I was reading a post over at the evangelical blog Parchment and Pen by C. Michael Patton entitled “Why I Don’t Like “Once-Saved-Always-Saved.” I understand where he’s coming from and what he’s writing against – the tendency, in certain evangelical circles, to base assurance of salvation on a prayer you prayed when you were a child or the fact that you went forward at an altar call twenty years ago, even though there seems to be no subsequent interest in repentance or faith.
However, the post – and even more so the subsequent comments – illustrates the sometimes unhealthy tendency in American evangelicalism to focus on “what’s happening inside my heart” rather than on “what happened outside of me” – as well as the rather unhealthy (in my opinion) Reformed and evangelical tendency to see repentance and faith as a one-time event, “crossing the starting line” if you will.
I tried to post a comment over at the blog but for some reason it was swallowed up into the void twice (even though I was well under 2000 characters!) so I’ll reproduce my comment here:
As a Lutheran who used to be an evangelical, I think looking inside oneself in any way for assurance of salvation will always place that assurance out of reach.
It’s interesting how “once-saved-always-saved,” “eternal security”, or “perseverance of the saints,” whatever one wants to call it, is used to try to bring comfort to people by saying they can never fall away. Yet the qualifier is “IF their faith is real.” For it to be any comfort, one has to know whether or not they have true saving faith.
I spent years and years on the rat-wheel of morbid introspection, trying to figure out whether my repentance was really sincere enough, whether I had surrendered my life to God enough, or whether I had enough good works to prove I was a true Christian and my faith was real.
It was only when I discovered that the Gospel was entirely outside of me – through Christ’s perfect life lived in my place, and in His death on the cross for every one of my sins, even ones I committed just today or that I commit repeatedly – that I found any sort of peace. I discovered that the Christian life is one of daily repentance and faith in Christ alone, not a “crossing the starting line into true saving faith that you can never lose.” Instead of worrying about whether I am “truly converted”, every day is a day of repentance and faith in Christ, nourished by the hearing of God’s word and the receiving of His Sacraments. He is the one that creates and sustains our faith to the end through His means of grace. The date that I “got saved” matters very little to me. All I know is that I am baptized into Christ, that He put His name on me and that I belong to Him.
I think it is wrong to tell people to focus on their faith rather than on the Object of their faith – Jesus Christ and Him crucified for their sins.
The many comments on the post from folks struggling with the assurance of their salvation, and the well-meaning attempts of others to point them to their works and experiences in order to get that assurance brought back a lot of unhappy memories for me. The comments along the lines of “I-thought-I-was-saved-for-twenty-years-but-found-out-I-wasn’t-and-then-God-REALLY-saved-me-by-giving-me-an-experience-of-REAL-repentance/surrender” brought back even more bad memories, of the sense I had towards the end of my days in evangelicalism that I was unwanted by God and there was nothing I could do about it. He apparently wanted others, because He gave THEM an experience of true repentance/surrender that led to minimal struggle with sin and complete assurance of salvation…but He must not have wanted me, because He gave me no such gift.
The objective promise of Baptism – that through it God forgives my sins and applies to me the benefits of His death and resurrection – led me to the conclusion that God DID want me. It is rooted in Scripture that God wanted me. The words of Christ and of His apostles all said: “This is for you.” Period. Not, “this is for you IF your faith is real.” Just “this is for you.” Such an objective promise leads to faith.
As an illustration: sometimes I really struggle with the sin of apathy. There are days when I find myself completely indifferent to the things of God. The Reformed-leaning evangelical answer to this problem might be: “Maybe your faith is not real. You should perhaps question whether or not you are really a Christian and really have true saving faith.”
The Lutheran answer to this problem is different: “Your apathy is a sin against God. But Christ died even for that sin. Repent and believe that His forgiveness is for you.” Instead of hearing that my sin disqualifies me from being a real Christian, I see God smiling down at me saying, “I forgive you even for that sin. Return to Me.”
Every week I rack up enough sins to earn me eternal punishment thousands of times over (and I’m probably understating that). Yet every week in the Divine Service I hear God’s word to me – “I forgive you even for those sins. Repent and return to Me. Look to the cross, where I suffered and died for you. I put My name on you in Baptism. I give you My true body and blood for the forgiveness of all your sins. You are My beloved child.”
Because of the objective promises of God in Word and Sacrament I no longer have any doubt that God wanted me. And still wants me.
How could I not love such a God?
I really like this post… however I do not think it is distinctly Lutheran by any means and I think the following quote is a misrepresentation.
You Said “The Reformed-leaning evangelical answer to this problem might be: “Maybe your faith is not real. You should perhaps question whether or not you are really a Christian and really have true saving faith.””
I imagine that is unfortunately true of many reformed leaning evangelicals, however it is not a reformed understanding of the Gospel. The Gospel is external and bears on the internal. Assurance is and must entirely be, outside of self or we will be the most miserable people on earth. Should there be evidence of salvation, ie good works etc…? Sure, there should be evidence at a crime scene as well, but it is not always visible or discernible. You can place your hope in the evidence b/c you are not always or even typically able to discern it. Our hope is entirely in Christ, our regenerate state is different than our unregenerate state, but our hope is not at all connected to the mere fact that we have changed, b/c far too often especially when we are acutely conscious of our our sin, we cannot discern the change He has wrought. We are saved by Him alone, not the change His salvation produces. Our assurance is in Him alone… not an inward feeling… or any works of righteousness.
I’ll leave it there. You are probably a lot smarter than me on this. I have grown up Methodist, so I am probably way behind the curve on reformed thinking.
Clarification: at one point I say
You can place your hope in the evidence
that should say “You can’t place your hope in the evidence”
THIS is amazing !! reading.
OH to get the folks in church to want to talk
about things like this.
HA! who are we kidding
even in the Reformed church I very rarely ever
hear folk talk about this – let us talk it.
My Brother Mike St James and I wonder why it
is that no one does.
So refreshing and heart grabbing in reading
ur posts – I am grateful and I discovered U on
Dad Rods site – AM I GLAD.
Like U say – every week I rack up sins –
same ones for me – seem to never go away.
Like wanting that cigarette U just have to have
no matter what – shameful.
But what do I tell the guy who has a sin for 40yrs
that he just never surrenders to the Lord? wow.
But then we have pride and lust and coveting and…
Sin is sin – but never overcoming means never making it
to glory. Thats what is determined I guess. no hope.
Imagine all the folks out there who fit into what U post on
ur site, never say anything?
Thank the Lord I have a Pastor who tells it like it is!!
SO keep up the great posts!!! does me good, even tho…
Hi Jay,
Regarding that which you quoted … I realize that there is a big difference between “Reformed” and “Reformed-leaning evangelical.” However, they do share the idea that if you have true saving faith, you can never lose it. This logically leads to the question, “how do I know I have true saving faith?” (and I think the history of Calvinism bears this out) – because for this doctrine to be of any comfort you have to know whether you have this faith to begin with.
