Doppelgänger

One of the stock objections to Calvinism is the allegation that according to Calvinism, the spiritual experience of the reprobate may be indistinguishable from the spiritual experience of the elect. 

i) To begin with, evangelical Arminianism believes that some people are deluded about their salvation. For instance, there are nominal Christians and progressive Christians who imagine they are heavenbound, when in fact they lack saving faith. Not to mention members of cults who imagine they are heavenbound (e.g.  Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses). So Calvinism is hardly unique in taking the position that people can be deluded about their salvation. It doesn't require an inner experience by an outside agent (God, Satan) to produce that delusion. Mundane factors can have that effect. 

ii) It depends on what is meant by indistinguishable. Is the allegation that they have the same spiritual experience? If so, that's not the case. The elect experience regeneration and sanctification while the reprobate do not.

iii) Or does it mean that even though their psychological experience is different, they have no intersubjectival basis of comparison to determine whether their perception is what the elect experience or the reprobate experience? Even if that were the case, so what? Assuming that's a consequence of Calvinism, how does that disprove Calvinism?  

Let's take a comparison. Here's a philosopher invoking the science-fiction scenario of machines that can duplicate a human being. He's using this thought-experiment to undermine dualism, but we could tweak it to stipulate that the machine duplicate the soul as well as the body:

Those who believe this will concede, after a moment's reflection, that just as most of the duplicate's memories will not be real memories, so most of his beliefs about himself and his history will be false. The duplicate will, for example, believe that he is the [original] Alfred, and he is not. That is, he is not a man who has existed for such-and-such a number of years (he is only a few minutes old) and is married to Winifred (he has never met her), and so on. The duplicate has no sense of Alfred. He is someone else, for if you stick a pin into Alfred, the duplicate feels no pain. Nevertheless, it seems to the duplicate that he is Alfred. What it is like to be the duplicate is just exactly what it is like to be Alfred. If Alfred was unconscious when he was duplicated, and if he and the duplicate were then "scrambled"…no one, including Alfred and the duplicate, could ever know which was Alfred and which was the  duplicate. P. van Inwagen, Metaphysics (Westview Press, 4th ed., 2015), 264. 

In this scenario, the original and his duplicate are physically and psychologically interchangeable. Exact same mental furniture. Same memories and psychological makeup. Identical bodies. There's nothing they can point to differentiate the original from the duplicate.

Now that might have unsettling consequences. But you can't disprove it just because it generates an identity crisis. You can critique it on other grounds, as unrealistic or impossible. But the fact that it has unnerving or creepy consequences doesn't make it false. And that's much more extreme than comparing elect and reprobate. 

Not very reassuring

I'll comment on this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/03/calvinism-and-assurance-of-salvation-or-not/

A bit of background for those not already steeped in the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. Calvinists have often claimed that only their theology provides true assurance of salvation—because, in that theology, God does everything in our salvation. We contribute nothing and don’t even cooperate with God’s grace. So, many Calvinist have claimed that insofar as free will plays any role in salvation (Arminianism), assurance of salvation is undermined.

Really? What about this:

(1) The soul after regeneration continues dependent upon the constant gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, but is, through grace, able to cooperate with them.

(2) The sanctifying operations of the Spirit are supernatural, and yet effected in connection with and through the instrumentality of means: the means of sanctification being either internal, such as faith and the cooperation of the regenerated will with grace, or external, such as the word of God, sacraments, prayer, Christian fellowship, and the providential discipline of our heavenly Father. "Sanctification", “A. A. Hodge and revised by B.B. Warfield.”

In Calvinism, the elect don't cooperate in the libertarian sense, yet they are agents rather than passive spectators. 

“In Calvinism, when someone moves from professing faith in Christ and being a Christian worker to cynicism about the Bible and the God revealed there (specific examples come to mind)  we would say they have become apostate.

In response to the assurance question with an apostate believer, most Calvinists say they were never saved to begin with.  They were deceived on that point (usually accompanied with a citation from James 2:19).  This seems to be their least problematic response to that circumstance.

