Some talk on assurance and sola fide - 2

My first answer to David Bryan on this topic.
His most recent response.

Here's my response:


Re: 1 Jn 5.13: I quoted, somewhere in previous comments, St. Paul's psg of not having attained it, but pressing on towards i

It's common for EOx and RCs to play the CounterQuote game, and that's what I see here.
I can harmonise each verse just fine in my position - 1 Jn 5:13 refers to a certain (though certainly not infallible) level of assurance, whereas this psg:
Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you;

Note Paul's already AND not yet - the "I haven't yet become perfect" in v 12 and then "as many as are perfect" in v 15.
Note that Christ already "laid hold" of Paul - yet more assurance talk.  And what is the "upward call" that is his goal?  Since it's UPward, there is little doubt that he refers to the final phase of one's salvation, glorification, the entry into Heaven, and accompanying glorification, perfect sanctification when God finishes the job (irresistible grace, BTW).
So of course he hasn't attained perfect sanctification yet; he hasn't died yet.
OK, now instead of playing CounterQuote, as if the Scr is contradictory, please provide your own exegesis of each so as to harmonise them under the EO position.


"He perfects the partially-unwilling human at death," as you said.

I pause to note that this is irresistible grace.  The human is resisting perfect sanctification thru his fallen will all his life, else why say "partially-unwilling"?  And yet God finishes the job, on the EO position.  Your position holds to irresistible grace, but you're for some reason allergic to countenancing it with respect to the conversion of the sinner.  What is clear is that your allergy is arbitrary.  


Right, but those are consequences for choices freely made, not an interference with the actual choice itself.

True, but I was talking about the other, future choices - they'd prefer to GO BACK into the Garden.  They'd choose non-thorny ground and non-pain in childbirth over thorny ground and pain in childbirth.  But those choices are refused.


Would God take someone, kicking and screaming, into heaven completely contrarily to his express, consistent will as borne out by his own life?

The Reformed wouldn't say that exactly either, not the last "as borne out by his own life".  God not only saves the kicking and screaming sinner, but also transforms him at the same time.  But there can be no doubt that fallen man is God's enemy, who wants nothing to do with Him.  There's not some halfway point in Scripture where the enemy of God becomes merely a sort-of-standoffish near-friend.


Yes indeed, but what’s the nature of that law? What are its consequences, and how are they meted out?

The curse for breaking the law is found in Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”

The consequence is eternal death and curse from God, unless you can keep all the law.  Which you can't.


We begin the process of the reversal of that condemnation by being united to Him in a death like His (baptism, Rom 6.3) so that we might share in Christ’s resurrected life.

How long before what % of your sins are forgiven?  How good do you have to be?
Part of your answer I anticipate will be: "Let's not talk of the minimum, but rather of how much we can be in God", yet that doesn't answer the question.  If it's progressive, and since you'll never be 100% fully in accord, in mind, thought, will, desire, and action, with God, so talking of "how much" you can be in God is irrelevant - you can't be as good as God.  So not even getting to assurance, why would anyone conclude that they're doing OK when they're not achieving to the fullest level of holiness?  I don't see why you wouldn't be reduced to utter despair (if you're consistent).



You'd said:
I get it that the main priority for Calvinists is the maintaining of God's sovereignty (and, in that, causality) over all things, whether or not we're made privy to how all that plays out on an individual level. I just don’t see how that ends up meaning anything.

Now you respond:
God’s sovereignty is an established dogma of (little and big “o”-orthodox) Christianity. So, of course, it matters that this be taught and believed by the faithful. What I’m wondering about here is whether or not the Reformed view of sovereignty means much without a way to objectively apply it to actual people who are now the elect, and actual people who are now damned.

Well, there's the objective teaching of it, and the subjective "how does this apply to me?" question is precisely what we're talking about here - assurance.


such a teaching seems to be little more than a hypothetical system

Much like the Incarnation, the Trinity.  Many other things.  They are abstract, yet they are utterly real, but it requires jumping the gap from objective to subjective in order to drive it home to the guy in the pew.


We also believe that the chaff is very much with the wheat in the Church militant, so really not all who are in the Church militant are actually in the Church militant.

So to almost quote you:  Theosis covers the “Saved by works” part very well, but leaves no way to tell if the “you've done/you're doing enough works” part doesn’t “work out”...



I'd said:
This is not the first time I've been justified in accusing EOdox of humanistic reasoning.

You applied a human example to God - in a pinch, *I* might use a Ming vase for dishonorable purposes, so obviously God would too.



But first--this “One True Church” polemic is rather tired

I'd stop using it if I saw some reason to think that this isn't your position.  Sorry.


as such a label is horribly ill-defined

I've talked to a lot of EOx over some yrs now and have not yet seen a reason to think the term doesn't fit.  Again, sorry, but I have pleaded with you to turn aside from your error.


This has no answer, and man cannot really call God into account because of it.

Sure it has an answer.  But such talk is not really available to the EO.  One reason I'm glad I don't have to shake my head at suffering and say, "Your suffering is meaningless, and God didn't plan to bring sthg for His glory and your good out of it".
Now, that might be a bit rough around the edges, but you said "this has no answer".  Perhaps I've jogged your memory so you can give a better account on this question.


