Calvinists and Lutherans mean different things when we say "Assurance"
I think a lot of the difficulty the Calvinists are having with what I have been saying boils down to a definition of terms, because I don't think the underlying point is seriously disputed.
Calvinist assurance: You are assured of eternal salvation and under no circumstances will you lose it.
Lutheran assurance: You are assured that here, today, now, when you believe you are truly justified.
In my opinion, this is why when I say baptism is effective, real grace etc., a Calvinist will reply that this cannot be because some people who are baptized go to hell. I am using "assurance" with the Lutheran definition in mind, while the Calvinist is using assurance with the Calvinist definition in mind. Thus, Brett asks me about 1 John 2 and how this fits into my theology. When Brett sees "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments" he assumes that this knowledge means eternal assurance, while we see it as assurance that we have repented today, now and that we are Christ's today and now.
Now, I still think "Lutheran" assurance is far superior partly because by looking into one's self one cannot ever really have any assurance, as several Reformed confessions testify. Ours is a concrete event, and objective fact in history, while the Calvinist's is more of a psychological event which must be teased out, or worse, a mere feeling.
20 comments:
Yeah, that's different. And we're still not on the same page. But before I interact on more depth, let me get clarification on your position. Do you believe that you can loose your salvation? Can you be justified one day and not the next?
Brett,
Yes, we believe we can lose our salvation. Yes, we believe we can be justified today and not tomorrow.
Thanks. Last clarifying question:
If a Muslim were baptized and ate the elements, would he have assurance that right then, that day, he was justified? I expect the answer is no. It does him no good because he did not believe the promises. Is that a correct understanding?
Brett,
The Muslim would not receive the grace offered in baptism if he does not believe, but since he was none the less baptized, he would have access to his baptismal grace if and when he does believe. In other words, the baptizand's faith does not make the baptism real, God's promise does. The same for communion.
Now, what kind of belief in e.g. the grace of baptism are we talking about? It is belief in facts. Since it is God who baptizes, and God who absolves, and God who communes us, the faith required of us is to believe what God says; "Here I wash away your sins...", "Here is my body and blood to renew you...", "Here I absolve you of your sins..." And by belief, it is more like "I believe I live in the USA..." or "I believe I am a man..." It is, as I said, like asking "Does God tell the truth?"
That is the assurance--that God really and earnestly offers his grace in hie word and sacraments. That is true even if I misuse it.
Which is one reason the Lutheran syllogism is different from the Protestant syllogism...
It's not entirely clear to me how faith does not "make" the baptism real. I think I understand but let me attempt a construction. Aristotle defined four categories of causes (given in terms of a statue).
1) The Formal Cause - This is the plan in the sculptor's mind
2) The Material Cause - This is the stone.
3) The Efficient Cause - This is the skill of the sculptor.
4) The Instrumental Cause - This is the hammer and chisel the sculptor uses.
Using these categories, does this fit your scheme?
1) Formal - God's plan of salvation
2) Material - I suppose this would be the redemption that he actually shapes
3) Efficient - The power of God himself (I'm guessing this is what you intend as what "makes" baptism real?)
4) The Instrumental Cause - Both faith and sacraments. Neither one is the efficient cause, but both are necessary in a secondary sense (just like the hammer and chisel do not "make" the statue, the sculptor does, but they are the tools by which he makes it).
How am I doing so far?
Brett,
I am not completely comfortable with the categories, but I will try to work within this framework so we can better understand each other. With that caveat, they are OK except as follows:
1) The formal cause is the Incarnation. That is the "shape" of God's redemptive plan.
2) The material cause is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That would be what we say is the actual redemption which God has shaped and which he would apply to us.
3) The power of God unto salvation is the Gospel itself. This is what makes us Christians.
4) The issue I have with 4 is that since the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, I am uncomfortable with the formulation "faith and sacraments". This is because we believe a sacrament is a "3" united with material things according to Christ's command. A sacrament is another way to proclaim the Gospel. So "4" would be faith--belief the Gospel promises are true and they they apply to us.
I suggest another round, to make sure we are on the same page. I just hope this clears things up a little.
I'm not fond of the categories either. They are just a way to clarify.
#4 seems to be the Gordian knot. I have a hard time uniting the sacraments and the gospel in an unqualified way (even operating under Lutheran presuppositions) since one can partake of the sacraments without partaking in the gospel (like our Muslim buddy). Since we are still fleshing this out, allow me another stab:
1) God's plan of redemption gives birth to
2) The incarnation, the life death and resurrection of Christ. This is the working end of the stick which results in:
3) The gospel. This is the basic content of the historical fact of #2. This gets to us through:
4) The preaching of the word and the sacraments. Both are a way "to proclaim the gospel."