However, it also creates a bigger issue for them.  They are saying it is quite possible in Calvinism to live for years believing you have saving faith, professing Christ, and being affirmed as an evangelical believer in Christ (or even a Christian worker/leader) while being unsaved and completely deceived. Logically, therefore, no one could be assured they are not currently living in a deceived state unless or until they died still professing faith.  That is no assurance for the living, walking believer and would violate 1 John 5:13 and other passages that speak to our ability to have confidence now.

According to Arminianism, it's quite possible for churchgoers to live for years believing they are heavenbound, while being unsaved and self-deceived. Much of the evangelistic ministry of John and Charles Wesley was directed at spiritually complacent churchgoers who suffered from a false confidence about their state of grace. Indeed, John and Charles thought they themselves suffered from the false assurance of dead formalism until their own awakening. 

By contrast, if people truly have both a choice in, and a choice out (I don’t believe that people apostate due moral sinning [sic]-2 Timothy 2:13, but rather due to failure to remain in their faith-Colossians 1:21-23), then they would always have confidence and assurance of where they stood with Christ.  If I am depending on Christ alone, then I have confidence that Jesus will embrace me. If I have changed my mind and “moved past” that belief, I have rejected Christ as my savior and would know that I have no assurance if it turns out that Jesus is actually the only way to God.  This is ultimate assurance.  I would never be confused.

Thus, Calvinism leads to no assurance in this life until the moment of death, while a view that affirms free will imparts complete assurance through every stage of the human condition.”

i) But according to Arminianism, you can only enjoy the assurance of salvation from one day to the next. For you may drop out of the race before you cross the finish line. 

ii) In Arminianism, you're not depending on Christ alone. You rely on your willpower. 

iii) Likewise, there's no confusion in Calvinism, for if you change your mind, if you subsequently recant the Christian faith, then you don't continue to believe that you're to be saved if it turns out that faith in Christ is a sine qua non for salvation. 

iv) In Calvinism, the elect and reprobate, regenerate and unregenerate, don't have the same spiritual experience, so just because a nominal Christian might be self-deluded doesn't mean a born-again Christian is in the same epistemic situation. To the contrary, a born-again Christian enjoys the witness of the Spirit. 

In Calvinism, some born-again Christians lack the assurance of salvation, not because they lack the relevant experience, but due to emotional, intellectual, and theological impediments. It's not a matter of layering assurance onto saving faith, but scraping layers away that impede the spontaneous sense of assurance.

v) Finally, an oldie but goodie:

http://www.proginosko.com/2009/12/calvinism-assurance-and-inerrancy/

The Warrant To Believe

Martin said:

Actually, whilst it may not be readily apparent, every man relies on a warrant to believe - although since, no man fully grasps all the implications and nuances of the gospel when they first believe, the details of the warrant may vary from person to person. But every person who puts their faith in Christ, must have reason to believe that God would show them mercy else they wouldn't do it would they? So, it seems to me that the matter of a warrant to believe *is* important. If someone who is considering the gospel happens to have heard of election and predestination then thay may well have questions about how can they put their faith in Christ if they can't be sure that He died for them? To say, in effect, 'believe, then you'll find out' seems to me to be unsatisfactory because it would not be answering that person's question.

TF replied:

It is sufficient warrant that man is commanded both to repent and believe. In other words, a command from God is sufficient ground, even if we have no reason to suppose that God will justify those who do believe.

Furthermore, it is also a sufficient response to someone who protests, "What if I am not one of the elect?" to say

"While it is true that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, nevertheless seize hold by faith of the promise that those who come to him he will not cast out. Do not come to God demanding your share of Christ's blood, but begging God that you might be adopted as one of His sons, and share in the benefits procured by Christ."

Here! Here!

Martin, this confuses assurance with the warrant to believe. The question, as TF has plainly stated so well," is "What constitutes the warrant to believe?"

Put another way, "What impels the Gospel call?"

The scope or sufficiency of the atonement does not impel the Gospel - Amyraldians and Arminians frame it that way.

The ability of man does not frame the call - Arminians frame it that way.