Romans 5.6 calls them “weak,” though

I assume this is the word, right?
To be honest, I'm not sure how the context:
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

really gets you anywhere.
We're "ungodly", "not righteous", "sinners", due for the "wrath of God" (there's your punishment for breaking the law of God again), "enemies" needing "reconciliation", which cost Jesus His life.  Alot of bad stuff.
You really think that such ppl as these would stop to ask themselves that question - "I would say that the lack of questioning God seems to be over why you seem to be going through every conceivable struggle known to man in order to be saved, not why you had been created, irreversibly, for the sole purpose of eternal damnation."  Do enemies of God, sinners, have holy thoughts such as "wow, I sure hope I'm not created for eternal damnation"?  If they did, why wouldn't they (tautologically) be repentant?

Some talk on assurance and sola fide

David Bryan has been taking some time out of his busy schedule to interact with me on the issue of assurance of salvation.  Here are his latest comments, and here is my reply:


DavidB,

we will to do good but can’t accomplish it, so God has to come in and bring us to where we can, yes?

Ehhhh, kinda.  The HS within us desires to do good, but we fight Him.  We end up with sinful actions and giving into evil temptations.  We'll never get to a perfect state until God finishes the job, when we die or when He returns.


Well, our understandings of 1 Jn 5.13 are obviously very different

See, I wouldn't argue with the statement that you ALMOST made - that ASSURANCE of eternal life is (partly) contingent upon our performance of a godly life.  You said that your ACTUAL POSSESSION of eternal life is contingent upon your works, which makes me sad b/c you seem to have an overinflated sense of personal goodness and an underrated view of God's holiness, that you could ever get close enough to do anything of yourself to fulfill any conditional goodness so as to be with God in Heaven.
Anyway, outworkings of God's grace is part of one's ASSURANCE on my position, but it's not the only one.


God knows what we will do; that’s a huge leap from God’s causing what we will do.

My point was that skeptics can bring the same charge - if God knows what's going to happen and does nothing to stop bad things from happening, He's open to the charge that "He's not all-good, then" and garbage like that.

Read this before yelling "James 2!"

“When James says that faith alone does not justify, faith here refers to mere intellectual assent. For instance, demons affirm monotheism, but such “faith” is not wholehearted and glad-hearted assent that leads demons to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Instead, the faith of demons is theologically orthodox, but leads them to shudder because they fear judgment (James 2:19). The faith that saves, according to Paul, embraces Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, placing one’s life entirely in his hands. James criticizes a “faith” that notionally concurs with the gospel but does not grip the whole person. In other words, James does not disagree with Paul’s contention that faith alone justifies, but he defines carefully the kind of faith that justifies. The faith that truly justifies can never be separated from works. Works will inevitably flow as the fruit of such faith. Faith that merely accepts doctrines intellectually but does not lead to a transformed life is “dead” (James 2:17, 26) and “useless” (James 2:20). Such faith does not “profit” (ophelos [James 2:14, 16 RSV]) in the sense that it does not spare one from judgment on the last day. Those who have dead and barren faith will not escape judgment. True faith is demonstrated by works (James 2:18). James does not deny that faith alone saves, but it is faith that produces (synergew) works and is completed (teleiow) by works (James 2:22). The faith that saves is living, active, and dynamic. It must produce works, just as compassion for the poor inevitably means that one cares practically for their physical needs (James 2:15-16)....The foregoing comments, of course, need qualification. As I argued above, in some contexts Paul also emphasizes that good works are the fruit of faith and are needed for justification (e.g., Rom. 2:13; 4:17-22). The purpose of James as a whole, as is evident from this entire discussion, is to emphasize that good works are necessary for salvation. His letter apparently responds to a situation where moral laxity was countenanced. Nevertheless, James should not be interpreted to teach that believers can gain salvation on the basis of good works. Righteous deeds are the fruit of faith. James recognizes that all believers sin in numerous ways (James 3:2), and that even one sin makes a lawbreaker of the one who commits it (James 2:10-11). Being sinners, humans lack the capacity to do the works required to merit justification. They are saved by the grace of God, for in his goodness and generosity he granted believers new life (James 1:18). Even faith is a gift of God, for God chose some to “be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (James 2:5). What James hammers home is that such faith must always manifest itself in good works if it is genuine faith, but such good works are a far cry from perfection, as James 3:2 clarifies.”
-Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp.603-605.

(HT: Saint and Sinner)

For more detail, check out Excursus 2 in Dan McCartney's commentary on James.
(HT: Steve Hays)

1st Clement on sola fide

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (source, emphasis mine)

To be read in conjunction with this post of mine. DavidW and other EOdox (not to mention RCC) would have us believe that their position represents "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all", quoting Vincent de Lérins (a Western Christian, interestingly enough). So... what's the answer here?

Was Clement wrong and just speaking as a private individual? Is it intellectually honest just to scrub this testimony out of your annals of Sacred Tradition? If it's OK to ignore any writing you want to, why can't I do that too and only cite as For Real Sacred Tradition anyone I want and claim that the Reformed faith is "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"?

Am I mischaracterising him? I only quoted him, you know.
Some other option?

(See here a lame attempt by a Romanist to explain this away that I encountered.)