Conditional or Unconditional Assurance?

I find reading the Apostle John's letters especially beneficial for the simple reason that they are non-Pauline; they allow for a contrast, a reading of a different tenor or tone. John opens his first epistle by explaining that he preaches the word which he had seen and which was "made manifest" to him (1 John 1:2). He shares what he saw so that his audience might have "fellowship" with him, who is himself in fellowship "with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." (v. 3.)

To have fellowship with one another, an ambition that is (in my finer moments) quite dear to me, we must walk in the light, which is Christ. And in that case, the blood of Christ "cleanses us from all sin." (v. 7.) This serves as a preface for the beginning of 1 John 2, a recent liturgical reading. John says that "we may be sure that we know him" by "keep[ing] his commandments." (1 John 2:3.) This is reminiscent of John's own Gospel, in which he records the words of Christ, that "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15.)

Is the keeping of Christ's commandments a required step to validate and vest one's claimed love for Christ, or is it mere evidence of election? In other words, from John's letter does it appear that obedience is a sign of or an agent in achieving unity with Christ's propitiatory work? Is there a condition or not?

1 John 2 reads as if there may still be a condition. "He who says 'I know him' but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: he who says he abides in him ought to talk in the same way in which he [Christ] walked." (1 John 2:5-6). The disobedience doesn't seem to undo (on its own) one's possession of truth, but rather to evidence that the person is "a liar." But on the other hand, some action really flows from the keeping of commandments -- it is not mere assurance, mere evidence of prior election. In whoever keeps Christ's word, truly love for God is perfected. (As a matter of interpretation, this has to differ from a text that would say, "already perfect love is made known.")

It could be that, upon appreciating our having received the grace to obey divine commandments, we both find assurance in what has been done, and cooperate in the perfection of this love. If this is objectionable, I suspect the objection arises from a predisposition to a monocausalistic view.

Elect Infants

A recent discussion turned to election, and the state of those who die while still in their infancy. This post results from a curiosity about the Reformed view of the matter. This topic seems horribly controversial, and I am no theologian. I warmly invite correction where I inevitably err.

A. Five Reformed Propositions on the Disposition of Dead Infants.

One seemingly wise Reformed blogger delineates no fewer than five alternative Reformed theories for the ultimate state of those who die in their infancy. I will note my own understanding, and some tensions I see surfacing in this area, below.
(Hat tip: Triabloque).

1. Death in infancy is a sign of election, so that all infants who die are saved.

2. We cannot know whether infants who die were elect, because there was no opportunity for them to manifest (or not) their election through faith. As with adults, some would be of the elect, and others not, so hope is appropriate for grieving parents.

3. All children of true believers are saved, but all who die as children of unbelievers are certainly lost. This is just because of their guilt of Original Sin (as that term of art is formulated by Calvin).

4. All children of true believers are saved according to God’s promise to their parents, but some of those who die as children of unbelievers are of the unelect.

5. All children of true believers are saved, and we have no grounds for drawing inferences about the ultimate disposition of those who die as children of unbelievers.

B. Tension with the Church Visible / Church Invisible Distinction.

The Reformed view the “church” as being composed of a “church visible” and a “church invisible”. These are like two concentric circles; while there is no salvation outside the church visible (the outer circle), only members of the church invisible (the inner) are elect, so saved. The church visible can be identified by other humans using our sense, but the composition of the church invisible is only known to God.

Here are some sources that I believe show this same understanding as being the normative “Reformed” teaching:

Antonius Walaeus was a Dutch Reformer who died in 1639. He wrote in his contriubution to Synopsis Purioris:

“The visible Church is not strictly a different Church than the invisible Church, but it is only considered in a different way… For in the visible Church that invisible Church[ ] is being collected and formed. The invisible inheres and is contained in the visible.”

The Westminster Confession seems to contain this teaching as well. It says of the church invisible, "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect… (ch. XXV, sec. 1)” And regarding the church visible, it "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children… out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Ibid., Sec. 2)"

Finally, Robert Shaw, in his excellent exposition of the Westminster Confession, says of this portion:

“This Church is said to be invisible, because it cannot be discovered by the eye. It is not separated from the world in respect of place, but of state. It lies hidden in the visible Church, from which it cannot be certainly distinguished. The qualifications of its members are internal, their faith and love are not the objects of sense…

“The visible Church, according to our Confession, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.… It is distinguishable, like any other society; and we can say, Here is the Church of Christ; but there is the Church of the Jews or of the Mohammedans. Nothing more is necessary to discover it than the use of our senses. Having learned, by the perusal of the Scriptures, what are the discriminating characters of the Church, wherever we perceive a society whose creed and observances are, upon the whole, conformable to this pattern, we are authorised to say, This is the Church, or rather, a part of the Church.