Questions about their personal election and predestination do not impel the Gospel - hyperCalvinists frame it that way.

And notice the subjectivity of the way it is framed. If a man says, "If I am not able, I will not convert," he is substituting his autonomy as an excuse for his unbelief.

If he asks how he can know he is elect, he is saying he will believe, if God will subjectively reveal it to him that he is elect. That's an excuse not believe.

If he says, "I will only believe if I know a priori that Christ died for me," he's trying to excuse his unbelief by asking for a subjective warrant.

And all of these would ultimately amount to a violation of Sola Scriptura at some point, because God is being called upon to engage in continuing revelation, especially for the man who asks to know if he is elect before he believes. If he really wanted to convert, he would just do so. So the impertinence of that question inculpates him. Sure, he may have a real question, but the answer is not to look for assurances, the answer is to be found in simply doing what God says to do.

The command itself impels the call - the Bible frames it that way, period. And this - and only this - is truly objective. Questions about whether Jesus died for me, whether I am elect or not, or if I have the ability to comply are really irrelevant, for they are impertinent.

Why? It's like being presented with a "Tablet of Stone." God says, to wit, "Repent and believe,sinner, and you will be saved." That's a command - not just an "offer," a command, according to Acts and 1 John. He says in effect, "Trust me; trust my command, trust my promise to save you." God says this, and we have an objective warrant. That, Martin, is the warrant to believe that the Bible gives.

To all sinners who hear the call:

God does not say, "Believe because Jesus died for everybody."

God does not say, "Believe because you are elect."

God does not say, "Comply because you are all able."

He says, "Do this, and you will live."

It's very simple, and I think He does this to draw attention to the fact that if we start asking those questions, we are, at some level asking for personal, subjective assurances when we are still "children of wrath." God's children have every right to know these things - for they belong to our assurance, but assurance is given as a gift to us after we are converted, not before, for "children of wrath" have no such right. They have no "right" except condemnation. God gives this command, makes this "offer" indiscriminately, and He makes it equal for us all thereby. There are no special qualifications or rules for the elect vs. the reprobate. They are all, when confronted by the preaching of the Gospel, given the same command, presented with the same offer. It's man who tries to add these assurances, and that panders to the self-interest of sinners. This offer will call the elect; it will reveal the reprobate by inculpating them.

Speaking personally, I think saying this has done a lot of harm in Baptist churches in particular, for their pews are lined with unregenerate "members," yet they say they affirm regenerate, not mixed, membership. Presbyterians believe in mixed membership, yet in my personal experience these days, they do better with regenerate membership than us Baptists have in many years.

And it's perfectly logical. If we ask, "How can I know...?" We're asking an epistemological question. I can know, because God made a promise in His Word - Jesus said that He will not cast out the ones who come to Him, not because I have a subjective sense of assurance before I convert that tells me that Christ died for me or I am one of the elect or that I have the ability to do this (eg. Libertarian Freedom). I can know if I do what God says I should do,because that's the means that God has licensed. So, we are driven not to subjective assurances and feelings or attempts to divine God's secret decrees or figure out if we are truly able, but to God's Word itself, and thus to His promises, and to the centrality of Christ Himself.

I have frequently asked General Redemptionists and others to find me a single text of Scripture that says that we are appeal on the basis of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you," or "Jesus died for you." To date, nobody has been able to demonstrate the offer. One Roman Catholic at Beggars All tried recently but found not a one. For all the farrago of words, he finally said, that it was the general drift of the New Testament. If that's true,then where's the actual argument? Where's the text that teaches it? It's merely an assertion.

We can simply say that God has made a single once for all time atonement for sin in Christ, and that the way to know if our sins are covered is to turn to Him and Him only. He will not turn such an one away, not ever.

By the way, at the level of logical argumentation to say that we are to frame the call as "Jesus died for you" is confusion. It confuses the nature of the atonement with the way a person knows if atonement has been made for his sins in particular. That confuses, for all intents and purposes ontology (the nature of a thing, in this case the atonement),thus the ontological question, with epistemology (the way a person knows a particular truth), thus the epistemological question. The way to know (the epistemological question) if Jesus died for you (the nature of the atonement for any person) is to repent and believe the Gospel. It's really simple.

