No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
99% if not 100% agreed. Also, I think this is where a more traditional covenantal approach to ministry is helpful, where a congregation is addressed in terms of a visible covenant community which–although ideally a fully regenerate people through pastoral prudence and church discipline–may have false professors in its pale, and has the covenant sanctions regularly put before them: blessing for perseverance in faithfulness, cursing for impenitent unfaithfulness that eventually comes to apostasy. But of course, this doesn’t fully address the individual believer concerning the need for his or her personal, *present* assurance of eternal salvation. And I think your article definitely has a piece of the answer that’s lacking in many evangelical circles: act, don’t just sit there and analyze to the point of paralysis. I also love what Piper said once, when talking about how Edwards had laid him bare, peeling back layer after layer of possible self-deceit: that at the end of the day, it’s only the direct work of the Holy Spirit while gazing at Christ in the gospel that can “fully” (whatever that means) assure us. Enjoyable read, thanks!
There is a distinction to be made here:
You said toward the top,
–“Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe that salvation can be lost, these [Catholics, Arminians, Wesleyans] cannot have any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved.”–
Catholics may worry whether the faith they have today will last until death. But they don’t worry whether today’s faith is true or false.
Calvinists worry whether the faith they have today is real or not. Whether or not it’s a big self-deceptive act.
Catholics have the assurance that God will receive every single person back time and time again. Hope never dies.
Calvinists have no assurance that they are among the elect. They are left with the very real possibility that their soul is hopeless, even though they *seem* to be believers today.
Does it really matter whether you explain Calvinist perseverance of the saints sooner or later? Is hearing it later going to take away the terror that can accompany it?
–“But the solution is not to divine into the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance.”–
I don’t know that much about Arminianism, but I assume that the reason they don’t fall apart is that they know that *true* faith is available to every single person. There is always hope. At least this is the case with Catholicism. There is no despair of not being elect. So for a Calvinist to act like an Arminian, or a Catholic, in this regard, doesn’t even make any sense and is a lie.
There is a reason Catholics and Arminians don’t fall apart. Calvinists don’t have that same reason.
Just wanted to point out the irony of following up a post on bad doctrine with a post on Calvinism! 🙂
By the way, did you hear the time when Michael Patton had a conversation with a Roman Catholic Priest? “Father”, said Michael, “Do you believe that good doctrine glorifies God?” “Yes, I believe that is true”, replied the Priest. “Is the converse also true? Does bad doctrine not glorify God?”, asked Michael. “Yes, that also would be true.” “Well then,” said Michael, “forgive me Father for I have sinned.” 😛
And yes, for those not sure, the above was a joke.
“I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do.”
Does this sound like the basis for relationship with God? Is this what He intended?
“If a new believer knows that they are secure in Christ, their works and service to the Lord will come because they are saved, not so that they can be saved. This secures their belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.”
leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity; and this we will do, if God permits; solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Heb 6: 1a,3; 5: 14
now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him; make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;. 1 John 2:28-29; 3:7…let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness. Rev 22:11b
The problem, Michael, is that if Calv election is true, God chooses to never save the non-elect from their sins, and nothing can ever possibly be done about that.
It’s true (assuming Calvinism) that if someone falls away they may still be elect (like St. Peter): God will persevere and get their salvation done eventually.
But there is no sure evidence of election. Fruits of the Spirit may be counterfeits. The non-elect may do miracles in God’s name (thus by His power) and suffer toil for His name and acknowledge Christ with YHWH’s double “Lord Lord”, and even be called and sent by Christ as an apostle.
It’s true that if someone is concerned about their salvation from sin, they wouldn’t be unless the Holy Spirit was moving them so. But the Spirit convicts the non-elect of their sins eventually, too, after all!
This is why Arminians don’t worry quite the same way: they worry that God will be defeated or give up on them eventually; or they may worry that they or someone else hasn’t convinced God to persist yet, but since they believe God loves all (human) sinners with saving love, they believe there’s still some chance for them, up until the loss of that chance (whenever or whyever that is).
