If "it is faith" that saves (I'm not arguing that it's not) then salvation is conditioned upon an act obedience by man (you've already agreed that scripture says faith is a work).
You would have to do a lot of searching to find where I say faith is a work. I have repeatedly said that saving faith is a gift from God, imparted to the listener by means of hearing the Word of God with spiritual ears that are opened by Him. Couple that with the clear fact that Jesus Himself said, "No man can come to Me unless he is drawn by My Father." What becomes clear is that salvation is not dependent upon any act of man, but solely upon God. So, your argument and point collapses right from the outset, because you have erected a straw man.
Additionally, please quote the only verse you can find that uses the phrase "faith alone".
Show me the verrse that states God is a Triune Being, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in eternal equality and union.
Obviously the author has some misunderstanding of works of faithful obedience seeking grace vs. works seeking to earn salvation apart from grace.
Obviously you suffer from that same confusion.
"At least sixty times in the New Testament, eternal salvation is explicitly tied to faith and/or repentance with no mention of baptism." Wait a minute! I thought the last quote said faith only. You mean it takes repentence, too? Is repentance a work?
See? Already you're confused. And the statement stands as true. Baptism is not mentioned as often as it would be if it were necessary for one to be saved. And, there is no true saving faith without repentance, because repentance is the natural response of a man's heart, once quickened to spiritual ability by the monergistic work of God, so that he can hear the Word and receive faith in his heart to believe the Gospel, the Gospel that convicts him of sin and his need to repent, which he does freely and willingly, because he sees his need. Until God quickens that man's heart, he will NEVER repent, and NEVER believe savingly on Christ.
"The fact that the thief on the cross could be saved without being baptized..." I've already addressed this invalid point. The thief was saved under the old covenant.
And he was saved under the new covenant as well, because he trusted in Christ, as did all the Old Testament Saints. They were saved by Faith. Baptism is not what saves, faith is what brings salvation. Baptism is a witness to that fact, not the cause of it.
"baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins" Huh? There's that pesky repentance (not faith only) bringing about the forgiveness of sins. How can that be? Was Christ's work on the cross not sufficient?
You show that you really don't understand the nuts and bolts of salvation.
"in Peter's next two recorded sermons to unbelievers in Acts, he directly associates the forgiveness of sins with repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism." Peter's sermon in Acts 4 was interrupted by his arrest. Not only is there no mention of baptism in this abbreviated sermon, there is also no mention of souls being added to the church by God, as there is in Acts 2.
pretty weak argument. How do you know that Peter's "interrupted" sermon had no results? Oh, I know, because he didn't mention baptism, right? Give me a break!
"Paul tells us that he rarely baptized people at all, since this was not his calling." In 1Cor 1, Paul is dealing with people who claimed a schismatic allegience to a preacher instead of to Christ. He says he did baptize some of the Corinthians, but he was glad he didn't baptize many so they wouldn't say they were baptized in his name (vs 15). But notice: he does indicate they were all baptized (vs 13). If Paul was not sent to baptize, did he sin in baptizing Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14, 16)? If Paul had been sent to baptize, would this mean baptism is essential to salvation?
Paul did not sin in baptizing those people, and you know it. You're grasping at straws, because the two links I posted completely undermined your position and showed clearly your error. Those under the "Great Commission" were sent to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20). Is the baptism of the "Great Commission" essential to salvation? Did Paul labor under this "Great Commission"?
We are sent to preach the gospel, baptizing those who believe. Every Christian is able to baptize a believer. But, you want to say that baptism is necessary to believe. That is not accurate. There is no record of any minister being sent ONLY to baptize. So your question is meaningless, and another straw man.
Paul never alludes to the meaning of baptism, but to the insignificance of the person who did the baptizing. Christ is the important one in the matter, not the person who dunked them. They were baptized in the name of Christ, not Paul, or Apollos, etc. One searches the scriptures in vain if he seeks to find conditions, or qualifications laid upon the person who baptizes. It matters not. Whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or me, or Adam, or Noah, or Judas, it does not change what takes place, nor does it alter to whom the credit should be given.
