If The Type Gives Confidence

"The angel feared the blood [Exodus 12:23]; for he knew of what it was a Type; he shuddered, thinking on the Lord's death; therefore he did not touch the door-posts. Moses said, Smear, and they smeared, and were confident. And you, having the Blood of the Lamb Himself, are ye not confident?" (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews, 27:1)

Shades of assurance

1. Kinds of certainty

One of the perennial debates in Christian theology is the assurance of salvation. Let's begin by drawing some philosophical distinctions regarding different kinds of certainty:

There are various kinds of certainty. A belief is psychologically certain when the subject who has it is supremely convinced of its truth. Certainty is often explicated in terms of indubitability.

A second kind of certainty is epistemic. Roughly characterized, a belief is certain in this sense when it has the highest possible epistemic status. According to a second conception, a subject's belief is certain just in case it could not have been mistaken—i.e., false (see, e.g., Lewis 1929). Alternatively, the subject's belief is certain when it is guaranteed to be true. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

2. Objective certainty

i) In Calvinism, if true, or universalism, if true, salvation is objectively certain. If you're elect, you will be saved. Your salvation depends on God's unfailing will. Universalism is similar except in scope. On both positions, salvation is a sure thing. The outcome is guaranteed. 

ii) In most varieties of freewill theism, by contrast, salvation is objectively uncertain because you can slip in and out of salvation. You can gain it, lose it, and regain it. So at least up until the moment of death, your salvation is constantly indeterminate. 

iii) There's a question of whether universalism is consistent with freewill theism. In addition, postmortem salvation is becoming more popular. 

iv) In that respect, it's rather like whether you're genetically predetermined to develop a degenerative illness. You either are or you aren't. If you're tested, and the result is negative, that's a relief, but there's the risk of having a positive result, in which  case you might be better off not knowing in advance. So long as you're asymptomatic, you will enjoy peace of mind by not knowing. Ignorance is bliss.

v) In that respect, there's a fundamental difference between Calvinism and freewill theism. 

3. Psychological certainty

i) However, psychological certainty is harder to nail down regardless of the theological system. In freewill theism, psychological certainty is well-nigh impossible given the fact that you can slip in and out of salvation. The future is unpredictable. 

ii) And in both Calvinism and freewill theism, there's the possibility of false assurance. Indeed, that's commonplace. 

iii) Even universalism can't offer psychological certainty since a universalist may harbor nagging doubts that universalism is true. 

iv) According to the "free grace" position, justification by faith alone is sufficient for salvation. If that condition is met,  the assurance of salvation is a given.

The "free grace" position has a grain of truth. It's true that whoever is justified is heavenbound. However, the "free grace" position artificially detaches justification from other necessary elements of salvation by grace alone. 

And in any case, it suffers from the same problem as universalism: if it's true, then the assurance of salvation is warranted, but that doesn't forestall doubts and misgivings about whether it's true. 

v) As a rule, traditional Catholicism (Tridentine theology) denies that the assurance of salvation is ordinarily attainable. 

vi) Depending on the theological system, this relation between objective certainty and psychological certainty is like having an illness that is fatal unless you take the right antidote, only you don't know which antidote is the right one. Suppose there are three pills: two are the right antidote while one is the wrong antidote. You can only take one pill. If you take two, you will die from an overdose. It's nerve-wracking not to know which pill to take. Likewise, suppose you won't know for 48 hours if you took the right pill or the wrong pill? That's nerve-wracking, too. 

Still, your level of anxiety has no bearing on your survival. If you took the right pill, you will survive. What ultimately matters isn't your state of mind but what will happen. Even if you're robbed of the comfort of knowing you took the right pill, that's fairly inconsequential compared to whether or not you did indeed take the right pill. 

vii) In Calvinism, paradoxically, one of the elect might be wracked by self-doubt or even (due to clinical depression or mental illness) be convinced he's damned, only to be pleasantly surprised by what awaits him after he dies. Indeed, there's a special kind of relief and gratitude enjoyed by those who assume the worst, only to find out that the best lay in store for them. 

viii) Of course, it's possible for God to simply grant some Christians psychological certainty. Indeed, I think God does that in many cases. 

4. The burden of proof

In classic Protestant theology, the foil was traditional Catholicism. That studiously cultivated dread and foreboding about your eternal destiny in order to keep Catholics chained to the sacerdotal system. It compiled an artificial list of mortal sins. 

But once we clear away the manmade obstacles to the assurance of salvation, then that puts the issue in a brighter light. Is there a presumption that God is out to get you, even though you're a conscientious Christian who struggles with sin, yet you're staking everything on Christianity? 

Catholic assurance

Heavenly hospital

30 And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Lk 5:30-32).

One of the ironies of life in a fallen world is that many people who have the greatest need to fear damnation are religiously hostile, indifferent, or presumptuous–while many people who fear damnation have the least need to fear it because they are pious to the point of painful scrupulosity. 

There is a grain of truth to fear of damnation within the church. There's the danger of dead formalism. Nominal, token piety. Likewise, the danger of spiritual presumption. We must guard against those spiritual pifalls. Too many people think they are too good to go to hell. 

