Calvinism and "assurance"

[RBerman]

Sure, but thats also a big IF.

The faith of any particular person may be false faith masquerading around as if its legitimate, since true faith is shown through perserverence.


So while the Calvinist can say "If I have true faith, I will perservere", they should also note: "However, its a very real possibility that God has not chosen me for salvation, so what I think is faith may in fact be something else entirely. I guess we will find out when I die."

True. However since the Calvinist has no direct access to God's decree in either case, so as far as testable circumstances, the Calvinist's situation devolves to the single condition of, "If I do currently have faith, then I will persevere and be saved. Whereas the Arminian has two testable conditions: "If I do currently have faith, and if I persevere in that faith, then I will be saved." At least the Calvinist has assurance based on his current perception of his own faith; the Arminian can't even rely on that, for (so he thinks) he may currently have saving faith but then lose it.

[Rushing Jaws]

Really? They why do you say that those who claimed to believe and lived the life of a Christian, and then for whatever reason left the church and declared that they don't believe any more never really believed?

How do you know that God doesn't have that in store for you?

## Because our sins cannot undo the grace of God. Those whom He has elected to salvation cannot lose their election: all that has changed is their attitude to Him - not His to them. They are still among His elect, because He elect men, not without Christ, but only in Christ. Election is not a mere act - it is an act defined by being totally in Christ. So regardless of the sins of the elect, they are seen in Christ, and as elect in Christ. So they cannot ultimately & finally resist the grace of God, even if *at a given time* they want to. If God sees them "in Christ" - that is what they truly are, regardless of how they may act. If they are "the planting of the Lord", they cannot uproot themselves, nor can they unplant themselves. They cannot be made un-elect. Election is a work of God that because it is complete before the elect are created, cannot be undone in time. The elect were fore-known -therefore, "fore-loved" - "in Christ, before the foundation of the world". They can be un-elected, only if the world can be un-created, or if the Incarnation can unhappen.

John 10 is important. Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd - and God is the shepherd of the stars in Isaiah, a prophet very important as a source of ideas for the four Evangelists. And shepherd-imagery was used as a royal metaphor in the Ancient Near East. It seems likely that John uses shepherd-imagery to say what Matthew does: that Jesus is a King. If so, this would re-inforce the meaning of John 10, by making Jesus' knowing & calling & protection of His own into royal acts as well as those of a shepherd. Be that as it may, John 10 is very clear that those who belong to Jesus cannot be taken from Him or fall out of His hands. This makes sense, for John is a very "Calvinist" Evangelist in some ways: predestination & election & the preservation of the elect are important categories for him.

In Isaiah, God knows & calls & numbers the stars of heaven. Why should He not do the same on earth for men, so that, "on earth, as in Heaven", His Kingdom may be realised, whether over stars-angels-the heavenly host (which are all related in the OT); or, over men ? Jesus knows who are His, just as God in Isaiah does.

"...why do you say that those who claimed to believe and lived the life of a Christian, and then for whatever reason left the church and declared that they don't believe any more[,] never really believed?"

## If they believed with *saving* faith, it is still in them somewhere. Atheism is often an expression of true faith, protesting against the deeply unChristian "counter-witness" of Christians; as when they sanctify & honour sinful structures in society or the Church. The real atheists are not those who hate the Name of Christ, but those Christians whose Christian witness depicts Him as a monster of wickedness & viciousness & deceit: as Tolkien's Morgoth, & not as Christ the Saviour. Those who "satanise" Christ, cannot complain if many people find him utterly abominable. To reject a satanised Christ, is not the same as rejecting Him.