That is not the issue here. This statement is a red herring. We're not talking about qualifications for the one doing the baptizing, what we're talking about is your mistaken and erroneous idea that one is not saved UNTIL they are baptized, and that without baptism, they cannot be saved. Like it or not, that is what you've been saying. It is the logical and reasonable conclusion of your whole argument. And it's wrong.
Paul says that his purpose is to preach the gospel. If Mark 16:15-16 means anything, it means that believing and being baptized are both part of the gospel Paul preached and are equally necessary for salvation: "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
Your logical skills are not good. Belief (faith) is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost, NOT baptism. Baptism is for Believers, not the unsaved. A baptized sinner is a wet sinner, but he's still a sinner. A baptized believer was dry before he was baptized, wet afterwards, but the whole time he is a Believer. Baptism does not save. Faith does.
"The Oneness understanding of baptism is also difficult to square with the fact that the Holy Sprit, we learn from Acts, is sometimes given in a dramatic fashion before individuals are baptized in water (Acts 10:44-48). Is one thus to suppose that God poured out His Spirit in this fashion upon people whose sins He had not yet forgiven? This reversal of the Acts 2:38 baptism-Spirit order is, I think, enough to tell us that we should not take Acts 2:38 as a sort of ironclad formula to which God is bound." There is no indication that those in Acts 10 upon whom the Holy Spirt fell were saved when that happened. It's just not there. This was God's way of letting the Jewish Christian present know and prove that God had accepted Gentiles for salvation in Christ. They were saved when they obeyed the gospel. To claim otherwise is to claim salvation for Balaam's donkey, who also spoke miraculously in a foreign tongue. It was Jehovah who opened the mouth of that creature (Nu 22:28).
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word. And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized? (Act 10:44-47)
Notice that they were heard magnifying God in other languages. The same as happened to Peter and the other Apostles on the day of Pentacost, and to those who received Christ on the day of Pentacost. Peter's own words imply that baptism is for believers, and therefore not part of the process of salvation itself. Would Peter forbid water for baptism if they were not believers? The implication is, yes. By the fact that they spoke in tongues, magnifying God, it was evident to Peter that they were as saved as he himself was when the Holy Ghost fell on him on the day of Pentacost. You really need to learn to read what the words actually do say, rather than twisting them into what you want them to say. By the way...show me the verse where the Apostles were baptized.
And note this part of Peter's recounting of the story of Cornelius in Acts 11:13-14 -- "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, `Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'" So by what was Cornelius saved? A direct action of the Holy Spirit or through the preaching of the gospel which they would believe and obey? The words of Peter included an order for them "to be baptized."
Cornelius was saved by the preaching of the Word, brought to him by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to Peter to send him to Cornelius. Why? Because God chose to save Cornelius, and placed within him the hunger for God.
This also begs another question: Why did Cornelius need all this preaching and outpouring in the first place. He's described as a devout and God-fearing man. To hear you tell it, that's proof he's already saved. The angel tells him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God." But the angel also says to send for Peter who will speak words by which Cornelius will be saved. The only thing we should take away from the pouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius is the same conclusion the apostles made: God accepts Gentiles on the same basis he accepts Jews. The outpouring had no bearing on the condition of Cornelius' soul - he still needed to be baptized for the remission of his sins.
You read your wrong theology into everything, don't you? Cornelius and his house could not have received the Holy Spirit unless they had FIRST believed, and that belief brought salvation, and the forgiveness of sins. Baptism was the outward sign of the already accomplished fact, that his sins were forgiven. Baptism didn't wash away his sins, the Blood of Christ washed away his sins. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission."