When you say that the post is not distinctly Lutheran I could agree with that regarding the external Word, as there are those in the Reformed community who would completely agree with that aspect of it. But what are your thoughts about the Sacraments? As far as I know even classical Reformed folk don’t believe in baptismal regeneration or the true body and blood of Christ received in the Lord’s Supper – both of which are very important aspects of my point.
Dawn-
Perseverance of Saints is wrongly applied if the intention of it is for comfort, the most comforting of the 5points (which I am not all about reducing theology to 5pts or whatever, it is just convenient for this discussion) is total depravity. This may sound odd, but a firm understanding of total depravity leaves us with hopelessness that can only be answered externally. To understand depravity, and yet also recognize God’s proclamation of Grace in Christ’s work of atonement gives assurance completely outside of oneself. Perseverance properly applied is not so much a comfort to the believer as it is worship of the One whose work is steadfast even in light of our faltering, indifference, and wickedness.
I have assurance because Christ died, and raised again on the third day. This is the entire grounds of my assurance. Nothing can change the fact that He died and rose… I am secure in that, and eternally secure for that matter. What is my assurance? Well whether I feel saved or not, is irrelevant… I think we agree on that.
I do not understand baptismal regeneration, or the Lutheran view on Communion. At the same time I do fully recognize that my views or understanding on sacrament is deficient… so I am open. I do not want to downplay sacrament as most evangelicals have. At the same time I wonder as I read you and others like you if sacrament has become (from a Lutheran standpoint) a physical means of applying the atonement that is convenient for the conscience. (Do not take that last sentence as an attack… it is my honest struggling for a proper understanding of sacrament.) In other words in an attempt to be clear that everything is external, sacrament is used as an external display of grace but still with the end goal of internal satisfaction.
What does a Lutheran do when they don’t feel satisfied by sacrament? Doesn’t that become the same dilemma of an ‘unhappy xtian hedonist’? Help me Dawn, I really am trying to understand and hope to stretch by brain or heart or whatever on this.
Jay
sorry if this was rambling… thanks for the venue to ramble.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your kind words!
Regarding sins that one really struggles with … something I have found to be tremendously helpful in dealing with them is private confession and absolution. This is another way that the objective reality of Christ’s forgiveness is applied to the individual.
I too wonder how many evangelicals live with no assurance of salvation and never say anything about it, perhaps because they are afraid that their fears will be confirmed if they do speak up.
Hi Jay,
Regarding the grounds of our assurance being the finished work of Christ, I completely agree with you. I guess what I’m wondering is – how do the Reformed apply that external reality – required by total depravity – to the individual, especially in light of something like limited atonement?
The Sacraments really aren’t about producing a feeling of assurance – they’re about the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection being externally and objectively applied to the individual. I might not feel anything when I go to the Lord’s Supper, but that doesn’t change the fact that Christ has given Himself to me in the Sacrament, for the forgiveness of my sins. It’s about faith being created by the external reality rather than simply being about feelings. It’s about trusting in the words of Christ, that what He says (e.g. “this is my body, which is for you” or “if you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven”) is always trustworthy and true.
If you’re interested in learning more about the Lutheran view of the Sacraments, Luther’s Large Catechism is a good place to start.
You’re not rambling at all … I welcome a Reformed perspective on this because it helps me to be able to fairly represent that perspective and to further articulate and understand what I myself believe.
laughing to myself because i have my wife’s Luther’s Small Catechism on my shelf here, suppose I could open it and learn something. (She grew up LCMS)
You ask the question:
“how do the Reformed apply that external reality”
“WE” don’t apply it. That is exactly what ‘Limited Atonement’ is about. I like the term ‘specific’ atonement better. Christ has applied the atonement on the cross exactly and specifically for our sin. I suppose you could ask the question ‘how do I know He specifically died for my sins?’ That question is at the heart of this whole post. I do think that Sacrament is a most holy reminder (sorry can’t find a better word rt now) of the actual body and blood of Christ given for us. So while the sacrament is not the “source” of assurance partaking of it is a sure reminder of the assurance we have in Christ. Moreover, I think assurance and perseverance are two entirely different things which have been sort of melted together in evangelicalism. Assurance by nature is internal, perseverance is enacted by the external. Assurance is the inward sense of ‘being saved’ or however you want to say. Assurance being internal is independent of the Gospel, and not ‘required’ for salvation.
I appreciate you not seeing this as a ramble, but honestly it sort of is. Please read these comments as ‘my understanding’ maybe not actual ‘reformed’ theology. I am very new to understanding the Gospel outside of the Arminian context.
I am being careful when talking of sacrament of communion… I do not want to speak of it as a mere symbol or reminder, nor do I want to say it is actual body / blood… so it is difficult to term for me.
It seems to me that whether you call it “limited atonement” or “specific atonement” there is still the problem of “how do I know that Christ died for MY sins?” It becomes a question of “how do I know whether or not I’m elect?”
If your answer is “well, because I believe in Christ,” then you are in that way basing your knowledge on something inside of yourself. You have to have confidence that your belief is genuine.
On the other hand, a Lutheran could say: “I have no idea whether or not my belief in Christ is genuine. I have more confidence in the word of Christ, who never lies but tells the truth. So when He says ‘I baptize you’ – since the triune God is the one who is really doing the baptizing, and the pastor is just the instrument – I believe that I have the new life and forgiveness of sins promised to me. When He says “this is My body, which is for you…this is My blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins”, I believe His promise that the forgiveness of sins is given to me. When He says ‘if you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven’ and my pastor tells me “I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ I believe that what Christ said is true.”
Do you see the difference?
For Lutherans whether one believes that their faith is genuine is of no consequence. It is a matter of faith in the external promises of God – who never lies – given to me personally.
the only difference I see in your position and the reformed position is that you replace the word “assurance” with confidence.
What if you are not “feeling confident” in the promise? Confident in the Gospel? Confident in the Sacraments? Confidence is still an internal feeling and not external.
I suppose the Lutheran has the luxury with regard to their view of sacrament, to have a visible and tangible happening to aid in their confidence… nonetheless replacing ‘assurance’ with ‘confidence’ does not make that “feeling” external.
Do you follow what I am saying? I would agree that your own assurance or confidence is no grounds for salvation, salvation is entirely external. I understand and agree that it is inconsequential whether or not we feel saved… at least with regard to whether or not we are saved.
I find myself in sin often, yea it seems continually… but I am fully convinced that Christ’s work was sufficient for my salvation. I am not saved because I am convinced… I am saved because of His work, and promise to me. I am not sure where we differ, other than that you see Sacrament as a means of receiving confidence… or assurance.
This is a good convo, help me see where I am wrong here if I am.