Some people do not have *saving* faith, but something less solidly founded, that is temporary - so they (to quote 1 John) "go out from us, as they were never of us". We have to "make [our] calling and election sure", by living in and by faith every moment, which we can do, though never without the help of God. Christian faith is not static - it is dynamic, something to be never-endingly exercised. Unexercised faith dies. The elect exercise the faith God has granted - which is how they stay alive;they become ever more firmly settled and founded & rooted in Christ, by His grace's being realised in "their" lives of faith; so that the more grace does in them, the more it finds to do, and so on, continually. Grace increases, in strength, variety, amount, by being exercised. As do all the virtues. The richer a Christian is in the all these gifts of God, & the more he is built up by them, the more he is transformed from self, from one degree of glory to another. One does not become assured of salvation by doing nothing, but by exerting one's whole heart & mind & soul & strength to exercise the grace God has given.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

[QUOTE=RBerman;3409166]True. However since the Calvinist has no direct access to God's decree in either case, so as far as testable circumstances, the Calvinist's situation devolves to the single condition of, "If I do currently have faith, then I will persevere and be saved.

Good grief, RB - So the Calvinist cannot even know if he has the true Faith, let alone if he is one of God's elect???

Whereas the Arminian has two testable conditions: "If I do currently have faith, and if I persevere in that faith, then I will be saved."

Well, the Arminians ARE, after all, a western phenomenon... The Eastern Church HAS the Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles, and it baptizes the faithful INTO that Faith, and disciples them in it... That Faith is a living faith, and as long as one keeps the praxis of the Faith actively in obedience to the Church Fathers, one has about as much assurance as one can have... The measure is the acquisition of Christian virtue, and not spiritual experiences, though the latter normally come after the former... But the test for the Eastern Church is the maintaining of one's good standing in the practice of the Faith as discipled/prescribed by the Church... In obedience to those appointed over you, as Paul writes... eg It is not a matter of personal perception of one's status, but is that of those appointed over you in the Body of Christ... Obedience is such a great treasury that it is salvific in the Church even if it is in error from the one over you... The one giving the wrong obedience is the one who has to answer for the error, and not the one obeying that person...

Now I know you scorn the Eastern Church, but I would point out to you that the Bible tells us that it is the Church that is the Ground and Pillar of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, so that placing one's Faith in the Body of Christ that Baptized you into the Apostolic Faith has wonderful Biblical warrant, as cited...

Arsenios

At least the Calvinist has assurance based on his current perception of his own faith;

That is the problem with both your views - They are based on the private self-perception of fallen individuals...

the Arminian can't even rely on that, for (so he thinks) he may currently have saving faith but then lose it.

When free will is the core factor, one MUST be ever aware of one's need for vigilance and watchfulness against evil...

And whosoever perseveres to the end...

SHALL be saved, right?

Arsenios

[RBerman]

Good grief, RB - So the Calvinist cannot even know if he has the true Faith, let alone if he is one of God's elect???

If you haven't read the previous posts in this thread where I explain what I mean by that, then I commend them to you before you get all worked up over what you think I mean by that.

[Phat8594]

If I do currently have faith, then I will persevere and be saved. Whereas the Arminian has two testable conditions: "If I do currently have faith, and if I persevere in that faith, then I will be saved." At least the Calvinist has assurance based on his current perception of his own faith; the Arminian can't even rely on that, for (so he thinks) he may currently have saving faith but then lose it.

Sure. But the difference is that for the Arminian, the decision to have faith lies in the hands of men by God's sovereign decree. Because of this, one can have greater assurance based on one's current standing of faith (IMO of course).

Now, this all gets into personal matters. I know some Calvinists who feel very secure in their salvation, but I also know a lot of people who once exposed to Calvinism struggled with assurance, because the idea is that: you can do all you want....but it ultimately doesn't matter....you are either in or you are out. Personally, when I first dealt with Calvinism, I struggled greatly with fear of not being part of the elect. I felt totally helpless to do anything about my status with God; no matter what I did to seek repentance and to please Him, it ultimately wouldn't matter. Of course, as I studied more, I realized that as Christians we are to live in reverant fear of God, but at the same time we have the opportunity to boldly approach his throne....In one system I felt powerless and scared...and the other system I felt comforted to rest in His promises. so long as I walk in faith.

because, the heart of the Gospel is whosoever will (and since I was willing, I could rest in His promise)....

not

whosever God chooses (meaning that no matter what you do...if you aren't chosen...you are out)


but again....thats just MY personal story...and I know it differs from person to person....so I am not here to argue who has more assurance.....all I know is that for me....it wasn't till I found comfort in God's promises and the heart of His gospel that I felt that assurance....and IMO thats when I found Calvinism wanting in that respect