"What closes the case on this, however, is the recognition that Luke and Mark use this exact same phrase, "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins," in relation to the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 3:3; cf. Mark 1:4). Yet John's baptism clearly did not, in any literal sense, wash away people's sins. Why else would his disciples need to believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and be rebaptized (Acts 19:4-6)?" So, if John's baptism was all that was needed "for the remission of sins" then why were people whose sins had already been remitted in need of Jesus' baptism "for the remission of sins"? Why did Paul rebaptize John's disciples in Acts 19? Could it be that their baptism looked forward to a future remission of sins in Christ? Paul explains John's baptism in Acts 19:3 -- "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." John's baptism did point forward to repentance and remission in Christ.
This undercuts your whole argument. Why? Because you run right back to the wrong use of the greek word, "eis", insisting that it can ONLY mean FOR (as in in order to bring about). Greek and English don't translate word for word. You are interpreting a translation of the Greek through your current day understanding and usage of the word "for". The Greek has far more subtleties of meaning and usage.
It was never stated that Jophn's baptism "was all that was needed for remission of sins", as you wrongly state. You start off with a falsely stated question, and then attempt to prove your view as true from that falsely stated question, thereby destroying your entire argument.
RE: 1Pet 3:21 - "The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that produces the saint's "good conscience." The author may want it to, but 1Peter 3:21 says no such thing about a "good conscience". Is forgiveness of sins a prerequisite to having a "good conscience"? Paul declared (Acts 23:1) "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." Paul was lost in rebellion against Christ, yet had a good conscience. So a "good conscience" is not an indicator of salvation - it is only an indicator of desire.
Again, you twist what Peter said. Peter said, in effect, baptism saves you because it is the answer of a good conscience toward God, signifying the resurrection of Christ, and you with Him. No man whose sins are not forgiven can have a good conscience toward God, when faced with the Truth of the Gospel. It is the forgiveness of sins which brings the good conscience toward God, so it cannot be baptism which causes that forgiveness, but faith in Christ, repentance of his sins, bringing assurance of forgiveness by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a response of obedience to Christ, AFTER the man is forgiven. Water baptism is the answer of a good (or clean) conscience toward God, saying that he wants to obey this command because he IS saved, not in order to GET saved.
A conscience must be informed by truth in order to compel one to a proper action to conform with truth. Peter simply states that one who has a good conscience will appeal to God's saving power by responding positively to His command to be baptized. This is the sense in which baptism saves - not just going through the motions, but in obedience to a command of Christ. As Heb 5:9 states, "He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation."
Your statement is built on assumptions. Baptism is not an appeal to God's saving power, it is the proof (via obedience) that one HAS ALREADY BEEN saved. ONLY in that sense can it be said that baptism saves you.
I believe my previous post regarding Nicodemus stated that "born of the water" was consistent with Rom 6 which states the new life begins upon rising from the waters of baptism. If water in John 3 is referring to the Spirit, no voilence is done to my position. Rom 6 says the new life given by the Spirit begins at baptism.
Rising from the waters of baptism is a type of the resurrection of Christ. He rose to newness of Life, after laying down His physical life to satisfy the requirements of the Law for sin, i.e. death. We died with Him, were buried with Him, and rose with Him, in actual fact, through our union with Him in spirit, which baptism signifies in type, not actuality. That is where you miss it. The reason we are forgiven is because of what Christ did, not because of what we do. Being united with Him in spirit, we partake of all that He did, and we went where He went, and are where He is, in spirit. When He died, we died. And when He rose from the dead, we rose with Him, freed from the penalty of sin, because it had already been paid, in Him. Baptism is only a type of the spiritual reality, done as a witness to God, and to us, that we are untied with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.
Even if “faith only” were true,
Careful, you said you weren't saying that it wasn't. Have you changed your mind?
isn’t belief in God an action on the part of man - a condition? The pure Calvinist would say it is not, teaching instead that man’s faith is an act of God. While it is true that without anything in which to believe, belief is impossible. So in the sense that He is the source of the thing believed, God may be referred to as the source of our faith. But, it is man who does the believing or rejecting.
