Lutheranism and Assurance

I left a comment on this post arguing against both Calvinist and Arminian views of assurance. It seems that the comment was not allowed past moderation. (EDIT: Sometime after this post appeared, the comment was allowed through moderation.) Whatever the reason, I'll repost the essence of my comment here, for posterity's sake. Of course, I'll only be defending Calvinism here, and not Arminianism. They'll have to defend themselves.

The author writes that,

Calvinism cannot preach consistently to the sinner that Christ died and rose for them until after they are certain that the person is truly saved. But in Calvinism, how does one know who is truly saved? The only way one can make a judgment on this is by looking for a totally changed life. But then, who is to say that the person is not deceived if they fall away and reject Christ later in life? Calvinism desires to uphold monergism, but due to the doctrine of limited atonement, they rip the heart out of the Gospel. There is no surety of Christ for you no matter what in Calvinism. How do they know that Christ died for them? How can they objectively know this, with 100% certainty, if Christ only died for the elect? Pretty much they have to be certain they are elect. And in Calvinism, without a 100% certainty in Word and Sacrament and the atonement, they must look to their own faith to an extent.

But given the epistemological brush the author chose to paint with, the same applies to Lutheranism. Here's how: So the idea is that a Calvinist cannot tell anyone, himself or herself included, that Christ died for them. Why? They don't know "with 100% certainty"(the redundancy is in the original) that they, or those they speak to, are elect. So let's grant this. The Lutheran is in the same position. How? The Lutheran claims to know with certainty that Jones (who could even be the Lutheran him or herself) is saved. But how does the Lutheran claim to know this? Why, it's because it's entailed by the Lutheran view of the atonement. But then, the Lutheran must know that the Lutheran view of the atonement is true "with 100% certainty." But how does the Lutheran know that? I dare say that a healthy dose of the noetic effects of sin, coupled with the fact that the Lutheran's epistemic peers (those who are appraised of the same set of facts as is the Lutheran, takes an opposing position out of good faith, is just as "smart" as the Lutheran, etc.) disagree with him, is enough to throw a wet blanket on that idea!

This reply is different than the typical Calvinist reply. Typically, Calvinists respond to this sort of argument by countering that the Lutheran can't be assured, confident, know with certainty, etc., that the Lutheran will persevere until the end, so it's a wash—that is, there's no real advantage for Lutheranism here. My objection is different. I'm meeting them on their own ground. I'm claiming that if philosophical or epistemological certainty is required to know that Christ died for some particular person, the Lutheran doesn't have that. And that's because the Lutheran could only have that if the Lutheran knew the basis for making that judgment "with 100% certainty." And the Lutheran can't, of course, have that—hence, the Lutheran can't, of course, know that Christ died for him or her or anyone "with 100% certainty."

P.S. I say this because I think it's right, not because I'm bitter; but even if I were bitter, the argument would stand all the same. ;)

P.P.S. In other words, if Calvinists have to worry about the "possibility" that they're not elect, Lutherans have to worry about the "possibility" that Calvinism is correct (i.e., it's not *impossible*).