Calvinism and the Assurance of Salvation, Part 2
- Keith Stanglin
- 6 hours ago
- 6 min read
Keith D. Stanglin
In my previous blog post, I raised the old theological and practical challenge of the assurance of salvation, an issue that was central to the Protestant reformers in general and to Jacob Arminius (1559–1609) in particular. He identified two opposite problems related to assurance. Previously, I discussed his treatment of the first problem—despair or hopelessness about salvation, which is exacerbated by certain Reformed approaches to theology and soteriology.
SECURITY
The second problem Arminius observed is the opposite extreme to the first. He called this vice security. (Arminius used the Latin word “securitas,” which means carelessness. Throughout Christian history, the word security included the idea of neglecting something that really deserves attention.) He recalled several times during his ministry when, as an attentive pastor should, he addressed sin in the congregation and even admonished certain individuals. Too often, those same people responded as if sin is not a concern. After all, the apostle Paul, according to the dominant Reformed interpretation of Romans 7, continuously was overcome by sin. Since the elect are saved by grace, what’s really the big deal anyway?
After an examination of Arminius’ writings, it appears that this tendency toward security, like the former problem of despair, is the result of the distinctive combination of three Reformed teachings. The first point concerns the efficacy of sanctification. For the Reformed, although the regenerate person ought to and is able to make steps toward sanctification with the help of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless they are baby steps; progress is minimal. The standard Reformed interpretation of Romans 7, read as the autobiographical account of the regenerate apostle Paul, supports the notion that sin is an ongoing and prominent struggle in the Christian life. Having little expectation of personal sanctification implies that sin is in some sense normal and, therefore, not of grave concern to the individual Christian. For his part, Arminius certainly acknowledged that progress in holiness is impeded by sin and weakness. But he also contested the typical Reformed reading of Romans 7, and, like the early church fathers, he interpreted the person weighed down with sin as someone not yet regenerate, because sin cannot dominate the life of a regenerate person as is described in this passage. With regard to Romans 7, Arminius wrote,
For nothing can be imagined more noxious to good morals than to assert, that it is a property of the regenerate not to do the good which they will, and to do the evil which they do not will: For therefore it necessarily follows, that those persons flatter themselves in their sins, who, while they sin, feel that they do so with a reluctant conscience and with a will that offered some resistance (Cap. VII Rom., V.i.2).
The second Reformed doctrine that led to security is unconditional election, along with its corollary of irresistible grace. If one is confident in one’s election, then grace is irresistible and salvation is secure.
Unconditional election and irresistible grace can promote security especially when combined with a third doctrine, the perseverance of the saints, which is a predictable corollary of unconditional election. If a person becomes part of God’s chosen covenant people by irresistible grace alone apart from good works, then no amount of evil works or lack of good works can nullify that election and covenant. According to Arminius, if one affirms the impossibility of apostasy, this doctrine does not console as much as it engenders carelessness with regard to sin, which, for Arminius, is a dangerous indication of “carnal security” (securitas carnalis). Arminius wrote,
The persuasion by which any believer certainly persuades himself that he cannot defect from the faith, or that, at least, he will not defect from the faith, does not conduce so much to consolation against despair or doubt that is adverse to faith and hope, as it does to engender security, a thing directly opposed to that most salutary fear with which we are commanded to work out our salvation, and which is exceedingly necessary in this place of temptations (Articuli nonnulli XXII.4-5).
Therefore, the normalcy of sin in the Christian life, along with the doctrines of unconditional election and eternal security, could foster an attitude of “saved if you do; saved if you don’t.” This lack of concern over the presence of sin is the very thing that could precipitate a fall.
For Arminians, there is a middle way of true assurance between the extremes of despair and security. On the one hand, the knowledge that sin has consequences and that a person can fall away through open rebellion guards against careless security. But on the other hand, the knowledge that God will save all penitent believers guards against hopeless despair.
FOUNDATION OF SALVATION AND ASSURANCE: GOD’S LOVE
Ultimately, assurance of salvation is sought by examining what is properly the very foundation of salvation: God’s love. This love of God is evident in his promise, which is external to the creature. This word from God makes known his will or intent for the creature. The question is, If not meritorious works, then what determines or influences the divine will to save? To put it another way, what do we know about God’s love?
The Reformed are more reluctant than Arminius to describe God’s affection toward the whole human race as “love.” For Arminius’s opponents, God’s loving will does not extend to all humanity for the purpose of salvation. And if God does not love everyone for the purpose of salvation, then assurance is undermined. You are left to wonder which group you fall in—those whom God wants to save or those he does not. His will concerning election and the basis of this will are inscrutable.
For Arminians, the true foundation of salvation and of the assurance of salvation is the promise of God that he loves all and will save penitent believers. This foundation is itself based on and made possible only by the foundational person and work of Christ. And God sent Christ because of his love (John 3:16).
To get to the heart of the matter, we can compare the Reformed and Arminian answers to the question, “How do you know that you are elect?”
Let us return to the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, which asks, “What is your only comfort in life and death?” The answer is that I belong to God. But an appropriate follow-up question that we could ask the Reformed is, “How do you know that you belong to God? How do you know that you’re elect?” Note the responses to this very question given by Reformed theologians. Robert Peterson and Michael Williams answer this question: “It is when people turn to Christ in faith that they know God has chosen them for salvation” (Why I Am Not an Arminian, 65). Michael Horton answers this question with a reference to John 10:27–28: “Have you heard [Christ’s] voice and followed him?” Then he gives you eternal life. We discover election “not in ourselves but in Christ” (For Calvinism, 73).
But once you acknowledge that there is a class of people that God really does not want to save, individuals whom he does not love, then assurance is undermined. What’s more, the acknowledgment that anyone’s present faith may simply be temporary faith and a result of self-deception, a faith that will not last, also undermines assurance. “Turning to Christ in faith” and “discovering election in Christ” are phrases that ring hollow in a system in which God does not want all to be saved, and he gives temporary faith to some reprobate from whom he will eventually remove it.
On the other hand, for the Arminian, those same phrases, and all testimonies to salvation, actually mean something. There’s no wondering about which group you fall into. You are in the group that God loves and wants to save. Whatever happens in life, I know that God loves me. Whatever else I may believe or doubt, whatever success or failure I may experience, whatever gain or loss, I know something that a Calvinist can never know for certain—namely, God wants me to be saved and created me for this end. This is the ground of salvation and assurance of salvation.