The special strength of Calvinism is that you believe and testify that the Good Shepherd doesn’t have to be convinced to go out after all the flock and is competent to bring the last one home, even if in some other ways that sheep isn’t part of the flock yet.
The special strength of Arminianism is that Arms believe and testify that both the sheep and the goats are part of the Good Shepherd’s flock. (Even if they don’t notice the goats are baby goats and so are themselves the least of His flock.)
This is why both Calvs and Arms see each other as undermining an extremely important assurance about God’s salvation of sinners from sin; and why converts either way really do believe they are gaining an important improvement either way.
(And why a few of us think you’re both right. {g})
Calvinism gets a lot right.
Calvinism gets some stuff wrong, as well. Important stuff.
Christ loves and died for all (even though not all will go to Heaven). The good book tells us so.
I could not imagine going up to someone and say, “Did you know that Jesus may have died for you?”
Plus, they send people inward for their assurance that they are of the elect.
No good. We need to look to the external Word and sacraments.
Michael,
You have hit on one of the things that troubles me most about Calvinism. I personally can not think of any thing more horrifying then struggling with the idea that I may not be one of God’s elect and therefore there is absolutely no hope for me. When some of us have brought this issue up in discussions with Calvinists, it has always been dowplayed. I find it very interesting to know that you are talking to people who are really dealing with this type of horrible uncertainty.
Building on what oldadam just said:
Yes, I’ve often wondered how a Calvinist parent could share their faith with their children…I mean, how do you look in their eyes and tell them God loves them and wants to bring them to heaven, while inside you’ve got this caveat, that this may not actually be true.
–Mommy, am I one of the elect?
–Well, honey, I pray so hard every day that you are, but we must remember that God is sovereign and we do not question his mysterious questions and choices.
(And perhaps when the child is older)—Just think, sweetie, you exist to glorify God…whether you are elect or not. God will use you to demonstrate his justice or his mercy.
How do you honestly explain the Calvinistic love of Jesus to a child without lying? Really! Children have a way of asking the most simple, penetrating questions. Can you be honest and not scare them to death? Talk about INsecurity!
Is the Calvinist Gospel Good News?
Yeah, “eternal assurance” rings hollow to me as a non-Calvinist. Since you can’t KNOW you are the elect, you are left having to prove it (to yourself if no one else). What if you turn into one of those people who went to church forever and then went off the deep end? Theoretically, you could end up being one of those people who was “never saved in the first place.” Not very reassuring imo. And though you don’t believe in salvation by works, you’re put in the awkward position of needing to see those works to convince yourself that you’re genuinely elect.
I know analogies break down at some point, but I find the story of the prodigal appropriate in this context. The son comes back home. He was lost, dead, and is now alive and back in his father’s house. He is welcome there, and his father won’t let anyone come drag him away. He doesn’t worry about his status in his father’s eyes. However, if he decided to leave home again, would his father stop him this time? I tend to think not.
I see the only credible threat to our salvation being ourselves, and that comes not from committing a mortal sin or whatever, but from living a life of unrepentance that will lead us to a place where we don’t desire that salvation anymore. Consequently, I recognize the theoretical potentiality of me falling away, but I don’t torment myself wondering if I really am saved. I feel about as secure as I think one reasonably can.
That all said, I may be part of the non-elect and not worth listening to. 😀
Hey Michael,
This post made me sad. I think assurance is so important and I think that it dishonours Christ not to have it or to offer it. Here’s why:
Faith at it’s very core is a belief in the promises of God.
When we come to Christ we hear him offering us the water of life, we hear him tell us that he will give us rest, we hear him say that he will be the bread of life to us. All those are precious promises.
So when Christ says, “Whoever comes to me will never hunger and whoever believes in me will never thirst”, I receive that promise with delight and say “Yes, Lord!”
To turn round and say “Maybe, Lord” would be dishonouring. To turn round and say “Well I don’t know if I’m coming; I don’t know if I’m drinking; I don’t know if I’m resting” – that’s terribly introspective. It’s not faith. Faith looks out. Faith takes Christ and his promises as precious. It doesn’t begin the tedious process of looking in because faith is one of those things (like joy) where if you concentrate on it, it goes away. Faith is only there when it isn’t looking at itself.