Hi Jay,
The only place I used the word “confidence” in that last post was in the following sentence:
“I have more confidence in the word of Christ, who never lies but tells the truth.”
Having confidence in the word of Christ is not the same as “feeling confident.” It is not about feelings at all, but about trusting that what Christ says is true. In light of this I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying.
It’s not at all as though I might say, “well, I’m feeling confident in the word of Christ today, but tomorrow I won’t feel so confident.” The word of Christ is either trustworthy or it isn’t. Not believing the word of Christ is … well … unbelief.
To give a sacramental example: I have confidence that the forgiveness of sins is mine when I receive the Lord’s Supper, based on the word of Christ. I may or may not feel forgiven. But the word of Christ is still trustworthy and I believe that I am forgiven. Likewise, when I go to confession and receive the absolution, I have confidence that I have the forgiveness of sins based on the word of Christ – even though I might not feel forgiven at that moment.
Does this make any sense?
Also, my question for you remains: In light of limited/specific atonement, how do you know that Christ died for YOUR sins?
Here’s an article that might help you see the difference:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/carysolafide.pdf
And a longer, more in-depth treatment of the subject, if you have the time:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2215011/Why-Luther-is-not-quite-Protestant-by-Phillip-Cary
Dr. Cary hits the nail on the head, in my opinion. I hope to soon write a post (based on these excellent articles) about the difference between how Luther and Calvin looked at faith.
Differentiate between being confident and feeling confident. I totally apologize if I am frustrating you, I am not trying to. Like being hungry and feeling hungry… it’s one in the same. I agree totally that our confidence is in the word of Christ and His work on our behalf… and that our salvation hinges on his work not our ‘disposition’ towards his work.
How do I ‘know’ my sins are forgiven? Because I have been granted faith in the Son. Faith being an actual possession whether it is felt or not… it is the substance of things hoped for… not the thing hoped for.
Haven’t read the articles yet but will.
by the way, have a blessed easter, and we can resume this next week
If I may cut in here, I’d first like to say that this is a great article as well as a great subject to address!
The confusion that comes with trying to understand our basis of assurance and perseverance has been experienced by probably every group of believers. That being said, it’s best to rely solely on scripture concerning these matters, rather than basing our conclusions on an individual set of beliefs. (I know I’m stating the obvious.) The point I’m making is this; both views have much truth to them. To disqualify one on behalf of the other may be erroneous.
As you explained, Dawn, that you have had your share of both sides (morbid introspection vs. looking outside of yourself), I realized that I too have entered into each of these at different times in my walk. I wouldn’t call one Reformed and the other Lutheran, though I have seen each stress these differing truths. In fact, I am a strong believer in the Truth that each of these groups believe and I discard the rest. This is why we must be careful associating ourselves with something other than the Word alone.
Anyway, it wasn’t until i faced a point of spiritual crisis that I found both views to be of great importance. Both came into balance through the chastening of the Lord. Examining yourself is as important as looking unto Christ. (2Cor. 13:5) Our works and experience are directly related to our Faith (James.2) There is indeed is a point in time that we “cross the starting line”, or rather become a “new creation” (2Cor. 5:17) AND we must continue “running the race”/ “persevering” or in your terms, “daily repentance and faith.”(Heb. 3:12-14) There is a point at which we enter this covenant with God and there is keeping covenant with God (Luke 22:19-20.) Do you see what I’m getting at? We need the whole counsel of God.
Additionally, both sides would agree that the Word is solid and unchanging while our emotions are not. However, this does not mean that our emotions are useless and should be ignored altogether. God, Himself is emotional. I believe part of His sanctifying work involves teaching us to bring our emotions in line with the Truth. Just like we should love what He loves and hate what He hates, amen?
So then when it comes to our salvation we should be experiencing feelings of joy, gratitude, love, etc. If we instead are experiencing feelings of fear, doubt, confusion, etc., it doesn’t change anything, but these emotions must be brought back in line by the renewing of our minds. The Truth must lead our emotions, rather than deny them. As you explained, the very Truths you mentioned above are the means by which we find assurance and FEEL assured. We can glorify God in our emotions as well. Of course this only happens by the chastening and encouragement of the Lord. He will only chastise those whom He loves and this external work brings great inward assurance which in turn causes us to persevere.
Ok, I’m rambling…sorry
To conclude, I’ll say this… The crisis i experienced brought me to an even greater Truth. Why was I so concerned about my salvation? If God is sovereign and He is doing all of this for His own glory, why can’t I simply rejoice that He will be glorified? Is this about Him or me? Do I need to benefit in order for Him to be worthy? The answer is….NO…He is worthy whether I go to heaven or hell, whether I’m saved or not. At that point I simply rejoiced that I can know Him today. And even when I faced the possibility that I may be destined to hell… I was overwhelmed with gratitude that I can enjoy Him while I’m alive and that He would be glorified. This, sister, was when I knew full assurance. Only a child of God could cope with these truths and still rejoice in Him
After I let go of the pursuit of assurance, I was no longer torn. I saw the beautiful balance that I’ve described above!
Again, I realize how long this is. It might as well be another article. lol. Thanks for letting us share!
SDG!
I’ll wait till you’ve read the article, Jay…
Have a wonderful and blessed Easter!
Hi Jeffi,
No problem – thanks for sharing. I hope I don’t offend you by what I’m about to say…imagine me saying this in the kindest way possible:
So somehow I need to get to the point where I don’t care if I go to heaven or hell? That it’s selfish of me to want to KNOW beyond doubt that I am saved and that Christ died for me personally? This is the best that Calvinism has to offer to souls terrified by their sins? Not “believe that Christ died for your sins, and that He loves you and forgives you” but “love God so much that you care more about His glory than about your own salvation”? (As an aside, this is one of the reasons I have such a HUGE problem with the teachings of folks like John Piper, of which this is VERY reminiscent.)
What you are saying illustrates perfectly what I described in this blog post. You had an experience in which you came to the point where you no longer cared about assurance, and the fact that you care more about the Glory of God than about your own salvation convinces you that you are saved. But what happens if one day you feel differently, and you experience terrors of conscience and real fear of hell?
When I am taking my last breath I do not want my hope to lie in my love for God, but in His love for me. I suppose the latter is not possible if you are not convinced that He died for you.
Again, please don’t take this as a personal attack…I don’t doubt that you are very well-meaning and sincere in what you have shared. But for those of us whom God has not seen fit to give such experiences…well, I might have taken your experience as just another indication that I am unwanted by God, if not for the word of Christ in the means of grace.
Dawn,
I absolutely understand your struggle with these thoughts. And I am in no way offended by what you said. Your honesty is greatly appreciated! Also, I pray that nothing I’ve said has come accross offensively either. I have the tendency to be blatant to a fault :/ Sorry if I’ve done this.
