Repost from the great crash 0f 08
I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. Their theology goes something like this:
All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the sight of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.
I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.
First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:
Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity
The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?
Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?
You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.
I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.
The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).
This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.
This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.
It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.
Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.
462 replies to ""One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity" . . . and other stupid statments"
A couple of further thoughts on Ezekiel 33. Verse 9 speaks of “he shall die in his iniquity”. To die in your iniquity certainly speaks of spiritual as well as physical death, does it not?
And verse 11, I believe refers to a true repentance, a real turning to the Lord, in which a person would be finding forgiveness.
I find it interesting that this is the take the old commentator Matthew Henry has on these verses. And he was a Calvinist!
So I guess I am not at all convinced that these verses only refer to physical death, even if that is what the first part of the chapter was referring to. (I have read in a commentary that Ezekiel was made a “spiritual watchman”.)
[2 Pet 3]
Good point! You’re absolutely right that the ones already given “like precious faith” are not going to perish. Ouch — I made a bad argument! So I agree with you that the context DOES show that “you” refers to people who are saved. This is supported all over the rest of the text, too. The only confusing element is that Peter says that God is patient toward “us”, but I can’t make myself see any doctrine in that beyond Peter grouping himself with his brethren.
With that clearly proven, what does this passage mean? Frankly, I have to back down — it seems God in this book uses Peter to reveal (and remind of) His plan to destroy the wicked and his lack of joy in the perishing of any. This passage says that although the fulfillment of God’s promises will bring us joy, God’s waiting to fulfill them is also done for our sake.
God will not destroy all the wicked; nor will He save all of the unsaved. But He has reserved a day for the destruction of the wicked, and He has reserved us in order to carry that warning, and to make it clear that for anyone who will listen, it is a warning that can and must be heeded.
I like this argument, and I’m reminded that Jonah knew this about God too. “You’re always being too forgiving to people who repent!”
I think there’s a beautiful complementarity between God’s promise of a day to destroy the wicked, and God’s longsuffering in offering salvation even while the wicked sin.
Okay, now, how does this fit in with Calvinism? It doesn’t provide an argument for Calvinism like I thought it did. It proves absolutely that God doesn’t get joy from the perishing of the wicked (and Ezekiel affirms this for the punishment of the wicked as well). I’m impressed, because this provides me an argument against those like Piper who say that every little event is meticulously designed solely for God’s pleasure; if that were the case, God wouldn’t meticulously design those events that kill the wicked, since they give him no pleasure at all. Therefore, God does not decree the sins of the wicked — although he provides for us through them, and they are never out of God’s control.
-Wm
In 33:9 and 33:6, “die in his iniquity” probably means “die for his iniquity”. The contrast being made is that this man is killed because of his sins; not that the man bears guilt in some unique way past his physical death. The point here is how each person involved is guilty of the sins that result in the wicked man’s death.
I think there’s a true repentance too, obviously leading to forgiveness (that’s what it says!); but it’s a repentance from violating the covenant to making restitution and fulfilling it. There’s a shadow here of God’s work in the heart of the faithful, and it’s right for us to mention it; but Ezekiel doesn’t seem to be preaching about it.
The first and last part clearly refer specifically to the physical and social consequences promised as part of the Old Covenant. Now, both of those are shadows of the reality of the New Covenant; Ezekiel makes some glorious prophecies of that. But the middle of this chapter seems like an odd place for Ezekiel to be talking about a different topic than the first and last, and for him to not even mention the topic of the faith that saved Abraham.
-Wm
I can’t complain — you’ve been gracious in allowing me to think about (say) John 3:16-18.
Unfortunately, no; because the good deeds described here are clearly described as the works of the law, which cannot renew from spiritual death; and the punishments described are the literal fulfillment of the curses described in the covenantal giving of the Law. Now, I do believe that God used the conquest and razing of the Land to scare some people into true faith in Him; but Ezekiel doesn’t mention that.
I know exactly what you mean :-).
I think you’re right. I know that Job knew something as well.
Neither, however, knew as much as we do now, and it’s very clear that the early Israelites knew almost nothing of it.
-Wm
Surely there’s some misunderstanding here. When I said “wind down the arguments”, I meant to draw them to conclusions so that we can move on with other efforts. Declaring one of them ended is certainly part of winding them all down. What did you think I meant?
No, I’m still not going to add the additional topic discussed in post 390 to the enormous list of things we’re still discussing. With all due respect, you have no authority over me to command me to take up a new issue. Nor am I being unreasonable; it’s sensible to try to bring an argument to an end. The purpose of arguments is to clarify things, after all. Adding more issues wouldn’t do that.
-Wm
Not true. Most of the verses we’ve been citing clearly pertain to the issues; some of them don’t prove as much as the initially appear to, but they all at least superficially appear to pertain, and some of them clearly speak explicitly on the central issues. This verse, however, doesn’t have any connection to the debate except, by your own admission in post 389, “what I say”. You’re very clear: what the verse says is one thing, and what you say is another. I’m not arguing that “what you say” is wrong in this thread; I’m arguing that this verse doesn’t say that.
I’ve only got one post completed and published now, with no comments. I’m halfway through Romans 9; perhaps I should publish in two parts. I just spend too much time making these posts, because they seem more urgent to me.
-Wm
A Calvinist — or any person who reads 2 Pet 1, including an Arminian — can be as sure of his or her election as they can be of any other fact in this world, based on God’s revelation of how to be sure. Peter, John, James, and Paul all give instruction on how to make sure of our calling, election, and explain how our predestination will play out (specifically: being conformed to the image of the Son). But we’re not commanded to rest or have confidence in our election! Resting and confidence are responses to God’s promises and deeds, not to our election. And amongst God’s promises are that His salvation changes our everyday life if we act according to the gift of salvation He gave us.
Again, we can’t be 100% sure of anything that isn’t directly revealed to us by God. No Calvinist, no Arminian, can possibly do that. 100% certainty is part of omniscience, not humanity.
You’re applying a double standard, and you can’t avoid it because you’ve misunderstood the enormous similarity between Calvinism and Arminianism. Both of us believe that God knows the future in total; both of us believe that humans receive consequences for all their actions. The result is that we both agree that God knows the eternal destiny of everyone before they’re born (possibly before the world was created). You then demand that Calvinists must share this perfect knowledge with God (even though all Calvinist authors claim this isn’t needed), but don’t make the same requirement of Arminians, even though from the point of view of God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge, both theologies are identical.
-Wm
William,
You said, ” No, I’m still not going to add the additional topic discussed in post 390 to the enormous list of things we’re still discussing. With all due respect, you have no authority over me to command me to take up a new issue.”
Of course, I have no such authority. Didn’t mean to say I did. It just seemed to me that you got a little snarky when we didn’t answer your arguments from some verses in John 6, but then reserved the right to totally ignore an argument I brought up later. While at the same time, I might add, declaring another discussion over while I just didn’t think you were getting our points at all. Maybe I took it all wrong, but it didn’t set right with me at all.