“When we speak of the visible and invisible Church, this is not to be understood as if there were two Churches, or as if one part of the Church were visible and another invisible. The former includes the latter, but they are not co-extensive; the same individuals who constitute the Church considered as invisible, belong also to the Church considered as visible; but many who belong to the visible, are not comprehended in the invisible Church. (internal quotations omitted)"

C. Tensions with Reformed Original Sin & Paedobaptism.

The Reformed baptize their infants. They believe that their children are members of the Church, whereas the Baptists believe their children are sinners still in need of coming to saving faith (they call themselves “credo-Baptists” as opposed to the Reformed “paedo-Baptists”). Since infants who die to heathen homes are outside the church visible, it seems the Reformed position excludes the possibility that they are elect (though, as the above five views shows, my conclusion has not been common to Reformed thinkers). I do not know how the Reformed position would view the children of Baptists of who die young, who the Baptists themselves do not consider to be part of the church, but I imagine many would formulate some kind of equitable view that can be saved by God’s grace if it is His will (perhaps something akin to the Catholic “baptism by desire” idea).

Are they elect who have been Baptized? Baptism is, after all, the entrance right into the church visible (see WCOF, ch. XVIII, sec. 1, "Baptism is… the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church”), and for believers and their children (see ibid., sec. 4, “Not only those that do actually profess faith [ ] but also the infants of [ ] believing parents, are to be baptized."). Not so, says the Confession. Baptism does not have such efficacy: “Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (WCOF, ch. XVIII, sec. 5)." The principle here is telling, in a broader context. Form is not to be prerequisite in the Reformed system to God’s achieving what is in accordance with His sovereign Will. This fits well with a monergistic understanding of how God unfolds creation.

D. Tensions with Works-Righteous.

Does a “true believer” receive Salvation as a reward for his faith (and if so, are infants out of luck for not having the ability to possess such faith)? Or contrarily, do infants receive Salvation because of their innocence and absence of actual sin?

The Reformed position is that those whom God has elected to Salvation from before all time are, through the unfailingly efficacious Grace of the Holy Spirit, brought to True Faith. By that Faith, the Elect enjoy Christ’s righteousness at the day of judgment because he takes our sins upon Himself (cf. WCOF, ch. XI, secs. 2 and 3). In any understanding of faith, though, it cannot be equated with a work. The Reformed do not see that the one work (or duty) of believing has replaced all the works of the Old Covenant. Faith is a sign of election bearing fruit within the believer.

So what of those who are unable to attain such Faith? “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (ch. X, sec. 3)” This section does not explain which dying infants are elect, but I understand this to be an intentional omission to match what Scripture has (in the eyes of the Westminster Divines) also omitted.

The late Reformed Rev. Boettner quotes approvingly Dr. R.A. Webb to show that Calvin never explicitly stated that a dead infant may have been damned (here):

“Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure'—(that is his own word)—'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of 'impiety,' 'wickedness,' and 'rebellion.' Now reprobate infants, though guilty of original sin and under condemnation, cannot, while they are infants, thus 'procure' their own destruction by their personal acts of impiety, wickedness, and rebellion. They must, therefore, live to the years of moral responsibility in order to perpetrate the acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion which Calvin defines as the mode through which they procure their destruction.”

This quote fascinates me, and stands certain “Calvinist” understandings I had on their head. Boettner and Webb suggest that Calvin believed all “reprobate” infants will live until an age of discrimination so that they can procure their own destruction through actual sin. This seems flawed in that it detracts from the Reformed belief in the justice of damning people on account of their Original Sin (the Reformed version of Original Sin, that is) alone. It also seems to lead to a skewed view upon the death of a child: would we congratulate mourning parents for the validating sign of the child’s election that also just took him away?

E. Conclusion.

I remain confused on the matter, and that’s okay.

The formulation of church visible / church invisible coupled with the Reformed views on Predestination and sola Fide, seems to exclude the possibility of salvation for infants who die outside the church (for they are outside the outer of the two concentric circles), and may or may not leave open the possibility of salvation for infants inside the church, depending on how one views the “faith” requirement. Since faith like a child is presented by Christ as an archetype, I believe that the infant could, at some level, have the preeminent faith in Christ and love for Him. Therefore, my Reformed synapses believe that Christian infants are saved.