On the other hand, biblical threats of eschatological punishment are directed, not at Christians who struggle with sin and self-doubt, but at insolent, defiant sinners–both inside and outside the covenant community. 

Just as there are people who assume they are too good to go to hell, there are Christians who can't shake the feeling that they just aren't good enough to go to heaven. They are too impure.

Christians of that disposition need to make a habit of reminding themselves, from day to day, that Christianity is a religion for the sick, not the sound. A religion for diseased souls. Becoming a Christian doesn't make us healthy. In this life, we undergo spiritual treatment rather than a cure. We are only healed in the world to come. As Christians, we are chronically ill. That continues right up to the deathbed. 

It's like patients who suffer from an illness that's treatable but incurable. Treatment provides a degree of symptom relief, and it may prevent the disease from becoming terminal, but the underlying illness remains. A maintenance program. We are under the lifelong care of our Physician. In this life we never cease to need Jesus as our Physician. 

Hoping for the best

There's a point of tension in Christian theology regarding the assurance of salvation. On the one hand, there are biblical promises about the certainty of salvation. On the other hand, there's the specter of apostasy–as well as the phenomenon of nominal belief, where someone might have false assurance. This creates psychological tension: should we hope for the best, fear the worst, or constantly oscillate between these two moods? 

In one sense, your attitude doesn't change the outcome. If you're heavenbound, then harboring the fear that you might be hellbound doesn't change the fact that you're heavenbound. Conversely, if you're hellbound, then false assurance doesn't change the outcome.

So, in a sense, if you're hellbound, you have nothing to lose by believing that you're heavenbound. Whether you have false assurance that you are heavenbound, or rightly suspect that you are hellbound makes no difference to the outcome. Mind you, most folks who are hellbound don't think they are hellbound. Paradoxically, anxieties about your eternal destiny are more far more likely to afflict the heavenbound. 

And in a material sense, if you're heavenbound, then you have nothing to gain by the nagging doubts about your salvation, because it doesn't change the blissful outcome. But in a psychological sense, you do have something to lose–peace of mind in this life. 

In a sense, if you're hellbound, you ultimately have nothing to gain or lose by false assurance. Yet if you're heavenbound, you have nothing to gain but something to lose by harboring anxieties about your eternal fate. It robs you of joy. So you might as well hope for the best rather than fear for the worst. 

Now, I say "in a sense" because I don't mean the outcome is fatalistically inevitable regardless of what you believe or do. The point, though, is that going to heaven doesn't depend on believing for sure that you're going to heaven. You must believe in Jesus, but you don't have to believe in yourself. You don't have to have faith in your faith. 

I'd add that even in Calvinism, to say someone is heavenbound or hellbound doesn't necessarily mean they can't change course. It doesn't necessarily mean they're on a heavenbound or hellbound path from start to finish, as if where they began predetermines where they end up. You can be lost, then God saves you. If you had continued along the original trajectory for the duration, you'd wind up in hell, but where you start doesn't predict for where you arrive. There are counterfactual trajectories. 

But the main point, making allowance for the codicils, is that you have nothing to lose by hoping for the best. If you're a Christian believer, it's pointless to fear the worst. 

Struggling With Pornography And Assurance Of Salvation

I just posted this on Facebook. Anybody who wants to add comments here can do so, or you can post on my Facebook page.

Here's something I recently wrote to a Christian struggling with pornography and assurance of salvation. I'm posting it with his permission, and I hope it will be helpful to other people. If anybody wants to add to what I've said below, you can do that in the comments section of this thread if you want. It could be helpful to this individual and others looking on if those of you who have anything to add will do so. Here's what I wrote:

In God's casino

1. The Puritans, or at least some Puritans, championed an infallibilist religious epistemology which became enshrined in the Westminster Confession:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (WCF 1:5).

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption (WCF 18.2).

I believe John Owen tries to unpack an infallibilist epistemology, but I'm not going to discuss that. Let's consider some distinctions and definitions:

There are various kinds of certainty. A belief is psychologically certain when the subject who has it is supremely convinced of its truth.

A second kind of certainty is epistemic. Roughly characterized, a belief is certain in this sense when it has the highest possible epistemic status.

Some philosophers also make use of the notion of moral certainty (see Markie 1986). For example, in the Latin version of Part IV of the Principles of Philosophy, Descartes says that “some things are considered as morally certain, that is, as having sufficient certainty for application to ordinary life, even though they may be uncertain in relation to the absolute power of God” (PW 1, pp. 289-90). Thus characterized, moral certainty appears to be epistemic in nature, though it is a lesser status than epistemic certainty.

Certainty is often explicated in terms of indubitability.

According to a second conception, a subject's belief is certain just in case it could not have been mistaken—i.e., false.

According to a third conception of certainty, a subject's belief that p is certain when it is justified in the highest degree.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Of course, it would be somewhat anachronistic to apply this taxonomy to the Westminster Confession. Still, we might ask how to classify "infallible assurance" according to that taxonomy? Seems like it dovetails with all the variations: psychological certainty, epistemic certainty, indubitability, justified in the highest degree, and unable to have been mistaken. But is that true?