William,
Thank you for your kind “concession” on the II Peter verse. At least we have each managed to convince the other of some “bad argument” as you called it along the way! It doesn’t feel quite so circular and hopeless when we can do that!
I didn’t realize I was coming across as snarky about John 6. I’d have to say that I wasn’t doing anything useful by just saying “John 6” without pointing to my actual comments. That was lazy of me.
But I’m not totally ignoring your argument; I’m admitting that it’s a very complex and important argument, and that I won’t address it until we close out some of the arguments we’ve already been letting drag on for (how long has it been?). That’s not ignoring, although you could call it evasion if you wanted.
And you’re 100% right that it feels wonderful to learn something from this debate, as I did from your correction of my reading of II Pet. We’ve been moving in circles too long.
-Wm
John’s 391:
Your argument was that Frame contradicted me. I said that Calvinists don’t need to know God’s decree in order to be assured of salvation; Frame says the same thing, and also says that we can’t know God’s decree. That doesn’t contradict me; it agrees with me.
Piper is correct but confused. Piper couldn’t save his children, of course (that’s the work of Christ, not of Piper); but he could fail to teach them, which could result in them being lost.
This is pure fatalism — if anyone believed what you’re saying they’d stop trying entirely, because “we can’t change God’s plans.” This is an error; God ordains the means as well as the ends, so that your efforts (including your efforts to gain assurance) are part of how God accomplishes His ends.
Perhaps you accidentally pasted in the wrong section of Owens, then. At any rate, if you’d like to make an argument, a logical one will beat an emotional one.
That’s what Peter, John, and Paul all say. I can’t say differently, and you shouldn’t either.
They accomplished great things in doing that, and their journals seem to indicate that they derived enjoyment from it. Do you have a specific problem you’re thinking of when you say “tied themselves in knots?”
Oh, and the Puritans weren’t trying to find the secret decree of God, by the way.
-Wm
William,
I’m glad to know you weren’t intentionally being snarky. I reckon we can all come across in ways to other people that we aren’t aware of at times or don’t intend.
If I was offensive in the way I replied to you, I apologize too.
I do have a question about one of your comments to #John in your last post. You said, “Piper is correct but confused. Piper couldn’t save his children, of course (that’s the work of Christ, not of Piper); but he could fail to teach them, which could result in them being lost.”
It has been my understanding that in Calvinist belief, if a person is one of the elect, nothing will keep them from being saved because God sees to it that they are brought to Him. Is that not correct? How then could a child be lost because a parent failed to teach them?
Because God uses means to accomplish His purpose, and further, we are COMMANDED to teach our children, according to the fear and admonition of the Lord.
Re Tanksley’s post 411
My post 361, in which I quote John Frame, does not speak of contradicting Tanksley. Rather, I quote Frame to give a typical Calvinist answer regard assurance of salvation and the decree of election. Frame states that no one can know God’s decree of election, and he also states that one’s assurance of salvation does not depend on knowing that decree.
I then went on to demonstrate that his claim regarding assurance is illogical and nonsensical. I note that Tanksley, in his post #411, agrees with Frame that no one can know God’s decree of election.
Respecting Piper’s statement, Tanksley makes a statement that does not address either what Piper stated, nor my point, and his statement is incorrect in relation to the issue being discussed. Tanksley writes, “he could fail to teach them, which could result in them being lost.” That statement entirely misses the point. Piper is teaching his children about Jesus, and he nevertheless acknowledges that despite his teaching one of his children might not end up in heaven because that child is not elect. If that child is not elect, there is nothing that Piper can do that will result in that child being saved and in heaven. Nothing. cheryl u, in her post #412, accurately observes this. Moreover, Piper is also correct in stating that he cannot know if his child is elect (and thus saved).
Furthermore, whether or not Piper teaches his children about Jesus has been foreordained as well.
Tanksley writes that my description of Calvinism “is pure fatalism”. However, it is Tanksley who misunderstands what fatalism is and incorrectly describes what Calvinism holds in relation to the determination of all events. In Calvinism God knows what will happen because he ordains it (or “foreordains” because he ordains everything prior to creation, that is, prior to it happening). Everything that ever happens has been foreordained by God. God determines everything. There is nothing anyone can do to change what God has foreordained. Everything will unfold as God has ordained it. The Calvinist belief in “compatibilism” is the Calvinist way of arguing that people are morally responsible for their actions even though those actions have been foreordained by God. All Calvinists belief everything is determined, in other words, fated.
Whether one gives up in light of their knowledge that everything is determined, is also something that has been foreordained by God. When Tanksley states that the means have been ordained, he is referring to God’s holding people to be responsible for trying and doing even in the face of his foreordination of all things. That belief is entailed in the Calvinist belief in a compatibilism (i.e., moral responsibility is compatible with determination).
If someone follows the Calvinist belief in foreordination to its logical end and gave up trying (and of course his giving up was determined and foreordained by God), that is hyperCalvinism…
continuing my post 414
that is hyperCalvinism because giving up is contrary to Scriptures in which Jesus or the apostles command us to do something. There are many such problems with Calvinism, where doing or believing what is logically entailed in its belief system results in actions or beliefs that are contrary to scripture (and thus “hypercalvinism”). That in itself is a good reason to doubt the truthfulness and correctness of Calvinism. If the belief system of Calvinism (especially TULIP) results in beliefs and actions contrary to or inconsistent with scripture (which they call hyperCalvinism), it is likely that Calvinism itself is what is contrary to scripture.
Arminians acknowledge that one cannot have infallible assurance of final salvation, that is, that one will perservere in Christ to the end of one’s life. But the Bible gives no such assurance either. The Bible only gives assurance of present salvation, based on present faith in Jesus. So long as one trusts in Christ one can have assurance of salvation. Among the many passages indicating this is 1 John 5:11-13,
“And this is the testimony: God has given us [believers] eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
Many who put faith in Christ do not endure in that faith until the end. Many who ultimately fall away have impressive track records of loving, trusting, and serving Christ, and very often have produced godly fruit for many years. How do Calvinist’s deal with this obvious reality? They are forced to insist that such “apostates” were never true believers in the first place, but only had “evanescent grace”. But how can Calvinists be certain that their present faith and love is real. They have no problem conceding that the apostate may have truly “thought” their faith and love was genuine despite the fact that it wasn’t. How then can they be sure that they are not likewise deceived by their present faith and love for Christ? Perhaps it only “seems” real to them. How can they be sure that their faith and love for Christ will not someday fail, thereby proving that their faith was never “real” and they were never “really” saved to begin with?
John Calvin proposed the idea that God sometimes gives the reprobate a grace and subsequent faith so similar to that of the elect that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference. He says that “experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.” Calvin called this “evanescent grace”.
Cheryl, Douglas is correct from an absolute perspective: God ordains the means as well as the ends, and if none of the possible actors (parents) act, then God must have ordained that the children would not be saved — because there was no opportunity.
(The exact same logic holds if we’re talking about God’s omniscience rather than His effectual decree, by the way.)
