Recently, James “amadán” Hazelton tried to argue against a fellow Latter-day Saint, claiming that LDS soteriology is basically a “checklist salvation," such as:
James "amadán" Hazelton really should read a
book or two on historical Reformed theology, as the “checklist” argument works
against Reformed Protestantism, too. Consider the following:
Reformed Theologian William Ames (1576-1633): True Assurance Can Only Be Known By Performing Good Works
Commenting on the writings of Reformed theologian William Ames (1576-1633) and how one can have assurance of their salvation in such a system, R.T. Kendall noted:
Faith is an act of the will and repentance is an act of the will, but we know that we have faith only when we can reflect on the fact we have repented. In Ames’s system, then, faith is a misnomer. By faith he can only mean repentance. Assurance is not of the essence of faith, but repentance is. For if repentance as a disposition precedes faith and if repentance as forsaking sin follows faith (and shows that we have faith), when does faith by itself truly get into the morphology of conversion?
It appears then that we can only know that faith has occurred, and that by our works. We can only know our election by having faith; we can only know our faith by having works. It seems that Ames makes faith as secretive as election itself; both remain hidden until there are works that one can see.
The whole order therefore of this consolation, whereby we may be certain of salvation, is as followeth: in such a Syllogism (wherein both will and understanding have their parts) whereof the proposition stands in the assent of the understanding, and makes up a dogmatical Faith. The assumption is not principally in the compounding understanding, but n the single apprehension and will, so as to make it true and of force to infer the certainty in the conclusion; which the heart doth by this act of affiance, that being the property of justifying Faith, and this existing in the heart. The conclusion is also principally & ultimately in the single apprehension and will, or in the heart, by the grace of hope; and both it, and the experimental reflexion joyn’d with it (which is in the understanding, and the other also, by this reflexion) are the effects of the experimental knowledge and reflexion of our understanding, in the assumption upon the true existence of the single term in the heart or will, which bears the whole burthen of the assurance. (Svbstance, 55f)
The ‘whole burthen of the assurance’ is grounded in our works. Indeed, ‘And endeavour to abound in vertue, and to do good workes, is the only meanes to make our calling and election sure’ (Peter, 164). For good works are ‘the causes of that knowledge which we have of our calling and election’ (Ibid., 165).
For the knowledge and assurance of these things depends upon the reflex act of our understanding, whereby we see in our selves the markes and signes of effectuall calling, and consequently of eternall election. Hence this assurance increaseth and decreaseth in us, according as our endeavour to abound in vertues, and so do good workes is greater or lesser. (Ibid.)
However, Ames, like Hooker, does not intend that assurance comes easily. ‘What ought a man to do’, Ames asks, ‘that he may be translated our of a state of sin, in to the stage of grace?’ (Conscience, ii. 8). He answers in seven propositions: (1) a man must ‘seriously looke into the Law of God, and make an examination of his life’. (2) There must follow a ‘conviction of Conscience’, (3) a despair of saving ourselves, and (4) a true humiliation of heart. But the latter comes only by (5) ‘a distinct consideration of some particular sins’, if not (6) ‘by the sight of some one sin’. This humiliation (7) is ‘helped forward oft times by some heavy affliction’ (Conscience, ii.8-9). (R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979], 160-62)
R.T. Kendall on the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and Good Works being the Ultimate Source of Any Assurance of Salvation
Commenting on the Westminster Confession of Faith (and the Larger Catechism), Reformed theologian R.T. Kendall noted the lack of assurance one can have if they subscribe to the theology thereof, and how, ultimately, the ground of one’s assurance they are in a saved state was one’s good works:
REPENTANCE: THE CONDITION OF THE NEW COVENANT
The Westminster divines do not explicitly state that repentance is the condition of the new covenant. But they should have; for this is virtually what they finally say. While the Westminster divines never intended to make works the ground of salvation, they could hardly have come closer. Since having faith is defined as ‘yeelding obedience’ to God’s commands, the ‘principall Acts’ of faith being of the will, this seems to make the claims of ‘free grace’ suspect. This is being illustrated by looking at the federal theology of these documents.
While the old covenant (of works0 was promised ‘upon condition of perfect and personall obedience’ (VII.ii), the ‘Covenant of Grace’ is promised to sinners, ‘requiring of them Faith’ (VII.iii). In the ‘second Covenant’ God ‘freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator’; the sole requirement: ‘Faith as the condition’ (Larger Catechism, 7). God requires ‘nothing of them for their Justification, but Faith’ (Ibid. 16). But while this faith is said to be God’s gift (Larger Catechism, 16), we also know it is an act of the will. And since we may believe—indeed, wait long—without assurance that our faith is saving, we must still turn elsewhere before we know we have truly met the ‘condition’. Thus ‘free’ justification has a price after all before it can be enjoyed: our perseverance in repentance and good works. The old covenant was promised upon the condition of ‘perfect and personall obedience’; the new is promised upon the condition of faith—‘yeelding obedience to the Commands’ (XV.iii). The difference seems to be that perfect obedience was required under the old covenant and doing our best is required under the new.