Anyway, I first want to mention that while I understand your concerns about relying on “experiences”, it’s important to remember that this walk with God IS experiential. To say that one must have no experience of God in their walk would be to disregard the change of regeneration (Eph. 4:22-24), the teaching by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26.) and the manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit which includes PEACE WITH GOD. (Gal 5:22.) I’ll agree that these are not always experienced in the same way and they are not the basis for our faith, but they MUST be experienced by every believer.
I’m not sure what Calvinism has to offer terrified souls, and I haven’t listened much to Piper, so I can’t say that I speak for them. My point of view comes directly from scripture. If you need any references to what I’ve said, I’d be happy to share them
So….to clarify, the point in mentioning my experience was not to instill comfort of any kind, but Godly fear. (don’t you feel better already) Simply put, once we understand that God is in total control over our salvation, we will know that there is nothing we can do to change His mind. He’s doing this for His own glory and He is immutable. That means if we can’t gain it, we also can’t lose it. Ultimately it is His decision and none of our doubts, fears, sins, etc. will change that. Praise the Lord! How can we not love Him for that?
So then we must trust in ALL of what Christ has said. Both these truths AND the truths you mentioned above. The full counsel of God. And regardless of what we may believe, the truths of God require a response!
My advice to any saint is this – Consider these things and you WILL have an experience of some kind
And yes, there are days where I do feel uncertain because of sin and doubt, but like I said, He is faithful to chasten. In fact, it is this same fear and love that is restored to me through these same truths.
Anyway, sis, If you have any questions/concerns please feel free to address them. And thanks again for writing this article and allowing us to share!
Dawn,
Alright, I read quickly through the first article you linked to. On page 5 of the pdf… which is pg 267 of the original doc you see a strawman set up that the rest of the section proceeds to knock down. Nobody says salvation comes at the moment you can say ‘I believe’.
Notice in the second paragraph on page 5, we see an all out attack on a strawman, and then ultimately baptismal regen becomes the answer. This whole notion of ‘reflective faith’ is not supported by anyone with a truly reformed understanding of the Gospel. The argument against ‘reflective faith’ may be a sound argument against Arminianism and the notion that it comes down to a ‘genuine decision’ but it is a caricature of protestant theology that is not true.
Now back to your argument a couple comments ago. Christ’s word is trustworthy, whether or not you believe it, or feel it to be trustworthy… we agree there. Nonetheless it still does not change the fact that assurance is internal. How much assurance you have is dependent upon how much you believe that Christ’s words are trustworthy. Do you get this? Assurance is an internal response.
Moreover I think we make a large jump when we affirm that Jesus is the one doing the baptizing primarily and the pastor is a mere instrument. The article asserts this as fact without providing scriptural support. John the Baptist seems to indicate that Jesus would not be baptizing with water, but instead with the Holy Spirit and Fire. Moreover in the great commission it does not seem that Christ indicates that He is the one who will be baptizing… He only sends others to do so in His name.
I again, I want to reaffirm that my understanding of sacrament seems deficient to me, and I am not satisfied with my own understanding, so I am very pleased to have this conversation and it is causing me to do much thinking. I very much appreciate this. (Typed this pretty fast, so there are probably typos all over)
I read through my posts, and have seen a slight flip flop on my own position. I initially affirmed that assurance is completely external, now have said assurance is by nature internal.
Let me clarify, our grounds for assurance are completely external, assurance itself is internal.
Hi Jeffi,
I don’t think I ever said that one must have no experience of God in their Christian walk. I said that one cannot look to one’s inner experiences as the basis of their assurance. There’s a big difference.
When you say things like “If you are a believer, you MUST experience peace,” you are turning something that is a fruit of the Gospel into Law, and throwing people back onto themselves.
I’m curious as to your church/denominational background. In my experience most people who say things like “I’m just getting all this directly from the Bible” don’t realize the theological baggage that they bring to the text.
I do indeed believe that God elects us to salvation. I do not believe that He elects people to be damned. If that’s confusing, it has to do with the difference between how Lutherans and Calvinists (that’s what you sound like, so pardon me if that’s not what you are) view the role of reason in determining theology.
You said, “consider these things and you WILL have an experience of some kind.” You seem to be assuming that I’ve never had an experience of any kind with God. I absolutely have – not sure how much you’ve read of this blog. But I refuse to trust in any of them for the assurance of my salvation, because inner experiences can always be questioned. The word of Christ is the only sure thing.
Hi Jay,
So do you or do you not agree with the “Standard Protestant Syllogism” found on page 4?
I disagree with you regarding the alleged straw man on p. 5. The author might be taking the syllogism to its logical conclusion in Arminianism (and probably Reformed-leaning evangelicalism as well), but I think the classically Reformed have the same problem, only instead of the emphasis being on the moment of conversion/”the hour I first believed”, the emphasis is on one’s present faith. I’ve even heard Horton and Riddlebarger (who are as classically Reformed as it gets) say things like “you know you are saved/elect because you believe in Christ.” I don’t think the author of the article ever mentioned “making a decision.” I’m curious as to your knowledge of the history of Calvinism and Puritanism…angst over whether one really had faith or whether one was really elect seems to have been a rather common theme.
You said, “How much assurance you have is dependent upon how much you believe that Christ’s words are trustworthy.” My question for you is: which words are you referring to?
Regarding water baptism vs. Holy Spirit baptism…I think your statement (based on Matthew 3:11) proves a little more than you want it to. If it is true that unlike John the Baptist, “Jesus would not be baptizing with water, but instead with the Holy Spirit and Fire”, why are the Christians in Acts still baptizing with water? If the Holy Spirit baptism is all that is necessary then why have water baptism at all?
In Acts 2:38 Peter says “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.” It doesn’t look to me like there is a dichotomy between water baptism and Spirit baptism here. Baptism brings forgiveness of sins and receiving of the Holy Spirit.
Regarding Christ being the one baptizing, there are several Scriptures to which I will point you. It seems rather clear that God is the one doing the baptizing:
Romans 6:3-4 – “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” – Uniting us with Christ’s death and resurrection is something that only God could do.
Ephesians 5:25-27 – “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” What does “washing of water with the word” refer to if not to water baptism? And who’s doing this washing?
Colossians 2:11-12 – “In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” – Again, who’s doing the baptizing in this passage?
Titus 3:4-7 – “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” God our Savior = Jesus Christ. As to what the “washing of regeneration” is:
John 3:5 – “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” What “water” is this if not the waters of baptism?
In any of these passages, what indication is there that Spirit baptism is what’s being referred to?
Dawn, Thanks for putting that all together… understand that I am not trying to open a can of worms with the baptism of the Spirit, my point (which you I am glad you did address) was only that John the Baptist made the point that Christ was going to be baptizing differently than with water. I think plain reading of all of Jesus’ baptism accounts leave the reader with no other honest choice than to believe that Christ baptizes differently than John.
