2 Peter 2:20-22

Following the discussion in previous posts based on Larry’s example, unless he has misunderstood the point he was conceding, it does not follow how their assurance could still be worthless.

Granted that, even if at they have not repented when confronted with their adultery, as the elect, they may come to a place of repentance at a later time; however, at the time they are being confronted with their adultery, the concession has been made that they may still be the elect. Therefore at this point, their repentance is irrelevant to the immediate issue, which is, unless Larry withdraws his concession, the possibility that they may be the elect as an objective fact and their personal assurance of it even though they are in adultery.

If they say they are assured of their salvation because they believe they are the elect, then it may in reality be that they are even while in an adulterous relationship, at least, it is my understanding that Larry has agreed this is a possibility. I reiterate that Larry has at least conceded to this possibility and furthermore by admitting, “We do not know infallibly the condition of the heart.” Therefore, if in fact they are the elect, in spite of being in an adulterous relationship and regardless of what scriptural basis one may provide to show that their confession of assurance is worthless, their assurance is really and truly justified and valid.

The premise may and can, in fact, be Biblically sustained if the Reformed teaching of eternal security of the elect is correct. (1) Other scripture verses can be used to confirm that as the elect of God, they still have a basis for their assurance of salvation (e.g. John 10:27-29; Hebr. 13:5), (2) It has been admitted on these boards that no one can know for certain who is and who is not the elect (I only assume Larry is in agreement with this) and, if (1) and (2) is the case(3) All scripture can provide, as far as the one who is truly the elect of God yet in sin, is not evidence that their confession of assurance is false but how a professing Christian should and should not behave.

Then, again, who says the sun can’t shine out when it rains? What would be the case if a meteorologist on the radio predicted rain and another on the television predicted sunshine and no rain? Be that as it may, it will be an assurance (1) without any reliable basis (whatever it is) and, (2) contrary to the last reliable information given.

However, one who professes to be a Christian, though in an adulterous relationship, nevertheless, is not relying upon unreliable or contrary information when such assurance is found in the Bible. If (as interpreted by Calvinistic/Reformed teaching) “God will never leave Him or forsake him” and if “no one can snatch him out of the Father’s hand” and “they shall never perish,” then and if indeed he is in fact the elect (a conceded possibility), his sense of assurance of salvation, however subjective, is of value because it relies on the objective truth of God’s word (of which the aforementioned quoted verses would be an example and seem to be the “clear revelation” necessary for a proper Biblical support of said position).

One may present the adulterer who professes to be a Christian with verses that may indicate his assurance is worthless but if he, nevertheless, sticks by his assurance, unless one were willing to make the judgment that he is not the elect as indicated by or because of his adulterous relationship, scripture may be presented (as shown above) to support that such assurance, on the adulterer’s part, is of value.

Not if that one is in fact the elect of God at the time of his rebelliousness.

If in Larry’s example, the adulterer is truly the elect even while in his adultery (as a reminder, this is a possibility Larry conceded), then, as one teacher of the Reformed persuasion states, “... sin [in our particular case, the sin of adultery] does not result in spiritual death for the believer...” (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1927, comment on James 1:15).

Another declares, “...believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation...” (Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure, p. 94).

Elsewhere, he states, “No matter what you do as a child of God, [and] you are forgiven. You say, 'Murder?' Forgiven. 'Stealing?' Forgiven. 'Adultery?' Forgiven. 'Worshiping idols?” Forgiven” (The Bible Answer Man, 12/9/92). In our case, “Adultery”? Forgiven.

From my perspective, unless Larry disagrees with the Reformed doctrine of eternal security represented by the above quotes or can make an infallible judgment on whether or not one is truly saved, I do not see how it can be consistent to say that one’s profession of assurance is worthless if there is the possibility (as has been conceded) that the person making such a profession, though living in sin, is really the elect of God.

 

This is, in point of fact, the primary fallacy in your whole line of intepretation. 1 John 2:4 says that the one who says I know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. Therefore, on the basis of biblical revelation, no assurance can be had by the person not keeping his commandments. He may claim assurance but there is biblical evidence that contradicts him.

But the objective truth of God's word as quoted above (and similar references could be quoted at length) denies the very point you are arguing. You can't have it both ways. The God who promised to never leave and never forsake is the same God that promised a believer would not live in sin. If one is living in willful unrepentant sin, he has no biblical basis for assurance ... at least if the promises of God mean anything.

You continually confuse salvation with assurance. Being one of the elect is not the same as being sure of it. That is why Peter says to make your calling and election sure. He is admitting the possibility of not being sure. Paul says to test yourself to see if you are in the faith. He is admitting the possibility of false assurance; otherwise there would be no reason for testing.

