Monday, October 12, 2015

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*).

18 comments:

  1. I stopped wasting my time with that blog a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If my assurance depended on my certainty that Lutheranism is correct, then my certainty would indeed be shaken. It is a good thing my assurance lies in the fact that Christ died for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jefff. Not to be obtuse, but how does that respond to the argument, which assumed the terms Andrew set for the debate? If, as Andrew said, were Calvinism true, then we can't know "with 100% certainty" that Christ died for us, and if you can't know that Calvinism is false "with 100% certainty," then how can you know "with 100% certainty" that Christ died for you? It seems as if your "100% certainty" that Christ died for you rests (partly" on your "100% certainty" in the falsity of Calvinism. Moreover, since, per Andrew, I can run a similar argument against assurance using Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, EO, etc., then it certainly seems that it rests on your knowing "with 100% certainty" that Lutheranism is true. At this point, wouldn't it be easier to just admit that Andrew set the bar too high? Perhaps he got carried away and spoke hyperbolically?

      Delete
    2. If Calvinism is true, than it would be foolish to put my assurance that Christ died for my salvation (because Christ may or may not have died for my salvation). As a lifelong Lutheran, saying that it is foolish to put your assurance in the fact that Christ died for you is the most absurd thing you could possibly say. The Gospel is Good News. It would be Bad News indeed if it was foolish to put my assurance in Christ's death for me.

      Also, I don't think you are listening. Who said I was 100% certain about any of that? Thankfully, my salvation doesn't depend on my 100% certainty. My salvation depends on Jesus Christ dying for my sins, which already happened and is complete.

      Delete
    3. That's just bad epistemology, Jeff. Your wife "may or may not" be a robot; you "may or may not" be dreaming right now; you "may or may not" be a delusional patient in a psych word hallucinating this discussion. But that those things "may" be the case isn't sufficient to undercut the warrant you have for your belief that your wife is a person, that you're in waking life, and that you're not delusional but, rather, actually having this discussion.

      Also, it's actually you who isn't listening. I am responding to a Lutheran who said only Lutheranism gives you "100% certainty" that Christ died for you and that you're saved, and that Calvinism, Arminianism, RCC, EO, etc., cannot. My responses was pegged to the way he framed the debate. You came in *ostensibly* disagreeing with my post. But now we find out that you disagree with your fellow *Lutheran* and, actually, agree with me. Awkward.

      Delete
    4. Jeff,

      Universal atonement would only warrant the assurance of salvation if universal atonement entailed universal salvation. Since Lutheranism repudiates universalism, there's a gap between the extent of the atonement and the extent of salvation.

      And your salvation doesn't depend solely on Christ dying for your sins. Your salvation is also contingent on factors like justification by faith.

      In addition, do you think apostates are saved?

      For that matter, why does Lutheranism teach baptismal regeneration and the real presence if the atonement of Christ is sufficient to save? Why not dispense with the sacraments if they are superfluous to salvation?

      Finally, you confuse salvation with the assurance of salvation. Calvinism doesn't say one's salvation depends on having 100% certainty regarding one's salvation. That confuses objective certainty (that God will save a particular individual) with psychological certitude (a self-referential belief about one's salvation).

      Delete
    5. 1) Assurance that Christ died for one's salvation is not a universal thing. Unbelievers do not have assurance that Christ died for their salvation. It does not necessitate universal salvation.

      2) There is a strong correlation between being assured of Christ's death for your sins and justification by faith. :)

      Delete
    6. Jeff D

      "Assurance that Christ died for one's salvation is not a universal thing."

      No one claimed otherwise. In fact, to the contrary.

      Of course, this goes for Lutherans too.

      "Unbelievers do not have assurance that Christ died for their salvation."

      Captain Obvious to the rescue!

      "It does not necessitate universal salvation."

      Not sure why you have difficulty following Paul and Steve's clear reasoning above.

      "There is a strong correlation between being assured of Christ's death for your sins and justification by faith."

      Many people in the past (and present) have been "assured of Christ's death for [their] sins." But as Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 7:21).

      Delete
    7. Jeff,

      Your réponse is illogical:

      i) The question at issue isn't whether the assurance of salvation is universal, but wither universal atonement is sufficient to ground the assurance of salvation.

      I explained why that's not the case. Your comment hardly constitutes a rebuttal.

      ii) You're moving the goal post. The question at issue is not a "strong correlation" between justification by faith and the assurance of salvation, but whether there's a "strong correlation" between universal atonement and salvation.

      Since, according to Lutheran theology, Christ died for the damned, no such correlation exists.

      You said "My salvation depends on Jesus Christ dying for my sins." But at best that's a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for salvation.

