Antinomianism - How Do You Stack Up?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Errors of Antinomianism
(William Young, Reformed Thought, pp. 61-62)

1. The law is made void by grace. Justification by faith alone renders good works unnecessary.
2. Since good works are unnecessary, obedience to the law is not required of justified persons.
3. God sees no sin in the justified, who are no longer bound by the law, and is not displeased with them if they sin.
4. God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin.
5. Nor can sin in any way injure the justified.
6. Since no duties or obligations are admitted in the gospel, faith and repentance are not commanded.
7. The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin.
8. Nor need he mortify sin; Christ has mortified sin for him.
9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.
10. Justifying faith is the assurance that one is already justified.
11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.
12. Therefore, they were never children of wrath or under condemnation.
13. Their sin, as to its very being, was imputed to Christ so as not to be theirs, and His holiness is imputed to them as their only sanctification.
14. Sanctification is no evidence of justification, for assurance is the fruit of an immediate revelation that one is an elect person.
15. No conviction by the law precedes the sinner’s closing with Christ, inasmuch as Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners.
16. Repentance is produced not by the law, but by the gospel only.
17. The secret counsel of God is the rule of man’s conduct.
18. God is the author and approver of sin, for sin is the accomplishment of His will.
19. Unless the Spirit works holiness in the soul, there is no obligation to be holy or to strive toward that end.
20. All externals are useless or indifferent, since the Spirit alone gives life.

Any surprises in the above?

AMR

 

[Andres]

The only one I might take issue with is the second part of #9:

9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.

I would agree a saint should always be distressed upon sinning/backsliding, but I do hold to a full assurance of my salvation in the vilest of my sins. I would think to disagree with this would mean to disagree to with perseverance of the saints. Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[MW]

That list uncovers a number of the dark hiding places which the mind of sin will use to conceal its opposition to the rule of God.

 

[MW]

but I do hold to a full assurance of my salvation in the vilest of my sins.

It might be worth qualifying that in the sight of our sins, there is the acknowledgment that they are vile, the open confession that they are worthy of damnation, the confidence that they are covered in the blood and righteousness of Christ, and the grace of repentance which desires and endeavours to depart from them and follow what is good. In this state there is the assurance of salvation NOTWITHSTANDING the vilest of our sins.

 

[Andres]

but I do hold to a full assurance of my salvation in the vilest of my sins.

It might be worth qualifying that in the sight of our sins, there is the acknowledgment that they are vile, the open confession that they are worthy of damnation, the confidence that they are covered in the blood and righteousness of Christ, and the grace of repentance which desires and endeavours to depart from them and follow what is good. In this state there is the assurance of salvation NOTWITHSTANDING the vilest of our sins.

Amen. Thank you Rev Winzer.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Young is a strong proponent of experimental religion. By the term Young likens it to the work of the scientist who forms hypotheses, tests them, and confirm, rejects, or revises said hypotheses. Likewise, believers are to to be constantly examining themselves, testing their experiences, and thusly proving their election sure.

 

[arapahoepark]

"God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin"

That one is particularly surprising....of course it's true in the sense of eternity, but not temporarily.

 

[Solparvus]

"God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin"

That one is particularly surprising....of course it's true in the sense of eternity, but not temporarily.

What does he do with Hebrews 12? Chastisement is a sign of being a child of God. Illegitimate children are left entirely alone.

 

[Herald]

I came out of the antinomian fundamentalist background. Coming out of it was like pulling teeth.

 

[MW]

"God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin"

That one is particularly surprising....of course it's true in the sense of eternity, but not temporarily.

What does he do with Hebrews 12? Chastisement is a sign of being a child of God. Illegitimate children are left entirely alone.

That is why it is called an "error" of Antinomianism.

 

[Dearly Bought]

The only one I might take issue with is the second part of #9:

9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.

I would agree a saint should always be distressed upon sinning/backsliding, but I do hold to a full assurance of my salvation in the vilest of my sins. I would think to disagree with this would mean to disagree to with perseverance of the saints. Am I misunderstanding something?