We lay hold of the gospel through faith. In Luther's words, it is something that must be "received by faith" and "which faith apprehends."
Brett,
'1) God's plan of redemption gives birth to
2) The incarnation, the life death and resurrection of Christ. This is the working end of the stick which results in:
3) The gospel. This is the basic content of the historical fact of #2. This gets to us through:
4) The preaching of the word and the sacraments. Both are a way "to proclaim the gospel.""
OK, fair enough--so long as we do not extrapolate too much from these categories.
1) God's plan of redemption gives birth to
2) The incarnation, the life death and resurrection of Christ. This is the working end of the stick which results in:
3) The gospel. This is the basic content of the historical fact of #2. This gets to us through:
4) The preaching of the word and the sacraments. Both are a way "to proclaim the gospel."
Fantastic! I am guessing that we completely agree on points 1-3 but begin to differ on 4. From here let us each construct a simple case for assurance. You obviously have veto rights on the Lutheran position as I do for the Calvinist position. Based on what I have heard you say, here is how I would construct the each one:
Lutheran
From the promise of the gospel in #3 you glean assurance by:
a) Believing that God tells the truth and that you have appropriated that promise through faith.
b) A further physical/historical reality (baptism and the elements) that attends a).
This assurance is in a "now" salvation (for lack of a better term).
Calvinist
From the promise of the gospel in #3 I glean assurance by:
a) Believing that God tells the truth and laying hold of that promise through faith. Although I take more of a Zwinglian view of the sacraments, I too have that physical/historical reality of baptism and the Lord's Supper in my life.
b) The internal witness of the Spirit.
c) The evidence of the Spirit.
This assurance is in an eternal salvation.
Brett,
I think you have described things pretty accurately so I will comment on your latest.
Lutheran
From the promise of the gospel in #3 you glean assurance by:
a) Believing that God tells the truth and that you have appropriated that promise through faith.
b) A further physical/historical reality (baptism and the elements) that attends a).
This assurance is in a "now" salvation (for lack of a better term).
I respond: The proclamation and reception of the Gospel message by faith are both "now" and the offer of grace is "in earnest" for everyone, according to the Confessions.
Calvinist
From the promise of the gospel in #3 I glean assurance by:
a) Believing that God tells the truth and laying hold of that promise through faith. Although I take more of a Zwinglian view of the sacraments, I too have that physical/historical reality of baptism and the Lord's Supper in my life.
b) The internal witness of the Spirit.
c) The evidence of the Spirit.
This assurance is in an eternal salvation.
I respond: OK. But in a Calvinist system, the promise is not for "me" unless I are elect. So to determine if one is elect the hearer has to answer "c" and "d" in the affirmative. This would not be too much of an issue except that various Reformed confessions allow for the loss of "c" and "d" as well as our deceiving ourselves to answer "c" and "d" in the affirmative. Also, the reformed confessions do not promise that "c" and "d" are granted in all cases of effective grace. While that goes on, it is a legitimate question as to whether or not the Gospel promise was really offered in "a" and whether or not it is for "me".
To me that works out to a very subjective and hazy assurance.
That is not where we place our assurance. I have corrected it, Steve has corrected it, the Calvin quote from Dave affirmed it as well. I know that you keep wanting to place election into the picture, but that is not what we do, nor how scripture frames it. So if you will allow me the right to speak for my own convictions I would say that the promise is for sinners who believe (same for Lutherans). We do not place our assurance in our election any more than you do (after all, how do you know that you will happen to die on an "on" day and therefore be one of the elect?) I'm not sure what the "d" is to which you refer but it is immaterial since your accusations are based on us placing our assurance where, in fact, we do not place it.
Brett,
I acknowledge that ultimately a Calvinist's assurance rests in the promises of God. But that is not the question I was asking. We must differentiate between whether or not one is elect and whether or not one knows one is elect. It is the second concern which I have been addressing. Perhaps I have not been clear enough.
Within the Calvinist system, one has to look inwardly for assurance to one's self one is elect. Looking to the promises of God is problematic because if one is or is not elect is not clear until one sees fruit in one's self--except even this evidence can be misleading as per the confessions where the elect can lose the assurance of salvation. So it becomes a serious question as to whether or not one is elect.
The difference in Lutheranism is that we look to the promises of God offered to all in preaching, baptism, absolution and communion. There is no question as to whether or not it is "for me" because by definition it is "for me".
You acknowledge that our assurance is found in the promises of God and yet insist that we must bring election into it. I don't see why. But even so, how does a Lutheran know whether he is elect?
Brett,
"You acknowledge that our assurance is found in the promises of God and yet insist that we must bring election into it. I don't see why."
