Calvinism and "assurance"

[RBerman]

1) "Arbitrary" can simply imply that a judgment has been made, but it's usually used in the sense of "choosing at random." As you surely know, I deny that God acts in a random and meaningless way, although often he doesn't reveal his purposes to us.

RB, you can't have it both ways. Either God rewards those who seek Him (indicating some righteousness in Man), or He rewards randomly (rewards some unrighteous men). Your ambivalent stance makes fatuous God's Word, not recognising its perpicuity.

How can you possibly know that those are the only two options before God?

2) I don't know what else to say about the way you use "knowledge" as if you either have it infallibly, or you don't. It seems that you haven't heard anything I've said about that, so saying more would appear pointless.

This is pretty early and pretty disingenous. You use to give up when you had no answer to a cogent opposing view. Now we don't know exactly where you find the view falling short. Knowledge would mean basis for assurance founded on a coherent view, with no loopholes. The Calvinist view is full of loopholes, and special pleading.

I don't see how your comments assess the substance of my observation that human knowledge is not infallible.

3) Rather than assuming that I have "no idea" whether I am saved, you might ask on what basis my confidence is founded.

Please offer any basis for your confidence that cannot similarly be claimed by a person who falsely believes he is saved.

The bases would be the same in both cases, which only proves the point that human knowledge is not infallible. Is that where you set the threshold for confidence-- infallibility?

[footwasher]

How can you possibly know that those are the only two options before God?

Based on the Law of Non-contradiction?

I don't see how your comments assess the substance of my observation that human knowledge is not infallible.

Then Scripture is of no value. Your stance is that the Bible is a relativist document, subjectively understood, depending on the individual reader.


The bases would be the same in both cases, which only proves the point that human knowledge is not infallible. Is that where you set the threshold for confidence-- infallibility?


Scripture states that those who have the Holy Spirit belong to God, are saved. Scripture also says that those who have the Spirit have fruit. No fruit, no salvation. Arminian doctrine is that as long as you bear fruit, you belong to Him. The call of God is irrevocable, but the call is corporate.

As Arminian and Tercel noted in the Imputed Righteousness is a Myth thread, it never fails to amaze one, how believers can get unconditional election of individuals from Romans.

To reiterate:

Unconditional election of God's People.

Conditional election of its individual members, based on perseverance.


That is my unassailable conclusion. (Yes, go ahead, try to find holes in that view).

You can try to find holes in that view. Or you can join us in holding to the infallible view that as long as you live a godly life, it is the Spirit that is the sourceof good living, fruit. If you can't hold to the infallibility of that view because it is God's Word that makes the claim, you can't be having a very high view of that Word:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Gal 5

[RBerman]

How can you possibly know that those are the only two options before God?

Based on the Law of Non-contradiction?

You'll have the unpack that. The law of non-contradiction doesn't mean that for any question, there are only two answers.

I don't see how your comments assess the substance of my observation that human knowledge is not infallible.

Then Scripture is of no value. Your stance is that the Bible is a relativist document, subjectively understood, depending on the individual reader.

I don't know what you mean by "a relativist document." I do say that I don't have infallible knowledge of the Bible, if that's what you mean. That doesn't address the nature of Scripture itself, however.

The bases would be the same in both cases, which only proves the point that human knowledge is not infallible. Is that where you set the threshold for confidence-- infallibility?

Scripture states that those who have the Holy Spirit belong to God, are saved. Scripture also says that those who have the Spirit have fruit. No fruit, no salvation. Arminian doctrine is that as long as you bear fruit, you belong to Him. The call of God is irrevocable, but the call is corporate. As Arminian and Tercel noted in the Imputed Righteousness is a Myth thread, it never fails to amaze one, how believers can get unconditional election of individuals from Romans.

To reiterate:

Unconditional election of God's People.

Conditional election of its individual members, based on perseverance.

That is my unassailable conclusion. (Yes, go ahead, try to find holes in that view).

You can try to find holes in that view. Or you can join us in holding to the infallible view that as long as you live a godly life, it is the Spirit that is the sourceof good living, fruit. If you can't hold to the infallibility of that view because it is God's Word that makes the claim, you can't be having a very high view of that Word:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Gal 5

You're getting off onto a whole other topic of whether Scripture actually teaches eternal security. This thread was about whether Calvinism undermines assurance of salvation, a question which seems to assume the truth of eternal security. If you'd like to debate eternal security itself, you can see who will join you in another thread.

[footwasher]

Based on the Law of Non-contradiction?

You'll have the unpack that. The law of non-contradiction doesn't mean that for any question, there are only two answers.