Another way of looking at it (a more humanly accessible perspective) is that the parents do NOT know the ends that God has ordained, so they should seek to be the means for everyone they love so that God can act through them to bring as many as possible to Himself.
The converse is expressed in Matt 18:7: “It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the one through whom they come.” Even more clearly, Christ’s betrayal was set up “by God’s predetermined plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23), yet Peter held the people of Jerusalem fully responsible.
-Wm
Hi William,
I think I might have understood what you meant when you referred to Piper’s quote incorrectly. You spoke of God saving them, so I thought you were speaking of children that were truly of God’s elect. If that were the case, I couldn’t see how the parents not teaching them could cause them to be lost since in my understanding Calvinism teaches that all that are elect WILL be saved. I thought, that being the case, there is no way that what the parents did or did not do that would change God’s ability to save these children–He would just have to use someone else if they were disobedient. Right?
Re cheryl u’s post 417. Yes, cheryl u is correct and so correctly points out the illogic of the Calvinist position and its misinterpretation of the Bible.
Re Tanksley’s post 407
Arminian and Calvinist theologies are not “identical”, rather, they are substantially different and in important ways.
Tanksley, because he agrees that no one can know the secret elective decree of God (and thus cannot know if they are elect), states, “Again, we can’t be 100% sure of anything that isn’t directly revealed to us by God. No Calvinist, no Arminian, can possibly do that.” However, I disagree. An Arminian can know with 100% certainty that he or she is saved at any time that he or she thinks to ask the question. However, the warnings in the Bible are real, and one can turn one’s back on God and walk away. But such a walking away does not, and cannot, happen accidentally the way one can lose one’s house keys. The Calvinist, on the other hand, cannot have the present certainty that the Arminian can and does.
A.W. Pink is one of many Calvinists to write about carnal faith (same concept as evanescent grace, temporary disciple, false hope):
“In the past, dear reader, there have been thousands who were just as confident that they had been genuinely saved and were truly trusting in the merits of the finished work of Christ to take them safely through to Heaven, as you may be; nevertheless, they are now in the torments of Hell. Their confidence was a carnal one; their “faith,” no better than that which the demons have.”
Pink writes, with respect to the warning passages in Hebrews, “The class here described (who turn from Christ) are such as had had their minds enlightened, their consciences stirred, their affections moved to a considerable degree, and yet who were never brought from death unto life. Nor is it backsliding Christians who are in view.”
Lorraine Boettner explained evanescent grace as that grace which God temporarily gave to some people which allowed them to believe they were saved but which God later withdrew, damning them. These people were not among those predestined to salvation. Evanescent grace is not irresistible grace. (in his book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)
So Tanksley cannot be sure whether the grace that he or his wife believe they possess is permanent or only evanescent. Perhaps God has not elected him, but only temporarily allowed him to experience what salvation feels like. Tanksley also cannot know if his newborn is elect. If the baby is not, then Tanksley will never see her (?) in heaven, regardless of his efforts, prayers or entreaties.
I prefer to stick with what the Bible teaches. If I profess faith, then I am saved. If my kids do too, then they are saved. I don’t have to wonder or worry whether they are elect. I don’t have to worry that I’ve only been given evanescent grace, a grace that seems real and saving but is not.
More from Lorraine Boettner, “In addition to what has been said it is to be admitted that often times the common operations of the Spirit on the enlightened conscience lead to reformation and to an externally religious life. Those so influenced are often very strict in their conduct and diligent in their religious duties. To the awakened sinner the promises of the Gospel and the exhibition of the plan of salvation contained In the Scriptures appear not only as true but as suited to his condition. He receives them with joy, and believes with a faith founded on the moral force of truth. This faith continues as long as the state of mind by which it is produced continues. When that changes, he relapses into his usual state of insensibility, and his faith disappears. It is to this class of persons that Christ referred when He spoke of those who receive the Word in stony places or among thorns. Numerous examples of this temporary faith are found in the Scriptures and are often seen in every day life. These experiences often precede or accompany genuine conversion; but in many cases they are not followed by a real change of heart. They may occur repeatedly, and yet those who experience them return to their normal state of unconcern and worldliness. Often times it is impossible for an observer or even the person himself to distinguish these experiences from those of the truly regenerated. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” is the test given by our Lord. Only when these experiences issue in a consistently holy life can their distinctive character be known.” (Perserverance of the Saints).
A.A. Hodge writes, “There is a false assurance of salvation which unregenerate men sometimes indulge, in which they are deceived, and which shall be finally disappointed.”
Inconsistently with their belief that the decree of election is secret, Calvinists (such as Boettner or Hodge) teach that one can make investigations of one’s life to determine if one has the true marks of salvation so that one can have the feeling of assurance. But, truly, what is the relevance of that investigation if one can be deceived? Moreover, even Hodge indicates that such an investigation must occur over a period of time.
Hence not only does the Calvinist doctrine not agree with what is taught in Scripture, but it also disagrees with the facts of human experience. If, as Charles Stanley states, a totally backslidden Christian can still be saved provided he is elect, and if a person who feels the warmth of a conversion and growth in Christ may not be, of what relevance is the state of one’s life or investigations of one’s life? Indeed, that is the point that Calvinists make, one’s election does not depend on one’s life at all.
Tanksley could leave his church and his wife and family and become a murderous drug dealer and, if elect, still be saved. Or he could continue in apparent faith for another year or more and yet not be elect.
I’m glad to see you explicitly acknowledge that.
I then went on to demonstrate that his claim regarding assurance is illogical and nonsensical. I note that Tanksley, in his post #411, agrees with Frame that no one can know God’s decree of election.
This was in post 361, in which you quoted Frame, and immediately stated “Consequently, in order to have assurance one needs to know the status of one’s election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known.” In other words, you didn’t demonstrate a contradiction; all you did was quote Frame and then contradict him.
At this point I’m kinda stopped, because in all the text you’ve posted above all you do is repeat your claim that there’s a contradiction. You haven’t shown one; all you’ve done is claim one. And your claim is based on the completely unsupported claim that one has to know God’s decree perfectly before one can have any assurance.
Unfortunately for your claim, it doesn’t merely contradict Calvinists; it actually contradicts Scripture. 2 Pet 1:10 says that one should “make every effort to be sure of your calling and election” — and the means it gives to do that is not to cast spells to divine the eternal decree, but to “add to your faith (moral) excellence (etc)…” in order to observe yourself becoming a partaker of the divine nature “by means of what was promised.”
Your claim isn’t merely unsupported; it’s also self-destructive of your own position. You require such incredible certainty of Calvinists that if your own position was required to pass the same test, you’d have to know not the decree of God, but the omniscient knowledge of God, to the extent that you knew whether you’d not yet rejected God when you died.
At least in the parody of the Calvinist position that you draw, the caricatural Calvinist has some clues about his salvation — his current behavior gives some hope of decretal election. The Arminian in the same situation only knows that he’s saved right now — that doesn’t provide the slightest clue whether he might or might not fall away and deny God before he dies.