In my mind then, to talk about 90% assurance is sad. Christ offers us a promise. He expects us to honour him by embracing the promise. It dishonours him to doubt his promise by looking at ourselves instead of looking to Christ.
Can I know I’m elect then? Sure. “All that the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will certainly not cast out.” I came because the Father gave me to Christ. I know that the Father gave me to Christ because I came. So I know that I will never be cast out.
IMO, keep it simple. Assurance which is no assurance does not honour Christ or his word.
Blessings on you,
Andrew
I look to what God has done for me, externally. He Baptized me.
Is it a free ticket in? Of course not. But Christ commanded it. He is the One who Baptizes.
Do you trust it? Can you return to it after wandering away from it (from Him)?
There is real assurance and freedom (from self) in looking to His external Word and baptism and Holy Communion.
That is why I’m a Lutheran. Freedom…and real assurance.
Thanks.
“Since you can’t KNOW you are the elect”
Dear Stuart –this is what the Lord (no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:3b) says: Rom 8: 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God
There are many who believe that they are saved…but who are not.
We don’t put our faith in our faith. But rather, we put our faith in God. and what He has DONE for us.
That’s why we believe the Lord commanded Baptism…and Holy Communion.
Tangible acts of God in our personal history, in real time, for us…that we can count on and trust in.
We don’t have to feel saved…to know that we are saved.
Michael, you have written enough about your life for us regular readers to know some specific ways God has acted in your past.
Looking back on my life, I can see the fingerprints of God clearly enough to have great confidence that he has been working on me and in me non-stop. I take great confidence in that.
It seems to me that you see similar fingerprints on your history. Does that not create a certain level of confidence? I guess I see it as evidence of election.
Absolutely. While anyone can have confidence in the reality of their faith, I believe the primary means by which this confidence grows is through perseverance. Trouble, pain, temptation, and the like will eventually kill false faith. If you have been through these and still believe then assurance should be strong.
And obviously my comfort come due to the fact that God is responsible for keeping me, not myself. What a terrifying prospect to me that I am in charge of my own destiny. What a terrifying thought that I have to continually twist the arm of God in order to do more to help someone believe.
But, again, for some Calvinists it is terrifying to think they may not be elect. I suppose you have to pick your terror here. But I think the terrors of Arminianism are more objective whereas those of Calvinism are subjective. In other words, one can be solved, the other cannot.
While this may get you another dishonorable mention on James White’s show (which you may or may not be going for), it is definitely a conversation that needs to be had in the evangelical world.
I have heard evangelists play upon the natural uncertainty of people by saying (and I’m quoting here) that unless you ARE 100% certain of your salvation, you’d better get it right. One even said that if you’re only 99% sure, you’re 100% lost.
And it’s not unheard of for prominent Calvinists to warn people that perseverance is, ultimately, the only sure sign we have of election. They will quote the passages in which Paul says “You have been” (pointing back to past redemption/conversion) “if you hold fast …” (pointing to future perseverance).
Our own resident Reformed pastor-theologian on this blog (Stormin’ Sam) has preached to this effect. I even asked him for a clarification once of something he’d preached, and he affirmed his view regarding the famous passage where Paul warns people about God ‘taking them out’.
He thinks that is teaching that if God didn’t remove certain Christians (i.e., kill them), they WOULD fall away and lose their salvation. In other words, security means not that you could never fall away, but that God will make sure you don’t, by discipline or harsh circumstance, including even the possibility of taking you out of the game in the nick of time in order to preserve you).
My parents usually took me to an Arminian Baptist church several times a week.
I prayed the sinners prayer when I was 5.
I wasn’t saved and I knew it.
My mother recommended that I begin reading the gospel of John. I reached chapter 6, then 10, and I realized: I cannot be saved unless God chose me.
Just before my 7th birthday, I was riding my bike around the block, wondering to myself…why would God choose me? Did He look out into the future and see me struggling with these things? Hmmm….that would mean God learning something-God already knows everything so that won’t work….
