Depravity and Assurance of Salvation

[BenjaminRandall]

Depravity and Assurance of Salvation


How does a Christian have assurance that Jesus died for his sins?

If he is an Arminian, he simply points to several scriptures which say that Jesus died for everyone: "...for the Bible tells me so...."

If he is a Calvinist, he denies such scripture texts exist. He can only rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

However, the doctrine of Total Depravity also teaches that sin convoludes a person's thinking. Accordingly, we can all imagine someone who is convinced he is a Christian but is not. In such a case, the person might be deceived into thinking that Jesus died for him on the basis of his convoluded notion that the Spirit dwells in him.

Consequently, how can a Calvinist have assurance that Jesus died for his sins? Maybe Jesus never died for him in the first place.

In the case of the Arminian, his response is simply, I know Jesus died for me because the Bible says so.

 

[AndOne]

Just out of curiosity - before we get going on this. Do you believe that Calvinists don't believe in the Assurance of Salvation and that Arminians do?

Sure you don't have the two backwards?

 

[A New Dawn]

Just out of curiosity - before we get going on this. Do you believe that Calvinists don't believe in the Assurance of Salvation and that Arminians do?

Sure you don't have the two backwards?

LOL. I was kinda wondering the same thing.

 

[bradfordl]

Just out of curiosity - before we get going on this. Do you believe that Calvinists don't believe in the Assurance of Salvation and that Arminians do?

Sure you don't have the two backwards?

Now c'mon. Arminians have assurance... as long as they hold their lips right and maintain the appropriate level of self-righteousness. Of course, if they had a sinful thought today, well.... OOPS!

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Well, it is rather ironic, now, isn't it, that a Calvinist can't really have assurance that Jesus died for him, but that, conversely, an Arminian can have the assurance that Jesus died for him.

Maybe I shouldn't press the issue too hard. I had a dear Calvinist friend of mine who I pushed this question on, and then a few days later he was found dead of an overdose, though it was never determined whether the overdose was intentional.

I would truly regret causing a good Christian brother to question his salvation.

So, I would just caution Calvinists against getting too emotionally wrapped up in the question.

And if you really do begin to question your salvation, then just let me assure you that, in accord with Scripture, Jesus died for everyone, and if only you believe, you will be saved.

 

[A New Dawn]

Well, it is rather ironic, now, isn't it, that a Calvinist can't really have assurance that Jesus died for him, but that, conversely, an Arminian can have the assurance that Jesus died for him.

Maybe I shouldn't press the issue too hard. I had a dear Calvinist friend of mine who I pushed this question on, and then a few days later he was found dead of an overdose, though it was never determined whether the overdose was intentional.

I would truly regret causing a good Christian brother to question his salvation.

So, I would just caution Calvinists against getting too emotionally wrapped up in the question.

And if you really do begin to question your salvation, then just let me assure you that, in accord with Scripture, Jesus died for everyone, and if only you believe, you will be saved.

You need to go talk to Ben Johnson and Van and GordonSlocum to have them set you straight about what Arminians believe. I think you'd be rather surprised.

I don't know of any Calvinist who is not assured of their salvation, but I know lots of Arminians who claim that they can lose theirs; since they earn it for themselves, they can easily lose it.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Just a quick reply, since the question of repeat regeneration is off topic--and I can't invest my efforts in too many issues simulataneously....

Yes, Wesleyan Arminians do have a serious problem with this thing about having to repent (and get saved) after every sin; i.e., repeat regeneration.

In reality, Wesleyan Arminians believe that you are saved by grace through faith, but are kept by not sinning! How unfortunately non-Pauline, if not heretical.

But Calvinists end up having an equally problematic formula: saved by grace (unto faith), kept by grace. If you're Charles Stanley, your formula is at least as worse as Wesleyan Arminians.

Personally, I believe that you are saved by grace through faith, and kept by grace through faith. I do believe there is the possibility that one can make shipwreck of one's faith, and thus become an apostate, and who cannot ever again attain repentance.