Man's Chief End

Question and Answer One of the Westminster Shorter Catechism states that man's "chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever".

I came across what I believe to be the Roman Catholic answer to the same question (i.e., "What is the chief end of man?"). Man "alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity" (Catholic Catechism, 356).

The difference between these two is interesting. The Calvinist sees man as existing for God's glorification and man's enjoyment of Him. The Catholic sees man as existing to share in God's life. It seems straightforward that this difference follows from the respective positions Calvinists and Catholics hold on man's free will. The Calvinist admires God's monergistically sovereign decree to salvation and reprobation, and feels thankful for happening to be in the former camp (of salvation). The Catholic sees an ongoing call to cooperation with and love of God.

The Catholic Catechism notes that "sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him" (ibid., 387). I find this idea that there can be no love when there is no freedom simple and persuasive. If this idea and the Catholic view of the chief end of man are right, then of course man has free will.

If God's glorification requires receiving love from His (predestinated) elect creatures, and if there can be no love without freedom, then the Shorter Catechism's First Q&A is at loggerheads with Calvinism's double-election teaching. In other words, if His glory requires love, and love requires freedom, then our living out this Great Predestinated Drama will fail to meet our chief end.

God Repents Of Evil In Jonah 3:10

Here's some food for thought on the NIV translation of a confusing verse (and here the NIV seems in common with most other modern translations) (and -duh- all emphasis mine):

Jonah 3:10: "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil [rah] ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction [rah] he had threatened. (NIV)"

And in the RSV: "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it." The KJV is identical in relevant parts.

My thoughts are simple and predictable.

1) I am puzzled beyond words at this notion that God would repent of an evil that He had intended to perform. Now, this doesn't concern me, as I take "evil" here to mean something like calamity, injury, misery or distress (all part of Strong's definition). What's puzzling is that God repented of an act He had willed to perform. What of God's being without passions and "immutable" (WCOF, Ch. 2, I)? Of course, if we white-wash God's intentions down to a mere threatening, we have cured any conflict between Scripture and a certain confessional tradition.

2) What gives an editorial board or "translation" committee the power or authority to decide that the same word should be translated two different ways in the same verse? This, as a license, makes me tremendously uncomfortable, especially under the rubric of an all-sufficient and entirely perspicuous view of Bible. Let evil be evil, and let God repent away, if that is what the Spirit-breathed words tell us.

Was Calvin Augustinian?

After being referred to a noteworthy quote from Augustine posted on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Justification", I wondered how Augustinian Calvin truly was.

The excellent Introduction to Calvin's Institutes provided with the McNeil Edition, citing B. B. Warfield, says "the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church. (Intro. X, on predestination)" Fascinating. Augustine's predestinarian thought (which was integral to Calvin's reformational 'doctrine of grace') prevailed by way of a methodology of which he would have disapproved. But was this thought even really Augustine's thought?

Now to Augustine: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own. (emphasis mine) (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13)"

The McNeil Edition is frank in admitting that Calvin "goes beyond Augustine in his explicit assertion of double predestination, in which the reprobation of those not elected is a specific determination of God's inscrutable will." And further, "He feels under obligation to close the door to the notion that anything happens otherwise than under the control of the divine will." If the former quote means that Augustine may have implicitly agreed with double predestination, I think Augustine above (...'does not without your action justify you.') belies the idea. Further, Calvin seems boxed in by the idea of God possessing a single will equally in force in creation as it is within the Godhead. "They will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven." Could double predestination (i.e., double election), if novel to Calvin in the 16th Century, be right?

Predestinarianism and Functional Arminianism

Calvinism sees our freedom to be like that of water flowing down a hill

I've recently been confronted with this assertion: those who rely on something other than faith alone for salvation are Hell-bound. This is based on an interpretation of Galatians 1:8-10, (in part) "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (NKJV)" [these interpreters invert the curse on teachers of an other gospel and put it on followers of the same.]

Syllogistically, this assertion would look something like this. 1) The "gospel" is salvation by faith alone, 2) an adherent of any other "gospel" is damned, 3) any admixture of works to the "gospel" makes it an other "gospel", 4) the Catholics (as the assertion I faced went) rely on works in their "gospel", therefore 5) Catholics (and others with such admixture of works) are damned.