      Delete
    8. "Since, according to Lutheran theology, Christ died for the damned, no such correlation exists."

      Of course Christ died for the damned. Why would he have to die for the not-damned? They are not-damned. Of course the pool of people who are not-damned is zero. Those who are well have no need of a physician, while we were still sinners Christ died for us, while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Etc.

      Honestly.

      "You said "My salvation depends on Jesus Christ dying for my sins." But at best that's a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for salvation."

      Yes. Christ's death plus something equals salvation. Oh wait, no.

      Delete
    9. Are you just unable to think logically? Your modus operandi is to emote and react rather than reason.

      The question at issue is whether universal atonement is sufficient to ground the assurance of salvation. Well, if Christ died for the damned, then his death does not ensure that anyone in particular will be saved. Indeed, his death does not even make it probable that anyone in particular will be saved. In that event, it follows that universal atonement forms no basis for the assurance of salvation.

      "Why would he have to die for the not-damned?"

      To prevent their damnation.

      "Of course the pool of people who are not-damned is zero."

      The "non-damned" would be synonymous with those who are saved. So you're now claiming that the pool of those who are saved is zero. No one is saved. Everyone is damned.

      "Christ's death plus something equals salvation. Oh wait, no."

      Another unintelligent response from you. Does the death of Christ save everyone? Not according to Lutheranism.

      If you wish to retain the privilege to post comments here, you need to replace your snarky knee-jerk reactions with thoughtful replies.

      Delete
    10. Personally I think it's instructive to see these types of comments teased out because it serves to demonstrate the vacuous nature of the ideological opposition.

      Granted, I've read higher quality responses from better informed and more erudite defenders of confessional Lutheranism, but the content is basically the same as Jeff D has trotted out here...vain tradition devoid of exegesis.

      Delete
    11. Sorry about that. There isn't much to sink my teeth into with your arguments, though. They are vaguely strawmannish. Take the OP.

      "The Lutheran claims to know with certainty that Jones (who could even be the Lutheran him or herself) is saved."

      Lutherans don't claim to know that.

      And your arguments:
      "Universal atonement would only warrant the assurance of salvation if universal atonement entailed universal salvation."

      That does not follow. It would only follow if assurance of salvation was a random variable, disconnected from the equation. But assurance of salvation is an active participant.

      Salvation is the opposite of the placebo effect. Salvation is based on rock solid fact and the placebo affect is based on belief in a falsehood, however, the placebo effect reveals the flaws in your logic.

      By your logic, the placebo effect shouldn't work. People who take a sugar pill they are assured is actually medicine logically will not feel better because the sugar pill does not universally make everyone feel better. In the placebo effect, the assurance a pill is medicine is not a random variable.

      "The "non-damned" would be synonymous with those who are saved."

      No, they are not synonymous. The non-condemned man does not have a pardon certificate from the governor.

      I think it is a worldview thing. The Calvinist view of time as all flattened out an icy with all facts being eternal and whatnot really shines through. I don't think the full impact of "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" can really break through.

      Delete
    12. Jeff, I already corrected you. In the OP I'm responding to a Lutheran! So the OP isn't "vaguely straw mannish." If you disagree so vehemently with that position, I suggest you go to the Lutheran blog that is arguing that and correct them.

      Delete
    13. "That does not follow. It would only follow if assurance of salvation was a random variable, disconnected from the equation. But assurance of salvation is an active participant."

      In Lutheran theology, universal atonement is a disconnected variable inasmuch as there is no one-to-one correspondence between Christ's death and individual salvation.

      "No, they are not synonymous. The non-condemned man does not have a pardon certificate from the governor."

      You act is if "condemned" is synonymous with "damned." That's obviously false. "The damned" is a technical term for the lost who died in their lost condition.

      You, on the other hand, seem to be using "condemned" as a synonym for sinners in general.

      "The Calvinist view of time as all flattened out an icy with all facts being eternal and whatnot really shines through. I don't think the full impact of "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" can really break through."

      Election is timeless, but it has temporal effects. In human life, there's a time before the elect came to faith, and a time after they came to faith. Election has effects in time. Election effects a change in the heart and mind of the elect. For instance, they are different after regeneration than before regeneration.

      Yes, it's a worldview thing. Lutheranism fosters disorganized thinking. You're unable to maintain a linear train of thought. You compartmentalize. You lurch from one thing to another. There's no continuity.

      Delete
  4. I'm 86% certain Christ died for a net average of 58% of confessional Lutherans as a whole, but the percentages increase as the data set trends LCMS, yet decreases as the set trends ELCA.

    These are approximations of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P(Christ died for you | you LCMS) > P(Christ died for you | you ELCA).

      Delete