Arminius didn't actually ever make claims either way about continuance in salvation. However, I hold to a Reformation Arminian view on continuance. For more information, read the book edited by J.Matthew Pinson entitled Four Views of Eternal Security; Stephen Ashby wrote a chapter on the Reformation Arminian position, while Geisler wrote the modified Calvinist position, and another guy wrote the Wesleyan chapters, and uhm..., can't remember the Calvinist guy from Westminster California.

At any rate, this Arminian rejects the notion that you slip in and out of salvation with every sin. If you lose your salvation, it's because you made shipwreck of your faith.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

True, Arminius had many children, so to speak. But the question is which of the children look more like the father. In this case, I think I probably have a pretty good grasp of what Reformation Arminians believe, as well as what Wesleyan Arminians believe.

The possibility exists that I might be able to contribute to a description as to what Arminians do believe. The possibility also exists that many Calvinist assumptions of Arminian theology are based on a very narrow stream of Arminian thought.

Certainly Packer's "Arminianisms" is one such example of how a great Calvinist theologian thinks he has refuted Arminianism by dealing only with one strand of Arminianism, when 80% of what he says deals with positions not held by Arminius!

 

[A New Dawn]

I don't think it has anything to do with the perception of what Calvinists believe Arminians believe, it has to do with what they (the Arminians) argue in the Soteriology forum, considering that the Calvinism/Arminian argument is one of soteriology.

 

[bradfordl]

Since most of us have the idea that arminianism is represented in the five articles of the Remonstrants:
-that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute;
-that the Atonement is in intention universal;
-that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith;
-that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly in man and
-that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

Perhaps you can tell us which of these your "reformation arminianism" disagrees?

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I thought I would post my own summary of the Remonstrance, since Bradfordl's summary, though accurate for the most part, is incorrect on article #5.

The actual text, which is actually brief and readable, can be found in a myriad places (e.g., Wiki).

• God's decree was to save those who by the Holy Spirit believe on his Son and persevere in said faith, and to leave unbelievers in their sin and under wrath.
• The extent of the atonement was universal ("for all men and for every man"), but that only believers enjoy the benefits of the atonement.
• Man is totally depraved and cannot save himself, and cannot do the will of the Father without God's regenerating intervention.
• Again, man is entirely dependent upon grace (prevenient, awakening, and cooperative) to think, will, and do good, and to resist temptation; but that this grace is resistible.
• Further study of those Scriptures dealing with continuance in salvation (i.e., eternal security) is needed before a conclusion can be reached as to whether a person can make shipwreck of his faith.

Since they recognized that there were scriptures supporting both sides of the issue, both Arminius and the Remonstrants made explicit statements that they reserved judgment on whether continuance in salvation is guaranteed.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

The Remonstrants, who called themselves the "orhan children" of Arminius since their teacher died in the years of his middle age, were in fact Reformation Arminians. For they, with Arminius, held to Total Depravity (as is emphasized not once but twice in the Remonstrance), and most importantly, to Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement, although this latter point is not explicated in the Remonstrance.

Grotius was an important Dutch statesman in the early 1600s. The Dutch Calvinists (good Christians that they were) sentenced him to life in prison for his position that citizens should be free to follow their consciences on theological matters and that states should not legislate theology. He was the first to develop the Governmental View of the Atonement, which was a radical departure from Arminius' (and Calvin's) soteriology. This might also have entailed an unfortunate softening of the doctrine of Total Depravity.

My memory fails me here, but Grotius might have been one of the "orphan children" of Arminius, and if so, he would represent the exception to my earlier statement.

Grotius influenced Wesley's soteriology, and Wesley influenced later Methodist theologians like Miley, thus effecting a major theological departure from Arminius and the Remonstrants. These Wesleyan Arminians are the ones who believe in repeat regeneration and who typically reject Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement. Since Methodists and Wesleyans are so numerous, Calvinists must think that all Arminians are Wesleyan, and consequently, pose all their animus against this deviant form of Arminianism.

The reality is that the general atonement Baptists of the 1600s were more Arminian than the Wesleyan Methodists. For various reasons, Calvinists have not done a good job of focusing their attention on this purer form of Arminianism.

