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"
@”A”: If your going to debate against the Calvinist position, your going to have to debate their own Creedal statements, and sadly this neither you or AP have done at all! Surely there are many Reformed Creeds, so pick one, if you want to debate Calvinism with me! For the most part, as a Reformed Anglican, I follow both the Irish Articles 1615 (Archbishop James Ussher), and too the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles also. But I know and use most of the other Reformed Creeds also. I even like and use Calvin’s concise Geneva Catechism also. I have noted basically the great ignorance of most Arminian’s here, especially the evangelical types on these Anglican Creeds! Save of course some Anglican liberals themselves. What we historically call the Broad Church. You should know that stating your own arguments, without stating your opponents and from their own words, is simply the poorest of ad hoc in any debate! And btw too, ad hominem can too be appealing to one’s prejudices in general also! Sadly this line has been crossed by all here perhaps? But this is sadly the nature of the blogs at times.
Surely the so-called “ordo salutis”: order of salvation, “a term applied to the temporal order of causes and effects through which the salvation of the sinner is accomplished: viz., calling, regeneration, adoption, conversion, faith, justification, renovation, sanctification, and perseverance. Because of their emphasis upon the eternal decree and its execution in time, the Reformed developed the idea of an “ordo salutis” in detail in the 16th century, before the development of a similar structure in Lutheranism.” (Richard Muller)
Of course this varies somewhat in Lutheranism, as per the belief of certain Lutherans to predestination. Btw in the Methodist or Wesleyan doctrine this is also different, as we can see between John and Charles Wesley, too!
To quote John Wesley here, “At the same time that we are justified, yea, in that very moment, sanctification begins. In that instant we are born again, born from above, born of the Spirit.” This comes very close to the Reformed belief of “regeneration”, first place (spiritual rebirth). Of course with “Calling”…by God!
@cherylu: I hope my last two (#120 & 122), might help your #82! Again, “theology” and theological work must be done, and this is also historical.
Fr Robert,
I think you meant a different comment of mine then # 82? # 118 perhaps?
If not I am totally clueless as to what you are getting at.
Greg writes,
We would have gotten into all of this, but ok. I don’t believe there can be any knowledge of ANYthing on ANY level that is not fully defined and governed by God.
I agree, depending on how you mean some of this.
You do. In short?
No. I never claimed that at all.
My first thought is Him and your first thought is you.
Sorry, that is inaccurate. Not sure why you would assume such a thing.
You re an inadvertent Aristotelian Thomist. The very thing Paul (by implication) denounces in 1st Corinthians 1.
Sorry, I don’t see how that is accurate either. I agree with Paul entirely.
Your reason defines everything for you including God Himself.
Scripture defines God for me. That is why I am an Arminian. The nice thing is that Scripture is not irrational, so reason is not incompatible with God’s revelation in Scripture.
No, you won’t overtly state it that way,
Right, because that would be inaccurate.
but yes it does.
No it doesn’t (this is silly)
Sort of a Christianized version of Eddington’s famous statement “What my net can’t catch isn’t fish”. What you can’t accept as just or loving jist can’t be true.
I never suggested anything like that. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. You did say that you juggle a lot of discussions at the same time.
BTW, I don’t you mean know nothing about anything.
Thank you for saying so.
I’m talking about epistemology. You don’t. That doesn’t make you a moron, but it does make you wrong.
No offense, but if you are talking about epistemology, you don’t seem to be saying too much. I can basically agree with everything you have said here (except for the false claims you have made about what I believe or think). I think there is a lot of value in presuppositionalism, I just reject the idea that Calvinism needs to stand behind it for it to work or make sense. That simply doesn’t…
The last part of my comment 128 should say, “That simply doesn’t follow. That is all I have been saying.”
Surely the so-called “ordo salutis”: order of salvation, “a term applied to the temporal order of causes and effects through which the salvation of the sinner is accomplished: viz., calling, regeneration, adoption, conversion, faith, justification, renovation, sanctification, and perseverance.