SO I prayed: Lord, I know that I am a sinner and I know that I deserve to go to hell. I realize that no one deserves to be saved. I don’t know if You chose me or not, but I hope you did. If You didn’t choose me, then I understand.
Just then, the peace of the Lord filled my heart…I knew I was saved.
During my early teen years, my parents didn’t take us to church anymore. I fell into sin.
When I was 15, I went to a Billy Graham crusade, went forward to rededicate my life. They gave me a paperback copy of the gospel of John.
I wanted to make my calling and election sure.
So I prayed the sinner’s prayer printed inside the front cover. I didn’t feel anything different….so I began reading thru John. I reached the 6th chapter, then the 10th chapter….I went back and read the sinner’s prayer again and I thought to myself: something is wrong here and I know it isn’t the Bible.
Lora,
I can’t help but wonder how you would of reacted if you hadn’t felt that peace at that time. Would you have been afraid then that you weren’t chosen? Would you have truly been able to keep saying, “I understand,” if you came to think you were not one of the elect?
In tenth grade, I was attending a public school and enrolled in world history. Once we reached the Protestant Reformation, the teacher explained Calvinism and she even provided the five terms represented by TULIP. FIrst time I had ever heard of Calvinism….I was taking notes…I asked her to explain the meaning of the five terms…and I kept writing down everything she said.
I thought to myself…I grew up in church. This is the first time in my life that I have heard what I believe.
Thank you for your kind question cheryllu 🙂
How could a child possibly consider predestination and election at the age of 6?
I believe the only answer would be the Holy Spirit.
In TULIP, “I” represents Irresistable Grace. It is also referred to as Effectual Calling.
If God had not chosen me, then the Holy Spirit would not have spoken to me as I was reading thru the Gospel of John.
Truly- salvation is All of Grace….God’s grace….pure and free of contamination from our efforts….
[…] It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most…Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in such a way with such traumatic devastation. Why? (Doubting Calvinists) […]
Amen there Andrew # 13! Btw, it is faith in Christ that is our perseverance, and not perseverance itself! Paul speaks of such perseverance coming from both the faith of our being justified and peace with God, and “because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” (Rom. 5: 1-5) Indeed sweet is the great Gospel truth of God In Christ!
I thank The Lord Jesus that when I trusted in Him, He saved me. I am justified in The Lord Jesus. My sins and iniquities will be remembered no more. I have His righteousness. He will never leave or forsake me. I am in Christ and in the hand of the Father. I have been translated into the kingdom of His dear Son. I am accepted In The Beloved. When you say, you cannot have 100% assurance because you may not persevere, even though you say it is all God, you are saying you are dependent upon your works to keep your salvation and give assurance. He finished the work and we trust in him daily for the victory. When You placed your faith in Him, He forgave You and made You His own. If you failed one day, the Accuser will come, but You do not have to listen to Him because God does not deal with us according to our sins. His full judgment was placed on Christ so I could be set free and give Him full glory. We cannot base our assurance on our works. We base them upon His faithfulness and His word. We will work out of love,and that is good, but our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. He keeps us. He is good. CHM says, “But on the other hand, when we hear the voice of the living God, who cannot lie, proclaiming in our ears the glad tidings that through His own beloved Son, who died on the cross, was buried in the grave, raised from the dead, and seated in the glory—that through Him alone—through Him, without any thing whatever of ours—through His one offering of Himself once and forever, full and everlasting remission of sins is preached, as a present reality, to be enjoyed now by every soul who simply believes the precious record of God, how is it possible for any one to continue in doubt and uncertainty? Is Christ’s work finished? He said it was. What did He do? He put away our sins.” We are forgiven. Rest in that truth and live for Him. When You fail,claim the forgiveness we already have. We have been justified, sanctified and glorified in Him.He is our assurance.