Here's your chance!

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Did I answer the question?

Yes, I hold to The Remonstrance, except I'm pretty sure that the Bible teaches that a person can make shipwreck of his faith.

But don't assume that The Remonstrance is a statement which adequately reflects what you assume is modern day Arminianism. Wesleyan Arminianism might have problems with several articles of the Remonstrance.

 

[bradfordl]

OK. Let me first point out what appears to be a pretty glaring inconsistency between two of these points. The third:

Man is totally depraved and cannot save himself, and cannot do the will of the Father without God's regenerating intervention.

And the fourth:

Again, man is entirely dependent upon grace (prevenient, awakening, and cooperative) to think, will, and do good, and to resist temptation; but that this grace is resistible.

If man is totally depraved (3), and grace is resistable (4), what totally depraved man would not resist grace? If he did not, would that not explicitly demonstrate that he is not totally depraved?

As an aside, I find it interesting that your list adds the qualification of cooperative to grace. If cooperation is entailed, how is it grace, which is unmerited favor? Cooperation is meritorious by any stretch of the self-determinative soteriologist imagination, is it not?

 

[BenjaminRandall]

It is my contention that God is sovereign and that if he chooses to enable a totally depraved person to believe, then may his name be praised.

Calvinists, assuming a low view of the sovereignty of God (!), seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to believe.

Calvinists seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to not resist his grace.

Calvinists seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to cooperate with his grace.

Someone once told me she would consider becoming a Calvinist if they didn't have such a low view of the sovereignty of God, and there seems to be a bit of ironic truth in that statement.

But all this deviates from the thread topic, which asks the simple question as to how a Calvinist can rest assured that Jesus died for his sins.

And since a Calvinist cannot know for certain in this life whether Jesus died for his sins, then how can a Calvinist ever have assurance of his salvation?

 

[A New Dawn]

It is my contention that God is sovereign and that if he chooses to enable a totally depraved person to believe, then may his name be praised.

Do you see a difference between "enabling a totally depraved person to believe" and irresistable grace? (Because that is basically what irresistable grace is. A totally depraved person can have no ability to believe on his own, so the only way he can exhibit belief is to be "enabled" by God.)

Calvinists, assuming a low view of the sovereignty of God (!), seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to believe.

Calvinists seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to not resist his grace.

Calvinists seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to cooperate with his grace.

Where are you coming up with all this? I have never seen a Calvinist claim any such thing. Please post support for your assertions.

Someone once told me she would consider becoming a Calvinist if they didn't have such a low view of the sovereignty of God, and there seems to be a bit of ironic truth in that statement.

Then she doesn't know what Calvinists believe, either.

But all this deviates from the thread topic, which asks the simple question as to how a Calvinist can rest assured that Jesus died for his sins.

I rest assured because He said He died so the elect might live in Him, eternally.

I am glad you are not the run-of-the-mill Arminian, but you really need to find out what Calvinists really believe before you start attributing false beliefs to them. Or is that your goal?

And since a Calvinist cannot know for certain in this life whether Jesus died for his sins, then how can a Calvinist ever have assurance of his salvation?

Again, please post evidence for this assertion.

Thanks.

 

[bradfordl]

Calvinists, assuming a low view of the sovereignty of God (!), seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to believe.

That's malarkey, and you know it. Calvinists believe that God enables all His elect, who are totally depraved, to believe by regenerating them. Low view my eye. Yours is a high view of human volition, detracting from the glory of God. Hilariously cute of you to accuse calvinists of your own arminian failings, but it doesn't wash.

Calvinists seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to not resist his grace.

More fallacious hogwash. God enables His elect through regeneration. Your points of the Remonstrants declares that man can resist grace, therefore this accusation again is one you are guilty of, not calvinists.

Calvinists seem to claim that God couldn't enable a totally depraved person to cooperate with his grace.

You use the word seem a lot in these false premises. Apparently you have difficulty making a definitive statement. Trying to present a nebulous and moving target I "suppose", eh? See, we can do the same.