And, no, this does not negate in any way water baptism, or replace water baptism. Had water baptism been replaced about 20 gajillion passages in acts and the epistles would be meaningless.
Baptized by Christ, and baptized in Christ doesn’t carry the same meaning. Now I will admit, the scriptures you posted are all compelling arguments for Baptismal regen… John 3:5 is a passage that is interesting to me, it get debated so much, and certainly it seems odd as some assert that it be amniotic fluid, I do believe and agree with you that it is reference to baptism.
The text of John 3:5 seems to me to indicate more that mere water baptism is not sufficient to save.
If you read the end of John 3 up until John 4:2 you will see that Christ was not water baptizing anyone, but His disciples were.
As for “what words was I referring to”… all of His words which make promises. My point in that statement was to show that assurance is internal and conditional upon belief. Assurance of salvation and salvation are not the same thing.
Finally, I am that versed in the history of Reformed theology, I am relatively new to theology outside of the Arminian context.
Thanks for taking the time to deal with me Dawn, if this is tiresome to you, or you see it to be unfruitful please do not feel obliged to continue. I am very thankful for this convo, and hope it continues… but I don’t want to drive you crazy, or leave you feeling like you are talking to a brick wall that just cant get it.
errr… I should proof read…
should say
“I am NOT that versed in the history….”
Wow, there are really lots of areas this conversation is covering. I understand the focus to be ‘assurance’, but would also like to address a few other points mentioned. One that really stands out is election. Dawn, you say you believe in election, but not that God would elect some to be damned. Did not Jesus himself choose Judas? And then there is Romans 9-10. Did God not hate Esau before he was even born? Or did He not raise up pharoah for the purpose of glorifying Himself? Paul even addresses the questions sure to be raised in Romans 9. What if God created some vessels for dishonor? Who are we to answer back to God? He does create some, for His own purposes and will, that will be turned away from the kingdom and cas into outer darkness.
Now baptism, which according to Hebrews is “foundational” is covered throughout the new testament. You have already quoted much. But I would like to add 1 Peter 3:18-22, which is a pretty clear explanation. “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh BUT made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” So baptism (water) is simply an appeal to God for a good conscience. This ‘conscience’ has direct
relation to our assurance. Here we should turn to 1 John which directly deals with ‘assurance’. “By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, BECAUSE we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.” 1John3:19-24
This is one of the most beautiful passages on biblical assurance. And it’s not in direct reference to baptism other than the previous mention of a good conscience. Yet even if our heart condemns us, God is greater!
Now there are two parts present in the baptism. Being baptized into His death, and also rising again to newness of life. It was the Holy Spirit that brought Jesus from death and is the same with us. Hence the promise of the Holy Spirit through baptism. So the question of assurance is tied to the ‘new life’ only possible by the Holy Spirit. “And by this we KNOW that he abides in us, by the SPIRIT whom he has given us.” Now, I must attend to other things, but God willing will return to this conversation. But the important thing is to realize, it is the Spirit who gives life! Yes baptism (water) is proper but by no means do I find it to be a requirement in scripture. (see thief on cross) And we know we must be born again to see the kingdom. Yet, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear it’s sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.” John3:8
Our assurance is fully dependent on God through the Holy Spirit, not the actions, rites, practices, or thoughts we attempt to subdue the conscience. We do well to ‘test ourselves’ and look to the scriptures for am answer to a greater question… How do we know we believe? In that, with honest personal evaluation, I am sure we will find the Spirit will teach us true biblical assurance!
Hi Jay,
I come from an Arminian background as well (albeit Arminians who believed in once-saved-always-saved), and I have a bit of familiarity with Reformed theology as I was leaning that way for quite a while before coming to Lutheranism. So I completely understand where you are coming from. If I seem frustrated it’s because I very much want you to understand! But much of my straightforwardness isn’t really frustration. I am finding this conversation to be actually very thought-provoking. You all are forcing me to better understand and articulate my own beliefs.
Regarding John’s Baptism vs. Christian Baptism…these two baptisms are different, since the latter brings the Holy Spirit and the former doesn’t. The Holy Spirit was only given through Baptism (as one of the means of grace) after Pentecost.
You said, “The text of John 3:5 seems to me to indicate more that mere water baptism is not sufficient to save.” I am not at all saying that baptismal regeneration as believed by Lutherans is equal to the Roman Catholic idea of ex opere operato (i.e. the sacraments are efficacious by virtue of the work performed, apart from faith – almost like a magical act). However, I’m not convinced that Jesus was creating a dichotomy here. Whether we first receive the Holy Spirit upon baptism as an infant or whether we first receive the Holy Spirit when faith is created in our hearts by the word of God, water and the Spirit go together. If God really gives someone repentance and faith then would be unthinkable for that person to then reject water baptism. I’m not sure the text indicates that Nicodemus was even thinking about Baptism, let alone in an ex opere operato way.
Christian Baptism as such (“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), where Christ is the one doing the baptizing, does not seem to have been instituted until after His death, resurrection and ascension. The baptism that His disciples perform during Christ’s earthly ministry seems to me to be the same sort of baptism as John’s baptism. I could be wrong about this because I’ve not really looked at it very closely…I might have to get back to you on that one!
So you do believe in the “Standard Protestant Syllogism?”
Not even saying that I don’t. But I think the Lutheran syllogism is more crucial to one’s actual assurance. We have to look at the promises of Christ to us personally over and above trying to figure out whether we have faith. Faith comes through objective reality.
Hey Dawn,
I can see that what I’ve said hasn’t been clearly understood, and I hope you aren’t feeling personally attacked. I often struggle to communicate my thoughts on a general level. I’ll try harder to do that.
To answer your questions as briefly as I can….
I agreed with you that experiences are not the basis for assurance. I simply did not want the other side to be overlooked!
My church/denominational background to include groups or beliefs that I’ve studied for a time are just too many to mention. And trust me, I tried. But I guess the point I want to make is that it really doesn’t matter. We should all be like the Bereans, testing everything we hear to the Word of God.
It may be hard to believe, but it really is possible to learn the Word directly from the Word, Himself. Most of what I know, biblically, I learned in my garage with my bible. And there wasn’t a single person I knew that had ever heard the same things. It wasn’t until years later that I heard the names/titles of Calvin, Luther, Protestant, Arminianism, etc. The newest titles being Reformed and Calvinistic of which are closest in theology to what the Holy Spirit taught me directly.
I’m glad to hear you believe that God elects us to salvation. I also believe that He “has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Rom 9:18) as well as creating “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom 9:22). However, that’s a whole other discussion
When I said, “My advice to any saint is this – Consider these things and you WILL have an experience of some kind,” I really did mean ANY saint. It was not meant as a personal attack. And again, I don’t believe we should put our trust in them for assurance, but I can say that our response to these truths reveal a lot.