I agree with Dr. Frame that logic is a reflection of God's mind, indeed one of His attributes. The Gospel call issued from the Reformed pulpit is quite logically framed. The Arminian call is confused at best.

So, if a person says,

"Am I able?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned."

"Did Jesus die for me?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned. The scope and sufficiency of the atonement will do nothing but inculpate you if you do not believe."

"Am I elect or reprobate?" The answer is "Knowing this beforehand is irrelevant to your obligation to do as God says, " for the answer will not matter if you do not comply with God's command.

The Gospel call is given such that all who comply with it will be saved, period. None will be turned away. God is faithful to keep His promises. So, the answers to these questions, if asked before one complies, are irrelevant to doing what God has said you must do. Comply with what God has said, and then we can talk about the answers. Your eternal soul does not hang on subjective assurances given before you comply with the Gospel call as it is given universally. It hangs on what you do when and where confronted.

So, if anybody comes here today and does not know Christ, this is the call to you:

God has said that we are all condemned at His judgment bar for the love of our own wickedness, for things we have done and left undone. Yet God has made a perfect atonement for sin for the ungodly in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnated in human flesh, crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. That is the Gospel. Your consequent responsibility is to cast yourself on the mercy of God to come to Christ with the empty hand of your faith, for He is now commanding all men everywhere to repent and turn to Christ. Repent of your wickedness, and place your faith in Christ and Christ only, not a Church, not a philosophy, not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not Catholicism, Orthodoxy, not Baptistery, not Presbyterianism, not Lutheranism, or any other visible organization, not your baptism, not your ecclesiology, not your congruent merits, not your prayers, not "Holy Tradition," nothing else but Christ only and His sole and sufficient merit. He will, as John 6 says plainly, in no wise cast you out. We'll talk theology afterwards. Do this, and you will live.

And for believers it is this:

To our Arminian friends with whom we so often disagree, I encourage you, of course, to take a closer look at how you frame the Gospel when you present it. That said, while these discussions between us and you all often get heated, my challenge to you, and to the Reformed folks as well, is to remember that unbelievers and apostates read our blogs too. Take time to engage them and confront them with the Gospel call from time to time. In the past several months, if you can't tell from comboxes here and there, this has been a particular conviction of mine - to do it myself and to call others to do so.

To my (Quasi)Amyradlian brothers, particularly those of you who have a habit of posting on the atonement, common grace, etc. and nothing but - your work in historical theology in particular, is duly noted, and I thank you for reminding us of the universality of the Gospel call. However, I ask you to remember, the scope and sufficiency of the atonement are no warrant that impels the Gospel call. My challenge to you is to practice what you preach and engage the apostates and unbelievers yourselves and confront them with the Gospel call that you remind us so well is universal. Yes, it is, and all men are required to obey it when they hear it. While these discussions are so often heated between us, remember that the answers to questions about the nature of the atonement as you see it or I see it are really irrelevant to the unregenerate, and there are many on the blogs. What's relevant is their need for Christ. I urge you to put your obvious gifts to better use if you are not already doing so, by engaging these folks with those of us who are doing so already. Not to do so is, I honestly think, particularly to get snippy about it when told this, not a good testimony for you. Practice what you preach to the rest of us. We would welcome your help. We need your help. Beat your swords into plowshares and sow with us a harvest. We can meet behind the barn occasionally - not continually- to discuss these issues about which you continue to devote so much time and attention.

To all believing bloggers across the board, preach the Gospel, in season and out, pray for those you regard as apostates and unbelievers, whether you are none other than Dr. Tom Ascol, Dr. Vern Poythress, Dr. James White, or a slug like myself. What we do here does make a difference. We are not here to talk to ourselves or win arguments or be liked (goodness knows we at Tblog aren't here to be liked). We are here,ultimately, to help each other and others grow and to preach the Gospel to the lost through our writing.