CALVINISM AND ASSURANCE Calvinists often claim their theology provides a better doctrine of assurance than Arminian theology. I think this is highly dubious. Several years ago, I was interviewed by Modern Reformation magazine. Here is one of their questions, and here is my answer. As a preface, consider these lines from the Westminster Confession, with which I agree, but which pose the difficulties with Calvinism that I note below: Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, many in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed. XVIII.1 Q: What different kinds of comfort do you think a Calvinist and Arminian pastor would offer to a Christian who is struggling with his or her faith? A: This is a great example of a practical issue that brings into sharp focus the profound differences between these two theological traditions. It is a well known fact that believers in both traditions sometimes struggle with their faith and wonder about the status of their relationship with God, sometimes doubting whether they are even saved. The theological interpretation of this doubt varies considerably, however, due to the very significant differences in their theology. To oversimplify, the Calvinist doubt can be summed up in the question “does God really love me?” whereas for the Arminian the question can be summed up, “do I really love God?” The Calvinist disquiet, which flows from the doctrine of unconditional election, is a fear that perhaps one is not really elect after all, that one is a victim of the dreaded “false hope” that Calvin warned against. The Arminian anxiety, which flows from the doctrine of conditional election, is a fear that one is not responding appropriately as God requires in terms of faith or obedience. Now what is interesting is that both traditions have highly developed doctrines of assurance, and that both appeal to similar things to encourage wavering Christians. Both cite the promises of the gospel, both emphasize the importance of the witness of the Holy Spirit, and both urge that believers can “make their election sure” by cheerfully obeying God and walking before him with a good conscience. Part of the difficulty, of course, is that some of these factors, such as cheerful obedience and good conscience, are somewhat subjective. In addition to these subjective considerations, believers struggling with their faith need objective grounds for assurance. Now the objective ground of our salvation is the death of Christ. But it is precisely here that important differences emerge. These differences crystallize in the Calvinist doctrine that Christ died only for the elect or, at the very least, died for the elect in a very different sense than he died for the rest of the world. Now given that none of us can be in a position to know whether or not another person is truly elect, a Calvinist pastor cannot with good conscience assure a struggling person that Christ died for him or her without claiming to know more than his theology permits. What a struggling believer most needs to be assured of is that God loves him, that Christ died for him, that God truly desires his salvation, and that God’s grace is at work in his life. Given the Arminian view of God’s love, the Arminian pastor is able to say all of this without equivocation. A Calvinist, however, cannot say this without claiming to know more than his theology warrants. The certainty that God loves us and Christ died for us and makes available to us the resources of His grace provides great encouragement to a believer who is struggling with his faith. It is God’s love and grace that enable us truly to believe and obey God. We love him because he first loved us, as John tells us. The worst case scenario for the Arminian is that he has in fact lost his faith and broken his relationship with God. But even then, God still loves him and wants the relationship to be restored. For a believer who is struggling with this worst case scenario, the reminder that God loves us and by this very love empowers us not only to have faith in him but also to love him in return, is just the assurance he needs. By contrast, the worst case scenario for the Calvinist is that he is not elect after all and is the victim of a false hope. If his worst case scenario is true, there is no word of hope for him and he will be lost forever. In short, it is far more devastating to doubt that God really loves us than to doubt that we really love God. And the doctrine of unconditional love is a far more powerful resource for helping struggling believers than the doctrine of unconditional election.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:30:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015