My husband was convinced of his salvation for many years…
but I wasn’t. There was no fruit bearing evidence of it, and quite a lot of the opposite. After praying and seeking God’s guidance I finally told my husband that I doubted he was a child of God. This got his attention. He admitted that he lacked peace. He did struggle with the ‘how do I know if I’m among the elect?’ question for awhile…he struggled before God. Sometimes doubt is a good thing. Sometimes God’s Spirit brings on the doubt because a person isn’t actually saved! In my husband’s case, he had belief, but he hadn’t responded to the gospel due to Spirit-induced conviction over his own sinfulness. He responded because, as he put it, “I was scared to death to go to hell.”
He did finally come under the conviction of the Spirit and receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior. He was ready for Jesus to be the Lord of his life, and knew that he had not been living a life of obedience to Him.
I think that Michael is quite right that we need to be ever so careful about giving people absolute assurance of their salvation. Some do this when they share the gospel with someone…if they merely ‘go forward’ to an evangelistic call, or raise their hand or pray to ask Jesus into their heart.
How do we know that that was the moment of salvation for them? We cannot see into their heart.
We are better off not making absolute statements to someone about their eternal future, or their forgiveness. And this includes our children! We can unwittingly give people false assurance. We are instructed to work out our salvation with fear and trembling…to be careful that we don’t slip away.
Yes, I am a Calvinist.
After receiving a degree from a hyper-Calvinist college, some years ago I turned my back on Calvinism and I have never looked back. I identify with your friend. If salvation is a lottery, I have never won anything in my life and I see no logical reason why God should choose me over millions of other people.
However, my assurance of salvation is now based on Romans 10:11 – For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
My salvation is no longer based on some obscure lottery system, but is now based on God’s honor. I know that I believe and I know what I believe (Romans 10:9) and I will never be put to shame and I am deeply grateful to God for His faithfulness even when I stumble.
Strong Calvinists believe that God is the only one with a will and that He is the One who moves you to act the way you do. This is a partial truth which can be seen in verses such as Exodus 10:27. It says,
“But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go.”
If it is the case that only God has a will, this would mean He is directly responsible for every action any man takes. Since no man has any will of his own, anything he does is actually God’s will. Any evil man commits (rape, murder, idolatry, fornication) is actually God’s doing. Though this is in direct contrast to Scripture. God cannot be both evil and wholly good at the same time. He maintains that the two are separate and distinct from one another.
“This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” [1 John 1:5]
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” [Isaiah 5:20]
In defense, the strong Calvinist may argue that God may have set creation in motion, but the actions which ensue are not His responsibility. But is a man not responsible for the collapse of the final domino if he were to push the first? It is akin to those who say, “People don’t kill people. Guns kill people.” Of course the gun kills people, but it is only the instrumental medium of the man’s intent. Likewise if God were to will a man to commit an act, it is God’s will to commit that act.
As a last resort the strong Calvinist may say that God is able to denote responsibility to man because He is the source of meaning. And though this may seem like a solid argument philosophically, it would have to suggest that what we believe to be free will is actually just an illusion.
This conversation over Calvinist doubt of assurance reminds me of “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” by Max Weber (1905)
His thesis (hopefully I’m not butchering it or over simplifying it) was this: Catholicism granted the people assurance by a sort of “magic”. If they partook of the sacraments as prescribed by the church they earned salvation and everything was cool. Protestant Calvinism on the other hand said that God chose His elect and that there was nothing a person could do but believe and have faith that he was saved. What this did was leave the Calvinist to look inward toward his own life to find signs that he was actually saved, for he had no church work or ritual that would give him that assurance. This manifested itself in the believer’s life. It wasn’t that he worked to be saved, he felt compelled to work (working as for the Lord – Colossians 3:23) to prove to himself that he was saved.
Calvinist doubt was the fuel for our country’s capitalist beginnings.
I forgot to add Irene my #27 was somewhat for you, indeed the Calvinist Gospel is “Good News” because it is God ‘In Christ’…His Death, Resurrection & Ascension! The last is almost nil in the High Church Gospel, i.e. Christ as THE Mediator (the one and only), 1 Tim. 2: 5.
