Originally posted by Mikayehu on February 20, 2002 06:44 PM: Nelson, It might be because I believe the same thing as Pastor Larry does on this issue, but his arguments seem to have been both Scriptural and logical.
I appreciate your input.
I feel your problem is that you are seeking a reconciliation where the Scripture gives none.
What is sought is not absolute reconciliation, for there may be further questions that need to be answered, but a more Biblical view that coherently answers most questions regarding the subject in question.
The Bible most certainly speaks of things that have been written that we might "know" that we have eternal life. These evidences are of the type that Pastor Larry has listed. It may all be summed up by "walking in the Spirit" and not "after the flesh."
Unfortunately, Larry, since it seems he has not understood my objection, has not answered directly to it. The comment above also has no bearing on my objection.
Security is based on a present belief in Jesus Christ not a past action. I know I'm saved because right now I am believing in Christ to save me, and the fruits of my life demonstrate that that faith is genuine.
But certainty of faith, as Larry stated, is fallible, which raises the possibility that one may be erred in the certainty that he is of the elect. If "security is based on present belief" and that belief is fallible, then there is no security.
“Evidences” and “fruits of the Spirit” are irrelevant to the main objection being, how can a “fallible certainty” confirm one’s status as the elect? How can “certainty” be fallible?
The logical problem in Larry’s assertion:
1. I am certain that I am of the elect.
2. My certainty is fallible.
3. Therefore, it is not certain that I am of the elect.
In any case, point (2) is illogical. Please note that in the dictionary the word “certainty” means and is interchangeable with “infallible.” Therefore, what one can say Larry is asserting is that, “I am certain that I am of the elect but my certainty is uncertain,” which is obviously a contradiction; it makes no sense.
Larry, it is logical to conclude, seems to say that no one can be certain of their certainty that they are the elect. If true, obviuously, there is no such thing as assurance of salvation. With respect to one’s standing before God, one is either certain or he is not; one cannot be certain and uncertain, infallible and fallible at the same time according to common sense and Scripture.
The “flip side” proposed is irrelevant since it does not directly address the issue.
...as another passage teaches, give all diligence to add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge...We do these things to "make our calling and election sure."
If one is the elect and such status is permanent, there is no need to make one’s “calling and election sure.”
Note the questions one may raise if such were the issue:
1. To what depth of quality must one walk in the Spirit to be assured that he is the elect?
2. How many of what virtues and to what depth need those virtues be demonstrated in order for one to be certain of his calling and election?
3. How fruitful must one be to be assured of his election?
4. Because one is subjectively convinced that they are the elect, does that necessarily mean that they are the elect in reality?
5. If man is “deceitful above all else,” how can his own
purely subjective evaluation of the fruits necessary to give evidence of his salvation be legitimate?
Or, we are made partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.
If true, then how can one be certain they will hold on to Christ in the future?
If, as the elect, they are assured of holding on to the end, what reason is there to “make their calling and election sure”? "Sure" for whom? Not oneself if one is certain they are counted among the elect.
Nowhere are the two themes seen more clearly than in Phillipians "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." We are "working it out" because that is the evidence that God is working in us.
But if one is certain that they are the elect and, as such, assured their salvation is never lost, would not such a “working it out” be redundant and superfluous?
Anyway, there is that tension in Scripture. You can know that you have eternal life, but you better be striving to become more holy, because if you don't, you have no Scriptural basis to think you're saved.
What is proposed is most confusing and contradictory; it challenges the legitimacy of common sense in assessing the meaning of scripture and experience. If one knows they are saved, there is no need to strive to know. If one needs to strive to know it is because of uncertainty.
Therefore, if one must strive to know, it is because his own election may not be as real as he believes it to be. Regardless whether or not one is elect or not, the fact that one is not certain of it and must strive to secure it’s validity, is indicative of the fact that anyone’s certainty of election is, for all intents and purposes, not assured; that is, one may not be sure he is the elect and, nevertheless, may be the elect in reality and one may not be the elect in reality but think that he is.
What a dilemma!
So, Scripture teaches exactly what Pastor Larry has been saying. Calvinism teaches the same thing. It says that we are secure, because the salvation of the elect was fixed from before the foundation of the world.
However, if salvation is for the elect
only, predetermined in eternity past, and one cannot be absolutely certain that he is of the elect (though the “fruits” rendered would grant one a certain degree of possibility depending upon the depth, extent, and variety of “fruit” necessary), then no assurance of salvation is possible regardless of any other considerations whatsoever.
But, Calvinism also teaches "Perseverance of the Saints." The saints must persevere or they prove they are not of the elect, for "it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure."
Again, the question arises, how much fruit and to what depth is necessary to have “persevered to the end” to prove one
is the elect?
Also, one can know only at "the end" that he is the elect.
It has been stated that these posts are going in circles. I agree because the main problem regarding the assertion made is not being addressed, i.e. the assertion that one may be certain of salvation with the possibility that such certainty is, at the same time,
uncertain.
[ February 26, 2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]