Stanley does not hold to the reformed "persuasion" as you call it. MacArthur and he are on two completely different pages. In fact, they are in different books. MacArthur is right on this; Stanley is wrong. People who abandon their faith were never saved.

The point is about assurance, not about reality. You keep missing this point. I don't know how because I keep bringing it up. Being sure of salvation is not the same thing as having it. A person may make a profession and have assurance without being truly saved (Matt 7:22). A person may not have assurance and still be saved. However, assurance based on the wrong thing can hardly be said to be valid assurance.

 

It seems Larry is missing the point. We need to go back to the original question and Larry’s answer:

Point 1: The individuals in question are in an adulterous relationship.

Point 2: Larry conceded, at least, the possibility that these individuals are the elect, while at the same time being in an adulterous relationship.

Conclusion: Therefore, while being in an adulterous relationship, if they declare that they are sure they are saved and, if in fact they are elect at the same time, then, their assurance is valuable and not worthless.

'nuf said.

[ March 12, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

Larry is not missing the point. Nelson is unable to think through the issues. The question was, "Is it possible these people are elect?" The question was not, "Can they have valid assurance?" (That was the second question. You demonstrate a repeatedly inability to involve yourself in this conversation.

I will say it once last time. Assurance is not the same as possession. One can have either without having both. An assurance based on bad reasons is no assurance at all.

Notice that at no time did I concede anything with reference to their assurance. These are two different issues that you apparently are unwilling to distinguish between.

Someone who declares that they are saved while in an adulterous relationship has absolutely no scriptural way of knowing that to be the case. A woman might be very sure that her husband is not cheating on her. That may or may not be the truth. Assurance is no guarantee of reality unless a person possesses infallible knowledge.
_________________________

Speaking as moderator, it is time to drop this line of conversation and move on. The points have been made and answered by both sides. Further discussion of it will bring nothing new to the table and thus posts along this line will be deleted.

 

I agree. Let me also chime in: let's stay on topic with information that hasn't been hashed to death on a blue billion other like threads, or this thread will go down, and go down hard. (Like the Al Davis reference?)

 

As a member, respectfully allow me the concluding remark.

1. No objection was ever made that “assurance” and “possession” is essentially not the same nor was their any attempt on my part to prove otherwise.

2. However, though the question was with respect to the objective possibility of their election, it does bear upon the subjective validity of their assurance.

3. There was no disputing, “Assurance is not the same as possession. One can have either without having both. An assurance based on bad reasons is no assurance at all.” I agree. But, if there is admitted the possibility that they are the elect, which Larry conceded is possible, then their assurance, if in reality they are the elect, is rendered valid.

4. It seems we are arguing the point from two different perspectives. Larry is arguing from the point relative to their not being in fact the elect and the disassociation between the assurance and the possession of salvation; I am arguing from the possibility of their being the elect and the resultant relationship between assurance based on a real possession of salvation.

5. Also, Larry is arguing from the perspective that “An assurance based on bad reasons is no assurance at all” (a point I do not disagree with) and insisting that they are not the elect. However, I am arguing from the perspective, which he conceded, that it is possible they may in fact be the elect.

6. As Larry earlier suggested, they may repent later on and thus prove (outwardly) that they are the elect; however, if they are living in sin at the same time they are the elect (the possibility being conceded by Larry), 1 John 2:4 would not apply to them but Hebrews 13:5 would (though, admittedly, we may not know that they are in fact the elect and can only make an application of 1 John 2:4 based on observation).

In conclusion, I believe I have the ability to follow conversation and an argument well. However, Larry seems not to follow through on the implications of his concession and is focused on a different basis for his argument. The basis of our argument is based on the conceded possibility that they (in Larry's example) may indeed be the elect at the same time they are in an adulterous relationship. That is, the argument regarding the validity of their assurance revolves around a stated possibility.

Whether or not this post is deleted, I do appreciate, irrespective of the hotness of the debate, the time taken to answer my objection and understand that no reponse is forthcoming.

 

I will close this thread with this.

This shows the problem with your argument. You cannot agree while you disagree. You agree that if their assurance is based on bad reasoning than it is invalid; then you assert that if they are elect, their assurance that is based on bad reasoning is valid. You cannot have it both ways. This whole discussion has been characterized by this type of approach.

Herein lies another problem with this discussion. I did not insist they were not of the elect. I have admitted that they may be. I have insisted that they have no valid biblical reason for assurance. Your continued inability to make this distinction has hindered your ability to understand what I am saying.

My discussion was about their assurance, not their election. I have followed through on the implications of my concession. YOu simply didn't like it.

The response has been forthcoming for 4 pages. You simply don't like it because it contradicts your preconceived notions, not because it contradicts any Scripture.