The statement you make is categorically incoherent. No one can say that God "can" make a person able to cooperate with grace, because by definition grace is monergistic. As soon as the recipient is implied to cooperate it is no longer grace. You can't paint a red barn blue and still call it a red barn. It's a matter of category, not ability.

Someone once told me she would consider becoming a Calvinist if they didn't have such a low view of the sovereignty of God, and there seems to be a bit of ironic truth in that statement.

Either you or she is a hilariously misinformed.

But all this deviates from the thread topic, which asks the simple question as to how a Calvinist can rest assured that Jesus died for his sins.

Then it was your own deviation. You were the one declaring your "reformation arminianism" as a defense . We need to be clear as to what that is. Moving targets make for pointless discussion.

And since a Calvinist cannot know for certain in this life whether Jesus died for his sins, then how can a Calvinist ever have assurance of his salvation?

This is true because it springs forth from your head? It is completely false. A calvinist's assurance rests fully and unwaveringly upon the faithful promises of his Lord. Yours can only rest on the adequacy of your 'decision".

 

[mlqurgw]

The Remonstrants, who called themselves the "orhan children" of Arminius since their teacher died in the years of his middle age, were in fact Reformation Arminians. For they, with Arminius, held to Total Depravity (as is emphasized not once but twice in the Remonstrance), and most importantly, to Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement, although this latter point is not explicated in the Remonstrance.

Grotius was an important Dutch statesman in the early 1600s. The Dutch Calvinists (good Christians that they were) sentenced him to life in prison for his position that citizens should be free to follow their consciences on theological matters and that states should not legislate theology. He was the first to develop the Governmental View of the Atonement, which was a radical departure from Arminius' (and Calvin's) soteriology. This might also have entailed an unfortunate softening of the doctrine of Total Depravity.

My memory fails me here, but Grotius might have been one of the "orphan children" of Arminius, and if so, he would represent the exception to my earlier statement.

Grotius influenced Wesley's soteriology, and Wesley influenced later Methodist theologians like Miley, thus effecting a major theological departure from Arminius and the Remonstrants. These Wesleyan Arminians are the ones who believe in repeat regeneration and who typically reject Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement. Since Methodists and Wesleyans are so numerous, Calvinists must think that all Arminians are Wesleyan, and consequently, pose all their animus against this deviant form of Arminianism.

The reality is that the general atonement Baptists of the 1600s were more Arminian than the Wesleyan Methodists. For various reasons, Calvinists have not done a good job of focusing their attention on this purer form of Arminianism.

Here's your chance!

You are the first I have ever heard calling themself a Reformation Arminian. There are many who hold to the Remonstants and call themselves Classical Arminians whom I have dealt with many times. I find no difference in you and them. Wesleyan Arminainism is a perversion of Classical Arminianism. Yet they are not that different. The fact is that you present nothing new nor anything that hasn't been dealt with many times. You make far to many assumptions and presumptions concerning what we believe and what we have dealt with before. You present no evidence that you even know what you are talking about. You obviously have no clue as to what Calvinists believe or why as is clearly shown by your assertions. You are the one who builds a straw man. I will not not defend a straw man. If you want to get into polemics, which seems to be your desire given the fact that all you have done is make false assertions, I assure you that you can be met with as good as you give. All it takes is to reduce your assertions to their absurd conclusions.
BTW, this is a room for honest debate not repeated unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[heymikey80]

This is a little off-topic, but do you realize you don't have even the first clue what a Calvinist believes concerning assurance?

Assurance as a vernacular term has been subverted into something internal -- some feeling inside you that's somehow unshakable & proved right by your faith. That's all internal.

In Calvinism Assurance is inherently external. It is not in ourselves. Our Assurance is in Christ.

That feeling of confidence? It's not Assurance. Sure, it can be an effect of our Assurance. Our Assurance is reliable. Feelings are not.

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. 1 Jn 3:20-22
​

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Right, Classical Arminianism is a good term, but "Reformational Arminian" probably conveys perhaps more openly that Total Depravity and Penal Satisfaction view of the atonement is affirmed.