Posted by Nelson: If such is the case, would it then be correct to say that, contrary to the Scriptural basis one may present to give evidence that they are not saved and, therefore, their assurance of salvation is worthless, the fact may be that their assurance is not worthless if they are, in fact, the elect?
Posted by Larry: No, IMO, it would not be correct.
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.
Their assurance is still worthless because it is based on a faulty premise. They have no biblical basis for assurance based on clear revelation.
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.
For instance, I may be quite sure that the sun will come out tomorrow. It may indeed happen. But if it does, it will purely coincidental. It will not be based on any rational or scientific reason for, last I checked, it is supposed to rain all day tomorrow.
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.
The person who claims assurance in the midst of a sinful rebellious lifestyle has a false claim.
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.