Well, you also show that you don't understand Calvinism either, but that's no surprise. True, man does the believing, but only as he is enabled by God. Rejecting is man's natural unregenerate response. He needs no help with that.
Jesus said in John 6:29, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Faith, Jesus says, is a work. But we know salvation is not of boasting works - it is by God's grace. But is man saved by grace only, apart from any obedience on man's part? What does the bible say? We are SAVED by faith (Rom 3:28) SAVED BY grace (Eph 2:8) SAVED BY repentance (Acts 3:19) SAVED BY confession (Rom 10:10) SAVED BY baptism (1Pet 3:21). We are not saved by anything “only”. In fact, in James 2:24, the only passage in which the words “faith only” appear together in scripture, we learn that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only.” Small wonder that Martin Luther wanted to expunge the entire book of James from scripture. Is James teaching that we can earn our salvation by works? How can we harmonize Paul’s declaration that we are saved by faith and not of works with James’ statement about works and faith?
You are ranging far and wide, trying to find traction. We are saved by Grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is a gift of God. Grace emcompasses faith and repentance, given by God. Confession as shown in Romans 10 is saying out loud that Jesus is Lord, not confessing sins. Confessing sins is part of repentance. We've already dealt with Peter's verse on baptism. Your little list is flawed, and you're separating things to false conclusions.
James is discussing a human opinion that one can have faith without works (or that faith and works can be had independent of each other). James begins his discussion of faith and works in 2:18 by stating, “A man may say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” The faith which God commands is a faith that includes works. James is demonstrating that there is really no such thing as faith without works.
More correctly stated, True faith produces works naturally. False faith does not. The only true evidence of true faith is works done by and in that faith.
Is Paul in disagreement with James when he says in Romans 3:28, “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”? Paul’s argument in Romans is that man cannot merit salvation by keeping commandments. Instead, the law condemns us since we do not keep it. Even if we use our own innate sense of right-and-wrong as a guide, we still do not live up to the standard (see Romans 1 & 2). Paul is showing in Romans the universality of man's guilt. He is not discussing whether God has laid down certain conditions in the gospel for the forgiveness of man’s sins.
Yet you place a work as a condition for forgiveness of sins (baptism), and do not realize that if man is justified by faith apart from works ( as Paul plainly teaches), then his justification cannot rest on a work, i.e. baptism.
“Not of works” cannot be construed to mean that the sinner can be saved without submission or obedience to Christ; such a construction would violate the plain teaching of scripture: Christ is the “source of salvation to all who obey him” - Heb 5:9 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father.” - Matt 7:21 God “does not show favoritism” but “accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” - Acts 10:34-35 God will punish those who “do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” - 2Thess 1:7-9 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...” - Mark 16:15-16 Requiring a sinner to obey Christ is not the same thing as seeking to be saved by law or works of law. An obedient faith does not nullify the grace of God. A conditional salvation does not nullify the sovereignty of God. After the sinner submits in obedience to Christ, it is still by grace that he is saved. The question in Acts 2:37, “What must I do?” has an answer.
You place a requirement for forgiveness of sins that God does not place. Baptism does not cause forgiveness of sins, nor does it cause salvation. It does not "activate" them, either. It is the answer of a good (clean, forgiven) conscience to God, an act of obedience , saying, "as Christ died, went to the grave, and rose again from it, I go into the water to be buried, and rise again with Him". The pupil is not greater than his master.