In other words, I see salvation as God's work, and faith as man's work....and from my understanding, the both faith and salvation are Gods work, since faith is essentially just a part of salvation. I take comfort in the fact that God has given me something I can do (faith...i.e. trust in His work)...because it is a tangible thing which assures me of my present standing with God....so long as I live by faith. It keeps me living with both confidence and fear, since I need to be ever vigilant, lest I fall...it keeps me more concerned about pleasing Him and trusting Him than worrying about whether or not my faith is real (and that I may just be fooling myself).....but like I said before...this might be getting to be more personal experience than anything else.

[footwasher]

RBerman wrote:

Not infallibly. But at least the Calvinist can say, "If I do currently have faith, then I will persevere in it."

Since he can never know if he has faith, he can never know if he will persevere. Bottom line, no assurance for the Calvinist.

Whereas the Arminian must say, "Even if I do currently have faith, I may not persevere in it."\

But at that moment, His belief in God assures him that he is saved, belief being the only condition of salvation:

John 6:40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

We have Scriptural evidence for the view, and it is also the view of OT believers: as long as they did the will of God, they were clean, kosher, included in the covenant, the People of God, that group of people predestined for salvation, unconditionally promised to Abraham.

[RBerman]

Sure. But the difference is that for the Arminian, the decision to have faith lies in the hands of men by God's sovereign decree. Because of this, one can have greater assurance based on one's current standing of faith (IMO of course).

I don't see that at all. What makes "the hands of men" such a secure foundation? I read your personal testimony in the post above, but it didn't really address this point. The Calvinist and Arminian equally have the problem (if you want to call it that) of asking whether they truly have faith at the present time. But the Arminian has the added complication that faith at the present time does not guarantee faith in the future. But the Calvinist can say, "If I do have faith now, then I am certainly elect, and thus will certainly persevere."

[footwasher]

I don't see that at all. What makes "the hands of men" such a secure foundation? I read your personal testimony in the post above, but it didn't really address this point. The Calvinist and Arminian equally have the problem (if you want to call it that) of asking whether they truly have faith at the present time. But the Arminian has the added complication that faith at the present time does not guarantee faith in the future. But the Calvinist can say, "If I do have faith now, then I am certainly elect, and thus will certainly persevere."

Any sentence containing The word "if" automatically indicates uncertainty. Therefore no assurance for any true Calvinist. The Arminian has assurance he is on board the bus that carries believers to salvation and glorification as long as he knows he believes Jesus is Lord.

[RBerman]

Any sentence containing The word "if" automatically indicates uncertainty. Therefore no assurance for any true Calvinist. The Arminian has assurance he is on board the bus that carries believers to salvation and glorification as long as he knows he believes Jesus is Lord.

1) The Arminian does not know infallibly that he truly believes.
2) He has no assurance that he will stay on the bus.

[FarEastBird]

Any sentence containing The word "if" automatically indicates uncertainty.

It boils down to CERTAINTY! One either belongs to the group:

1 Timothy 1:7
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

OR

2 Corinthians 1:17-19
17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?
18But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.
19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.



FEB

[footwasher]

1) The Arminian does not know infallibly that he truly believes.
2) He has no assurance that he will stay on the bus.

As previously demonstrated, even those statements are fallible in your worldview. In the Arminian worldview, propositional truth which can be discerned/sensed exists. Too bad you chose to live in an epistemologically challenged world.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

If you haven't read the previous posts in this thread where I explain what I mean by that,
then I commend them to you before you get all worked up over what you think I mean by that.

Oh, I have been following this thread along... But your Calvinist boast is that the Calvinist has only ONE conditional, one IF, and the poor beleagered Arminian is donkey-saddled with TWO of them... For the first, it is IF now THEN later and so salvation... For the second, it is IF now and IF later, then salvation... The problem both have is that first IF, which both claim is unknowable... And IF unknowable, THEN no assurance...

But the GOOD NEWS is FAITH!

