How do you know whether you are one of the elect?

[abacabb3]

abacabba3,

You say of yourself, "My assurance is guaranteed the moment I detect that I have faith in Christ."

What does "detect that I have faith" mean?

The word "confidence" is used many times in 2Corinthians. Paul was confident of their salvation status because they obeyed him and repented from sin.

2Cor 7:11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.

2Cor 7:15,16 his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling. I am glad I can have complete confidence in you.

But let's say there's an alleged "Christian" who refuses to repent of sin. Should such a person be confident of their salvation status? Or what if one at first believes with joy but when trouble comes because of the word they quickly fall away?

The Scripture teaches of things that you quoted above. So, the faith actually produces results. When you sin, you actually want to not do it the next time. You find yourself capable of having victory over sins you never had before. You love the brethren, a love you never had.

For my wife, it was when she was very lonely and just beginning to learn the faith, she refused to respond to the advances of men that were not Christian. Considering that my wife is not American and she would have had everything to gain being a young woman in her 20s that is lonely and eventually will need to marry an American to stay here, it sounds silly but it is substantial. Maybe not earth-shattering substantial, but it obviously is a desire that rises from the Spirit and not the flesh.

Now, this is me judging her and her judging her. Only God can see the heart and know that it was truly Him at work in this. We can be deceived by others or even deceive ourselves. Ultimately, our assurance does not come from how convincing our faith looks, but what Christ did on the cross. It is Christ's work that gives us confidence and so I do not find it overly useful to then tell people, "Good, now that you are a Christian here are ways you can look like you live like one, because if you don't Christ's sacrifice on the cross does not apply to you."

 

[hedrick]

abacabba3,

You say of yourself, "My assurance is guaranteed the moment I detect that I have faith in Christ."

What does "detect that I have faith" mean?

The word "confidence" is used many times in 2Corinthians. Paul was confident of their salvation status because they obeyed him and repented from sin.

2Cor 7:11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.

2Cor 7:15,16 his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling. I am glad I can have complete confidence in you.

But let's say there's an alleged "Christian" who refuses to repent of sin. Should such a person be confident of their salvation status? Or what if one at first believes with joy but when trouble comes because of the word they quickly fall away?

This is a Reformed group. So we’re committed to operating within the Reformed tradition. That tradition -- even the liberal version I'm part of -- takes a different view than you do. It sees salvation as something God does. It’s incomplete throughout our lives. Because salvation is God’s act, I don’t have to set out guidelines saying just how many good deeds we have to do or how thorough our repentance has to be. God puts us right with himself through faith, and then sets about regenerating us.

As part of regeneration (the usual term is sanctification) I’d expect to see both actions that show love and repentance. But trying to base our own assurance on those things is a mistake. In dealing with other people, we can say that what they are doing is wrong. If we have disciplinary authority (which Paul did), we can take disciplinary action. At times we may certainly doubt that someone could possibly be one of God’s people. I can warn people that their actions are inconsistent with being a Christian, as Paul does many times. But those doubts shouldn’t be turned into a theological system in which assurance of salvation is placed somewhere other than faith. (I note that the comment by abacabba3 that you quote isn't entirely consistent with Calvin, though I think it falls within the limits of the broader Reformed tradition.)

2 Cor 7 is a discussion of the response of the Church to a letter from Paul. It discussed how they handled a sin. I think Paul’s confidence in 7:16 should be taken in that context, as confidence in their ability to deal with that kind of
situation. I doubt that Paul is speaking of whether they are justified or not. He is certainly not speaking of their own assurance of salvation.

Do I think there could be Christians who aren’t repentant? Repentance is part of regeneration, and that’s part of the salvation that God is working in us. But there are actual, justified Christians who at times in their lives fail to repent. Christians fail to admit or deal with sin all the time. That’s part of being simul justus et peccator. God will hold them accountable for that, and if we have disciplinary authority we can hold them accountable ourselves in a human way. But we can’t on that basis claim to know that they aren’t people who God has set right with himself and is in the process of regenerating.

 

[abacabb3]

But those doubts shouldn’t be turned into a theological system in which assurance of salvation is placed somewhere other than faith. (I note that the comment by abacabba3 that you quote isn't entirely consistent with Calvin, though I think it falls within the limits of the broader Reformed tradition.)

This pretty much nails it.

 

[JM]

JM,

The dichotomy the video presents between synergism and monergism contains a logical fallacy. It's non sequitur in that it alleges only two options.

You need to stop right there.

I can only deal with what the Protestant church professes to believe. Not what every Tom, Dick and Harry may conjure up on their own. By comparing what you find in the video with what has been stated, confessionally, by Protestants you will see I’m dead on. The third or more options you refer to exist but not in any meaningful way, not in a way we can engage with, because they lack historic or confessional expression. So please hold your rhetoric for someone that can easily be fooled with sophistry. I will admit it is difficult to move away from Calvinistic definitions because the Reformed church confessions became the high water mark for standard Protestant theology. Whether we like it or not the discussion will centre around or lean toward Calvinistic soteriology for a few reasons,

1) it was the language of all the Reformers across Europe and
2) the language is stated confessionally and therefore has a historic standard use.