The question
What are the options?

Based on Scripture

Option 1
He rewards judiciously (those who seek Him).

Option 2
He rewards randomly (no one seeks God).

To chose, we see what Scripture says.

Heb 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

IOW, the one who approaches God must have faith/believes He exists, rewards those who seek Him, in order to be right with God/please Him.

Please put forward ANY other possible option.

I don't know what you mean by "a relativist document." I do say that I don't have infallible knowledge of the Bible, if that's what you mean. That doesn't address the nature of Scripture itself, however.

I mean the meaning is derived relative to the reader's presuppositions. Is your knowledge that the Bible is the Spirit inspired Word of God fallible , subject to error? Is your knowledge that you exist fallible? If you say that no knowledge is infallible, even that view is fallible (the untenability of the postmodern view). The whole concept of knowledge and how we acquire it (epistemology) collapses if there is no such construct as an absolute fact. For anything, even Scripture, to be considered verifiable as true or false, a degree of cognizablity must exist, a possibility to make a declaration of a binary state or an increase of one state over another.

If a gray panel was scanned, the scanner can interpret the value of grayness, 50 percent, 80 percent, etc. Maybe a subsequent process requires that information. If that information is accepted and the desired end result is achieved, that scanner is said to have made a correct interpretation, a workable interpretation and for that situation, an infallible (unchallenge-able) interpretation.

You're getting off onto a whole other topic of whether Scripture actually teaches eternal security. This thread was about whether Calvinism undermines assurance of salvation, a question which seems to assume the truth of eternal security. If you'd like to debate eternal security itself, you can see who will join you in another thread.


HaHa! "Whole other topic" or "assumes the truth of eternal security" , you can't have both. Which is it? We are naturally going to touch upon related issues, and that too vigorously, as vigorously as if it were the main issue, as we each attempt to neutralize objections to a view. If you concede that we can have real time assurance, based on present obedience to God's instruction, that we are safe, clean, justified, accepted in the community labelled People of God, the means eternally and securely chosen to restore Creation, we can then get back to the main issue " whether Calvinism undermines assurance of salvation", which it surely does, when followed through to its logical conclusion.

[RBerman]

Based on the Law of Non-contradiction? You'll have the unpack that. The law of non-contradiction doesn't mean that for any question, there are only two answers.

The question
What are the options? Based on Scripture

Option 1: He rewards judiciously (those who seek Him).
Option 2: He rewards randomly (no one seeks God).

To chose, we see what Scripture says.

Hebrews 11:6

Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

IOW, the one who approaches God must have faith/believes He exists, rewards those who seek Him, in order to be right with God/please Him. Please put forward ANY other possible option.

Well, this is where this discussion does verge into broader issues of soteriology. As you well know, Calvinists understand faith to be the result of the heart-change wrought by the Holy Spirit in those whom God has unconditionally elected. So from the Calvinist viewpoint, Hebrews 11:6 does not explain why God elects some, but rather how God saves those whom He has already elected. He saves the elect by giving them faith and then rewarding them for having faith. I know you don't believe this, and I'm not interested in debating it in this thread; there are enough Calvininst vs Arminian threads around here already to show that we're not going to reach accord by debating it again for the thousandth time.

I don't know what you mean by "a relativist document." I do say that I don't have infallible knowledge of the Bible, if that's what you mean. That doesn't address the nature of Scripture itself, however.

I mean the meaning is derived relative to the reader's presuppositions. Is your knowledge that the Bible is the Spirit inspired Word of God fallible , subject to error? Is your knowledge that you exist fallible? If you say that no knowledge is infallible, even that view is fallible (the untenability of the postmodern view). The whole concept of knowledge and how we acquire it (epistemology) collapses if there is no such construct as an absolute fact. For anything, even Scripture, to be considered verifiable as true or false, a degree of cognizablity must exist, a possibility to make a declaration of a binary state or an increase of one state over another. If a gray panel was scanned, the scanner can interpret the value of grayness, 50 percent, 80 percent, etc. Maybe a subsequent process requires that information. If that information is accepted and the desired end result is achieved, that scanner is said to have made a correct interpretation, a workable interpretation and for that situation, an infallible (unchallenge-able) interpretation.

Yes, my knowledge of Scripture is fallible, as all human knowledge is fallible.Obviously even my knowledge that "all human knowledge is fallible" is itself fallible. Just to clarify: Are you claiming that your own knowledge and interpretation of Scripture are infallible? Is this really a point of disagreement between us?