I am confident that Dr. Young means error #9 to be understood as the antithesis of the following doctrine:

True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.
(WCF XVIII.iv)

 

[Jack K]

I too paused at #9. But with a qualifier like Rev. Winzer gave, it works.

Everything else just sounded wrong. Those statements suppose an empty, halfway, no-victory-over-sin-in-my-life sort of salvation. Christ in me accomplishes better than that.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.

(1Co 10:12) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
(1Co 10:13) There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.



(2Co 13:5) Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?


Maybe we need to discern what backsliding is. When I hear backsliding I think of sin that is practiced and unrepented of. I think of one who is abandoning the faith he once confessed. I believe that is the historical understanding of the phrase.

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

First, what a FANTASTIC post! I'm bookmarking this for future reference.

Ok, lemme throw another one out there that no one else seemed to have trouble with: #7 "The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin."

Please read my words carefully in order to not misunderstand. I often hear nearly identical wording used in what I consider to be "a legalistic manner" that leads to "works salvation". So I ask, is this exact wording technically true? The "in order to receive" wording seems to imply an "earning the forgiveness through the work of repentance". So correct me if I'm wrong (I'm grateful that you will ): I do not believe one must consciously/mentally/outwardly "Confess (admit they sinned) and repent (mentally chose to turn from the sin) IN ORDER to be forgiven" and if they fail to confess and outwardly/mentally repent, they will end up in hell. If this were true, their salvation/forgiveness would depend upon the WORK of confession and repentance and conscious/mental recognition of sin. We are unaware of 100+ sins we commit per day, so clearly we are forgiven for these even though we did not confess and mentally choose to repent. We are forgiven based on what Christ did, not what we do or fail to do.

Now to clarify and complete this though, I do believe ALL Christians WILL inwardly EVENTUALLY (not necessarily immediately and not even in this lifetime) repent (even if unconsciously) by the Holy Spirit. It is because of His sanctifying work that we DO/WILL repent. We might not repent tomorrow or even in a week or even in this lifetime but eventually we do/will inwardly believe God is right and His law is always right and all our sins are wrong. In otherwords, we do not have to mentally recall all our sins and make a mental choice to bring them to God IN ORDER for God to forgive us and if we fail to recall or bring them mentally to God, then He will not forgive us. Also, if we hold bitterness towards someone and die in a car accident, also we will not end up in hell because we didn't "repent yet".

I have seen many "Calvinistic brothers" teaching "you need to confess and repent IN ORDER to be forgiven or else God won't forgive you" and I believe this is completely false. I believe we repent because we are already forgiven, not IN ORDER to be forgiven. We do NOT earn our own forgiveness through works. I believe this is essential for all us to recognize or else what's the difference between our beliefs on this and the Catholic "confess and repent or else no heaven"?

 

[AThornquist]

Jackie, repentance and faith are each sides of the same coin. Where there is genuinely one, there is genuinely the other. However, just like our faith, our repentance is never perfect. Nevertheless, as Josh says above, the "Calvinistic brothers" you quoted are right: you must repent in order to be saved, at least if repentance is defined biblically. Repentance and "doing good works" are not equivalent.

 

[JMKing]

How are we to reconcile the proper answer to this question:

“It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.”

with #7?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Young offers a brief taxonomy of his propositions:

Although the above list is incomplete, it is far from being incoherent. Logical sequence is evident throughout. Propositions 1-14 are consequences illegitimately drawn from justification by faith; 15-16, from the free offer and effectual power of the gospel; 17-20, from the sovereignty of God.

Antinomianism is to be understood primarily as an abuse of justifying grace in disparaging the authority of the law (1-6), in minimizing the need for repentance (6-9) and even for faith (10-12), by nullifying sanctification (13-14), and exaggerating assurance (9,10, 14), and by denying the instrumentality of the law in conversion (15-16). Although Propositions 17-20 may be regarded as underlying the fallacious reasoning in 1-16, they do not warrant a simple identification of antinomianism with hyper-Calvinism.

