Luis Dizon posted a recent article of his in a facebook group. The following is a link to the article and my brief comments that I left at the post in the facebook group. I probably won't be posting all the following responses people will likely make on my facebook comment.
Luis Dizon's original article: Why (Most) Calvinists Don’t Have Peace with God (By J. Luis Dizon)
My two comments (combined) in the facebook group.
I don't have time for a long comment. So some quick ones. The article would have been better if it distinguished between 1. "assurance" as a *subjective* and changing/fluctuating psychological epistemic state and 2. "security" as an *objective* ontological reality [which may be mutable or immutable depending on whether the P in TULIP is true]. With those distinctions in mind, one can have a false or true confident assurance, just as one can have uncertainty yet nevertheless be objectively secure. Because there's ontological peace and psychological peace. The former is real and the latter could be mistaken. Given the Evangelical doctrine of sola fide and penal substitution, one can have peace without full assurance. Assurance being "of the essence of faith" is an in-house debate among both Calvinists and non-Calvinist Evangelicals. I don't think it is "of the essence of faith."
//While White has criticized these other groups in the past, he never levels the charge against them that their peace is false. He only levels it against Catholics.//
Admittedly there is some inconsistency there, but that's partly reduced by the fact on any kind of Evangelicalism one's ontological peace with God is based on the merits of Christ imputed to the believer. As R.C. Sproul has said, "sola fide" is theological shorthand for salvation by works [sic], namely the finished all sufficient works of Christ. Whereas in Catholicism one's final salvation is finally grounded in *OUR* merits [admittedly, ex hypothesi, empowered by the grace of God].
As Luther wrote at the end of The Bondage of the Will, "Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God." https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2014/03/excerpt-from-bondage-of-will-near-ending.html
//At most, all it means is that Lutherans and Wesleyans can lose their peace with God relatively more easily than Catholics can. From the standpoint of assurance of salvation (defined Calvinistically), this produces a difference in degree, rather than a difference in kind.//
As I (fallibly) understand it, Lutherans and (many) Wesleyans believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, rather than final salvation by our grace empowered works. So, the ontological and meritorious grounds of peace are different between Lutherans & Wesleyans vs. Catholics.
//...Catholics are not opposed to belief in Sola Fide, as long as this is understood to be a “formed faith,” as opposed to an unformed one. Thus, the difference between Catholic and Protestant soteriologies is less extreme than most polemics would imply.//
But "faith" in what? In the finished work of Christ on the cross? Or the (alleged) divinely instituted sacramental system whereby we can graciously merit our final salvation? It'll be said that the latter is a strawman. Okay, fine. But it can be, and (certainly) HAS BEEN abused that way for centuries.
//White’s argument is that to have true peace with God, one must have assurance of salvation.//
White doesn't believes that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. As I understand it (and I agree), White believes that it's theoretically possible for a Catholic to be saved despite not believing in sola fide or having the assurance that comes with it. One can be saved sola fide without knowing about or believing the doctrine. Since it is Christ who saves, not right doctrine or assent to it.
//Interestingly, the Westminster Standards state that it is possible to have this infallible certainty (WCF 17.2, see also WLC Q.80), but never explain how this is possible in light of apostasy and false assurance. //
//Since infallible certainty that one is elect is epistemically impossible...//
In my conception of Calvinism, there's an ordinary type of assurance that's fallible and based on the believed promises of Scripture grounded in Christ's finished work. Then there's the special kind of assurance that is divinely endowed and deposited (similar to the "gift of faith") that's given in a sovereign way whereby one arrives at infallible certainty. But that's a special gift that's above and beyond the requirement of Scripture for the Christian, to which Christians are encouraged to strive for, but not of the essence of genuine faith. BTW, it's not a logical contradiction for something to be able to be striven for when it can only be sovereignly given. Since, God can ordain and empower the striving.
//This is tied to the belief that Progressive Sanctification is the means by which Justification can be proved.//
Even the late Calvinist Steve Hays thought progressive sanctification as usually understood among Evangelicals is overly simplistic. As he points out in a blog: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/sowing-to-spirit.html
Among other things, he writes:
//The mellowing effect of age, although not unexceptional, is a commonplace of human experience. We cannot sin as energetically as in our youth! Then again, we also see the opposite happen with some believers. They become hard and bitter and brittle—like Naomi.