Finally, I’m feeling the need to address this statement more adequately…
-”When you say things like “If you are a believer, you MUST experience peace,” you are turning something that is a fruit of the Gospel into Law, and throwing people back onto themselves.”-
Ok. First of all. Peace is one of nine fruits of the SPIRIT (Gal 5:22). And YES, we as children of God must be bearing that fruit. Here are some references. (Mat 7:17-18, Mat 12:33, John 15:2, Luke 6:43, John 15:16) Matthew 13 is also a great reference. Check the parable of the soils.
It’s also good to note that the first 3 fruits, Love, Joy, and Peace are experienced/felt inwardly.
Hope this answers your questions and addresses your statements more clearly!
Yes I agree with the standard protestant syllogism – but I think there was a major breach in logic moving from the syllogism on page 4 to the ‘reflective faith’ on page 5.
I still contend there is a difference between being baptized by Christ, and being baptized into Christ.
I also would contend that John’s baptism was very public we read of ‘all of Jerusalem’ going out to be baptized, moreover the disciples continued baptizing. John 3:5 in light of public willingness to be baptized by water seems to point to a dichotomy of water and spirit.
I am still hung up on ‘Christ doing the baptizing’. Ephesians 5:25-27 makes that case better than the other verses which you quote (at least that verse convinces or persuades me of your argument the most.) However in that text, the Greek does speak of a ‘washing’ or more a ‘bath’, but uses the figurative language as oppose to explicitly saying ‘baptism’. I don’t say that to negate that verse to be about baptism, I do believe this verse is referring to baptism, but it is a loose reference and intentionally so. Recall this passage to to give example for husbands in their treatment of their wives, which doesn’t seem to jibe literally with baptism… but loosely.
Gosh we could go on an on. We can agree that your argument that the Pastor merely serves as an instrument as Christ does the baptizing is the pivotal point of the entire post, it is the ‘fact’ that your entire system hangs on. Moreover that the word’s spoken at baptism are spoken by Christ through the pastor directly to the one being baptized is a pivotal to this belief. Right? This is what needs to be debated, I see this entire dialog to be about the roll of sacrament in salvation.
Also, I may not be able to get back to this for awhile. I am pretty slow at composing these posts, and I am not skilled in these types of dialogs so it eats a little chunk of my time. I will continue to participate on this thread and look forward to it and do not want it to stop. I just may be down to once or twice a week on the posting
Hi Lazaro,
Double predestination is a topic for a whole other post. For now I’ll refer you to the Formula of Concord SD XI for what I believe about that.
Regarding 1 Peter 3:18-22, it’s funny you should quote that passage since it directly says “baptism now saves you.” Baptism is indeed an appeal to God for a good conscience. How does one get a good conscience? Through the forgiveness of sins which comes through baptism (as one of the means of grace).
As regards to whether Baptism is a “requirement” in Scripture, we Lutherans don’t teach that one will absolutely not be saved without it (again, the thief on the cross is an example of this). Christ said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). It doesn’t say that he who is not baptized will be condemned. But we do teach that willful rejection of baptism is a sign of unbelief.
You said, “Our assurance is fully dependent on God through the Holy Spirit, not the actions, rites, practices, or thoughts we attempt to subdue the conscience.”
Are you saying that one has to wait for the Holy Spirit to give you some sort of experience/feeling of assurance in order to be assured of salvation?
If by “actions, rites, practices” you are referring to baptism, please keep in mind that Lutherans believe baptism to be something God does and not a work of man. It is not man doing works or thinking the right thoughts to get assurance, but God who gives that assurance through the means of grace.
Hi Jeffi,
With regard to the fruit of the Spirit … it is a matter of emphasis.
Trees do not bear fruit by someone telling them, “you’d better bear good fruit!” Instead, they bear good fruit by being watered and given nutrients. In the same way, Christians don’t bear good fruit by people telling them “you’d better have X, Y, and Z happening in your life or else maybe you’re not really a Christian!” They bear good fruit by being watered by the Word of God and fed by Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. Scripture tells us that faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17).
Blessings,
Dawn
Hi Jay,
The thing is: the standard protestant syllogism requires reflective faith – “I’m saved because I believe in Christ.” And for this to be true you have to know you meet the condition of belief. This isn’t necessarily the same thing as “I’m saved because I made a decision.” It just as easily applies to looking at one’s present state of faith.
Maybe these two ways of putting it will be helpful:
A. I’m saved because Christ died for my sins.
B. I’m saved because I believe Christ died for my sins.
One is reflective faith, and the other isn’t.
Regarding the Ephesians text… just think about “washing of water with the Word” and “washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.” If one refers to baptism, then why not the other? Also, in the Ephesians passage the main point is sacrificial love. It’s almost like the Apostle Paul can’t resist elaborating on what Christ’s sacrificial death won for us (sanctification and cleansing from sin). It’s not as though this correlates precisely with how husbands are to love their wives.
Regarding “Christ doing the baptizing” being the thin thread that my entire argument hangs on…I could turn that around and say that your entire argument hangs on the idea that Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are two entirely separate things. Please elaborate on why you do not feel that the Scriptures I quoted show that Christ (or at the very least God) is the one doing the baptizing. Don’t worry if you can’t get to this right away, or even any time soon…I have a “real life” too!
No No No on the reflective faith! We are saved because of the work of Christ… belief is a product of that work! Belief is product of Christ’s work. We believe by grace and because of Grace, we do not believe in order to inherit grace. Please please understand this… my salvation and my belief are both results of Christ’s work. Christ is the actor, belief and salvation are by products of his action. (I am now have trouble with the link to they 19 page doc.)
Can we say those who believe are saved? YES! Can we say that those who are saved believe? YES! Can we say that people are saved by belief? NO! Belief is a product of the Christ’s work as is justification.
I don’t know if my argument hangs on a dichotomy (in fact I am not even sure what I am arguing about anymore! LOL)
To come back full circle… how is believing in the promise of baptism different than believing in Christ? How is one external and the other internal?
I am going to have to leave it here. Again, thanks for taking the time Dawn.
So I have attempted to not read the other commentors on the thread in order to refrain from double teaming or whatever, I just didn’t want to do that. But now I have. I thought Lazaro’s argument was good, I also found your response to be enlightening, especially with regard to Lutheran belief concerning the unbaptized.
You can follow Jeffi – @Jeffi22
and Lazaro – @zarotribe
they are siblings and very encouraging and enjoyable to interact with. this discussion could be better suited for live dialog on twitter under a selected hashtag.
Good response Dawn, I am refreshed that Lutherans don’t make baptism a ‘work’ done with the intention of re-affirming one’s standing before God, (and I do realize this is a ‘general’ statement regarding Lutherans, there’s always the exception.) I personally know at least one that bases his salvation on the facts that he has been baptized and partakes of communion.