…The root error of “Free Will,” in the sense of ability limiting obligation, is the counterpart of the mainspring of antinomianism in 17, the affinity of which with 11, the logical foundation of evangelical antinomianism, is evident.

An internal inconsistency in the system is that 17 implies the rejection of the free offer, which is asserted in 15. While 18 is a Libertine blasphemy destructive of gospel and law alike, it hangs together with 17, which denies the distinction between the secret and the revealed will of God. Nothwithstanding pronounced affinities of 20 with mysticism, in the system (which does not incorporate the peculiarities of Gnostic or mystical, but only of evangelical antinomianism) it represents a consequence of the misconstruction of divine sovereignty as abolishing human responsibility. The mystical element in antinomianism, if pressed, undermines the foundation of justification itself by eliminating all sense of guilt. This tension between mysticism and sense of guilt may prove the basic self-contradiction in antinomianism.

Some of the propositions as formulated are ambiguous if abstracted from the system. As Thomas Boston in his notes on The Marrow of Modern Divinity put an orthodox sense on six antinomian paradoxes, so Propositions 2-5 could be defended if by the law the covenant of works is understood, and by obedience and sin, such as relate to that covenant. The denial that either the covenant of Works or the Mosaic covenant is the Christian’s rule is not antinomianism. Antinomianism is the denial that the law which was originally inscribed on the heart, which was summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, and which was expounded in the prophets, gospels, and epistles, is the rule for the Christian. Even the doctrine of justification from eternity is in itself no more antinomianism that supralapsarianism is hyper-Calvinism. Alexander Comrie and Abraham Kuyper, not to mention several eminent Puritan divines, asserted and defended such high Calvinistic doctrines without detracting from the instrumentality or necessity of saving faith for actual, as distinct from virtual, justification. Ambiguities in the notions of the gospel offer and repentance could also be noted as affecting the sense of the propositions involved.
​

 

[chuckd]

#13 Their sin, as to its very being, was imputed to Christ so as not to be theirs, and His holiness is imputed to them as their only sanctification.

Wrong because it is the guilt that is imputed?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

First, what a FANTASTIC post! I'm bookmarking this for future reference.

Ok, lemme throw another one out there that no one else seemed to have trouble with: #7 "The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin."

Please read my words carefully in order to not misunderstand. I often hear nearly identical wording used in what I consider to be "a legalistic manner" that leads to "works salvation". So I ask, is this exact wording technically true? The "in order to receive" wording seems to imply an "earning the forgiveness through the work of repentance". So correct me if I'm wrong (I'm grateful that you will ): I do not believe one must consciously/mentally/outwardly "Confess (admit they sinned) and repent (mentally chose to turn from the sin) IN ORDER to be forgiven" and if they fail to confess and outwardly/mentally repent, they will end up in hell. If this were true, their salvation/forgiveness would depend upon the WORK of confession and repentance and conscious/mental recognition of sin. We are unaware of 100+ sins we commit per day, so clearly we are forgiven for these even though we did not confess and mentally choose to repent. We are forgiven based on what Christ did, not what we do or fail to do.

Now to clarify and complete this though, I do believe ALL Christians WILL inwardly EVENTUALLY (not necessarily immediately and not even in this lifetime) repent (even if unconsciously) by the Holy Spirit. It is because of His sanctifying work that we DO/WILL repent. We might not repent tomorrow or even in a week or even in this lifetime but eventually we do/will inwardly believe God is right and His law is always right and all our sins are wrong. In otherwords, we do not have to mentally recall all our sins and make a mental choice to bring them to God IN ORDER for God to forgive us and if we fail to recall or bring them mentally to God, then He will not forgive us. Also, if we hold bitterness towards someone and die in a car accident, also we will not end up in hell because we didn't "repent yet".

I have seen many "Calvinistic brothers" teaching "you need to confess and repent IN ORDER to be forgiven or else God won't forgive you" and I believe this is completely false. I believe we repent because we are already forgiven, not IN ORDER to be forgiven. We do NOT earn our own forgiveness through works. I believe this is essential for all us to recognize or else what's the difference between our beliefs on this and the Catholic "confess and repent or else no heaven"?