You're getting off onto a whole other topic of whether Scripture actually teaches eternal security. This thread was about whether Calvinism undermines assurance of salvation, a question which seems to assume the truth of eternal security. If you'd like to debate eternal security itself, you can see who will join you in another thread.

HaHa! "Whole other topic" or "assumes the truth of eternal security" , you can't have both. Which is it? We are naturally going to touch upon related issues, and that too vigorously, as vigorously as if it were the main issue, as we each attempt to neutralize objections to a view. If you concede that we can have real time assurance, based on present obedience to God's instruction, that we are safe, clean, justified, accepted in the community labelled People of God, the means eternally and securely chosen to restore Creation, we can then get back to the main issue " whether Calvinism undermines assurance of salvation", which it surely does, when followed through to its logical conclusion.

I don't see the reason for your scorn. Eternal security itself is not the topic of this thread. You're right that it's a related issue to assurance; clearly if we don't have eternal security, then we can't have assurance. But I understood the opening post to be asking, "Given the truth of the doctrine of Eternal Security, doesn't Calvinistic Election undermine Assurance of Salvation?" For the reasons I mentioned earlier in this post, I'm not interested in debating Eternal Security itself at the moment, but if you desire to learn more about the topic, there are plenty of threads around here discussing it.

[footwasher]

Well, this is where this discussion does verge into broader issues of soteriology. As you well know, Calvinists understand faith to be the result of the heart-change wrought by the Holy Spirit in those whom God has unconditionally elected. So from the Calvinist viewpoint, Hebrews 11:6 does not explain why God elects some, but rather how God saves those whom He has already elected. He saves the elect by giving them faith and then rewarding them for having faith. I know you don't believe this, and I'm not interested in debating it in this thread; there are enough Calvininst vs Arminian threads around here already to show that we're not going to reach accord by debating it again for the thousandth time.

Okay, so in your vocabulary, rewarding someone for what you did for them makes sense. If you are happy with that contradiction, who am I to rain on your parade? Just don't claim it to be true.

Yes, my knowledge of Scripture is fallible, as all human knowledge is fallible.Obviously even my knowledge that "all human knowledge is fallible" is itself fallible. Just to clarify: Are you claiming that your own knowledge and interpretation of Scripture are infallible? Is this really a point of disagreement between us?

A useful way to think about infallibility is using an analogy, eyesight. If I can't differentiate between blue and green, then I am not infallible in making a call when presented with those colours. But I can surely assert that reds are red. So infallibility in our context is more about having a 100 percent strike rate. Being right all the time. IOW, I am infallible when shown reds, but my weakness is revealed when I have to identify between greens and blues. I am fallible with the latter two colours.

When God condemns a person, He is recognizing that that person knew the truth and yet failed.. He was infallible on that truth, he understood it right. Else it makes a mockery of God's justice.

I don't see the reason for your scorn. Eternal security itself is not the topic of this thread. You're right that it's a related issue to assurance; clearly if we don't have eternal security, then we can't have assurance. But I understood the opening post to be asking, "Given the truth of the doctrine of Eternal Security, doesn't Calvinistic Election undermine Assurance of Salvation?" For the reasons I mentioned earlier in this post, I'm not interested in debating Eternal Security itself at the moment, but if you desire to learn more about the topic, there are plenty of threads around here discussing it.

Here's the thing Arminians have assurance, Calvinists don't. Can't.

When I see manifestation of obedience to God's Instruction, I know that I am right with God. Scripture teaches it.

When Calvinist's see any manifestation of obedience to God's Instruction, they do not have the confidence that it is a work of the Holy Spirit. They have an option of it being false fruit to entertain, to consider. The thing is they will never know till the day of judgement! So they do not assurance of salvation. Their theology excludes it.

[RBerman]

Well, this is where this discussion does verge into broader issues of soteriology. As you well know, Calvinists understand faith to be the result of the heart-change wrought by the Holy Spirit in those whom God has unconditionally elected. So from the Calvinist viewpoint, Hebrews 11:6 does not explain why God elects some, but rather how God saves those whom He has already elected. He saves the elect by giving them faith and then rewarding them for having faith. I know you don't believe this, and I'm not interested in debating it in this thread; there are enough Calvininst vs Arminian threads around here already to show that we're not going to reach accord by debating it again for the thousandth time.

Okay, so in your vocabulary, rewarding someone for what you did for them makes sense. If you are happy with that contradiction, who am I to rain on your parade? Just don't claim it to be true.

I do claim it to be true. Your doubt and derision are clear, but I'm not interested in debating you about it.