In conclusion, my own quotation... “Calvinism...is objectionable because it posits a strange view of man - a conception untenable both because it is unbiblical per se and because it contradicts the nature of God as defined in the Scriptures. ‘God is love,’ and love must have an object. God, who ‘so loved the world’ created man in his own image for companionship (Rev 21:3), and the fulfillment of his purpose requires that man be other than the totally passive automaton predicated by Calvin’s theology. The love of God demands a response in kind, if not in degree: “We love him because he first loved us.” Plastic figures in a wax museum may be made altogether lifelike and, in our technological age, may be animated and programmed to speak, to sing and to “worship.” But in their performance there would be neither companionship nor worship for their creator. Friendship, love, worship - these predicate volition, for they must and only can be voluntary. In the context of a moral universe, in which alone love and worship can exist, angels fell and man sins. Because man can sin, he can also worship. In the circumstance of a moral universe peopled by moral beings, God now seeks men who will worship him, men who can worship because they have the faculty of choice. Men who worship God in their own free and authentic response to his grace, who love him because he first loved them, will enjoy his love and be his companions forever in the everlasting Kingdom. ‘Calvin’s exegesis, in a word, is theologically oriented,’ writes John Murray in his introduction to the Eeardmans edition of the Institutes. This is true - in a sense which Murray did not intend. The pity is that Calvin’s theology was not more precisely exegetically oriented. Instead, the Bible has been accommodated to theology.” - Robert Shank, Elect In The Son, pp. 225-227
Ah, end with a slap at Calvinism, because that is the true source of your problem, hatred of Calvinism. Funny how Arminians and non-Calvinists always feel like they have to justify their position ultimately by trying to take a swipe at Calvinism. Maybe you should examine just why Calvinism bothers you so much, that you must take shots at it. A good place to start to learn about Calvinism would be with Calvin himself, then the Canons of Dordt.
You are correct - upon rereading past posts I see that it was another who said this. So if faith is not a work, what did Jesus mean when he said it was a work?
I understand why you refuse to quote the only verse you can find that uses the phrase "faith alone".
"You show that you really don't understand the nuts and bolts of salvation."
Nuts and bolts have to be put on in the right order to work.
Mark 16:16 - "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Which comes first - belief or saved?
Rom 10:9 - "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Which comes first - belief or saved?
Rom 10:14-16 - "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?...So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Which comes first - belief or hearing the word?
Acts 2:38 - "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Wich came first - baptism or receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit?
"How do you know that Peter's "interrupted" sermon had no results?"
I don't and neither do you. That's why it is not a proof text for either of us.
Re 1Cor 1: "This statement is a red herring...There is no record of any minister being sent ONLY to baptize. So your question is meaningless, and another straw man....We're not talking about qualifications for the one doing the baptizing"
What is a red herring is that this passage was raised by you as a proof text for your false teaching about what baptism is.
Paul is talking about the one doing the baptism in 1Cor 1. That's why it is in no way a proof text for understanding the meaning and purpose of baptism. It was you who raised 1Cor 1 as a proof text that baptism wasn't unto salvation. 1Cor 1 says no such thing and doesn't even address the meaning of baptism. Paul, as an apostle of Christ, preached the gospel, which included baptism.
"Your logical skills are not good. Belief (faith) is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost, NOT baptism....Baptism does not save. Faith does."
It's simple language, friend. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Let's parse that.
BELIEVE + BAPTIZED => SAVED
You simply don't accept Jesus at his word. Then you say "belief is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost." Hold on...I thought you said a person was born again before belief? So which is it? Belief is the difference or a subjective, better-felt-than-told warmth within the breast that's the difference between salvation and being lost. You know what? I'll go with Jesus..."BELIEVE + BAPTIZED => SAVED" Can't go wrong with Him.
"Grace emcompasses faith and repentance, given by God. Confession as shown in Romans 10 is saying out loud that Jesus is Lord, not confessing sins. Confessing sins is part of repentance."
To get around the biblical contradictions to your "faith only" or "grace only" claims, you say faith and repentance (and, I suppose, confession of Christ) is part of that grace and faith. I am being "tongue in cheek" here, but why can't we lump baptism into that same faith and grace? I mean, why is it the bible says we're saved by grace, faith, repentance, confession, baptism, and the only bit you chomp at is baptism? Why not repentance or confession? Why don't you just take Jesus at his word: BELIEVE + BAPTIZED = SAVED.