Please tell me this is not supposed to represent the Reformed ordo salutis. If so, it is terribly unBiblical. It is bad enough that Calvinists wrongly put regeneration before faith, but putting adoption before faith too? (Gal. 3:26) What a mess. And I think that most theologians would disagree with Muller in calling it a “temporal” order. Usually, it is discussed with regards to logical order, not temporal order.
@cherylu: If you think about it hard enough, it includes both #118 and # 82! You are stumbling on Calvinism over God’s decrees, which are really always eternal even in time! This is the logic of the Infralapsarian, once again God’s decree to save “follows” logically (not temporarily) the decision to create and “permit” the Fall! It seems your not getting this?
@AP: YOU know its presents something of the Reformed “order”, though I would place “Calling” with “Regeneration” myself. Note that is one of the reasons I quoted John Wesley in my #122. John and Charles did not agree here, Charles saw aspects like “experience”, “assurance”, even the “Witness of the Spirit” as the “bloom, colour, or sent of a single flower”, but John mostly always in syllogistic treatment! But, yes the weakness of the Lutheran/Methodist teaching of the order of salvation are so obvious that they need not be underlined. But, still ‘Calling and Regeneration..’ etc. as the Reformed (noting Muller).
Fr. Roberts writes,
YOU know its presents something of the Reformed “order”, though I would place “Calling” with “Regeneration” myself.
So you agree with Muller that adoption precedes faith? That is plainly unBiblical.
Of course, regeneration preceding faith is unBiblical too.
Sinful man simply cannot have faith without first being “regenerate” (spiritually reborn)…John 3: 3 ; 5-6; 8)
And Faith is always a “gift” from God, and not something we do! (Eph. 2: 8)
Fr. Robert,
Yeah, I know that is the Calvinist claim, it is just not supported by Scripture, and those passages certainly do not suggest that the new birth precedes faith:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/does-jesus-teach-that-regeneration-precedes-faith-in-john-33-6/
The Bible everywhere puts faith prior to the reception of spiritual life and nowhere puts spiritual life prior to faith. John 1:12-13 is definitive by itself.
And yes, here it is “temporal”, and not just logical!
@”AP”: You can keep calling black white, but it is just not so! Btw, verse 13 hammers out the essence of verse 12 in John!
And Faith is always a “gift” from God, and not something we do! (Eph. 2: 8)
3 things.
1) The rgammar strongly suggests that salvation is the “gift”, not “faith” in that passage.
2) Even if faith is considered a gift, there is no reason to see it as an irresistible gift give only to some.
3) Faith is certainly something we “do.”
[the Jailer] “asked, sirs, what must I do to be saved? They replied, “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:29-31)
@”AP”: You can keep calling black white, but it is just not so! Btw, verse 13 hammers out the essence of verse 12 in John 1!
Fr. Robert,
I have no problem at all with verse 13. It doesn’t change the fact at all that verse 12 plainly puts faith before regeneration. I suggest you read this short article:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/dr-brian-abasciano-on-the-conditionality-implied-in-romans-916-and-its-connection-to-john-112-13/
And could you please answer my question about adoption in the ordo? Do you put adoption before faith as Muller does?
I gotca on the run mate! 😉 There can be no ability to respond to God without the ability of life itself, and here is the New Birth! Regeneration proceeds before faith! Sinful man is dead in sin, (Eph. 2: 1-3 ; 5).
And yes, I agree with Muller as to “adoption”! (Gal. 4: 5-6-7)
Got to run! Till later…Lord willing!
I gotca on the run mate! There can be no ability to respond to God without the ability of life itself, and here is the New Birth! Regeneration proceeds before faith! Sinful man is dead in sin, (Eph. 2: 1-3 ; 5).
You are going to run out of prooftexts really soon. So far none of them have worked out for you, and John 1:12, 13 has really already settled things (in definitively putting faith before the new birth). Now you resort to the typical Calvinist misunderstanding of what dead in sin means:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
So what’s left?