@Alan: What a caricature of the Reformed Gospel, awful and very sad! Btw, if I can ask, but what was this “hyper Calvinist” college? Note my education theologically was more classic Anglican (and yes conservative too), and of course this includes Calvinism historically (note the Irish Articles 1615, Archbishop James Ussher).
@ Fr. Robert: I would rather not say except that the college no longer exists, but I will say it was a very strong advocate of C. I. Scofield and dispensationalism.
Many of its graduates moved on to get advanced degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary and are prominent names in dispensational Calvinism today.
In rejecting Calvinism, I do not reject Calvinists. I do believe they are going to Heaven (though most of them are rather certain I am not). I am quite fond of Anglican C. S. Lewis (God used his book Mere Christianity as the catalyst for my conversion) and I have an odd attraction for Reformed Pastor Steve Brown with the Key Life Network as I rarely meet anybody in the Reformed or Calvinist paradigm with a genuine sense of good humor. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but I was raised and trained in the American Calvinist tradition from birth until my late 40’s so I know of what I speak.
If free will were just an illusion, it would bring up 2 problems: 1) the fact that we are able to comprehend such a concept and 2) the fact that God would be the One putting the concept in our minds.
Ever since Old Testament days, people had this concept of self. “Self” is even a main component of the Hebrew word “soul” (נָ֫פֶשׁ). But why should they (in the Old Testament) or we (in the present) take notice of such a concept if it were not real? As C. S. Lewis has said concerning meaning,
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
The same thing goes for “self”. If it were not there, we should be acting as a dog or cat without taking notice of self at all; acting purely on the impulse of whatever stimulates us. Why should we reflect on something that isn’t there? The Deterministic Theologian must answer by saying God put the false idea in man’s mind. But this course of action would make God deceptive, and Scripture states that God cannot lie.
“So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us.” [Heb 6:18]
2 Peter vs. Romans 8?
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not willing (μὴ βουλόμενός) that any (τινας) perish, but all (πάντας) to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
This verse is probably used the most when rebutting determinist doctrine because it’s in direct contradiction in two ways: 1) The words “any” and “all” are comprehensive and specific words, so that would seem to indicate that sinners are able to repent as well. 2) The words “not willing” indicates that things are happening that God does not want, but which He allows anyway.
Now many strong Calvinists have rebutted and said that 2 Peter seems to be a letter targeted specifically to the Church and not to sinners, so “all” would only be comprehensive in the sense that it is talking about believers. Though there’s a problem with this methodology. If you say Peter is just to be taken in context of the Church, then Romans 8 (a chapter many Neo-Calvinists hold essential to their doctrine) is also.
A widely quoted verse of this regarded chapter states,
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” (Romans 8:29)
Using the same methodology this verse is targeted solely to believers as well. If that’s the case, then the Bible says nothing about whether non-believers can come to believe. Either they are both meant for the Church (so Romans 8 doesn’t apply to non-believers) or they are both direct to non-believers as well (so Peter really means “all”).
[This is just one instance in the Bible where God calls on “all” to repent and allows things to happen against His “will”. God may allow actions, give man the power to perform actions, and foresee man’s actions, man’s choices; but nowhere in the Bible does it say that He makes those choices for man. Jesus even states what He would have done if Jerusalem were “willing” to change its…
Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God’s truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture.
More than that, the doctrines frequently create a spirit of division, elitism and theological snobbery. The system erects walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the church general who are supposedly part of a worthy “inner circle.”
Many Calvinists read nothing but Reformed titles, hence these brethren seldom learn new perspectives. On the contrary, they are continually reaffirming their own “theological correctness.” Such authors such as A. W. Pink, the Puritans, John Murray and such publishing companies as Banner of Truth become the sole staple for many. I say without intending offense that such exclusiveness differs little from that of Jehovah’s Witnesses or other authoritarian groups.
Of course, I do not intend to paint all Calvinists with this brush. Many are thinkers who read outside literature, even Arminian literature. But the overarching trend in this tradition – a tradition of which I was once a part – is often one of narrow-mindedness and doctrinal superiority. As we have seen, the Scriptures give no warrant for such bigotry. The average Calvinist may be amazed at just how weak his system is when scrutinized in the light of revealed truth.