Re Cornelius: "Would Peter forbid water for baptism if they were not believers?"
I think he would forbid water for those who did not believe. I also challenge you to prove these were saved while believing and before baptism. You cannot because the state of their souls at the time of the outpouring of the H.S. just isn't mentioned.
And don't confuse this act of the H.S. with the "gift of the H.S." promised in Acts 2. Miraculous gifts of the Spirit were not tied to men's salvation. You can see this in Acts 8, where the Samaritans believed and were baptized, yet the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were not given to them until the apostles came down from Jerusalem. Your unsupported assertion that "Cornelius and his house could not have received the Holy Spirit unless they had FIRST believed" makes me wonder what you think of Balaam's donkey. Again, belief / salvation and the miraculous influence of the H.S. have no correlation.
"Well, you also show that you don't understand Calvinism either, but that's no surprise."
I wrote, "The pure Calvinist would say [belief] is not [an action on the part of man - a condition], teaching instead that man’s faith is an act of God. What about this statement is not an accurate portrayal of Calvinism? You stated earlier that faith is not a work. Are you here making a distinction between "acts of men in obedience to God" and "works".
"It was never stated that Jophn's baptism "was all that was needed for remission of sins"
Acts 19 tells of men who were baptized in the name of Jesus after having received John's baptism. The whole point here is why they needed to be rebaptized. Your post said that the statement that John's baptism was for repentance meant that they had already repented, and coupling that with your claim that the new birth precedes faith and faith precedes repentence, here - according to your logic - we have born again, faithful, repentant men being told to be baptized. Why?
I'll help. Because they weren't saved, they still needed their sins washed away and the baptism of Jesus was the only way to get that done. Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
"Ah, end with a slap at Calvinism, because that is the true source of your problem, hatred of Calvinism...A good place to start to learn about Calvinism would be with Calvin himself, then the Canons of Dordt."
Well, I don't know what the Canons of Dordt are, but I can see all kinds of places where the canons of the New Testament disagree with Calvinism.
So, let's go to Calvin and see what he says about this direct, enervating action of the H.S. Will you accept Calvin in this?
The Discipline of the United Methodist Church calls Calvinism a “most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” No doubt, for those who believe they are unconditionally chosen for salvation and that they cannot do anything to lose salvation is very comforting. Or is it? Consider the following quotation from John Calvin, the father of this “wholesome doctrine”:
“experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that, even in their own judgment, there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange that by the apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them....
"Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate...When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith so that they persevere even to the end...
"I deny that the reprobate ever advance so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation which Scripture reserves for the elect only...In short, as by the revolt of the first man the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in his shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished.”
- John Calvin, Institutes
Calvin’s words are anything but “full of comfort”. Bottom line, Calvin is telling us that one can think he is saved, act like he is saved, even be the recipient of an “inferior operation of the Spirit” which dupes him into having confidence in his salvation, but in reality, this one is just as condemned to hell as he ever was!
If our confidence is based on nothing more than a subjective feeling, and if the Spirit operates on some to give them a false confidence, then no one can know they are saved!
But thanks be to God who has given us an objective standard by which we can truly know we are saved. “By this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1Jn 2:3). “But whoever keeps his word, in him is the love of God perfected: by this we know that we are in him. He that says he abides in him ought to walk as he walked” (1Jn 2:5). “If you know that [God] is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness is born of [God]” (1Jn 2:29). “Let us not love in word only, but in deed and truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (1Jn 3:18-19). “We know we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren...By this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God and keep his commandments” (1Jn 4:14; 5:2). “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2Jn 9).
So, yes, I do hate Calvinism, as I hate all false teaching. I pay for those who labor in vain under it, that they will see their error and obey the simple gospel of Christ: "He that believes and is baptized will be saved."