2. Among other things, the Westminster Confession links infallible assurance to the witness of the Spirit. One way of construing that claim is that the witness of the Spirit bridges the gap between evidence and assurance. I don't know if that's what the Westminster Divines had in mind, and since the Westminster Assembly was comprised of many individuals, there may have been a variety of views, even if they share a family resemblance.

Now it might be objected that if the witness of the Spirit is a makeweight which confers a degree of assurance that outstrips the evidence, then that's fideistic. But is it? Surely God is capable of inducing certitude. If, moreover, that mental state corresponds to objective truth, then it seems to be warranted. Indeed, it was generated by a reliable belief-forming process. So it seems to meet the condition of epistemic certainty, and goes beyond that, since it could not have been mistaken. 

3. That said, is it necessary to raise the bar that high? If Christianity is true, then it's 100% true. Now suppose, for argument's sake, that I have 60% confidence in Christianity. Although I think it's silly to mathematically quantify degrees of certainty, let's do it for illustrative purposes. And suppose 60% confidence suffices for saving faith. That means 60% confidence will get me 100% salvation. Epistemologically, it's only 60% certainty, but ontologically, it's 100% heaven! Sounds like a deal to me!

Moreover, even though I expressed the relation in artificial terms, yet if we're saved by grace, then it's not as if salvation depends on our ability to muster 100% certainty. Or if it did, and God intends to save someone, he will grant them 100% certainty.

4. Put another way, above a necesary threshold, the level of certainty doesn't affect the outcome. The promise of salvation isn't adjustable to the degree of certainty. My degree of certainty can't change reality. The ontology of the Christian faith is independent the psychology and epistemology of faith. Certainty doesn't make it any truer while doubt doesn't make it any less true. 

5. The main thing is whether we can know enough to make the right choice between Christianity and its rivals. That doesn't require absolute certainty. 

6. Finally, there's some tension between faith and certainty. There's a sense in which faith is meant to be a gamble. Where the nature of faith requires an element of uncertainty. 

For faith involves trusting another. It isn't direct knowledge, but letting someone else be your eyes and ears. And psychologically speaking, that doesn't feel as certain as seeing something for yourself. Indeed, it's supposed to be different in that regard. That's what makes it faith. If you could see it for yourself, there'd be no need to exercise faith. No need to put your trust in someone else. 

Take the prospect of dying. Most of us only die once. Most of us don't have a near-death-experience. And even if we did, that's not the same thing as Lazarus returning to life four days later. 

Most of us have no direct experience of what lies on the other side of the grave. We don't know from firsthand experience what awaits us. We don't know from firsthand experience if there's anything on the other side (apparitions of the dead excepted). 

If there is no afterlife, we won't know what hit us. And if we're hellbound, it's too late to prepare for death. 

This parallels risk assessment, where there are two variables, viz. a minor risk of major harm or major risk of minor harm. So even if you had a very high level of confidence, you might still be nervous if you have everything to lose in the unlikely event that you're mistaken. 

I don't think it's inherently unholy for Christians to have some anxieties about death, where you must put everything on the line, for faith is meant to be a kind of gamble–where you hazard everything for God. The element of uncertainty is what makes it an act of total devotion. Psychologically costly. You don't hedge your bets. You leave nothing in reserve. You put all your chips on the table, both despite and because of what's at stake. 

Mind you, God does things to make that easier. Death is unavoidable. And the evidence for Christianity is decisively superior to the competition. In that sense, it's a low-risk gambit. But it's still suspenseful.

To take a comparison, suppose your wife and kids are abducted. The kidnapper demands a ransom that's beyond your means. However, you make an arrangement with a cardsharp at the local casino. He will deal you winning cards in exchange for a cut of the winnings. That way you can raise enough money to pay the ransom.

Yet even though the deck is stacked in your favor, you still feel jittery was you wait to see the next card, and a sense of relief as dealer comes through, for there's so much on the line, and you have no direct control over the outcome. You're entirely dependent on someone else to act on your behalf in your vital interests. That forces you to live by faith.  

The presumption of salvation

How the assurance of salvation is dealt with is a distinguishing feature of different theological traditions. Some theological traditions deny the assurance of salvation because they say the regenerate can lose their salvation. Some theological traditions affirm that assurance of salvation is possible, although attaining a sense of assurance may need to be cultivated. Some Christians vest assurance in the altar call. Some Christians vest assurance (or hope) in the sacraments (e.g. baptism, communion, absolution, last rites).  

I think these debates tend to labor under a common misunderstanding. Many theological traditions operate as if there's a presumption against salvation, so it's then a question of how to overcome that presumption, while some deny that possibility outright. 

To the contrary, I'd say there's a presumption of salvation. That statement needs to be qualified, but here's the basic principle: Biblical soteriology presupposes that humans aren't good enough to attain salvation through their own merit or willpower. God must save them because they cannot save themselves. Put another way, if they were good enough to save themselves, they wouldn't need to be saved in the first place. If they were good enough to save themselves, they'd be too virtuous to be in need of salvation. So Biblical soteriology presupposes that salvation depends on God's will and God's grace rather than our own goodness or willpower.