Soteriology (with the role of Predestination and Free Will as a subset) strikes me as one of the three most difficult doctrines of Christian theology (along with Trinitarianism and Ecclesiology). In the syllogism above, the purity of one's adherence to sola Fide becomes of paramount, soul-saving importance.

A question remains stuck in my craw: does a functional recognition of free will effectively become an admixture of "works" to the True "gospel" of sola Fide?

Of Free Will and Good Works, we cannot have one without the other. If sola Fide is not a "gospel" of works, then we have to reject the notion that it involves the good "work" of accepting Jesus. And in rejecting the view that accepting Jesus is to our credit (hence a work), sola Fide must be a "gospel" of strict predestination. Sola Fide then is simply (and beautifully, a Calvinist should add) a statement of on-the-ground facts that one indeed has True Faith which evidences one's predestined election.

I humbly posit that most Calvinists, lay and ordained alike, are Functional Arminians. We seem strained to avoid some notion of free will and the ability of individuals to reject God's offer at the onset or at some point during the faith-walk. Is our avoidance of rejecting God's grace - is the discipline (of our free will) to remain faithful, a creditable work unto salvation? If it is, then it would seem to be an admixture of beliefs other than sola Fide and, under the syllogism above, is damnable.

A clear example of this Functional Arminianism is our inclination to command those considering conversion to a heretical church to walk cautiously and pray about the dangerous ground on which they tread. Why? If God has strictly predestined that one is going to walk away from an outward appearance of sola-Fide faith, and if God is truly immutable, those prayers would be to no avail. But I doubt that any true red-blooded Evangelical will go there. Prayers move God to compassion, as we see time and again in the Scriptures. [Consider two other examples of our Functional Arminianism: 1) how predestinarians treat those who have left the faith, and 2) how we treat those who have lost an infant child.]

I for one think that Arminians and Calvinists alike can receive Salvation. I think we should show respect to those who believe that Christ may say "I know thee not" on the day of judgment unless we have fed the hungry and clothed the naked.

re-Formed Reformed view on 1st Commandment

The latest word out of a Covenant Seminary (PCA) Associate Professor, Michael Williams, leaves a strong Anabaptistic flavor in my mouth, and I probably just need some educatin'. I fail to see the breath of a Reformed (Calvinistic) view in this writing. The article is entitled No Other Gods: The First Commandment. By staying brief, I may do his work some injustice, but this is the flavor of it (all emphases mine):

"The Law is an Expression of God’s Grace."

- God's Grace comes as a reaction to our repentance. You cannot be penitent until you break the law. Grace flows from transgression, so only indirectly from the law - this statement therefore seems misleading.

"I would like to suggest that the emphasis in the first commandment does not only protect the singularity and sovereignty of God, but also tells the people of God—each and every one of them—their true worth."

- I don't see that God's jealousy for our affection, his hatred of idolatry, is an expression of our true worth. If it is, it's because he has to fight for our affection - to woo us (more to come).

"A paraphrase of Exodus 20:2,3, the prologue and the first commandment, makes this point. “I, Yahweh, am your God. I saved you, I made you my own, my children. Do not waste your precious time on misplaced worship. I value you too much to see you court and run after the futile, the empty, the foolish, the detestable.”"

- I dislike paraphrases of Scripture, and dislike seeing a Professor at a major evangelical seminary using such in his exegetical writing. I suppose this is just a matter of my personal taste... But this type of love language from God the Father, who delivered the Ten Commandments to His people, is a re-write of history. It places the efficaciously gracious role of the Mediator-Messiah onto the Father. It makes the God of now look different from the God of the Old Testament (and I've heard non-believers use this opinion as proof against the truth of Scripture).

"To be sure, God calls us to be God-centered. But that does not mean that He is as well. If God were God-centered, wouldn’t that make Him self-centered, even narcissistic? I have heard Reformed Christians speak as if God is precisely that. He does all things to glorify Himself..."


- Williams here seems oddly out of step with the Westminster Confession of Faith, and this is where I must need some educatin'. The sole purpose of man is to glorify God (Q #1 of the Westminster Longer Confession). God's purpose is not to woo us. If He does woo us, it is solely for His glory. That is self-centered. God, in my lowly opinion, is perfectly entitled to be self-centered. He is entitled to have hated Esau. How can you reconcile a Predestinarian view with a notion that God is not self-centered?