Indeed, although repentance is not the cause of our being pardoned, ‘none may expect pardon without it’ (XV.iii). Being repentant means that one ‘so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with him in all the ways of his Commandments’ (CV.ii). Men should not be contended ‘with a generall repentance, but it is every means duty to endeavour to repent of his particular sins, particularly’ (XV.v). Sanctification is described in much the same way, stressing mortification of lusts and the universality of sanctification ‘in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life’ (XIII.ii). Furthermore, ‘good works’ done in obedience to God’s commandments ‘are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith’, and by them believers ‘strengthen their assurance’ (XVI.ii).
Although Westminster theology posits that ‘faith’ is the condition of the new covenant, by describing faith as an act of the will it comes quite close to making justification, or, at least, the knowledge of it, the reward for doing our best to be holy and good. While the predestinarian structures of Westminster theology are undeniable—making salvation utterly the gift of God—its doctrine of faith none the less tends to put the responsibility for salvation right back on to man.
Furthermore, once having obtained the assurance, the believer may lose it.
True belieevers may have the assurance of their salvation divers wayes shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some speciall sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the spirit; by, some sudden, or vehement temptation, by Gods withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darknesse and to have no light . . . (XVIII.iv)
While such are ‘never destitute of that seed of God’ (XVIII.iv), inasmuch as believers ‘can neither totally, or finally, fall away from the state of Grace’ (XVII.1; cf. XII), they seem to lose their assurance because it was grounded in a good conscience in the first place. Thus the loss of assurance is possible because the ground of assurance is not a solid rock but shifting sand; it may fluctuate in proportion to how one’s conscience witnesses by reflection.
We are told, moreover, that our ‘good works are accepted in Him’ (XVI.vi), not because they are perfect but because God ‘is pleased to accept, and reward that which is sincere’ for the sake of Christ (XVIII.iii). This seems to bring us back to Perkins’s idea that God accepts the will for the deed (cf. Larger Catechism, 50: one who does not have assurance but who ‘unfainedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity’ should come straight to the Lord’s Table). Assurance, then, is grounded in the reflection of our sincerity. This is the line so often seen in the experimental predestinarian tradition. Such a conclusion seems to be an inevitable consequence of imposing a voluntaristic doctrine of faith upon a theology of double predestination. One the other hand such a doctrine is likely indeed to be very far ‘from inclining men to loosenesse’ (XVIII.iii). One of the offices of Christ the King is not only bestowing saving grace upon the elect but ‘rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins’ (Larger Catechism, 10).
A good conscience, which must be maintained by good works, repentance, and perseverance, does not seem to be motivated by sheer gratitude to God for free salvation but by one’s keen interest in salvation itself. While Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification can be seen as thankfulness, Westminster theology lends itself to making sanctification the payment for the promise of salvation. Presumably the loss of assurance means that the unhappy subject in such a time does not know but that he is reprobate after all. The only way to recover assurance is to till the ground—conscience—by measuring up to the Law . . . such insurance to protect the Church from Antinomianism and to preserve godliness costs, the cost that Calvin warned against—endless introspection, the constant checking of the spiritual pulse for the right ‘effects’, and, possibly, legalism. (R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979], 205-8, emphasis in bold added)
John MacArthur's (and Jonathan Edwards') 11 Tests of Examining if One is a True Convert
There is first of all an objective test, which asks, "Do I believe?" Ask yourself if you affirm the Scripture's record of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that He is God manifest in the flesh? Do you believe that God saves sinners solely through the merits of Jesus Christ's obedient life and substitutionary death on the cross?
Second is the subjective or experiential test of assurance in which you ask yourself, "Is my faith real?" The apostle John's purpose in writing the epistle of 1 John was to give true believers assurance of their salvation (1 John 5:13). In that small epistle John gives several marks to distinguish a true believer.
True believers walk in the light (1 John 1:6-7). The light here means both intellectual and moral truth. Ask, "Do I affirm the truths of Scripture, and desire to obey them?"
True believers confess their sin (1:8-2:1) Confess here doesn't mean to recite every wrong that we have ever done. Rather, it means to agree with God about our sin. That means that true believers hate their sin; they don't love it. They acknowledge they are sinful, and yet they know they are forgiven.
True believers keep His commandments (2:3-4; 5:2-3). The term here refers to a watchful, observant obedience. Here the believer desires to obey truths he deems precious. It involves a proactive approach to obedience-the Christian studies Scripture in order to understand and obey it.
True believers love the brethren (2:9-11; 3:10, 14-15; 5:2). Ask yourself the question, "Do I love God's people and desire to be around them?"
True believers affirm sound doctrine (2:20-23; 4:2,6). John here teaches that no true believer will fall into any serious, Christ-denying error or heresy.
True believers follow after holiness (2:29; 3:3-4, 6-9). These verses certainly aren't talking about sinless perfection, or even the frequency or duration of sin. The term sin in these verses describes one who lives an immoral, ungodly, unrighteous life as a matter of continual practice, and carries the attitude of hardened hate for God's righteousness.
True believers have the Holy Spirit (4:13; 5:10-11). This is an over-arching test summing up all the others. Is there evidence that the fruit of the Spirit is present in your life (Galatians 5:22-23)?
James "amadán" Hazelton, of course, preaches a false gospel that, funnily enough, is contradicted by sound biblical exegesis. For more, see:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