Jackie,

It is really important to distinguish between that which is revealed and that which is decreed. Though Scripture reveals truths about the timeless purposes of God, it does not invite believers to live as if they are outside of time and space and so to live their lives or think their thoughts as if all obedience to God's commands in history is inconsequential. We are not called to live by hidden things as if to reason to ourselves: "If I'm elect then God can save me without a confession of faith...." That's not something that either the Scriptures command nor is it the GNC of what we may properly deduce from what is revealed about the eternal purposes of God.

As for our response to the Gospel, it is not to be thought that our response adds merit. This is the semi-pelagian error that sees the ground of our response as originating from the decision of man apart from new life. The Scriptures not only testify that we must believe upon Christ but the command itself produces the life necessary for the believer to obey the command. Consequently, not only is the will of man involved as he responds to what is revealed but it is the gift of God that he does so.

 

[J. Dean]

1. The law is made void by grace. Justification by faith alone renders good works unnecessary.

That statement is correct to the extent that good works are not instrumental of salvation

2. Since good works are unnecessary, obedience to the law is not required of justified persons.

Not required to save, yes.

3. God sees no sin in the justified, who are no longer bound by the law, and is not displeased with them if they sin.

Now this one we have to be VERY careful about, because this one can quickly turn into making the law as my atonement instead of Christ, because when and if I sin I fall into the trap of believing I need to try to keep the law harder to atone for my sin.

4. God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin.

Obviously this is not supported by Scripture. While we are saved from the ultimate penalty of sin (damnation) we can surely be affected by the temporal consequences of sin

5. Nor can sin in any way injure the justified.

Again, see #4

6. Since no duties or obligations are admitted in the gospel, faith and repentance are not commanded.

Illogical. Faith is the instrumental means of justification; repentance is a natural consequence of that faith. A Christian cannot help but be repentant due to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit

7. The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin.

Again, if you mean the false idea that our repentance rather than the finished work of Christ is the grounds of our justification, then there could be a point here (there IS a difference, btw), but repentance is a natural by-product of saving faith and will naturally follow, as Calvin indicated.

8. Nor need he mortify sin; Christ has mortified sin for him.

Yes and no. Yes, Christ's perfect obedience to the law is done on our behalf; again, in the sense that somehow our mortification contributes to our salvation, this thesis is correct. But again, the new nature and the Spirit make us WANT to mortify sin, not because it saves us, but because we are already saved. To put it in a marital analogy, I please my wife, not because I fear she'll divorce me, but because I love her. Big difference.

9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.

I actually agree with this statement, because the alternative to it is a step in the direction of works-righteousness. I'm sorry, but if we say salvation is in Christ alone, then we really need to mean Christ ALONE. That does not mean that wallowing in sin is desirable, to be sure, but again, the alternative to this is saying "I'm saved because I'm a good person," which is impossible because God demands perfect goodness from us, and we will never fulfill that this side of eternity.

10. Justifying faith is the assurance that one is already justified.

Not sure I understand this one. If by this the thesis purports that I am justified because of Christ's work on the cross, then this is corect. But if it means a presumptive justification without actual regeneration, then there's a problem.

11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.

Now we get sticky. If you mean that the elect, at a predetermined time in history, will come to saving faith, then yes. But, all people are born condemned. In other words, I, J. Dean, at one point in my life, was NOT saved, even though I was predestined by God to come to saving faith.

12. Therefore, they were never children of wrath or under condemnation.

False. See Eph 2

13. Their sin, as to its very being, was imputed to Christ so as not to be theirs, and His holiness is imputed to them as their only sanctification.

That statement is correct ONLY IF it is understood that the effectual working of regeneration happens at a specific point in time ordained by God; but prior to that point in space-time, the elect are actually not part of the covenant people in concrete standing (in other words, were an elect person to die before conversion they would be non-elect, if that makes sense).

14. Sanctification is no evidence of justification, for assurance is the fruit of an immediate revelation that one is an elect person.