In that event, the bar for salvation is quite low. And by the same token, the bar for the assurance of salvation should be quite low. To worry that you're too sinful to have confidence in your salvation is not a good reason to doubt that you are heavenbound, for the whole point of biblical soteriology is that you're too sinful to save yourself. Only God can do it for you.

Now, to say the bar is low doesn't mean there is no bar. A person needs to believe core doctrines of the faith. And God must be at the center of his life. That should occupy his thoughts. He should have a daily prayerlife. He should reflect the religious psychology we see modeled in the Psalter, of an intellectual and emotional life directed towards God. And by "God" I mean the God of Biblical revelation. 

Putting the assurance of salvation in perspective

i) The Reformed emphasis on the assurance of salvation is in reaction to Rome, which denies the assurance of salvation. In traditional Catholic theology, you constantly walk a tightrope between dying in a state of grace and dying in a state of mortal sin. Salvation or damnation becomes a matter of lucky or unlucky timing. 

So Protestant theologians emphasized the assurance of salvation to counter that error. That, however, can lead to an overreaction or overemphasis, as if we're supposed to indulge in morbid introspection. Spiritual hypochondria. 

ii) There's a sense in which the assurance of salvation is overrated. It's important to reject a theological system that denies the possible assurance of salvation. 

But having a sense of assurance doesn't mean you're heavenbound, and not having a sense of assurance doesn't mean you're hellbound.

A sense of assurance doesn't make you saved, lack of assurance doesn't make you unsaved. The presence or absence of assurance doesn't change the reality. 

It's like the possibility that I was born with an undiagnosed genetic defect that will cause me to develop a degenerative illness in my 20s-40s. But I won't know if that's true unless and until it happens.

It would be unreasonable to let that hypothetical possibility haunt me. Rob me of happiness because I fear the dim possibility that I might develop a condition which ruins my life. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where it's my fear of something–which in all probability will never occur–that ruins my life, rather than the thing I fear.

Suppose I never marry or have kids for fear I might possibly have this ticking timebomb in my system. It's not the degenerative condition that makes me miserable, but the nagging fear. I may never develop that condition. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that I will develop that condition. Yet I deny myself the happy life I might have had–with the wife and kids and white picket fence–for fear I might not have a happy life! (in the unlikely event that I develop this imaginary condition). 

If I develop that condition, I will be miserable, and so I avoid a normal social life just in case I develop that condition, but it's my reaction that makes me miserable, and not the specter of the would-be genetic defect. 

It's a mistake for people to fret over the assurance of salvation. Just avoid doing things that are damnable! 

ii) In addition, some people are prone to depression, which makes them more susceptible to spiritual self-doubt, because that's just a reflection of their general self-doubt. And that can be a vicious cycle. It's depressing to be depressed! And there's the fatalistic sense that even if you shake off depression, it's waiting for you just around the corner. You can't put it behind you, because it lies in wait to jump you when you round the corner. 

Depression intensifies foreboding about the assurance of salvation, and vice versa. 

But as I say, the assurance of salvation is often overblown. Like fearing the possibility that you're born with an undiagnosed genetic defect. You keep looking for symptoms. When you're not feeling well, you wonder if this is the onset of the dreaded degenerative condition–even though there's no evidence that you have a genetic defect. Even though that's statistically improbable. 

iii) There's a certain paradox about spiritual self-examination. The people who need it don't do it and the people who do it don't need it.

By that I mean, there are spiritually self-confident people who are overly confident. And that's obvious to bystanders. There are spiritually self-confident people who are poised for a downfall. Ironically, their excessive self-assurance is the catalyst for their downfall. Others can see it coming, but they can't.

They are the high-risk group. And they are the very people who don't feel the need to examine themselves. 

I think concern over assurance of salvation is mainly of value to people who are spiritually complacent. A check on one extreme. 

But for normal Christians, I don't think it's necessary or beneficial to be too self-conscious. 

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*).

Banking on conjectures

A few more comments on this:

https://ochuk.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/

Shortly after this I reassessed my belief in Calvinism and let it corrode under the sweet promises of Scripture: that eternal life is given to all those who believe in the Son of God—Jesus Christ.

i) Come again? Calvinism affirms that eternal life is given to all those who believe in Christ. 

ii) Perhaps he means that according to Calvinism, some people who initially believe in Christ subsequently lose their faith. But, if so, the same holds true for freewill theism (Molinism, Arminianism, open theism). 

After intense study of all these matters I came to doubt many of the core beliefs of the faith. I did not express my doubts to many people, though I often confessed to others that I was struggling with a terrifying fear of death and did not know I was saved. 