Back to assurance. You put forth the example of baptism as the “rites, practices, etc.” I was referring to. And whether it’s baptism, confession, deeds, communion, etc.; none of these things can give a person ‘assurance’ of salvation. Can we do anything that will give us assurance? By no means! We must remember that as of right now, none of us are saved! We have a HOPE of salvation that is not fulfilled until we finish the race. And the ‘once saved always saved’ idea is just a poorly worded claim to a powerful biblical truth; “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” – Phil 1:6
So again, can we have assurance? YES! But I put forth again, it begins with God and is worked in the believer through the Holy Spirit and WILL reflect in the life of that believer. That is why we look for signs of life, sanctification, and ongoing desire and love for God and His Word! These will be ‘good works set out by God beforehand’, not the dead works of legalism we are familiar with. And personally, one would have to examine his/herself to find which is which. Motive has a LOT to do with it!
We must also realize, fruit alone is not the test. It must last (sanctification will produce!) And to contrast looking only at these few things for a basis of assurance, we should look at 2 examples.
1. Matt. 7:21-23- “I never knew you; depart from me…”
These spoken of in these verses profess “Lord, Lord”, prophecy, cast out demons, even did many mighty works, all in His name. Yet they are cast away from the kingdom. He never ‘knew them’, He never gave his ‘seed’, the Holy Spirit to them! Yet in their shoes, knowing my own failings, I am sure I would have assured myself of belonging to Him; “I must be His, look at all these things “I” do in His name!” Wow, kind of an eye opener! Still, we shouldn’t base our assurance on His works through us, He can use rocks and donkeys for such!
2. Hebrews 6:4-8 -”fallen away”
This is a clear warning to all of us. We say we have the Holy Spirit, and maybe so. But It is not enough to just believe we do. We must be bearing fruit if we are to have assurance. These verses imply that one can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, yet fall away; and the deciding factor seems to be in verses 7 and 8, the bearing of fruit!
So I will say this, we may try to convince ourselves that we truly believe. We might look at our thoughts, our hearts, even our actions and practice, to find ‘assurance’ . We could spend our lives trying to know that we will be saved. But we are not called to know if we have assurance, we are called to know and love Him! As long as we keep our focus on Him, He is faithful to keep us! His grace IS sufficient!
About the question of having an ‘experience’ with God. I wholeheartedly believe one MUST have an experience with God! He is God! The Almighty! Sovereign! How can one not have an experience when confronted by a Holy God? I think the bible puts forth plenty of examples of believers having an experience with God; at least through the HolySpirit! Never read of someone believing and not knowing about it!
And no, we don’t have to wait around for it! We have only to ask!
Thanks for taking the time Dawn, I appreciate you articulating what you believe. I look forward to further chats, be it here or Twitter! Z.
Sorry for the late reply…had a medical emergency in the family but now I’m back!
I really think I have frustrated you now, Jay…I do apologize. It might be because of the wording. I am not saying that anyone thinks they are “saved because they believe” (except maybe certain types of Arminians). It’s more a matter of “how do I know I’m saved” than “what causes my salvation.” I probably should have prefaced my illustrative sentences with “I know” (i.e. “I know I am saved because…”)
I think just about any Christian would say “My salvation is caused by Christ’s death on the cross for my sins.” When it comes to “how do you know *you* are saved?” Protestants will generally say, “well, because I believe in Christ.” It’s a matter of how you *know*, not how you’re saved.
I might just take you up on the invitation to a Twitter conversation or two on these sorts of topics…
Hi Lazaro,
You wrote, “I personally know at least one that bases his salvation on the facts that he has been baptized and partakes of communion.” Do you mean by this that he bases his salvation on these things apart from faith in Christ?
In any case, your further remarks on where we should look for assurance seem to illustrate what I was talking about in my original post quite nicely (regarding pointing to works and experiences for assurance). To summarize:
1) I have to “look for signs of life, sanctification, and ongoing desire and love for God and His Word.” Of course, these have to have the right motive or else they won’t give me assurance. But how do I ever know that these things in my life have the right motive?
2) “…fruit alone is not the test. It must last.” So I have to be bearing fruit with the right motives and not only that, it has to last. Otherwise, in the words of John MacArthur, I might be a “spiritual defector who hasn’t defected yet”! How do I know that I will persevere to the end of my life?
3) And then you say, after quoting Mt. 7:21-23, “Still, we shouldn’t base our assurance on His works through us, He can use rocks and donkeys for such!” So…you admit that you can’t base your assurance on your works. Which is it?
4) And then you say, “We must be bearing fruit if we are to have assurance” but then say “we are not called to know if we have assurance, we are called to know and love Him!” We can have assurance, but on the other hand we are not called to know whether we are truly saved? Which is it?
It just seems to me as though assurance in the Reformed system boils down to “Just love God”. But how can one love God if they are not sure whether or not God loves them? It almost seems like you end up in the same place that Roman Catholicism ends up – not being sure that you have a gracious God, as the Lutheran Reformers put it. I don’t recall anyone ever answering the question of “how do you know Christ died for you personally?” The only answers I am getting are basically “you can’t know, just love God and everything will fall into place.”
Regarding experience…so you had (in the words of the original post) an “experience of true repentance/surrender that led to minimal struggle with sin and complete assurance of salvation”? Is this what you are saying that I should ask God for? Do you think I’ve never had experiences of any kind? My problem is that I *have* had them and they never last in terms of bringing assurance. My only hope is Christ crucified for my sins (and for mine personally).
Thanks for your thoughts, Lazaro…this has been a great discussion!
Dawn
I forgot to answer the second part of Jay’s last post in my zeal to answer the first part:
“To come back full circle… how is believing in the promise of baptism different than believing in Christ? How is one external and the other internal?”
Baptism is something that is applied personally to the individual at a specific time and place. It is external in that it was literally something that was done to you from the outside. Baptism applies the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to me concretely, and I can trust that God’s word is true. Believing in the promise of baptism IS believing in Christ, because Christ is the one who saves me using this means of grace.
Regarding “believing in Christ” – one has to know how that applies to them personally. Christ’s death on the cross was an external event in history but how does it apply to me personally? We’ve beat the “how do I know I believe” horse to death already. I think the Reformed have the added problem of “how do I know Christ’s death was for me?” With baptism there isn’t any doubt. I am baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection.
Just to clear a few things up… I am not very clear in articulating what I mean.
1. In the first two responses (#1&2), I am talking about fruit, not works in a legalistic sense. Fruit is produced by the Holy Spirit as we abide in Christ (the Vine)! In our flesh, we may produce what looks like fruit but it doesn’t last. As far as motive goes, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict. “How can we know if motive is right?” We can and WILL know if in fact the Spirit dwells in us! So to answer your reply, I am speaking of ‘fruit’ and NOT works, and taken in context with my other comments, reiterates the fact that salvation begins and ends with God. Simple way to look at it; Should I ‘work’ at it, or simply stay attached to the vine? I think the motive, when tested to scripture, becomes clear in ‘honest’ examination! To show you my point in better detail, I will paste number three from your response.