This is because if one is not objectively elect, it does not matter what one subjectively believes about his election at any point in time. It is also true that if one is elect, it does not matter what one subjectively believes about his election at any point in time. However, in either case there will likely be terrible pangs of conscience as absent infallible knowledge one is elect there is a non-trivial chance one is not elect so assurance falls apart. This is because if one is not elect in a Calvinist system no grace is really offered; this is because within Calvinism all God's offered grace has to be 100% effective or it is not really offered. Thus, if one is not elect one never really received grace, hence the need to look for inner testimony to verify to one's self one is elect.
If we are to look for fruits, for one example, it begs the question "how much fruit?" When we couple this with the Reformed confessions' statement that the elect may lose their assurance (which is not of the substance of faith, which is why it is not a promise) I would like to know how one can have subjective assurance.
How do Lutherans know whether or not we are elect? We don't know. But we can know that when we are absolved we are really absolved, when we are baptized we really are baptized etc. Whether we lose it tomorrow is tomorrow's question, not today's. But today we have assurance we are justified.
If I rest in the promises of God I am saved. If I am saved I am elect.
Don't try so hard to make a problem where none exists. Its ok to admit that you overstated things or misunderstood things. Humility really adorns the gospel.
Brett,
First, you are not qualified to psychoanalyze me. I don;t believe I have over stated things, nor have I misunderstood them.
All I am doing is pointing out how TULIP theology points us to ourselves for verification of our standing with God. This is right in the various Reformed confessions, so I don't know how I am misstating anything. Seeking "inward evidence" is right in the WCF. In fact, you just produced Dr. Cary's "Protestant Syllogism". Will you acknowledge the "Lutheran Syllogism" is different? (It does not require you to agree with it, just to acknowledge it is different) because there is no doubt the grace is earnestly offered in Lutheranism?
If your assurance is based on your faith, then you have verify your faith for your own assurance. How can you "rest in the promises" unless you know for a fact you are elect? A Lutheran does not have to do this.
You agreed a non-elect person could believe he is elect, and vice versa. Right there one's resting in the promise becomes unsure because it is possible for one to deceive himself regarding whether he has "true" faith, whether or not he is elect or not.
You are misstating it and that has been pointed out repeatedly. It seems like you are more interested in winning a debate than trying to understand my position. I look to God not myself. Even in the "inward evidence" it is evidence of God that I seek. If it is not fair to say that you trust in a wafer, then grant me the same treatment and acknowledge that it is God's work to which I look. It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.
I rest in the promises of God by believing that God tells the truth. I don't ground my assurance in election (no matter how many times you insist otherwise). I have been at pains to understand where you are coming from but it does not seem that the same charitable reading has been reciprocated. If you cannot state another person's position in such a way that they can say "Yes that's what I believe" then you have not yet understood.
Brett,
I don't mean to come across as uncharitable, really I don't. It is just that your own confessions say we should look to inward evidence to see for ourselves if we are elect. I don't see another way to interpret that than proving to one's self one has real faith. And given some Calvinist doctrinal distinctives, such as the "L" in TULIP, it seems like a serious issue to me.
But I will take your challenge as it is not unfair to ask for someone else's characterization of one's views to be accepted.
Are any or all of these statements true:
1) The elect may or may not have subjective assurance
2) The non elect may believe they have assurance
3) The elect may lose their subjective assurance for a time or even die without subjective assurance
4) One may be subjectively assured by witnessing the work of the Spirit in one's life, through good works which make one's subjective assurance sure and/or by an internal witness of the Spirit or in other ways
5) Eternal perseverance is decided by God, so subjective assurance is just that--for one's own assurance about one's self
6) If one is not elected by God it does not matter what one believes, feels or does in this life
I am purposely using the adjective "subjective" because ISTM you are mixing God's decree with what a believer's subjective experience. Dr. Cary's article was about subjective assurance, as has been my argument.
If you want to continue, I do.
Thanks for your reply, it's encouraging. Tell you what, I would like to continue this conversation but I need to tie up some loose ends this week at work, home, and church. So If your ok with a short break, I'll return to your question next week.
I'm back!
I will grant the first three points.
But I don't believe this has anything to do with Calvinism verses Lutheranism yet. People are people and can struggle with a sense of security or they can deceive themselves into thinking they are saved. It's like watching American Idol. Some people think they can sing and obviously cannot. Others have an amazing set of pipes but are not yet confident in that ability. That is just human nature. No matter the subject some people may lack assurance or confidence and others will have far too much. In either instance, the person's perception is not in accord with reality.
With these three basic points in place, the Calvinist will pose one means for getting back to reality (which for the believer will be assurance) and the Lutheran will pose another means for getting that person's perception in line with reality. Before I get to the remaining 3 points, are we reasonably agreed here?
Post a Comment