On the face of it, his logic is backwards. If, say, you came to doubt many of the core beliefs of the faith, it would them make sense to doubt your salvation. For at that point you doubt the very framework of sin, salvation, and a Savior. If, say, you came to doubt the veracity of the Gospels, then it would make sense to doubt your own salvation inasmuch as you now doubted the larger story in which that's embedded. If you doubt Christian soteriology, you will naturally doubt your own salvation. What is there to be saved from? 

But why would doubting his salvation cause him to doubt the Christian faith? How does the loss of assurance in his salvation lead to doubting the historicity of the Gospels, the Resurrection, &c.?

It seemed to me that the only way I could know I was saved was by knowing the status of my eternal election. Was I chosen by God for salvation or was I eternally damned before I had done anything good or bad? To be sure, the Calvinist theologian in me had responses to this question, yet none of them sufficed…my Calvinistic theology presented my needs for assurance with an epistemological problem: in order to have assurance I needed to know the status of my election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known.
This objection was articulated in an article by William Lane Craig entitled “Lest Anyone Should Fall”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings where he essentially argues that the “means of salvation view” is actually more coherent in a “middle knowledge” perspective. Middle knowledge is the view of God’s knowledge that contains what his creatures would freely do in any given circumstances (or “possible world”) before he creates the world. This contrasts with the Calvinist perspective in that it allows for libertarian free will, which is a view of freedom that is incompatible with causal determinism.

That's like grounding the assurance of salvation in Monadology. There's absolutely no evidence that Molinism is true. There's no empirical evidence, revelatory evidence, or philosophical evidence. 

It's like saying: Planet earth is dying. We need to colonize another planet to survive. An astronomer has postulated a Class M planet in a particular solar system in the Milky Way. We only have the technological wherewithal to make one trip. So let's go there. 

Mind you, there's no empirical evidence that a Class M planet exists in that location. But given the size of the Milky Way, it's possible that the astronomer's postulate is true. We might get very lucky.

Lest anyone should fall

It seemed to me that the only way I could know I was saved was by knowing the status of my eternal election. Was I chosen by God for salvation or was I eternally damned before I had done anything good or bad? To be sure, the Calvinist theologian in me had responses to this question, yet none of them sufficed…my Calvinistic theology presented my needs for assurance with an epistemological problem: in order to have assurance I needed to know the status of my election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known. 

https://ochuk.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/

That's illogical:

i) Calvinist Christians can know they are saved in the same way that Arminian Christians can know they are saved: by believing the Gospel.

If it be objected that a professing Christian can be self-deluded, that's possible for Calvinists and Arminians alike.

ii) In addition, it's demonstrably false that God's secret decree is by definition unknowable. For instance, past events are part of God's secret decree, but once they eventuate they are knowable. 

This objection was articulated in an article by William Lane Craig entitled “Lest Anyone Should Fall”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings where he essentially argues that the “means of salvation view” is actually more coherent in a “middle knowledge” perspective. Middle knowledge is the view of God’s knowledge that contains what his creatures would freely do in any given circumstances (or “possible world”) before he creates the world. This contrasts with the Calvinist perspective in that it allows for libertarian free will, which is a view of freedom that is incompatible with causal determinism…As far as I can tell Craig is able to make sense of the real possibility of falling away and the means necessary for guarding against it via God’s middle knowledge, which Calvinism cannot.

And what does Craig say:

The Molinist who holds to the perseverance of the saints may regard (4) and (4') as false because, in counterdistinction to the Congruist, he holds that there are realizable worlds in which believers do reject God's grace and apostasize. That is to say, such worlds are not merely logically possible, but are feasible for God. But the Molinist who holds to perseverance will simply add that God would not decree to actualize any of these worlds, or even more modestly, that God did not in fact decree to actualize such a world. In the world He chose to actualize, believers always persevere in the faith. Perhaps the warnings in Scripture are the means by which God weakly actualizes their perseverance. That is to say, in the moment logically prior to creation, God via His middle knowledge knew who would freely receive Christ as Savior and what sorts of warnings against apostasy would be extrinsically efficacious in keeping them from falling away. Therefore, He decreed to create only those persons to be saved who He knew would freely respond to His warnings and thus persevere, and He simultaneously decreed to provide such warnings. On this account the believer will certainly persevere and yet he does so freely, taking seriously the warnings God has given him.
Of course, Molinism does not imply the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The defender of middle knowledge could hold that logically prior to creation God knew that there were no worlds feasible for Him in which all believers persevere or that, if there were, such worlds had overriding deficiencies in other respects. Therefore, the warnings of Scripture do not guarantee the perseverance of believers, for believers can and do ignore them.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/lest.html

To play along with Adam's objection, this generates a parallel epistemological problem for assurance: in order to have assurance he needs to know his modal status. Is the actual world in which he exists one of the possible worlds in which he'd persevere–in contrast to other possible worlds in which he'd lose his salvation?? Which possible world did God instantiate? One in which he finishes the race or one in which he drops out of the race before the finish line?

