I do not see why lack of assurance is more of a problem with one group than another, John Piper notwithstanding. I have never struggled with assurance as a believer in the DoG, but previously I did.
No one is a Christian who is not elect. But there are plenty of people who have elected themselves who are not Christians.
This is a fair and reasonable statement....The argument isn't whether a Calvinist can't have confidence....They can.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the average Calvinist is in a constant state of fear about their election. I DO NOT DOUBT!!! that the average Godly honest Calvinist has a very high level of assurance about their salvation.
I think there is confusion here though. The point being made by non-Cals (IMO) is this:
Calvinists can (within their system) believe that plausibly with a HIGH degree of probability that they are indeed "elect".
Put differently, within the Cal system, there is sufficient room for any given Calvinist to believe with a high degree of probability that they were indeed "chosen" and "elect" prior to the beginning of the Universe towards salvation..............
But (to keep the factions from talking past one another) that isn't the question to the Arms/ non-Cals.
Non-Cals believe that there IS, SHOULD, and MUST be...a way to KNOW and OBJECTIVELY without question that one was "elect" and that they were saved and chosen before the foundation of the world.
This is not simply "confidence" (which we don't doubt the average Calvinist possesses)...nor is it a personally held belief that one is sujectively "assurred" of....but an objective and undeniable "proof-positive" that is not questionable. Not on ANY level.
From a sheerly "
DEDUCTIVE PROOF" stand-point.....Calvinism does not offer that assurance but rather appeals to either:
1.) A
probabalistic belief gleaned from viewing one's "works" (not that they are trusting in "works" for salvation mind you........but for their "evidence").
and/or
2.) An internal witness from the Holy Spirit
a.] regarding item 2.........the Arminian must insist that there is still no "objective" way (within the Calvinist schema) of "knowing" that one is elect since there might possibly be confusion about whether the Holy Spirit is witnessing internally with them or not. This is fundamental. A Calvinist might "believe" that the Holy Spirit has instilled some confidence in their salvation..........but, there is no way of "knowing" that their beliefs and subjective perceptions and feelings are indeed the work of the Holy Spirit or not....They can only "assume" or "believe" (with probability) that it is indeed the witness of the Holy Spirit.....
What evidence, then, would they use to submit that that internal witness was INDEED the Holy Spirit and not mere confusion? Such as Charismatics and other groups who are confused about whether they are being moved by the "Holy" Spirit or rather "another" one?.........................................They would appeal to their "
WORKS".
That's the argument of the non-Cal as it stands......and I do not think that any Calvinist on this board has (as of yet) properly engaged it. I do not think there is a proper rejoinder to this which is consistent with Calvinist Theology...If there is, I would be interested in hearing it. So far, it's been a game of circling each other.
