needs to be pointed out since you chronically obstruct any possibility of advancing the discussion.

    You begin and end with Lutheranism. You filter everything through your Lutheran lens. You can’t remove your lens to try on another lens.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Edward Reiss said:

    The confessions I cited agree with me, in plain English. It is really quite that simple.

    With all due respect, even if you had correctly understood the confessions and fairly represented them (which unfortunately you haven't), it's not as if we're beholden to the confessions merely because they're Reformed confessions.

    After all, it's not as if modern Lutherans (or Calvinists) are beholden to Luther's words simply because Luther (or Calvin) said it, right?

    Rather, the basis is sound exegesis. Exegetical theology.

    To the extent that the confessions square with Scripture is to the extent that we value them.

    I believe Steve has already pointed this out more than once too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ED,

    lips are lying, hearts are frying!

    Can you not just step to the plate now and confess your sins?

    "....Steve:

    “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.”

    And, once again we’re back to your congenital dissembling. This is not a position which I “finally came around to,” as if you managed to back me down and wring some fatal concession from my dying lips....".

    ED, that is a remarkable charge against you there! You have not as yet addressed it. Why? Are you going to ignore it?

    What I find quite eye opening and remarkable, also, is the graciousness and generosity that is being given to you in here!


    Jesus is Lord and His Word is Truth even today in here in His workers:::>

    Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
    Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
    Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
    Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


    I see this dialogue back and forth as a fine example of elementary doctrinal education of both kinds of "lights" shining, that is, His Light shining through God's workers and sadly, his light shining through man's.

    You did dissemble there.

    And being described more antinomian seems apropos to me.

    What will you do?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve said...

    Moving along:

    “You claim you ‘explain’ things, but it is really your own opinion stated as fact.”

    That characterization is, itself, your opinion stated as fact.

    “These are not the tactics of someone confident of his views, to put it mildly.”

    i) And since you just did exactly what you accuse me of doing, then you must not be confident of your own views, to put it mildly.


    LOL!!!

    ReplyDelete