In the real situation, where we don’t share God’s omniscience, we have to rest on His promises. I’ve explained what that entails, and although I’m pretty sure you agree with me, you’ve been solidly ignoring my posts.
Now, with all that said, you do bring up a good point. What about backsliding? Is a backslider saved? The correct answer is to look at his life and say “it doesn’t look like it.” We’re commanded to judge him as being unsaved, and therefore to bring him the message of the gospel. Many people have returned after…
Ouch, the blog cut me off before it told me about it.
Anyhow, I was saying that:
Many people have returned after a backslide; was that backsliding a prelude to salvation (i.e. they didn’t have saving faith before), or was it part of their Christian experience? Or, as the Arminians might say, was the backslide a valley in their life during which they weren’t saved? The Arminian answer is unmistakably clearer and easier to understand, but that doesn’t make the Calvinist answer contradictory — merely harder to understand.
The real hard problem starts when we look at the truly important data: the Bible’s testimony. There are two apparently completely disjoint parts of the Biblical testimony. In one, modeled by Romans 8 or John 6, we see that nothing can separate the saved from God. In the other, modeled by John 15:9 (the vine and branches) or Mat 13 (the Sower), we see that people are ordered to “remain in Christ”, and they’re warned that those who leave will be pruned out from Christ, even though they were truly part of Him before. Calvinists tend to minimize and allegorize one part; Arminians tend to do the same to the other. Neither response is complete.
But this isn’t the place to develop my point. I’ll stick to defending that God’s gift of salvation is final, because I believe the verses that say it is. The verses that say that one can be severed from Christ seem to me to express a very different reality: that the New Covenant can be severed from a person, and the benefits of the New Covenant, like the benefits of the Old Covenant, can be divorced from faith, and when they are, there is no promise of permanence.
You claim that Calvinism always leads to hypercalvinism. But this isn’t historically true; you must be claiming that it’s logically true, but you’re not supporting it. I actually think you’re claiming that it’s a tempting diversion, not a logical requirement. That may be the case, but it’s just as valid to slander Arminianism by comparing it to Catholic works-salvation or Pelagian self-salvation, both of which it bears a passing vague resemblance (if one squints and fails to speak the truth in love). By the way, I’m saying that those things are all equally false and slanderous. Arminianism is far closer to Calvinism than to either of those two.
-Wm
Cheryl, my point has been that parents (nor anyone) do not know whether their children (nor anyone) are among the elect. Our job isn’t to know; it’s to trust and obey. And obedience means fulfilling the command to train up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Is there ever any way to know that we’re elect? No. Is there ever any way to save someone else? NO. We plant, we water, but it is God who gives the increase.
This last is very important. It’s not our job to save people. It’s not our job to worry about who might or might not be saved. It’s our job to plant and water; evangelize and have a ready answer; add to our gifted faith moral excellence… It’s God’s job to give the increase, which means it’s God’s job to save us as well. We can’t be assured that our children will be saved — there’s nothing we can do to ascertain their salvation (in the 100% sense that John wants). The best we can do is trust and obey.
For our own life we can do a lot more. Those people who fall away — they were assured at one point in their life, I’m sure, but wouldn’t you agree they lost their assurance? Don’t you think that if they’d kept it they’d have stayed? In that sense, the only sense we have available to us, wouldn’t you say their assurance was false?
-Wm
I didn’t say they were merely identical; I said they were identical with respect to God’s omniscience. That’s central to the argument I’ve made twice: that your argument refutes Arminianism with respect to God’s knowledge of the future. (Unless you’re an open theist.)
No, that’s not the reason I say that. I say that because every type of epistemology testifies to that fact. We are finite creatures whose brains are simpler than the world; all of our knowledge, ALL of it, is a partial approximation.
I’m fascinated how you chose to reveal this, in one message denying (in an unqualified manner) that one can lose one’s salvation, and a few weeks later admitting that one can, but justifying it by claiming that “it’s not like losing one’s car keys”, as though anyone had ever claimed that it was.
Why do you make this claim? If the Arminian’s right, the Calvinist has the same assurance for the same reasons. Ditto for the Arminian! Yes, there are other theological consequences, but the assurance is the same.
Him. His name’s Orion.
Yes, that’s possible. I’ll thank God for his gifts, and spend my life “adding to my faith excellence.” If I fail, well, I know what the Bible says.
No, you do have a certainty, not a worry: you believe for certain that you’ve been given “a grace that seems real and saving but is not.” The only thing that matters to you — according to the arguments you’ve given me — is whether you’re given this Arminian grace at the very moment you die. It does no good to be Arminian-saved every moment of your life except the instant you die. (Yes, I know, it’s not that quick, but let “instant” be defined as the amount of time it takes to destroy one’s Arminian salvation.)
-Wm
Continued from last post: a crucial addition (snipped due to space constraints).
“If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable.” Your arguments seem to define a concept of Arminian Salvation which applies only to the moment in which it’s experienced. Yes, you’re “saved” now — but it’s like a term life insurance policy. Lapse on the payments, and if you die, none of the effort you’d made in the past matters at all (nor any of the conditions on the insurance policy contract) — and it’s ALL up to you.
(BTW, I tend to recommend term life policies when casually chatting. Go figure. 🙂
I think the Bible paints a very different picture. Salvation isn’t temporary; salvation is about the next life as well as this one. This means that salvation can’t be something that one merely experiences briefly in this life, then might drop before getting to experience it in the next life.
-Wm
William,
Thank you for clarifying your point regarding the Piper quote. I had misunderstood what you originally said.
Right; that’s precisely what “unconditional election” means (as you know). What you’re missing is that one’s life does depend on one’s election, because those whom God foreknows, He predestines to be conformed to the image of His Son; and having predestined, He will not stop, but will provide the means for that conformance to take place: calling, justifying, and finally glorifying. Calvinistic theologians consider the glorification spoken of in this verse to be the fulfillment of the predestination “to be conformed to the image of His Son,” which includes both sanctification on earth as well as transformation in heaven.
-Wm
Re Tanksley’s post 420
I will lay out the contradiction again (which was set out not just in my post 361 but also in subsequent ones).
Calvinists claim that God’s decree of election is secret and unknown by us.
Calvinists claim that one’s life (beliefs and actions) is no guarantee of a true indication of election. One may have been given “evanescent grace” by God in which one believes that Jesus died for their sins, has faith in Jesus, fellowships with believers, experiences the Spirit, evidences fruit of the Spirit and growth, but yet not be elect. Rather, at some future point the lack of election will be evidenced by a rejection of God.
Therefore, at no point in a Calvinist’s life can he/she be certain that she is saved. Neither in the present, nor in the future.
This contradicts the Calvinist claim that one can have assurance of one’s own, individual salvation. Instead, the truth of the Calvinist claim is that one can only be certain that God will keep the elect, whoever they are. It is “whoever” because the Calvinist cannot know who they are or if she is one of the elect.
