On Accurate Knowledge of Guaranteed Salvation

[JasonPratt]

I’ve been busy on fairly extensive commentary projects the past few weeks (plus normal ‘work’ work), which is why I’ve been slipping on the EU forum for a while. (And with tax deadline around the corner, I doubt this weekend will be any improvement!) Consequently, I’m very appreciative of other posters helping keep various discussions going (and introducing new discussions).

My comrade Prof. Victor Reppert (a renowned expert on religious philosophy, and C. S. Lewis’ theology and apologetics in particular) has recently launched what looks like this year’s opening salvo in his ongoing discussion with various Calvinist apologists (especially at Triablogue) on whether a Christian can have accurate knowledge of being guaranteed salvation by God (i.e. being one of the “elect”) if Calvinism is true.

I doubt I’ll have time to participate much this year, although in past years I’ve contributed extensively to comments in his related posts on Calvinism (Vic is more-or-less Arminian) as one of the few local orthodox trinitarian universalists. (Tom Talbott, another friend of Victor’s, has also sometimes participated extensively in the comments, typically when Vic moves the topic toward universalism compared to Calv or Arm salvation theories.)

But the dueling can be interesting, and this question (which I’ve brought out myself in previous years) is quite pertinent to the question of Universal Salvation. So, I thought I’d introduce the topic here, too, for discussion; with a link for following the thrusts and parries back at Victor’s journal.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty hardline on the side of option 1: even if Calvinism is true (robustly speaking), it is still impossible for anyone to be sure of their salvation (i.e. that they are of the “elect” in Calv terms) prior to final judgment–an important problem, since one of the key selling points of Calv vs. Arm soteriology is a supposed advantage over whether one has to be worried about losing one’s salvation. Even though technically the answer would be no (since per Calvinistic soteriology those whom God intends to save can be sure that God will save them), Calvinist contentions elsewhere tend to require that a person could be thoroughly deceived about whether he or she is of the elect.

Calvinists don’t usually agree with this.

Discuss!! {stepping off to watch and do work elsewhere}

[JeffA]

Take heart buddy:

Isaiah 42:3
A bruised reed He will not break And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice

Matthew 25:34-40
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Mathew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

[JasonPratt]

Guess what else I’m trying to say Jason, is that I AM a sinner, I KNOW that, and IF there is an “elect” or chosen few, I can pretty much guarantee I ain’t gonna be one of them!!

One thing I’ll say in favor of the Calvinist notion of election: it quite properly doesn’t distinguish according to merit. Calvinists are usually very good about being consistent on this point, including in their own favor (or not, rather).

Also, to clarify (since I don’t think I wrote one sentence very well): when I wrote “even if Calvinism is true, it is still impossible to be sure…” my point was that a major selling point of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, is the notion of secure salvation for the “elect”. An Arminian cannot be sure that he won’t cross a line somewhere and ‘lose’ his salvation. Although in practice most Arms I’ve spoken to trust that God won’t give up on them–which is the Calv doctrine of persistence–strictly speaking their position does acknowledge the technical possibility.

The problem with the Calvinist position on accurate assurance of one’s salvation, is that they consider at least some people excluded from God’s intention to save at all, ever. It isn’t even a question of whether they will or won’t be saved, they certainly won’t because God never intended to save them.

This doesn’t look like a problem, on the Calv side, for accurate knowledge of whether they themselves are of the elect. Until you start looking at those same verses of scripture that the Arms point to, where people who by all appearances would be considered elect, and who by all expectations must have thought of themselves as elect, get zorched by God after all. (Israel herself being the archetypal example but apparent ‘Christians’ being among the examples, too.) Arms say, “See, you can lose your salvation!” Calvs have to reply, “No, God never intended to save those people in the first place, because we’re taught that He will accomplish His intentions to save and these are condemned.” Arms reply, “But they thought they were saved!” Calvs have to reply, “They were under a delusion about that.” Arms: “God obviously allowed the delusion, then.” Calvs: “Not only that but God sends delusions to people sometimes.” Arms: “So are you one of the elect, or not?” Calvs: “… …” Arms: “If you say you are, you might be only under a delusion about it.” Calvs: “God wouldn’t delude us.” Arms: “Why? Because you’re one of the chosen ‘elect’? That what you think!” Calvs: “We couldn’t trust Him then! But God is trustworthy!” Arms: “Exactly. Except to the non-elect, on your theory.” Calvs: “But you can’t trust Him to save you either!”

Kaths: “God intends to save everyone (from sin, if not necessarily from hell); and can be trusted to keep persisting at this, regardless of merit (which is good, since it is those with ‘demerit’ who need saving from sin!)”

Others: “BAH! HERETIC!”

I have sometimes seen the defense (which is brought out early in the comments to the link to Victor’s article above) that Calvinists are encouraged not to think about who is or isn’t elect. That’s fine, until the same guy goes on to try to defend why he thinks he’s one of the elect! “Who is or isn’t elect” includes one’s-self. By its tenets, a Calvinist should be agnostic about whether he is or is not one of the elect, and meanwhile trusting God to do the right thing; even if that means (paradoxically) that the Calv’s self-abandoning trust in God, which one might be tempted to consider good evidence for being one of the elect, is only a convenient delusion sent by God for some other purposes (probably for the sake of helping lead those other people over there, who are actually elect, to salvation).

That’s an admirable position to take, in a way (except not, if it’s only a delusion! ); but it totally voids the supposed superiority of Calvinism over Arminianism on the assurance of salvation.