The above points will cause a Modernist like yourself to cringe but facts are nasty little things, they don’t do away… The soteriology you profess is the product of Brethrenism, Methodism and American Baptist Fundamentalism. Only a few systematic theologies have been written from this perspective (L. C. Chafer, Millard Erickson, Geisler, Henry Thiessen) and they are not considered scholarly by anyone outside of the Fundamental Baptist tradition. Most are in use but only for a few chapters here and there. This view will never be confessional because American Baptists are too “independent” to agree on anything important in the name of “soul freedom.” This is a mark of a rabid individualism where the witness of the church is ignored for one’s personal views.

I’m running out of time but will try to get back.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[hedrick]

The third or more options you refer to exist but not in any meaningful way, not in a way we can engage with, because they lack historic or confessional expression.

The video is in some sense right. Either God operates monoergically or he does not. However I think there are more than two positions with enough history behind them to be worth distinguishing.

• Starting isn’t the only issue. Many Lutherans, for example, believe that God operates just as claimed by Calvinists to justify us, but that we can fall. Lutherans also tend to follow the later Luther in not drawing the conclusion that God intends to damn a specific set of individuals.
  
• Even looking just at the start, I think the Catholic position, although still synergist, should be distinguished from the Arminian position, because of baptismal regeneration, among other things.
  
• Similarly, I think the typical American decision-oriented theology should be distinguished from classical Arminian theology. I think there are enough writers advocating a position that this that it's possible to engage it. Simply dismissing it is unlikely to be useful.

 

[bcbsr]

JM,

What do you mean by "You need to stop right there"? Stop what? If you don't want to me involved in the dialog then why post to this thread? The philosophy that the validity of a theology is reflected in its popularity, such as you're alluding to, is an argument typically used by Catholics as well. It disgards any scrutinizing of its theology and ends up with a "faith" that's is merely a denominationalized sectarian allegiance rather than a product of rational thinking. Such theologies forbid being subject to scrutiny, such as your statement "'You need to stop right here", because they can't hold up to scrutiny, while characterizing other theologies as "rabid inidividualism". Reformed theology would never have gotten off the ground if Luther had your mentality, basing theology on popularity rather as individual scrutinizing what is popular in light of the Word of God.

 

[bcbsr]

Hedrick,

While quoting from his commentary on Eph 2:9, why are you overlooking what he said of Eph 2:8?

"The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us."

"we bring nothing BUT faith". Is this the rhetoric a modern Calvinist would use? And I assume you understand what the word "BUT" means. And yet you say, "I don’t see how there’s any doubt that he included faith in the gift." That's an unqualified statement if you're basing it on his commentary of those verses.

And even in the quote you give Calvin says, "His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God", which is my point. Namely that while Calvinists typically use Eph 2:8,9 in defense of their "faith is a gift" hypothesis, John Calvin himself says that's not what the verse is saying.

JustAsIam77, can I get an "Amen", or perhaps something more substantive. It's not a football game, it's a discussion.

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick,

While quoting from his commentary on Eph 2:9, why are you overlooking what he said of Eph 2:8?

"The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us."

"we bring nothing BUT faith". Is this the rhetoric a modern Calvinist would use? And I assume you understand what the word "BUT" means. And yet you say, "I don’t see how there’s any doubt that he included faith in the gift." That's an unqualified statement if you're basing it on his commentary of those verses.

And even in the quote you give Calvin says, "His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God", which is my point. Namely that while Calvinists typically use Eph 2:8,9 in defense of their "faith is a gift" hypothesis, John Calvin himself says that's not what the verse is saying.

JustAsIam77, can I get an "Amen", or perhaps something more substantive. It's not a football game, it's a discussion.

The phrase you quote is ambiguous. Calvin is rejecting an interpretation that sees the gift of God as faith, arguing that the gift is the whole process. But the process includes faith.

The whole section emphasizes that salvation is entirely from God, and that we receive it only through faith. I agree that he doesn't specifically say that faith is a gift. But he completely rejects a role for free will. So where can faith come from? I think this issue requires looking at his theology on a broader basis. I don't have time to do that right now, but I'll come back this evening.

 

[BryanW92]

JM,

What do you mean by "You need to stop right there"? Stop what? If you don't want to me involved in the dialog then why post to this thread? The philosophy that the validity of a theology is reflected in its popularity, such as you're alluding to, is an argument typically used by Catholics as well. It disgards any scrutinizing of its theology and ends up with a "faith" that's is merely a denominationalized sectarian allegiance rather than a product of rational thinking. Such theologies forbid being subject to scrutiny, such as your statement "'You need to stop right here", because they can't hold up to scrutiny, while characterizing other theologies as "rabid inidividualism". Reformed theology would never have gotten off the ground if Luther had your mentality, basing theology on popularity rather as individual scrutinizing what is popular in light of the Word of God.