Yes, my knowledge of Scripture is fallible, as all human knowledge is fallible.Obviously even my knowledge that "all human knowledge is fallible" is itself fallible. Just to clarify: Are you claiming that your own knowledge and interpretation of Scripture are infallible? Is this really a point of disagreement between us?

A useful way to think about infallibility is using an analogy, eyesight. If I can't differentiate between blue and green, then I am not infallible in making a call when presented with those colours. But I can surely assert that reds are red. So infallibility in our context is more about having a 100 percent strike rate. Being right all the time. IOW, I am infallible when shown reds, but my weakness is revealed when I have to identify between greens and blues. I am fallible with the latter two colours.

When God condemns a person, He is recognizing that that person knew the truth and yet failed.. He was infallible on that truth, he understood it right. Else it makes a mockery of God's justice.

This is so far removed from answering my question that there's nothing that I can say.

I don't see the reason for your scorn. Eternal security itself is not the topic of this thread. You're right that it's a related issue to assurance; clearly if we don't have eternal security, then we can't have assurance. But I understood the opening post to be asking, "Given the truth of the doctrine of Eternal Security, doesn't Calvinistic Election undermine Assurance of Salvation?" For the reasons I mentioned earlier in this post, I'm not interested in debating Eternal Security itself at the moment, but if you desire to learn more about the topic, there are plenty of threads around here discussing it.
Here's the thing Arminians have assurance, Calvinists don't. Can't.

When I see manifestation of obedience to God's Instruction, I know that I am right with God. Scripture teaches it.

When Calvinist's see any manifestation of obedience to God's Instruction, they do not have the confidence that it is a work of the Holy Spirit. They have an option of it being false fruit to entertain, to consider. The thing is they will never know till the day of judgement! So they do not assurance of salvation. Their theology excludes it.

You have not demonstrated why Arminians are not susceptible to the problem of "false fruit."

[footwasher]

You have not demonstrated why Arminians are not susceptible to the problem of "false fruit."

What is fruit?

There are two impressions (see, I'm honest!) to be derived from Scripture. Fruit of a good tree and fruit of the Holy Spirit.

The fruit of a good tree is manifested by people obedient to Law.

What is Law?

It is Instruction. Adam received it, Abraham too, ditto the Children of Israel.

But...

God told Abraham that Creation would be blessed through his Seed. Subsequently the children of Israel received Torah. They were told that they would be blessed if they obeyed it. Israel received the Law gladly.

What did Israel do wrong?

They did not see how the two promises were related. Moses told them it would be an easy task. When they attempted to obey Torah they found it difficult. Instead of turning to God and claiming His promise, they acted stubbornly, and kept on trying to attain righteousness through their own effort. God blinded them. They became lost in the interpretative maze: law upon law, precept upon precept...

The promise to Abraham was given 400 years before Torah. It had higher value. To not believe it was breaking the Law. If they had believed it, God would have made them compliant with Torah, justified.

This is what it looks like:

Torah: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Children of Israel: But it's a difficult task! We'll get hurt in the process! We and our children will die in the wilderness!

Joshua: We can do it! This is what God wants and prepared us for in His promise to Abraham. And attempting it is the way to get into the place we need to be in for God to use us to restore Creation. We need to obey God by believing Him so that we can enter that place.

What happens to those who believe God? He sends His Spirit. The Spirit gives courage. Courage causes us to take on the work God has prepared us for, to walk in. We overcome and reach the place God wants us to be in.

Did God use the Children of Israel to restore Creation?

Those who disbelieved died in the wilderness.

Those who believed entered the place God wanted them to be. But they were not used by God. Creation was not restored. No other nation became part of the People of God. Did God's word fail? No. but what happened to the people who believed God? They died in the Promised Land, unfulfilled. Did they go to hell? No. Those who believed God are in Abraham's bosom! Joshua did not give the believers closure. They have to wait for Jesus for that.

Obey the Law=believe God, walk in the works of God by the empowering of the Holy Spirit, die, remain in waiting for the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.

Disobey the Law=disbelieve God, attempt to walk in works of the law, a truncated version of Torah, missing out justice, mercy and love, ( thus ”breaking the law ” of believing God on two counts) die without benefiting from the promise to Abraham (resting in his bosom!).

Believing God leads to receiving His Spirit. The Spirit gives courage to take on the law. That causes death. And dependence on the promise to Abraham.

The indwelling Spirit also bears fruit of His own: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control . Should we manifest these fruit? Wouldn't that be breaking the law, manifesting something the source of which we are not sure ? There is no law against manifesting the fruit of the Spirit! What if they are not of the Spirit, false fruit? Works of the flesh? There are no false fruit in the category of love, joy, peace etc. All the above can only be by the empowerment of the Spirit!