False hope

I'm going to comment on some recent remarks by Jerry Walls:

https://www.facebook.com/JerryLWalls/posts/10153005501305676?pnref=story

If one freely rejects the truth, it is a fitting form of punishment to be given over to deception. But in that case, the person has rejected God and does not affirm Christian truth. God is not causing him to believe Christian truth as a form of punishment. Rather, he is allowing him to be deceived in believing lies. The case in the false hope is altogether different. The victim of the false hope "believes" the truth, has a sense of faith, is believing what seems true to him precisely because God is causing him to have these beliefs. The person in this situation has no ability at all to discern that it is a false hope, and indeed, it appears to be the "real thing" until God withdraws it. The possibility of such a scenario does indeed undermine assurance precisely because the person involved would be in a state of "faith" caused by God, that appears both to the person, and to others as the real thing. This is quite different than the Arminian counterpart. An Arminian who believes the truth has every reason to think his faith is real, and no parallel reason to think his "faith" is a false hope caused by God. I'm not aware of any Arminian who thinks God punishes unbelief with a false faith in the truth. In short, the problem for the Calvinist is the phenomenological similarity, if not indistinguishability, between real faith and the "false hope." 

Several problems:

i) It's like saying, because crazy people can't tell the difference between reality and illusion (delusion, hallucination), how do I know that I'm not crazy? 

And I'm sure there are philosophers in the skeptical tradition who press that conundrum. 

Perhaps part of this involves the distinction between first-order and second-order belief or knowledge. If I'm sane, then I'm not deluded about reality–even if I can't prove it. 

ii) The Wesley brothers spent a lot of time trying to shake churchgoers out of their complacency. According to evangelical Arminianism, there are lots of churchgoers who think they're heavenbound, but they self-deluded. They haven't been born again. Yet they have false hope. 

iii) Arminians routinely allege that according to Calvinism, only a chosen few are saved.  

When I challenge them to document where the fewness of the elect is official Reformed theology, or mainstream Reformed theology, or a logical entailment of unconditional election and/or reprobation, they can't. So they make a different move. They apply Mt 7:14 to Calvinism. 

However, this means that according to Arminianism, only a fraction of humanity will be saved. But if that's the case, then surely many professing Christians entertain false hope. That's not just a statistical anomaly or isolated incident, but commonplace. 

iv) In Calvinism, the unregenerate don't have the same experience as the regenerate. 

v) Walls acts as though, in Calvinism, those who have false hope have a different psychological experience than their counterparts in Arminianism. We might start by asking why some people have false hope? Well, there can be different reasons or grounds, but let's take one example: suppose someone espouses baptismal regeneration. He believes he's saved because he can show you his baptismal certificate. 

Now that could be the case if either Arminianism or Calvinism is true. 

vi) Then there's the fundamental illogicality of his position. One thing Calvinism and universalism share in common is the correlation between who God loves and who God saves. 

But in Arminianism, those don't match up. So if anything would be a reason to question your salvation, would it not be the nagging doubt that even though God loves me, that carries no presumption that I'm heavenbound.  

And I believe William Cowper's struggles with fears of not being elect were among the factors that led to his suicide.

Cowper didn't commit suicide, although he attempted suicide. 

Moreover, does Walls have any evidence that Cooper lost his mind because he doubted his salvation? As I recall, Cooper doubted his salvation because he lost his mind. It was mental illness that triggered spiritual doubts, not vice versa.

It is a well known fact that believers in both traditions sometimes struggle with their faith and wonder about the status of their relationship with God, sometimes doubting whether they are even saved.
The worst case scenario for the Arminian is that he has in fact lost his faith and broken his relationship with God.

One problem with Jerry's comparison is that it's one-sided. He concentrates on professing Christians who doubt their salvation. But what about professing Christians who don't doubt their salvation, but ought to? What about professing Christians who entertain false hope because their faith is wrongly grounded? Isn't that a worst-case scenario? Their lack of doubt is a problem. They're like somebody with a life-threatening illness who can't feel pain. As such, they don't seek medical intervention until it's too late. They never knew what hit them. 

In Arminian theology, some professing Christians suffer from false assurance. Their problem is just the opposite. Indeed, John and Charles Wesley thought churches were full of people in that self-deluded condition. 

Now given that none of us can be in a position to know whether or not another person is truly elect, a Calvinist pastor cannot with good conscience assure a struggling person that Christ died for him or her without claiming to know more than his theology permits. What a struggling believer most needs to be assured of is that God loves him, that Christ died for him, that God truly desires his salvation, and that God’s grace is at work in his life.

Actually, what a struggling believer most needs is not to feel saved, but to be saved. In Calvinism, the elect are heavenbound whether or not they have the assurance of salvation. And that's a great relief. Your salvation isn't dependent on your assurance of salvation.

What ultimately matters is not to know that you are saved, but to be saved. The ontology is more important than the epistemology. What ultimately matters is what ultimately happens to you, not what you believe will happen to you. 

I also think this conditional is true:If Wesleyan theology is true, those who are in Christ can know that they are among the elect who are finally saved. They too can have both subjective certainty and a warranted belief in their election that will be vindicated on judgment day. 