Agree completely with this. A person can do "good works," even works of a Christian nature, yet not be saved. Just because a person appears to be doing good does not mean he is truly saved. A Mormon may resemble a Christian in outward works, yet nobody here would even consider the Mormon doctrine of salvation to be orthodox.

15. No conviction by the law precedes the sinner’s closing with Christ, inasmuch as Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners.

Violates the whole principle of "law and gospel" as understood by Luther, Calvin, et al. One must be told what one is saved from in order to say one can be saved.

16. Repentance is produced not by the law, but by the gospel only.

This thesis is only half right. Repentance is produced by saving faith. It is granted by God (I don't know the passage offhand, but Paul talks about God "granting repentence" to people). It is not "produced" by the law OR the gospel intrinsically, but by the working of the Spirit in faith.

17. The secret counsel of God is the rule of man’s conduct.

Not sure what is meant by this thesis

18. God is the author and approver of sin, for sin is the accomplishment of His will.

Contrary to Scripture insofar as that it makes God the "author" of sin. God detests sin; while it is true that God uses sin in the accomplisment of His will, God does not call evil "good," nor does He encourage the accomplishment of His will through wickedness.

19. Unless the Spirit works holiness in the soul, there is no obligation to be holy or to strive toward that end.

Again, we have to be careful about this one. For a regenerate person, the Spirit does indeed work holiness in the soul, and it is by this that the Christian desires to do good for the glory of God and for the good of his neighbor. There is an obligation externally to be holy, but this obligation MUST be kept in light of the fact that 1.) Unregenerate man cannot be holy, 2.) Unregenerate man has no desire whatsoever to be holy by the standard of God, 3.) All efforts to be holy or to strive for that end are fruitless apart from conversion, and 4.) Our striving for holiness even after conversion is not the grounds for our justification, nor is the fruit of holiness the grounds for our justification. Again, this one can easily flop into works-righteousness if care is not taken.

20. All externals are useless or indifferent, since the Spirit alone gives life.

Again, if we're talking about salvation/regeneration, then yes, this point is correct. That being said, the Spirit as He so desires can and does work through externalities (preaching of the Word, for example).

Any surprises in the above?

I don't know if I'd say there are surprises, but I would caution that the answers to some of those proposed theses are not necessarily an equal and opposing answer in the negative. As somebody who went through churches that flirted too much with works righteousness, I would say that the temptation to legalism is just as great, if not more so, as the temptation to slip into antinomianism. To be honest, I see a great deal more error in the direction of works-righteousness than I do in the direction of lawlessness, though I do not deny that the latter can be a real error for some.

AMR[/QUOTE]

 

[moral necessity]

Young is a strong proponent of experimental religion. By the term Young likens it to the work of the scientist who forms hypotheses, tests them, and confirm, rejects, or revises said hypotheses. Likewise, believers are to to be constantly examining themselves, testing their experiences, and thusly proving their election sure.

This was the beginning to the worst period of depression of my life...
I was very glad to find Luther, and Calvin's Tracts and Letters.

Blessings!

 

[MW]

This was the beginning to the worst period of depression of my life...
I was very glad to find Luther, and Calvin's Tracts and Letters.

Are you sure you were acquainted with experiential Calvinism and not with some other form of religion? Does your "gladness" now qualify as an experience?

 

[moral necessity]

This was the beginning to the worst period of depression of my life...
I was very glad to find Luther, and Calvin's Tracts and Letters.

Are you sure you were acquainted with experiential Calvinism and not with some other form of religion? Does your "gladness" now qualify as an experience?

Blessings to you, Rev. Winzer! I am glad your health is improving to where you are able to post on more occasions.

It was probably not a strict experiential Calvinism, but it did have a great emphasis on proving your salvation, which led to a continual scraping and a lot of doubt and despair. A perfectionist type of conscience like mine could find no rest here. Assurance was not in the least a part of the essense of faith, and Calvin's response to the Council of Trent, along with his Institutes, emphasized the opposite perspective. It was a breath of fresh air to me to read his works to hear something in the other direction. Berkhof helped balance it out as well. I am not opposed to internal searches, but I do tend to balk at them if they serve to undermine our confidence in the work of Christ on our behalf.