Do I need to unpack the above? :)


22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Gal 5

[RBerman]

FW, despite the amazing length of your post, I don't see anything you said that differentiates Arminianism from Calvinism. Many a false convert, indeed many an admitted unbeliever, thinks that his own life adequately manifests the character traits from Galatians. 5:22-23.

[footwasher]

FW, despite the amazing length of your post, I don't see anything you said that differentiates Arminianism from Calvinism. Many a false convert, indeed many an admitted unbeliever, thinks that his own life adequately manifests the character traits from Galatians. 5:22-23.

You say potato, I say potahto. You say unbeliever, I say believer.

Unbeliever or sheep of other folds?

John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

[RBerman]

You say potato, I say potahto. You say unbeliever, I say believer. Unbeliever or sheep of other folds?John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Your last several posts are so bewilderingly divorced from this thread's topic that I must withdraw from our interaction.

[Phat8594]

You say potato, I say potahto. You say unbeliever, I say believer.

Unbeliever or sheep of other folds?

John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd

I must admit...I am a little lost as to how a reference about the gentiles (the other sheep, not of this fold) has anything to do with this discussion....

[footwasher]

Your last several posts are so bewilderingly divorced from this thread's topic that I must withdraw from our interaction.

That's because the term "unbeliever" covers such a wide range of descriptions: different religion, atheist, agnostic, etc.

Let's restate my view: most men believe in a natual order of events. God being good and just will reward a life lived with justice, mercy and faith. The Arminian believes he is additionally included in that Family chosen to participate in the restoration of Creation, because he believes in the Son of God, has Christ in him.

The Calvinist has an unnatural construct: God choses individuals arbitrarily. They will bear fruit of that calling. But they must not presume they are elect, because false believers also bear fruit. They will only know for sure on the Day of Judgement. Until such time they will not have assurance, confidence about salvation. In addition, RB believes no one can know anything with full certainty, so not having assurance is no biggie: nobody else does either, inspite of their protestations to the contrary.

Inspite of Scripture confirming that we can have assurance:

10 (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son.)

11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.

13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5

[RBerman]

Let's restate my view: most men believe in a natual order of events. God being good and just will reward a life lived with justice, mercy and faith. The Arminian believes he is additionally included in that Family chosen to participate in the restoration of Creation, because he believes in the Son of God, has Christ in him.

I can't tell from this brief comment of yours, but you appear to be identifying Arminianism (which teaches that faith precedes regeneration) as a subtype of Pelagianism.(which teaches that God justifies men based at least in part on their behavior). I suspect Remonstrant for one would protest against this identification.

The Calvinist has an unnatural construct: God choses individuals arbitrarily. They will bear fruit of that calling. But they must not presume they are elect, because false believers also bear fruit. They will only know for sure on the Day of Judgement. Until such time they will not have assurance, confidence about salvation. In addition, RB believes no one can know anything with full certainty, so not having assurance is no biggie: nobody else does either, inspite of their protestations to the contrary.

1) That is a wholly inadequate description of the Calvinist doctrine of assurance, so it's no wonder that you reject what you think Calvinists believe.
2) I never used the words "full certainty." I said no man has "infallible knowledge."

[footwasher]

I can't tell from this brief comment of yours, but you appear to be identifying Arminianism (which teaches that faith precedes regeneration) as a subtype of Pelagianism.(which teaches that God justifies men based at least in part on their behavior). I suspect Remonstrant for one would protest against this identification.

Arminians believe that the image of God has not been totally destroyed. So its a question of degree.

1) That is a wholly inadequate description of the Calvinist doctrine of assurance, so it's no wonder that you reject what you think Calvinists believe.
2) I never used the words "full certainty." I said no man has "infallible knowledge."

1) this is an amalgamation of your stated views. If you wish, I will search through the history of your posts and link to them.

2)infallible [in-fal-uh-buh l]

Main Entry: infallible
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: unerring, dependable
Synonym: acceptable accurate agreeable apodictic authoritative certain correct effective effectual efficacious efficient exact faultless flawless foolproof handy helpful impeccable incontrovertible inerrable inerrant omniscient perfect positive reliable satisfactory satisfying sure surefire true trustworthy unbeatable undeceivable unfailing unimpeachable
unquestionable useful

WWW.thesaurus.com

RBerman: We don't change categories, of course. Humans lack perfect certainty about anything, including this. If that's the standard upon which you insist, then no, we don't have certainty. But normally people use "assurance" to mean "a strong inward conviction" rather than "an infallible sense of certainty."