The Calvinist claim also contradicts scripture. Consequently, the Calvinist will claim agreement with scripture (i.e., that one can have assurance of salvation), even though the Calvinist system precludes such assurance. This is but one of the many contradictions (both internal and with Scripture) inherent in the Calvinist system. The Calvinist system thus creates cognitive dissonance which must be overcome.
What I describe above is no parody of Calvinism, but the reality of it.
It is true that the Arminian must do what Jesus, and God through Paul, command in order to continue in salvation. However, that is what is in the Bible. The Bible does not promise salvation at the end of one’s life just because one has made an initial profession of faith. Rather, the warnings in the Bible are true and to be taken literally, at face value (unlike Calvinism, which must do exegetical gymnastics to deal with these passages).
Tanksley, in his post #421, then equates Arminianism and Calvinism, stating that neither answer is complete. I disagree; Calvinism has this problem, but not Arminianism.
Tanksley appears to be confused on the issue of determinism and Calvinism. Calvinism is deterministic, however, in the Calvinist system the Calvinist claims that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility.
Re Tanksley’s post #422
I’m sure glad I don’t have to wonder or worry if my kids are elect, unlike Tanksley.
False assurance. Wow. So it seems that by “assurance of salvation” Tanksley means that one is always certain of one’s salvation, but that one can be mistaken about that fact. That undercuts his claim, because anyone who gives their assurance half a thought will realize that they could be mistaken, and there goes their assurance out the window.
Tanksely also places the issue of epistomology in the…
Re epistomology
Tanksley wrongly places the issue of epistomology (how do we know what we know). He writes as if issues of epistomology continue once we commit in faith to following Jesus. That is wrong, however. Epistomology affects our basic beliefs and presuppositions only. Hence, we cannot know for certain if God exists or is as He is portrayed in the Bible. However, once we commit to this belief in God, despite our epistomological inability to know for %100 certain, we can then be certain of the things that God states and promises. Once we decide that God exists and that He has the character portrayed, the rest flows from it with no uncertainty (except with respect to whether we’ve interpreted the Bible correctly).
Re God’s omniscience
Here Tanksley errs again. Calvinism and Arminianism are radically different in how they conceptualize God’s omniscience. In Calvinism, God knows everything that will happen because he ordains everything. In Arminianism, God knows what will happen either because He will do it or because He has foreknowledge. For example, with respect to faith, He knows whether I will exercise faith, but does not ordain that fact.
Hence, in Calvinism there is only one source of God’s knowledge of the future: foreordination. In Arminianism, on the other hand, there are two sources: foreordination and foreknowledge.
Warnings in the Bible
I’m not aware of a previous post where I denied that one can abandon one’s faith. Perhaps Tanksley has misunderstood one of my posts where I discussed what Calvinists believe.
In his post #423 Tanksley mentions that Arminians might not be saved the instant they die. His statement presupposes that one would reject God the moment they die. A rejection of God has to be a conscious willed choice. What is the likelihood that a person who has lived their life following Jesus will, on their deathbed, seconds before they die, consciously reject God?
On the other hand, under Calvinism, one could die with a false assurance that one is one of the elect. Or one could reject God on her deathbed if she is not elect and God ordains a deathbed rejection.
One’s salvation is not an insurance policy. It is an issue of faith, which produces a saving relationship with God.
No Arminian believes in Jesus with the thought, “I’ll just believe in him for 10 years, like a 10 year term insurance policy.” Such a belief would not be a saving faith from the get go. One’s faith only saves if one is committing to Jesus for life. It’s faith forever, not faith for a term.
regards,
#John
#John,
Again, don’t you think this is a very odd, to say the least, way for God to show His love for His created beings? To deliberately give them a false faith, which looks so like the real one that it produces fruit and seemingly life like the real faith? A faith that convinces these people that they are indeed one of the blessed elect that are bound for the joys and glories of heaven, only to later have that faith disappear and find themselves doomed for hell for eternity? And all because that is the way God planned it, decreed it, and put it sovereignly into motion?
William,
To be very honest with you, if I truly believed the Calvinist system of theology, I don’t think I would ever have a moment’s worth of assurance of salvation in my life. I honestly don’t see how it is possible knowing all of the above facts. I would always find myself wondering if I was truly one of the elect, if Jesus had even died for me, and if the Christian life I have experienced in the past and am experiencing now is all nothing but a false illusion given to me by God Himself. I would be wondering when, as the old saying goes, “the other shoe would fall,” and it would all disintegrate around me.
And following the commands given in II Peter whereby we may make our “calling and election sure” make absolutely no sense at all in this scheme of things if God can really give you form of grace where all of this can happen–and you are a reprobate!
#John,
Did you ever wonder how God could give people all of this “false salvation” and have it actually seem to be real even in the whole Calvinist scheme of things? Isn’t it only through Jesus death that we can experience the Spirit as a Christian and grow? How can someone that Jesus didn’t even die for in the first place, (i.e. Limited Atonement), experience any of that? That whole idea just seems to me to be a great Calvinistic inconsistency.
cheryl u,
You are absolutely correct (because you read and undesrtand the Bible) that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
Does that mean all are saved? No.
It means all are forgiven.
This fact has to be accessed through faith.
Faith that is a gift of God.
When we come to faith, it is God’s doing.
When we reject faith (our natural, fallen state) it is OUR doing.
Charles Hodge, famous American theologian at Princeton on the unelect:
From his Conference Sermons, at pp. 18-19. Hodge quotes 1 Tim. 2:4: “Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” and then writes:
“This passage admits of two interpretations so far as the signification of the words are concerned. First, that God wills, in the sense of purposing or intending, the salvation of all men. This cannot be true, first, because it contradicts the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach 1st, that the purposes of God are immutable, and that they cannot fail of their accomplishment. 2d. That all men are not to be saved. It is clearly taught that multitudes of the human race have perished, are now perishing, and will hereafter perish. That God intends and purposes what he knows is not to happen, is a contradiction. It contradicts the very idea of God, and is an impossibility. . . . All these passages teach that God delights in the happiness of his creatures, and that when he permits them to perish, or inflicts evil upon them, it is from some inexorable necessity; that is, because it would be unwise and wrong to do otherwise. His relation is that of a benevolent sovereign in punishing crime, or of a tender judge in passing sentence on offenders, or, what is the familiar representation of Scripture, that of a father who deals with his children with tenderness, yet with wisdom and according to the dictates of right. [emphasis added]
Oh now I get it, when God ordains that people should suffer eternity in hell and not be elect, He is really dealing with them as a tender judge or as their father. I can sure grasp that last part, because that’s what I would do as a father, only pull one of the children I love out of a flaming burning house, and let the rest suffer and die and listen to their screams with all the satisfaction of a tender judge and father who has done the loving, right thing.
Which brings us back to why 1 John 4:8 is very relevant to this discussion. As has been demonstrated and proved in posts above, 1 John 4:8 states that an essential defining part of God’s character is love. This characteristic of God is a fundamental characteristic that has many implications and applications. In 1 John 4, the apostle use God’s characteristic of love in his argument about how christians should act towards each other. They should act in love. Contra Tanksley, the statement of the apostle “God is love” does not mean “God is brotherly love” or “God shows love to christians”. No, it means “God is love” where love is understood in an inclusive and comprehensive sense.