How can that possibly be true given the Wesleyan Arminian contention that born-again Christians can lose their salvation? As a friend of mine remarked: 

On Calvinism, if S has saving faith now then S will have saving faith to the end; thus any evidence S has for believing that he has saving faith now is necessarily evidence that he will be finally saved. But on Wesleyan Arminianism, even if S has saving faith now, S might not have saving faith to the end; thus any evidence S has for believing that he has saving faith now (which will be the same kinds of evidence as on Calvinism) isn't necessarily evidence that he will be finally saved. The evidential tie is broken.

Seasons of darkness

On the one hand:

Many however, do sink into depression if they really understand Calvinism and its implications. 

http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/bound-to-eternally-suffer-an-interview-with-philosopher-jerry-walls/

On the other hand:

Seasons of darkness and depression and uncertainty are only the trial of that faith of assurance; they test it, and therefore imply its presence; or, if absent, its absence is thus declared to be the result of its own failure. William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (1889), 2:383.

The only love that counts

From his Facebook wall:

Jerry Walls

There is no nightmare like that of dreaming you are not elect…

Sure about that, Jerry? What about dreaming that you could lose your salvation tomorrow? Even if you’re a born-again Christian, there’s no guarantee, or even probability, that you won’t wind up in hell. Present assurance carries no presumption of future salvation. As Ben Witherington is wont to say, you are not eternally secure, until you are securely in eternity.

…and God has never loved you in the only sense that matters.

And what sense would that be, Jerry? Oh, you mean God’s love for the damned? The love that couldn’t save you from hell? The love that made no difference in the end? 

Ask Cowper...

Well, since Cowper has been with the Lord for 213 years now, I expect he’d have pretty nice things to say about unconditional election.

Keep in mind that Cowper suffered from mental illness. Does Jerry think that Arminian theology inoculates you from the possibility of mental illness?

Thankfully for him, Cowper’s salvation did not depend on his willpower, but God’s willpower. Did not depend on his spirit, but God’s spirit. That’s the only love that counts.

Are children of believers presumptively elect?

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

Warmed over Lutheran talking-points

I see that Lutheran commenters are simply rehashing the same arguments that I already rebutted in the past. For instance:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/upstart-lutheran.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/if.html

Does baptism save?

Nicholas Leone

I was a Baptist, but after a study of the Scriptures, I became a Lutheran. The Lutheran position on Holy Baptism is the only Biblical one. Most people are offended at the idea that Baptism can save! . . . Baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from water Baptism. They happen simultaneously."

1 Peter 3:21-22

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/09/baptism_saves.html

I don’t usually criticize Lutheran theology. Since, however, a Lutheran commenter has thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll respond. Lutherans are, of course, welcome to criticize my Calvinism. I’m just pointing out that I didn’t initiate this debate.

Before discussing specific prooftexts, let’s make a few general observations:

i) This appeal reflects a naïve understanding of symbolism. I realize some Christians instinctively flinch at the word “symbolism,” as if that’s a weasel word. But this is a principled distinction.

For instance, Paul talks about how we are saved by the cross. Needless to say, he doesn’t mean we’re literally saved by a piece of wood. Rather, he’s using the cross as a symbol for Christ’s redemptive death at Calvary. It’s not the wooden cross that actually saves anyone, but what that stands for.

You can quote NT passages about the gracious efficacy of baptism, but that’s perfectly consistent with a purely symbolic understanding of baptism.

ii) In Acts, you can’t assume that the gift of the Spirit is equivalent to regeneration. Rather, it’s generally used in connection with the charismata. It’s a mistake to filter Acts through the lens of John’s Gospel or Paul’s epistles. 

iii) Lutherans subscribe to infant baptism. But in Acts, the specific baptismal candidates are believers or converts. Promises are made to them if they repent of their sins and believe in Jesus. And they submit to baptism in obedience to the apostolic kerygma. You can’t simply rip that out of its missionary setting and transfer it to babies, as if these are interchangeable parties. 

Keep in mind that I don’t object to infant baptism. But you can’t wrest these passages out of their embedded context and make them refer to something they don’t.

iv) In Scripture, water has three symbolic meanings: (a) a cleansing agent; (b) a destructive agent (e.g. flood waters), and (c) a source of life (e.g. drinking water).

Baptism trades on the natural, varied symbolism of water.

v) What Scripture sometimes attributes to the effect of water baptism, it elsewhere attributes to the effect of faith in Christ. Therefore, it’s logical to view the rhetorical effect of baptism as a picturesque metaphor for the actual effect of faith.

vi) Although it’s customary for Lutherans to prooftext baptism regeneration by citing Jn 3:5 and Tit 3:5, the baptismal referent isn’t a given. Mere aqueous imagery doesn’t single out baptism, for aqueous imagery is commonplace in Scripture.

vii) In Acts, there’s no normative sequence for water baptism and the gift of the Spirit.

viii) They are inherently separable. The Holy Spirit isn’t chained to a ritual. The Holy Spirit is a sovereign agent, free to act at his own discretion (Jn 3:8; 1 Cor 12:11).