There is a lot in Scripture about a believer's struggle with sin. But I don't see his life necessarily charting an upward curve. Jacob gets better, but David gets worse, while Abraham and St. Paul seem much the same from beginning to end.// END QUOTE
Regarding R.T. Kendall's disappointment, I suspect he hasn't encountered the 18th century "Marrow Controversy." If he had, he wouldn't have described the Calvinist view with such a hasty generalization. There's room for disagreement among Calvinists. Sinclair Ferguson addressed how to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of Legalism and Antinomianism in his 3 part lecture series on the Marrow Controversy. I've linked to the mp3s here: https://gospelmeals.blogspot.com/2021/12/pastoral-lessons-from-marrow-controversy.html
I don't fully agree with Ferguson's use of the law, but I do with his overall emphasis of coming to Christ to be justified/sanctified/cleansed rather than cleaning one's self up before coming to Christ. One cannot be cleased without FIRST coming to Christ. The Marrow controversy revolved around William Craig refusal to affirm the Auchterarder Creed: “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.”
In my view the role of the law in sanctification is somewhere in between the more standard Reformed view and Progressive Covenantalism [a more refined and less radical version of New Covenant Theology].
//Now, this isn’t to say that similar tendencies don’t exist among some Catholics. //
That's an understatement. The modern lack of scrupulosity among Catholics is novel/new. I suspect partly due to Protestant influence and Vatican II. During the vast majority of Catholic history EXTREME scrupulosity and fear of ending up in hell or even in purgatory was the norm during the Middle Ages. This was true right up to Vatican II. Even prior to the medieval period and the rise of the Papacy, people sometimes delayed baptism because of the mistaken understanding of its efficacy. That's what can happen with a TOO high view of the sacraments. If highER sacramentalism is true, then maybe the Lutherans or the Anglicans have the better balance than Catholics. I find that many modern Catholics are ignorant of (& sometimes avoid) the details of medieval Catholicism and how Catholics lived in extreme fear and scrupulosity. As if modern Catholics now better understand the true practical implications of Catholicism. But even assuming (ad arguendo) they do, it's pretty sad how for millennia Catholics "misunderstood" them and didn't enjoy the recent relative assurance modern Catholics do. That seems to me to be telling with respect to the practical tendency that Catholic sacramentalism leads to.
Regarding the quotes by brother Lawrence and St. Therese of Lisieux, they make better sense and are better grounded in a finished work of Christ if understood in a Protestant way, than a Catholic way. Lawrence's statement of "relying upon the infinite merits of our LORD" made better sense given the imputation of Christ's active obedience (i.e. IAO). Same with Therese's statement, "I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself." As I fallibly understand it, on Catholicism you do need to have your hands filled with your grace empowered works. On Catholicism it's incorrect to say, "All our justice is blemished in your eyes." Since, many Catholics reject the Protestant universal application of Isa. 64:6 regarding our works being "filthy rags." Finally, Therese's statement better fits with IAO when she says, "to be clothed in your own justice [i.e. righteousness] and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself." On Evangelicalism, Christ *IS* our Righteousness as per Dan. 9:24; Jer. 23:6; Isa. 53:11; Isa. 54:17; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; 2 Pet. 1:1; Rom. 5:16-17 [just to name a few passages].
//In practice, then, it can be said that the average Calvinist has no better claim to have peace with God than the average Catholic.//
But there's more than "practice" and psychology involved. There's the issue of the ontological grounds for objective peace. Calvinism has the truly finished work of Christ.
//This is because, contra White, the sacraments are not meant to burden Catholics, but to provide them with a means of experiencing the finished work of Christ in a meaningful and tangible way. //
Is it really finished given that in the Mass Christ is continually being re-presented to the Father in an unbloody sacrifice? With the Mass being propitiatory? On Catholicism, one may not partake Communion if on has committed a mortal sin. Yet, there is no consensus in Catholicism on what constitutes a mortal sin. Then there's the epistemic problem of whether one has truly achieved contrition rather than mere attrition. As well as the problem of locating the real sacraments? Are they found only in Catholicism? Catholics will say they are found (at least) among the Eastern Orthodox. How certain is that? What if they are not found in either sect but in, say only Sedevacantist priests, or the Oriental Orthodox, or some other hidden sect? What if one is stranded on an island and doesn't have access to the sacraments? Is the desire for the sacraments sufficient? Then why can't trust in Christ alone be sufficient?