Yes, cheryl u, I agree with you. Calvinists have to resolve cognitive dissonance over this issue, and many others, and so engage in many of the psychological manouveurs observed by psychologists who study cognitivie dissonance.
regards,
#John
John, I see no need to hash through this again; unless you produce some kind of argument, this will be my last post on this topic. You’re not providing any new information, nor are you showing any kind of contradiction. Allow me to summarize your claims regarding Calvinism:
1. Individuals are elected by God to salvation.
2. That election produces salvation, permanently (now and after death).
3. Salvation produces specific effects on an individual’s life and requires specific conscious actions (affirmation of central doctrines including Christ’s resurrection, baptism, communion, confession, and obedience to Christ), which can be checked (with certainty) by the individual and (to some degree) by the community.
4. Those same effects can be produced temporarily by other things; a person can temporarily mistake the symptoms of “other things” for the symptoms of salvation: a “false assurance of salvation”.
5. Because election is everlasting but salvation is temporal, a person can be not-yet-saved or backslidden, thus displaying no symptoms of salvation, and yet be elected and thus inevitably destined for salvation. Because there is no direct knowledge given of election, we can have no assurance about election directly, but only through the symptoms of salvation.
(I agree up to point #5, with the caveat that there is no assurance of election except as one sees assurance of salvation.)
6. A “lack of assurance in election” as defined in point 5 is exactly the same as a false lack of assurance of salvation (i.e. believing that you’re unsaved when you actually are).
7. The presence of all of those objective signs of salvation (in point 3) is always the same as salvation.
8. THEREFORE, Calvinism produces only either a false assurance of salvation, OR a false lack of assurance of salvation.
Obviously, I’m disagreeing with the last two points.
Point 6 is wrong because when you’re not showing any signs of salvation, this is a signal that you need to be saved. Election does not save us; “sola gratia” (which refers to God’s gracious, unilateral election) isn’t assigned salvific power, but rather “solus Christus”. Thus, this is a true lack of assurance, not a false lack of assurance. All Arminians agree on this point, and it’s consistent with the Bible. Calvinists agree, because even the elect need salvation — they’re elect to salvation, not simply elect to Heaven.
Point 7…
I used to go round-and-round with a friend on this stuff, me coming from an Arminian POV, not that salvation can be “lost” like car keys, but that we could choose to reject God.
What finally pushed me into his camp (maybe not 5 pt. Calvinism, but at least an acceptance of eternal security) was the idea that salvation is a work of God. So if God saves me, only for me to later reject God or fall away and “lose” my salvation, God’s work of salvation in my life would have been futile. But is God capable of futility? What’s more, being omniscient, God would have known before he did it that his work of salvation in my life would be futile. I couldn’t swallow that.
Later I was struck by Heb. 10:14 – “by one sacrifice God has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” The words perfect and forever jumped out as me as did being made holy.
So if I, who am being made holy, have been made perfect forever, then on what basis could I be condemned? I’m perfect – forever!
Those two points pushed me away from accepting any possibility of being saved one day and not the next.
BTW, John, I see we’re headed towards 500 comments here – is there a possibility of overtaking the age-of-the-earth thread?
Look to what God has done (and is doing for us) for our assurance.
Look to baptism, and Holy Communion.
Why in the world would He command us to do those things, anyway?
For some religious ritual, or spirituality exercise?
Hardly.
We (Lutherans) believe He gave (gives) them to us that we would know that He is with us, and has acted (acts) for us, and that we might have the blessed assurance of our salvation in them.
Not that we ever ought to presume on them (we don’t – or shouldn’t anyway)) but we do trust in them, for He is in them.
This is why I could never be a Calvinist.
Lutheran theology, rightly understood, lines up most closely with scripture and theologically makes the most sense.
…Point 7 is not a statement of Calvinism, and is something you’re secretly pulling in from Catholicism — it’s not even something that Arminians would affirm. The reason I attribute it to you is that you claim that an Arminian can have 100% certain assurance of salvation based on the evidences listed that; which implies that the things listed there are the only things one needs in order to be saved. I can deny point 7, therefore, based on the fact that it’s not derived from Calvinism, as well as the fact that it’s not true; performing all the good works in point 3 will not save you because good works can not save you.
Point 8 is false — aside from the falsity of its components, covered above — because Calvinism can also produce a true assurance of salvation based on the Bible verses which explain gaining assurance of salvation, the same verses that Arminians correctly use to gain assurance of their salvation. The only difference is that Calvinists correctly understand assurance of salvation to have value not only in this life; during the time am assured of salvation I am assured not only if I die now, but if I die at any time; that salvation extends not only “as long as I don’t reject God”, but is itself the assurance that I will not reject God because I am a child of God.
You correctly say that the Calvinist’s assurance may be incorrect; but this is based on the false assumption that assurance of salvation is only valid if it is precisely, 100%, and infallibly associated with salvation. But not even Arminians claim that (with the exception of yourself); a false assurance is obviously very common in cults and other false religions, and I would claim that it’s common within the Church, as 1 Joh 1:19 says; and note how St. John assigns the problem not to the fact that “oh, they just fell away,” but rather “they were never of us.” St. John seems so certain about that — every single person who left, “all of them” were never one of us!
So what happens to the person who has false assurance of salvation based on reading the correct signs as accurately as possible? The Bible assures us that they will fall away in this life, because it promises us that all of those who endure until death are surely saved.
Does this give the Calvinist more confidence than it gives the Arminian? Only in one single sense: it gives the Calvinist the ability to confidently trust one more promise of God, that He will hold on to the ones He has saved. The Arminian has to reject that promise.
-Wm
I don’t see why you attribute confusion to me. I’m not unwilling to accept the charge if it’s true (I know I’ve been confused in the past), but I’d like to hear from you why you’re saying this. You don’t present any arguments or evidence, just those two sentences standing alone.
I affirm the second sentence, of course. I just don’t see how it relates to me being confused.
-Wm
A question that continues to bother me about Calvinism and it’s approach to sin, vis a vis election, is how can it be “Sola Christus” if God Himself elected them before creation, and their salvation is assured because of that?
If they were already the elect, and their salvation was assured, why would Christ’s horrible death on the cross have been necessary at all if it had no application except for people whose salvation was already assured?
Of all the dichotomies of Calvinism, this is the one that leaves me most puzzled.
If by that claim you meant that you didn’t work to make sure your children were saved, you would be a terrible person. (Fortunately, I don’t believe that.)
If you meant that you could be certain that your children were saved based on things you did to guarantee or force that salvation, I would question your orthodoxy, and possibly your future sanity (because your kids would drive you crazy when they prove they’re not little robots under your total control). Fortunately, I don’t think you’re naive (this thread proves you’re not intellectually handicapped).