And yes, I agree with Muller as to “adoption”! (Gal. 4: 5-6-7)
Not sure what this reference is supposed to mean. I already referred you to Gal. 3:26, which plainly says that we become sons of God through faith.
Notice also that in Gal. 4:5, becoming sons of God is dependent on justification, which, of course, is by faith. Verse 6 says that we become sons through the Spirit of adoption, and Gal. 3:2, 5, 14 make it clear that we receive the Spirit by faith.
The more you try to defend the Calvinist ordo, the worst it gets for you.
Fr. Robert: I gotca on the run mate! 😉
Jolly good, mate! Tally ho! The game is afoot! Tally Ho!
Fr Robert at #128,
I want to be absolutely certain I know what you are saying here so we are not talking past each other: once again God’s decree to save “follows” logically (not temporarily) the decision to create and “permit” the Fall! It seems your not getting this?
First of all, I assume you mean “temporally” not “temporarily” correct? And by saying it follows logically, but not temporally, do you mean that temporally it happens at the same time or that temporally the order is reversed?
Fr. Robert (comment 119),
You said: “If your going to debate against the Calvinist position, your going to have to debate their own Creedal statements, and sadly this neither you or AP have done at all!”
I have been citing standard Calvinistic doctrine. I laid out a couple very simple elements of it and asked you to point out any part that is not part of the Calvinist position. See my comment 95 above. Let me repeat that part of my comment:
Did God unconditionally decree all things? The Calvinist position is yes.
Does “all things” in that statement include all sin and evil? The Calvinist answer is again yes.
That makes all I said true. And if any part of it is not true of the Calvinist position, please identify it.
Now if you want a Calvinist creed to back that up, just look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1-2, which affirms that God ordained all things unconditionally. Now the confession is incoherent, surely, for it claims at the same time that God is not the author of sin and that people have free will. That is why I talk about the difference between what Calvinism claims and what its teaching logically demands.
John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
By believing you may have life. Not by having life you may believe.
Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
We are sons through faith. Not a son first and then have faith.
Greg’s comments (# 150) about Greek and John 20:31 are an example of the adage that a little knowledge [here, about Greek] can be a dangerous thing. The present tenses in the verse do not change the normal reading of the verse, nor does the subjunctive mood of the verb “have”, nor does the fact that “believing” is a participle. The NET Bible (Dan Wallace is the senior editor of the NET’s NT translation) along with the NIV and ESV translate the passage explicitly as having the import Cherylu assigns it and is so obvious on its face in any translation and in Greek. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to find a scholar who does not take it in this way (though of course, one can often find someone to back almost anything). As Calvin commented on the verse, “Here John repeats the most important point of his doctrine, that we obtain eternal life by faith”.
Greg and Fr Robert,
When Calvinists say that regeneration comes before faith, what exactly are you meaning by the term “regeneration?” I know you mean “made alive” in some sense. But is this a different life then eternal life or are they one and the same?
@cherylu: Once again your missing the whole biblical-theological reality here, simply-profoundly “believing” is itself the work of God! What could be more simple? Our faith follows the regenerate work of God (no one can believe without the enabling power/work of God!)
In Acts 19: 2-6, we can see that strictly speaking John’s’ baptism was somewhat on OT ground, these disciples had not yet really heard the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”… “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” (19: 2) (Btw John taught the coming of the Holt Spirit (Matt. 3: 11, NT ground!) John’s baptism only pointed to repentance, “telling the people to BELIEVE In Him who was coming after him, that is Jesus.” (verse 4) Then in verse 5, “When they “heard this” (no doubt the fullness of the Gospel of Christ), then they were baptized in the name (by the authority) of the Lord Jesus! Of course following is also part of the authority (then) of the Apostle Paul! (verse 6…, Here the Holy Spirit, is with the article, denoting the Giver, as distinct from His “gifts”.