May our brethren see fit to adopt a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) and honestly rethink their Calvinism. We would urge them to, for a time, lay aside the commentaries of Calvin and Gill, the theology of Warfield and Hodge. With an open Bible and mind, may they take a second look at the so-called “doctrines of grace” to see if they truly are the doctrines of Christ.
For many years, Calvinism was at the heart of my belief system. It was unquestionable that man could not believe the gospel. He had a latent and inborn aversion to all things spiritual, even the gracious gospel that the common people heard gladly in Jesus’ day (Mark 12:37). Man, I held, was totally unable even to cry out for mercy.
The Fall had rendered him incapable of receiving its remedy. Even his best acts were filthy rags, detestable before God. What was needed was a work of Efficacious Grace – a miracle, in fact – that would remove the heart of stone and bestow saving faith.
This I deemed “sound doctrine.” I elevated above the rabble of non-Calvinists all writers and theologians who championed it. They were somehow more worthy of respect. They had an inherently greater demand on my attention and belief. Clark Pinnock describes a similar attitude he developed in the course of his faith-journey:
“Certainly most of the authors I was introduced to in those early days as theologically ‘sound’ were staunchly Calvinistic….Theirs were the books that were sold in the Inter-Varsity bookroom I frequented. They were the ones I was told to listen to; sound theology was what they would teach me.” 1
Any Christian who dissented from my soteriology was “an Arminian,” regardless of whether that person subscribed to the issues of the Remonstrance (or even heard of them). As with many Calvinists, my spiritual autobiography had two distinct peaks: my conversion to Christ and my subsequent enlightenment into “sovereign grace.”
This faith was highly attractive because of the men who had held it over the centuries. My spiritual pedigree contained some of the brightest lights the faith has ever known: Bunyan, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, Brainerd and the Puritans. I was in good company. Years later, however, I seriously re-examined my beloved “five points.”
The main point at which I first questioned Calvinism was the nature of man in his sinful…
It is evident that the extreme Calvinist must ignore the clear language and obvious sense of many passages and he must force the Scriptures and make them fit into his own theological mold. Limited atonement may seem logical and reasonable, but the real test is this: IS IT BIBLICAL? “What saith the Scriptures?” (Rom. 4:3). In childlike faith we must simply allow the Bible to say what it says.
Those who promote this erroneous doctrine try to tell us that “world” does not really mean “world” and “all” does not really mean “all” and “every man” does not really mean “every man” and “the whole world” does not really mean “the whole world.” We are told that simple verses such as John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 must be understood not as a child would understand them but as a theologian would understand them. That is, we must reinterpret such verses in light of our system of theology.
The true doctrine of the atonement could be stated as follows:
The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that the Savior’s work of redemption (1 Tim. 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and propitiation (1 John 2:2) was for all men (1 Tim. 4:10), but the cross–work of Christ is efficient, effectual and applicable only for those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10; John 3:16). We could even say it in a simpler way: “Christ’s death was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL but EFFICIENT only for those who believe.” The cross–work of Christ is not limited, but the application of that cross–work through the work of the Holy Spirit is limited to believers only.
The extreme Calvinist would say that the cross was designed only for the elect and had no purpose for the “non–elect” (persistent unbelievers). But the death of God’s Son had a divine purpose and design for both groups. For the elect, God’s design was salvation according to His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13). For…
If the Reformed preacher were really honest about it, he would need to preach his doctrine along these lines: “Christ may have died for your sins. If you are one of God’s elect, then He died for you, but if not, then you have no Savior. I cannot tell you that Christ died on the cross for you because I don’t know this for sure. If you believe the gospel then this proves that you are one of God’s elect, and then it is proper to speak of Christ dying for you.” What an insult to the God “who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). The Apostle Paul was not so handicapped when he preached the gospel to the unsaved Corinthians. He clearly proclaimed that “Christ died for our sins [yours and mine!].” If Paul could preach that message, so should we and so must we!