If you meant that you don’t have to wonder whether your kids are elect because you don’t believe there’s a such thing as individual election, I pity your sense of logic. Having individual election is a good thing, not a bad thing. If it doesn’t exist at all, it doesn’t matter; if it does exist, it’s necessary to salvation.
I’ve only been able to come up with one tenable reason why you’d be glad not to wonder whether your children are elect, and it’s not really a logically inconsistent one. I hope that there are other reasons…
And, by the way, the correct response to a belief in the total sovereignty of God is not resignation or worry, but rather prayer. One doesn’t ignore the Sovereign; one begs Him. And really, you KNOW that God is sovereign in other areas of your life; yet you don’t stress out worrying that a random accident will (say) kill you tomorrow and leave your family penniless due to an insurance error; you do what is in your power, and pray to God for the rest.
In the same way, my belief that God is sovereign over salvation doesn’t lead me to worry that my children are out of my control; rather, it leads me to pray for them. Prayer is an admission that a situation is out of our control and in the control of the person we’re praying to.
-Wm
Re Tanksley’s confusion about the Calvinist contradiction respecting assurance of salvation
I have become accustomed to confused reasoning on the part of Calvinists, because they have to hold to so many contradictions in their theological system. Confused reasoning is one way in which they overcome their cognitive dissonance. Let us now cover the errors made by Tanksley.
First, let’s review my very short reasoning, which Tanksley converted into an extended multipoint excursis.
1. For assurance of salvation, Calvinists rely on only two matters: (1) God’s secret election of some, (2) evident signs of election.
However,
2. No one can know God’s elective decree.
3. One may profess faith and experience all the signs of election that a truly elect person does, but not be elect. Hence the signs may be misleading.
Therefore, one can have no certain knowledge that one is elect. If one has only been given evanescent grace, one will not know that fact because one will mistakenly believe (during the temporary time that God gives this evanescent grace) that one has the same saving grace as the elect. (evanescent: “vanishing or likely to vanish like vapor”, “short lived”, “staying temporarily”)
Of course such a conclusion contradicts scripture, but that is the nature of Calvinism. The chief way that Calvinists overcome the contradictions that their claim that Calvinism delivers assurance and that Calvinism is consistent with the Bible is to give inconsistent, incomplete and erroneous discussions of the signs of
salvation.
Second, let’s examine Tanksley’s faulty reasoning in his posts #434 and 437.
On the assumption that Calvinisism is correct, Tanksley’s point 1 and 2 would be correct, though point 2 is not expressed accurately. Election does not produce salvation (at least not directly), it is God’s irresistable drawing of the person and regeneration of that person that then produces faith and ultimately salvation. So it would be more accurate to say that election results in salvation.
Point three is only partially correct. Calvinist’s would argue that if someone is elect, then even a backslidden state would not revoke that election and the backslidden person would end up in heaven even if they died in their backslidden state (i.e., without the inward or outward signs of salvation and hence election).
However, it is also true that Calvinists would argue that elect persons, on the whole, do evidence inward and outward signs of salvation, so in that respect point 3 is correct.
Point 4 is awkwardly expressed and I think it is here that things start to go off the rails. The only “thing” of relevance that might produce the signs of salvation is God’s evanescent (temporary) grace. The experience of a person who receives evanescent grace is indistinguishable from the experience of a person who receives permanent irresistable grace. A person who has evanescent grace…
Anyone who give epistemology half a thought would realize that we could be wrong about anything. Does that mean that either all epistemology is wrong, or that all the practical epistle writers were wrong in expecting people to work towards assurance?
I’m hoping you’ll answer this question. Make your choice, or tell me that I’ve got a false dilemma. I think your only choice is to say that all epistemology is wrong, and it’s possible to have 100% confident knowledge (perhaps about only this one topic). I’ll assume that’s your answer, but I won’t discuss it directly until you tell me whether it is.
Even if it’s true:
What about the people who have some small reasons to doubt — for example, those who haven’t perfectly implemented the entire chain recommended in 1 Pet 1:3-11? They don’t have perfect assurance; does that mean they’re unsaved? No, it means they need to develop better assurance.
The fact is that all of us see constant tiny reminders that we aren’t yet completely glorified, but are only in the process of being conformed to the image of the Son.
There are people who claim to have perfect assurance. Such people must logically claim that they don’t sin (since any sin would obviously cast a shadow of doubt on one’s sanctification), and St. John in 1 Joh 1:8-10 tries to rule such people out from assurance by pointing out that those people are deceiving themselves and calling God a liar.
-Wm
Obviously, Calvinists and Arminians can both be saved, yet they interpret the promises of God differently. This is an epistemological effect, and continues after salvation.
Furthermore, our assurance of salvation is based not on a trust in promises, but on our application of those promises to ourselves. Arminians read the promises that nobody will slip out of the Father’s hand and apply them not to themselves, but to the entire Church. Are they certainly correct in this? No, because we cannot possibly be 100% certain.
Assurance is likewise based on Biblical passages which, like all communication, cannot create 100% certain knowledge. Every time the Bible is expounded I learn something new. This proves that my old understanding was not 100% certain (even when it wasn’t entirely wrong).
-Wm
Continuation of #John’s post 441
A person who has evanescent grace cannot determine, or even know, that the grace they are experiencing is only evanescent.
Tanksley’s point no. 5 is irrelevant, because it deals with the backslidden christian, which is not the focus of my argument. Tanksley notes that the backslidden christian, who has no signs of salvation, does not have assurance of salvation, which is of course true since no one (including the backslider) knows the content of God’s secret decree of election- – as Tanksley states, “:there is no direct knowledge given of election). Tanksley does, though, agree in his point 5 that a Calvinist’s only assurance of salvation is “through the symptoms of salvation.”
Point no. 6 is also irrelevant, because I’m addressing “assurance” of salvation, not “lack of assurance”.
Tanksley’s point no. 7, and his explanation of it, is where the train leaves the tracks. I do not argue that the signs of salvation are the same thing as salvation. Consequently, I’m not importing anything from Catholicism or anywhere else (and, I note, Tanksley does not accurately describe Catholicism). I certainly did not, and do not, claim that works save.
Contrary to Tanksley’s attempted restatement of my reasoning, my points are that (1) the signs of salvation are the only way that a Calvinist can know that he is saved and among the elect, and (2) if a person (e.g., a Calvinist) is given evanescent grace then they will have (temporarily) all the same signs that a truly saved and elect person would have. But, and it’s a big “but”, the person experiencing evanescent grace won’t know that their experience is only temporary.
Since no Calvinist can know if the grace they are experiencing is merely evanescent, no Calvinist can have assurance that they are in fact elect.
Re elect children
Tanksley misunderstands my point regarding children. As John Piper observes, if God has not elected one of his children, he will never see that child in heaven. If Tanksley’s son Orion is not elect, there is nothing that can be done about it. I think that it is a terrible thing to wonder if one’s child is elect, and if Tanksley does not, then he would be the odd one out. Or how about wondering if the faith of my child is but a temporary, evanescent grace that will be withdrawn when he is older?