Blessings and fellowship, and prayers for your continued health...

 

[MW]

It was probably not a strict experiential Calvinism, but it did have a great emphasis on proving your salvation, which led to a continual scraping and a lot of doubt and despair. A perfectionist type of conscience like mine could find no rest here. Assurance was not in the least a part of the essense of faith, and Calvin's response to the Council of Trent, along with his Institutes, emphasized the opposite perspective. It was a breath of fresh air to me to read his works to hear something in the other direction. Berkhof helped balance it out as well. I am not opposed to internal searches, but I do tend to balk at them if they serve to undermine our confidence in the work of Christ on our behalf.

Praise His glorious grace for His rest in Christ! It is possible to come across a form of Calvinism which is only a form and denies the power of the gospel, and this can lead to very unhealthy experiences. Calvin's writings are a good antidote as they always emphasise evangelical truth as the spring of true piety.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

17. The secret counsel of God is the rule of man’s conduct.

Not sure what is meant by this thesis

Rich's response immediately above your post speaks to this, no?

AMR

 

[J. Dean]

Rich's response immediately above your post speaks to this, no?

AMR

Ah... I see.

If that is what is meant, then indeed that is an illogical premise.

 

[J. Dean]

It was probably not a strict experiential Calvinism, but it did have a great emphasis on proving your salvation, which led to a continual scraping and a lot of doubt and despair. A perfectionist type of conscience like mine could find no rest here. Assurance was not in the least a part of the essense of faith, and Calvin's response to the Council of Trent, along with his Institutes, emphasized the opposite perspective. It was a breath of fresh air to me to read his works to hear something in the other direction. Berkhof helped balance it out as well. I am not opposed to internal searches, but I do tend to balk at them if they serve to undermine our confidence in the work of Christ on our behalf.

That dovetails well with what I mentioned earlier, Charles. If there's any danger to Calvinism that's on the rise, it seems to be the lure of Wesleyanism and the overemphasis on works to the point of trusting in them as the basis for salvation, thus undermining the sufficiency in Christ. I'm seeing some of this with people associated with the Chan/Piper/Platt wing, who at times come across as legalists with regard to material things and how much one gives to the church. Some of it comes dangerously close to teaching a "salvation by monasticism" principle, even if that is not the initial intent.

I'm sure that Antinomians exist and that they're doing a disservice to the gospel in negating good works, but I've seen a whole lot more of a flirtation with works-righteousness in the church, Reformed and otherwise.

 

[thbslawson]

Young is a strong proponent of experimental religion. By the term Young likens it to the work of the scientist who forms hypotheses, tests them, and confirm, rejects, or revises said hypotheses. Likewise, believers are to to be constantly examining themselves, testing their experiences, and thusly proving their election sure.

I grew up in a church that taught this exact doctrine and I was one of many tortured souls in the church, never at rest in Christ, always wondering if I was truly saved or not. What resulted was a church full of people who were almost perpetually professing to be saved, then recanting. I'm by no means saying that we should not make our calling and election sure, but I would question that it's something that should be "constantly" done. Depending on what you mean by this, the idea can be taken too far and thus leave otherwise true believers in a constant state of doubt. There is a time to be confident that Christ has secured our election and that we are sovereignly his. Jesus promises us "rest for our souls," and a soul that is constantly testing experiences to prove his or her own election is not a soul at rest.

 

[thbslawson]

If there's any danger to Calvinism that's on the rise, it seems to be the lure of Wesleyanism and the overemphasis on works to the point of trusting in them as the basis for salvation, thus undermining the sufficiency in Christ. I'm seeing some of this with people associated with the Chan/Piper/Platt wing, who at times come across as legalists with regard to material things and how much one gives to the church. Some of it comes dangerously close to teaching a "salvation by monasticism" principle, even if that is not the initial intent.

Would you mind providing some references to where they have taught this?

 

[Peairtach]

9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.

Not David's experience in Psalm 51; but he had just committed the acts of adultery and murder.