3) And then you say, after quoting Mt. 7:21-23, “Still, we shouldn’t base our assurance on His works through us, He can use rocks and donkeys for such!” So…you admit that you can’t base your assurance on your works. Which is it? – Notice when I speak of works, I wrote “His works”. Yet when you post the reply, it changes to “your works”. Case in point, there is a world of difference between the two! My works= filthy rags, His works=work of Spirit!
And just to clear up number four, eternal life is to know Him. The emphasis is Christ, not us. So I guess my point is, we focus too much on ‘us’ instead of Him. It seems as if our struggle with assurance is just a reflection of a deeper problem.. We fear hell instead of fearing God! Heard Paul Washer say something like this, “if this is your last day alive, you will die tomorrow, and you know God is going to send you to hell, would you still worship Him today?
There is a lot to that question! And yes, I know it’s purely hypothetical, but an honest answere to that question might reveal a lot of our ‘standing’ with God!
I love being a Lutheran because I have assurance of my salvation.
God gives it to me in the external Word, totally apart from anything I say, do, feel, or think. It comes to me extra nos, from outside of myself.
I feel so bad for Baptists and Calvinists and Evangelicals who do not trust that God is really present and acting for them in the Sacraments. Their assurance has to eminate from themselves. They have to trust in their faith (instead of trusting in God), or their works (fruit), or their decision, or their seriousness…or whatever. It’s really a shame that the Word gets so internalized like that.
Thanks, all.
I just want to add that I do not take my salvation for granted, however. I realize that the world, the flesh, and the devil are after me and that I can walk away from my salvation and it CAN be lost. God will not abandon me, but it’s possible for me to abandon Him.
Just another reason I’m so glad to receive of the True Bread which comes down from Heaven in the Sacraments.
Hi Steve. I’d like to know where the false converts (Corinthians) fit into your idea of assurance. That of course is speaking of lifestyle and character (fruit) and has nothing to say about sacraments. Take a look see and let me know if you get a chance!
Jeffi,
Only God knows who are His. But faith is a gift. And the Scriptures tell us that God gives that gift in baptism (Acts 2:38) 1st Peter also tells us that “Baptism now saves you also”. Romans 6 tells us that in our baptisms God puts the old sinner to death and raises the new person with Christ. Galatians 4 tells us that “all of you who have been baptized have put on Christ.”
It’s all over the place.
I’ll take what God promises me in the Sacraments over my fruits anyday.
Steve- if you have assurance b/c of sacraments how can you say “only God knows who are His?” Can you not be sure of the salvation of those around you who take the sacrament?
And if you say no, why not?
The reason I ask is because if assurance from the sacrament is entirely external and not ‘navel gazing’ in any way then logically you should be assured of the salvation of anyone who takes sacrament… that is unless something ‘internal’ would give reason to doubt their conversion. But if there is any internal nature to the sacrament with regard to assurance then your whole argument falls apart.
Jay,
We have a blessed assurance provided by God Himself in the Sacraments. But we can fall away. Faith can be lost. Not by what God does, but by those who reject Him.
In the Sacraments God gives us forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation…totally apart from what we do. But we can choose not to take advantage of those gifts.
Only God knows for sure who those are whom He has chosen. But He has decided to choose (give faith) to people through the hearing of His Word, which includes Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. He commands those things, so we are assured that He works in them…He is in them. God just doesn’t twiddle His thumbs when we are baptized…He baptizes.
Why some believe and some don’t, IS the question. None of us has that answer. But for those who do have faith, they can have assurance of that faith in the Sacraments.
Steve-
How do you know you have not fallen away?
by the way your best movie was by far “The Jerk” never have I laughed so hard at a movie. a total classic beginning to end.
Jay
Jay,
I fall away everyday.
And everyday the Lord leads me back home through repentance and forgiveness. That is the shape of the life of the believer.
But He keeps me in His faith.
The movie? Try living your entire life as…The Jerk!
I understand what you are saying…
My contention, and please understand this to be a charitable conversation, is that believing in the sacraments as a grounds of assurance is still an internal ‘believing’ by faith. It is no more external than believing in the promises of God with regard to salvation in His word. The word is still external bearing on the internal and the gifts of faith and repentance producing forgiveness are still external.
I guess my struggle is to see how the Lutheran view of assurance through sacrament is more ‘external’ than the classic Calvinist or Calvinistic Evangelical view of assurance through the word.
With all this said, I do think there is something drastically wrong with the downplaying of sacrament that is typical within evangelicalism.
Heading out to the zoo with my son… peace for now.
Thanks, Jay!
Have a great time at the zoo with your son!
The difference with the Sacraments is that it is where faith actually touches down. It’s where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
It’s no longer left tto our internal engine, or some etherial notions floating out there…or some feeling that we have.
It is tactile. We can taste it. We can feel it. We can swallow it.
God actually crams His love and forgiveness down our throats because in so many ways we refuse to believe it.
I think God knew (knows) how we are, and so He decided to give us the Sacraments precisely so that we could know and have that assurance…not by anything that comes from within ourselves…but bu something that comes directly from Him that we can SEE and FEEL.
Ciao, Jay! Have a fun day!
Steve, I absolutely agree with the scriptures you posted. Baptism is a work of Christ in a believer and a I believe it is essential. However, in order to understand our basis of assurance, we must examine all of the scriptures. Luther as well as Calvin believed in sola gratia because it is scriptural. It is not our works that save us, but the work of God by means of opening our ears to the Gospel, granting faith and repentance, giving us a desire to be baptized, as well as continued sanctification and fruit bearing. These all will be evident in a true believer. In His faithfulness, God will not allow one of these to be overlooked.
That being said, if any so-called believer is not experiencing sanctification and fruit bearing there is reason to doubt his/her conversion. This is evidence that true faith, repentance, and baptism was not granted or at the least had been misdirected (i.e. in the name of a false Christ, one of his/her own making.) Some references to this are Matt 13 (the soils), 1 Cor 5 (the so-called), 1John (10 tests of assurance), Jn 17 (promise of sanctification), as well as 2Cor 13:11-13 (exhortation to “examine yourselves” to see if Christ is “in” you.) There’s more, but that’s all I could gather off the top of my head at the moment
My point is, we must base our assurance on the full work of God in our lives (which includes a change in lifestyle) rather than the sacraments alone. Does that make sense?
Simply attempting to bring a biblically balanced POV rather than downplay the importance of the sacraments
Not for me, Jeffi.
I can never know that I am doing enough, or doing it for the right reasons (pure motives).
There is no end to that type of inward focus and it (I believe) makes matters worse..not better.
So, as a “good” Lutheran…I will look to what God has done fro me, to what He is doing for me, and to what He will yet do…for me.
Thanks, my friend.