So you can talk all the assurance you want and such talk is but vanity and self delusion by your own words, because you cannot give the first IF...

The Orthodox, otoh, HAVE the Faith given once for all to the Apostles, and we live in perseverant vigil against incursions of evil into our body and soul - We HAVE this Faith because we are Baptized INTO it, at which point it is ours to LOSE, or NOT, depending on our willingness to follow Christ... And there is NO limit to how much willingness one may have, and the attainment one can find, because God is without limit...

Arsenios

[RBerman]

Oh, I have been following this thread along... But your Calvinist boast is that the Calvinist has only ONE conditional, one IF, and the poor beleagered Arminian is donkey-saddled with TWO of them... For the first, it is IF now THEN later and so salvation... For the second, it is IF now and IF later, then salvation... The problem both have is that first IF, which both claim is unknowable... And IF unknowable, THEN no assurance...

If assurance means "infallible knowledge" then you are correct. But I don't think that's a good definition of assurance.

But the GOOD NEWS is FAITH!

So you can talk all the assurance you want and such talk is but vanity and self delusion by your own words, because you cannot give the first IF...

The Orthodox, otoh, HAVE the Faith given once for all to the Apostles, and we live in perseverant vigil against incursions of evil into our body and soul - We HAVE this Faith because we are Baptized INTO it, at which point it is ours to LOSE, or NOT, depending on our willingness to follow Christ... And there is NO limit to how much willingness one may have, and the attainment one can find, because God is without limit.

As you say, the Orthodox believe that they can lose their willingness to follow Christ, and thus their faith, and thus their salvation. I'm glad not to be in that condition.

[Phat8594]

I don't see that at all. What makes "the hands of men" such a secure foundation? I read your personal testimony in the post above, but it didn't really address this point. The Calvinist and Arminian equally have the problem (if you want to call it that) of asking whether they truly have faith at the present time. But the Arminian has the added complication that faith at the present time does not guarantee faith in the future. But the Calvinist can say, "If I do have faith now, then I am certainly elect, and thus will certainly persevere."

Its not as if salvation is at the hands of men, but belief is.

I can only speak of my personal experience with the matter...and I can appreciate that there are Calvinists who feel the same assurance I do....


However, it boils down to this:

1. I believe that God keeps his promises.
2. God promises salvation to all who believe
3. I believe
4. Therefore, I have salvation (as long as I continue in His kindness)

of course, one might say that the Calvinist can say the same thing...which I can appreciate....however, IMO, the calvinist has less assurance in his belief, since true belief is not a possibility for all men, but rather only for those whom He chooses. In other words, IMO, there is less reason for an Arminian to doubt whether his faith is genuine, because God doesn't choose who will believe...but men do..... This, at least, was my experience......

Therefore, from my understanding (and experience) the list would looks more like the following for the Calvinist:

1. God chooses the recipients of salvation
2. Those whom God chooses, will believe and perservere
3. Perserverence (as well as other things) confirms true belief
4. I think I believe, so I think I will perservere and thus I think am saved
5. So at the end of the day, IF I believe I will perservere, and I am saved.


So to me, its not a fallible vs. infallible argument.....because ALL of us are fallible (obviously)...but rather its a level of confidence. In my experience, the Calvinist theology gave me no level of confidence in any of the tests of salvation (such as faith)....because at the end of the day, I just may not be chosen...nothing I did mattered. Of course, I know Calvinists who feel a level of confidence...and I can appreciate that.

However, under the Arminian system, I took confidence under the tests of salvation, because IMO, it rests on the promises of God rather than the "mystery of the will of God". There was no mystery to who receives salvation: it is given to all who believe....therefore, if I believe, I can rest with a relatively high level of confidence that I am saved.

So I am not proposing that anyone can know infallibly....but to me, its a question of level of confidence....and at least for me, I felt no level of confidence in my faith (since true belief isn't a possibility for everyone)

[Phat8594]

Some people do not have *saving* faith, but something less solidly founded, that is temporary - so they (to quote 1 John) "go out from us, as they were never of us".

John is addressing false teachers of his time....there is no exegetical reason to apply this to all apostates.