Moreover, if Orion is not elect, then whatever Tanksley does with respect to that child (witness, teach, mentor, model, pray, etc.) is irrelevant and useless vis a vis Orion’s salvation. Tanksley prays for his children, but while such prayer may provide him comfort, it does nothing for Orion’s election. Orion is either elect or not, and if not then all the prayer in the world will not change that.
On the other hand, for an Arminian, there exists the real possibility that each of his/her children will go to heaven. Moreover, what I do does truly affect whether my child (e.g., Navin) will…
I do understand that; but you miss the point. Salvation only saves us from hell if we persevere to death. Arminians in general admit that God “foreknows” and “predestines” (Rom 8:23-30) only those whom He foresees will persevere to death; otherwise the passages regarding foreknowledge and election are impossible to interpret at all.
Now, we agree that Arminians do not ground God’s foreknowledge on His ordaining; rather, it’s grounded on human choice. But even accepting that, I’m protesting that you have a double standard: you demand that Calvinists know their final destiny merely because God has decreed it, while you don’t ask that Arminians know their final destiny, even though God foreknows it (and has on that basis predestined it).
-Wm
I can accept that. If so, I apologize. I admit that it’s not important.
That’s entirely false; I explicitly qualified that to be “the amount of time it takes to destroy one’s Arminian salvation.” That presupposes nothing of the sort.
The probability is zero at the time of death, and zero for the amount of time required before death to “reject God” (by the Arminian definition). Furthermore, assuming that one knows the probability to be zero at some moment in time, the probability is also zero at one minute earlier, since one has followed Christ for a suitable amount of time, by the same argument. There’s a discontinuity at the point where one first comes to Christ; the immediacy and power of that experience obviously protects one from immediate rejection in spite of the lack of broad practice and experience.
Thus we have proven by mathematical induction that a person who’s actually come to Christ and followed Him will NEVER abandon Him. This means Calvinism is true with regard to the Perseverance of Saints.
This proof holds unless you repudiate your claim that nobody could “reject God” (by the Arminian definition) on their deathbed.
I affirm that cultists do this all the time. I deny utterly that Christians have ever done this. A grounded assurance is proven by a faithful death.
Agreed.
I admit and grant this. I stand by the metaphor, though.
To be continued…
-Wm
Re epistomology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As such, it is concerned with answering questions like “what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge?”, “what are its sources?”, “how we are to understand the concept of justification?”, “what makes justified beliefs justified?”, etc.
Obviously, epistomology is of great importance on very basic issues like, “does the christian god exist?”, and “is foundationalism or induction a better ground for justified knowledge”. Given that both Tanksley and I agree that He does, and that He is triune (hence Jesus is God), we need not be concerned with basic epistomological issues.
I assume that we both agree that the Bible is God’s inspired Word and is inerrant and infallible at least in the sence of the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is, of course, possible that either Tanksley or I are misinterpreting the Bible, and the possibility of misinterpretation does give rise to a less than %100 certainty that we are correct. Tanksley is, obviously, correct to note that that uncertainty applies to both the Calvinist and Arminian (i.e., each could misinterpret).
However, that is not my point at all. The possibility of misinterpretation does not figure into my reasoning at all. I assume that the Calvinist is correct in her interpretation. Given this assumption, I then demonstrate that the Calvinist cannot be certain of his salvation and election. She could be experiencing only evanescent grace. The Calvinist system inexorably produces such uncertainty, even if it is assumed to be correctly interpreting Scripture.
On the other hand, if I assume that the Arminian interpretation is correct, I encounter no such uncertainty. The Arminian will have %100 assurance that she is saved. Does she have faith in Jesus? Yes? then saved. No worries that the faith may only be temporary or evanescent.
Calvinism and Determinism
Re my posts 427 and Tanksley’s post 438. Tanksley refers to fatalism as if it were not determinism. However, fatalism is a term that covers various kinds of determinism and has nothing to do with one’s attitude to one’s fate (i.e., whether or not one is resigned to one’s determined fate). Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. There are essentially two kinds of fatalism, one that is entailed by logical laws and metaphysical necessities, and the other that is entailed by particular views regarding the existence and nature of God. So called “causal determinism” is no longer discussed as a species of fatalism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called “logical fatalism”, and when argued for in the second way it is commonly called “theological fatalism”.
Calvinism is a variety of theological fatalism because it believes that everything that comes to pass has been ordained by God, indeed “foreordained” before creation.
And yet, you maintain a legal fiction that one can be actually saved without being saved for life. I call this a fiction because one gains none of the eternal benefits of being saved, but rather only the benefits of the temporary grace you referred to earlier.
Such a person is in exactly the same position under the Arminian system as under the Calvinist system: they enjoyed the external benefits for a while, then left. The Calvinist system has the advantage of being able to use 1 Joh 2:19 to explain that: they were never of us, and if they had been, they would have never left.
In reality, we have hope “not in this life only”; that means all of us expect to be thoroughly saved, throughout this life and into the next. And yet we are commanded to continually seek assurance, not because we doubt the promise of eternal salvation (that’s a 100% certain promise!), but because we know that we can’t be certain of our grounds (none of us have a God-breathed epistle with our name stamped in it!).
-Wm
Re Tanksley’s post 445
I set no bar or threshold for Calvinism other than what Calvinists assert themselves. I do not “demand” that Calvinists know their final destiny.
What I do, rather, is take as my beginning the Calvinist assertion that their system gives it’s adherents assurance of salvation. I then demonstrate that it does not, and indeed cannot.
Arminianism does not make the claims that Calvinism does, because it asserts that the Bible does not make them either. Arminianism (some varieties) interpret the warning passages of the Bible literally and at face value. However, that is something entirely different from the inability of Calvinism to provide either present or final certainty of salvation.
Under the Arminian interpretation of the Bible, there is no such thing as evanescent grace nor can anyone be presently (i.e., at the present time) mistaken about their salvation. If one has Biblical faith, one is saved. End of story.
As for the future, again, Arminians do not have to worry that their present faith may only be evanescent and thus can be withdrawn by God at a future time, resulting in their apostasy. Rather, Arminians acknowledge that God is continualy drawing christians to Him, and working in them Spiritually. That work of God gives hope for the future. It is possible that a christian can reject God even after experiencing His work in their life, but that is simply what the Bible states. Moreover, the longer one walks with God, and the deeper one cultivates her relationship with God, the less likely it is that she would ever reject Him.
regards,
#John
It’s not an inconsistency; rather, it’s because God’s plan is good for more than just the elect people. God placed His Church on earth to benefit the elect, to help the poor, to change politics, to …
There are a huge number of “side” benefits to God’s plan. It’s not _all_ about the salvation of individuals, although that is a vital part of it. It’s not even all about building the Church up — although if that were it, that would sufficiently explain how some people who aren’t saved get tangled into the Church (they were chasing success, perhaps). The benefits given to those people aside from salvation are true benefits for which they, and we, can be thankful, even though we mourn that they left us because they were not ever of us.
-Wm