John Piper:
But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons. And, though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me I should not rail against the Almighty. He is God. I am but a man. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to bow before his unimpeachable character and believe that the Judge of the earth has ever and always will do right. The quote comes in the context of a published dialogue between Piper and Dr Thomas Talbott I was astonished when I read Piper’s comment, which comes after a moving, and clearly heartfelt declaration of his paternal love and care towards his three children. My first thought was one of sadness, desperate sadness that a man who clearly loved his kids was having to live with the idea that one – maybe all – of them might be reprobate, might be predestined by God for hell, and therefore damned for all eternity, with no possibility of redemption. And then gradually, as I contemplated the comment (in the context of the dialogue, and of Reformed theology generally), my sadness turned into anger, and ultimately to outrage. How dare he? How dare Piper say such an appalling thing, and ascribe such appalling unloving behaviour to God? Because you’re a sinner, a son or daughter of Adam, you deserve to die, to be punished eternally, for the wicked crime of being a normal, sinful, god-created human being. But god, in his inscrutable wisdom, chose some people, some of his children, to be rescued from sin by Jesus, with the result that they get to live with him forever. These lucky people are ‘the elect’.
Replying to #34, Alan,
While it is true that sometimes (like in The Problem of Pain) C. S. Lewis would heavily emphasize God’s original persistence at saving whoever He intends to save from sin (and I agree with the Calvinists that that’s an important part of the gospel — God doesn’t give up, won’t be defeated, and doesn’t have to be convinced to persist), when it came to the question of explaining final hopelessness Lewis directly contradicted this (even a few chapters later in TPoP!) by claiming that even though God intends to save all sinners from sin, and acts accordingly, eventually some sinners defeat His attempts and God just lets them go because He finally sees that nothing more can be done for them.
Lewis’ total scope of God’s saving love is categorically Arminian (and I agree with the Arminians that that’s an important part of the gospel — everyone can be sure that God intends to save them from their sins), as is his ultimate denial of God’s original persistence, which no Calvinist per se would ever deny (and I agree that they shouldn’t deny it).
@ Jason Pratt: Thank you for the clarification on C. S. Lewis. He admitted that The Problem of Pain was his most problematic book and was called on the carpet for it for many reasons.
IMHO, A Grief Observed dealt with the issues of theodicy with more heart and sense.
My wife and I struggled with assurance when we were both Arminian. My switch to the Calvinist end of the soteriological spectrum put alot of gas in my assurance tank. My wife still struggles with assurance and sometimes I do too. I find it is when I take my eyes off of Christ and focus on my performance (or lack thereof) that the doubts appear. I think there is a strong personality component to those who tend to doubt and that theological issues can be just a smoke screen.
If they don’t believe the assurance of the Holy Spirit,they aren’t going to believe you.Tell them to join an Arminian Church.They will feel better after they are told they are in charge.
If I may argue with my own previous comment, which said that the fingerprints of God on a believer’s history constitute evidence of that individual’s future salvation. That sounds good, until things like this come along that make me question that idea. http://www.christianpost.com/news/high-profile-christian-leader-falls-from-faith-praying-for-his-return-95557/
If you want to look inward for your assurance, then become a Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Catholic…and many others.
If you want REAL assurance…then look to the places (the real places – as the Jews returned to Shekum, and to Shiloh) where God has acted for you, in real time. He has provided this for your assurance. So you won’t have to look inward, where pride and despair reside.
‘The Christians Warfare’
“A believer is to be known not only by his peace and joy; but by his warfare and distress. His peace is peculiar: it flows from Christ, it is heavenly, it is holy peace. His warfare is as peculiar, it is deep-seated, agonizing, and ceases not till death.” (Robert Murray McCheyne)
Btw “theoldadam”, you miss again St. Paul’s doctrine of both Justification-Sanctification, yes always somehow separate but connected (1 Cor.6: 11.. and again see 2 Cor. 13: 5-6).
Greg,
There are always exceptions. If we weren’t allowed to generalize then we couldn’t discuss anything.
The vast majority of catholics have NO real assurance. And that is because they are put on a spiritual/religious ladder climbing project where no one is sure that they have done enough…or for the right motives.