To insist that the Holy Spirit must regenerate the baptismal candidate reflects a classically magical outlook. In pagan witchcraft, you can manipulate supernatural forces to do your bidding by saying the right words in the right order, or by doing the right things in the right order.

ix) To use 1 Pet 3:21 as a Lutheran prooftext for baptismal regeneration proves too much. For that would mean whoever is baptized is guaranteed salvation. Yet Lutheranism deems it possible for a born-again Christian to lose his salvation.

x) It’s important not to overload the word “save” in 1 Pet 3:21. This is not a technical term for salvation in the soteriological sense. Peter is punning. There’s wordplay between “salvation” from drowning (v20) and “salvation” by baptism. But “salvation” from drowning means physical deliverance. God rescued Noah and his family from watery death by means of the ark. The word itself doesn’t mean spiritual salvation. That turns on the larger context.

xi) Peter explicitly plays on the symbolic imagery of baptism. Where dirt represents sin, and washing represents forgiveness. In analogy with the flood, he also trades on the destructive symbolism of water. So the rite is emblematic.

xii) As his further qualifications indicate, baptism is a token (“pledge, appeal”) of faith in Christ, and the resultant effects of saving faith. 

xiii) Apropos (xii), Peter is clearly referring to believers or converts who submit to baptism, as an expression of their newfound allegiance in Christ. It doesn’t refer to babies.

BTW, I don’t object to infant baptism. But you must respect the context of your prooftexts. 

xiv) Like Jews who put their faith in the efficacy of circumcision or their physical lineage (e.g. Mt 3), there’s a constant temptation to substitute external rites for faith in Christ. That’s false assurance. There’s no substitute for trusting in Christ from start to finish.

Get in by Grace, Stay in by Faithfulness?

This is Part 1:

http://heidelblog.net/2012/10/in-by-grace-stay-in-by-faithfulness:

To desire sanctity in God’s people is a very good thing. God clearly reveals himself in Scripture as desiring, even demanding it of his people. What Scripture teaches and what the Reformation rediscovered, however, is that making our acceptance with God in any way conditional upon our obedience or our cooperation with grace will never produce the sanctity desired.

Faith, Assurance, and “Resolute Confidence”

I’ve been in discussions with both Roman Catholics and Lutherans in recent weeks, on the topics of election and assurance, and after all that, this article caught my eye:

http://www.koinoniablog.net/2012/10/is-faith-merely-assurance-heb-111-monday-with-mounce-160.html

As you know, [Hebrews 11:1] is one of the more important verses in the Bible as it helps to define what “faith” is. I am always looking for new and clearer ways to define Christian terminology so that people outside the Christian tradition can understand — and for that matter, people within the tradition who tend to repeat words they don’t always understand. That’s what caught my eye.

This passage also points out the challenges of finding just the right English word for a Greek word. Sometimes, there just isn’t a word.

The NIV writes, “Now faith is confidence (ὑπόστασις) in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (also NLT). The problem with “confidence” ... is that it is too weak. I can be confident, and wrong. Other translations speak of “assurance” (ESV, NASB, NRSV). The NET says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for.”

The HCSB is getting much closer to what the word means: “Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for.” The NKJV speaks of “substance.” The NJB has, “Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for.” You can see what they are all struggling to say. Faith is the bedrock, complete and total, conviction of what is true, even though the fulfillment lies in the future. This is the context for John Piper’s statement.

John [Piper] writes, “The closest thing we have to a definition of faith in the New Testament is in Hebrews 11:1, ‘Faith is the assurance (Greek: hypostasis) of things hoped for.’ That word ‘assurance’ can mean ‘substance’ or ‘nature’ as in Hebrews 1:3: ‘[Christ] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (hypostaseos).’ Therefore, it seems to me, that the point of Hebrews 11:1 is this: When faith pictures the future which God promises, it experiences, as it were, a present ‘substantiation’ of the future. The substance of the future, the nature of it, is, in a way, present in the experience of faith. Faith realizes the future. It has, so to speak, a foretaste of it — as when we are so excited about something and so expectant of it, we say, ‘I can already taste it!’”

I checked with Guthrie’s commentary, and George says much the same thing. “The word hypostasis, translated by the NIV as a participle (‘being sure’), is in fact a noun, which was used variously to communicate the idea of substance, firmness, confidence, a collection of documents establishing ownership, a guarantee, or a proof. It probably should be understood in 11:1, as in 3:14, in the sense of a ‘firm, solid confidence’ or a ‘calm courage’ with reference to things hoped for. Thus, we can translate this part of the verse: ‘Now faith is the resolute confidence….’ The examples that follow demonstrate a posture of firm confidence in the promises of God even though the believers had not yet received the fulfillment of those promises (11:39).”

We know that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). The one indispensable quality of a true followers of Jesus is that he or she is completely and totally convinced that Jesus is who he says he is and will do what he says he will do. We trust not in ourselves but him Jesus and what he did, does, and will do for us. In fact, the purest form of faith sees very little difference between looking forward in the present, and what it will be like to actually experience the future when our hope becomes reality.

Perhaps it is better to say that faith sees the future as our present reality, and we do so with resolute confidence.