@cherylu: It seems I am again on “moderation” here? But to be regenerate is to have God’s life!
PS..I wrote another, waiting to see when it comes up?
Arminianism step by step. First,Arminians believe in salvation by works.A work ia an actvnity of man,not caused by God. A decision is a work. Arminians must deny this,but it is a work.Note that the smaller the work required,the easier to deceive.So now God sends Jesus into the world to make it possible for all men to be saved,including those God has from eternity known He will never save. OK.Now let’s go to the cross. Here Jesus dies for the sins,expect unbelief,of all men. But the cross,by itself saves no one. For this,a decision,a work,must be added.So now all men are savable,like Santa Claus putting a present under the tree for everybody.But how does one learn about the present,and what does he have to do to get it?Well,the gospel. But who controls the distribution of the gospel? Men do.Some are lucky and others aren’t. It’s the Churchel’s fault for the unlucky ones.But everybody must have an equal chance. How does it work? The stories vary. Donald Lake-Associate professor at Wheton College says that God knows all who would believe and applies the gospel-based on the work of belief-even if the gospel is never received. You would not need to preach the gospel if this were true.Note also that it is never mentioned that when God forsees belief,He would also forsees the sinner’s final destiny.Whatever scheme they come up with,it is some independent work of the unregenerate sinner that saves Him.And the Free will that gets them in can get them out.After all,a salvation dependent on the fickel undependable will of a sinner is totally undependable.
Fr Robert,
Thanks. So if you have God’s life, do you not have “eternal life?”
And I surely do wish they would get this site fixed so it functions decently.
Testing, testing, I want to see how long it takes this comment to post so I can tell CMP we are still having problems and how severe they are.
(Answer: approximately 1 1/2 minutes that time.)
It seems when I write a longer post, it often goes to moderation? But then I am also up and down, and cannot complete it quickly also.
Sorry. Unable to correct some of typo errors.But I do believe that what I wrote is fair and illustrates the logical absurdity of Arminianism.But I still love Cherylu and all of our Arminian pals.
I just sent an e mail off to CMP again. Hopefully the folks that do the admin on this site or the site server, whoever, can get things back to normal soon.
Indeed “regeneration” is fully God’s New Birth, in both the OT and New Testament, as in John 3:3-10, etc.
Fr Robert,
I still want to be 100% sure we are talking on the same page here. Is this new birth, God’s life, actually eternal life? That “eternal” life part is what I need clarified.
Well the “elect” alone will have eternal-life, or have it! But in the OT, men could be quickened and not yet regenerate, note Balaam.
cherylu: Still waiting on my #153 I wrote to you!
Fr Robert,
Does God’s life, regeneration=eternal life?
Yes or no?
I have asked this specific question multiple times now and it seems you just keep dancing around the answer. Before I say any more on this subject, I really want to know that I am talking about what you are talking about.
Your #153 shows up on my end. Does it not for you?
It shows its awaiting moderation for me? Its about Acts 19, right?
Fr Robert,
Your # 153 says, “@cherylu: It seems I am again on “moderation” here? But to be regenerate is to have God’s life!
PS..I wrote another, waiting to see when it comes up?”
Nothing about Acts 19.
My Acts 19 post for you, has not gone thru! (Though is says #153 for me?)
Well, I just had a comment disappear completely when I tried to hurry it up. Has been faster to close the window and reopen a new one then waiting for my comment to appear. It has always been there in the new window. Until now.
I suggested you try reposting it, maybe breaking it into two parts if it is longer.
Cherylu,
I have had several posts not show up. One recent one is a pretty important response to Robert on his prooftexts. Should be #147. It has one link and several Scripture references that show up as links. So maybe that is the problem. But other similar posts go through. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. It is really annoying.
I also noticed a post I wrote to Robert way, way back on John 17, which again was pretty important. I might just try to resubmit them both. However, it does seem that some of these comments show up in my email feed (though mine never do), even though they do not get published on the site.