Reformed theology has been around for 500 years and has stood the test of time and scrutiny by much greater thinkers than anyone in our distracted culture can be. Luther was locked in a castle for years and used that time to write great works even though he knew that he could have been arrested and burned for heresy at any moment. We panic if our cell phone loses service for 10 minutes.

But Reformed theology is confident theology and that's why people are so threatened by it. You've had your little bible study group and web site for 20 years and have had virtually no influence on Christianity in that time. Think about what people like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Whitfield, and even Wesley accomplished in a similar period of time. Their scrutiny carries a lot more weight that yours or mine and the host of witnesses who have studied and scrutinized their works since have asked and answered all of the questions.

Remember that you were not invited here to argue against Calvinism. JMs reply to you cut through all of your arguments and brought us back to the fact that we are Reformed on this forum. Your theology rules over on bcbsr.com .

 

[JM]

JM,

What do you mean by "You need to stop right there"? Stop what? If you don't want to me involved in the dialog then why post to this thread? The philosophy that the validity of a theology is reflected in its popularity, such as you're alluding to, is an argument typically used by Catholics as well. It disgards any scrutinizing of its theology and ends up with a "faith" that's is merely a denominationalized sectarian allegiance rather than a product of rational thinking. Such theologies forbid being subject to scrutiny, such as your statement "'You need to stop right here", because they can't hold up to scrutiny, while characterizing other theologies as "rabid inidividualism". Reformed theology would never have gotten off the ground if Luther had your mentality, basing theology on popularity rather as individual scrutinizing what is popular in light of the Word of God.

Not stop the dialogue but dialogue on the facts of the matter. We cannot discussed what has not been confessed or clearly stated. If you claim an non-confessional soteriology, the unrealized third or more options, I can’t be expected to include it in my video.

 

[cubanito]

If I were running, I would know I was among the elect if my oponent gave a concession speech.

JR

 

[abacabb3]

BCBSR apparently reported my comment to a mod and I got an issued a warning for it. I didn't know clear statements of fact were considered rude or offensive comments. We should never underestimate our own blindness apart from the grace of God.

I do request that BCBSR takes these threads to the debate section and not the general board.

 

[bcbsr]

Abacabb3,

No I didn't report you to anyone. Yet another presumption on your part.

 

[hedrick]

The phrase you quote is ambiguous. Calvin is rejecting an interpretation that sees the gift of God as faith, arguing that the gift is the whole process. But the process includes faith.

The whole section emphasizes that salvation is entirely from God, and that we receive it only through faith. I agree that he doesn't specifically say that faith is a gift. But he completely rejects a role for free will. So where can faith come from? I think this issue requires looking at his theology on a broader basis. I don't have time to do that right now, but I'll come back this evening.

I looked at the Institutes. The purpose of the Institutes is supposed to be to establish a basic understanding of the message of the Scripture, which then is expanded upon in the individual commentaries.

Book 3 is the mode in which we receive grace. Chapter 1 speaks of faith as the foundation. It asks why not all have faith? The reason is the operation of the Spirit. Chapter 2 goes into much more detail. In section 33 we the most explicit statement:

Faith is the special gift of God in both ways,—in purifying the mind so as to give it a relish for divine truth, and afterwards in establishing it therein. For the Spirit does not merely originate faith, but gradually increases it, until by its means he conducts us into the heavenly kingdom. “That good thing which was committed unto thee,” says Paul, “keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us,” (2 Tim. 1:14).

I would read his comments on Ephesians in this context.

What Calvin believes is, of course, a different question from what the author of Ephesians intended.

It seems pretty obvious that what is a gift of God is the fact that “you have been saved through faith.” I think the creation of faith is seen as God’s gift. However that doesn’t necessarily commit us to Calvin’s full doctrine of predestination. That God used faith to save us doesn’t necessarily say that there’s no element of our own choice in whether that process took place, even though it’s a gift.

So I’d agree with the classic Calvinist claim that this passage shows faith as a gift, but I don’t think it can be used as proof text for monoergism. That would require a broader analysis of Ephesians and Colossians.

2:10, and also 1:4-5,11 begin to establish that broader context. However I think those passages still leave open the possibility of election of a people more than individual predestination. That’s a disagreement that I’m afraid we’re not going to solve unambiguously. It's simply unrealistic to expect slam-dunk proof texts for issues on which fine exegetes have disagreed for centuries.

 

[abacabb3]

Abacabb3,

No I didn't report you to anyone. Yet another presumption on your part.

Sort of doubt it, being that you said that it was a "reportable" offense. I'm sure a flood of Cavinists went to report that comment which only you took offense to.

Ultimately, I can't be 100%, but I can be real close to it.