Not to tell you what you believe, Dave, but I don't think you've thought your position through very well. You cannot base assurance on the promise of Christ in the same sense as to CP and me, because it is a diametrically opposed doctrine. Let me explain:OK, I think I am beginning to understand. NOW, I would ask then -- how can someone know that he has received this grace of Christ?
I would readily agree that it is based on God's promise to save those who place faith in Christ, and on that we base our assurance. My question, though remains: how does this play out in our lives? How is someone who is saved look? What difference does Jesus make in someone's life that is saved?
These are pressing questions.
In Calvinism, as you know, a man's salvation is the complete work of God. Any responsibility on the part of man is inevitable (thus, irresistible grace). As PL made it so clear, salvation, for you, is based on election. As one Calvinist preacher I heard once said, which I've already quoted, "You don't believe to be saved; you believe because you are saved." Some may disagree, but there is a way in which that could be properly understood in the Calvinist system.
Now, if you are elected to believe, then salvation is, as noted, based on God's election. Thus, assurance must be based on election. The reason is simple: a person may delude themselves into thinking they believed when, in fact, they had not. And how is this possible? Because, whatever their intentions or understanding, they were not elect. Charles Templeton is a classic example of this, although I have friends as well who have totally rejected the faith they once claimed. During the time of their Christian walks, they were just as convinced as you or me of their salvation, and they would have argued vehemently with anyone who so much as suggested that their conviction was based on a faulty belief. You should be able to relate. Suppose, Dave, I say that you have not truly believed. You only think you have. You will argue, no? So did they.
You, therefore, must concede that it is POSSIBLE for a person who is not elect to possess a type of "faith" that is false. You can then appeal to texts like James 2:14ff to support your position. The doctrinal proof for this is that, again, salvation is based on election. Thus, there CAN BE NO ASSURANCE!
Let's contrast that with the system CP and I advocate, and you will see that it is VERY opposed to what you believe. It has often been referred to as "easy believism," although "simple believism" is a much better description. "Free Grace" is the name of the movement. In this system, a person knows their saved for the very simple reason that Jesus said if you believe His promise to save you, then you HAVE (present tense) eternal life. That life cannot be lost (that's part of the promise a person has to understand). Therefore, salvation is understanding the promise of Christ to save, and understanding the Christ who is making the offer, and then believing that. There is no sinners prayer. There is no repentance. There is no commitment to the Lordship of Christ. There is simple, mere belief, and that constitutes salvation. A person, then, can completely reject their faith and know intellectually that they still go to heaven on the assumption that their former faith was correct. I KNOW that I am going to heaven because Jesus told me that I will. And why? Because I believed His promise.
See, here's the primary difference in our position: in "simple believism", there is no such thing as non-saving faith. Faith is faith. The only question, for us, is what did you put your faith in? If the answer is anything other than the Promise of the Risen Christ, then you are in your sins. If you have believed Him, though--that is, taken Him at His Word--then you ARE saved.
We, therefore, soundly reject the doctrine of the Final Perseverance of the Saints. For you . . . for Calvinism in general . . . assurance of salvation is found in the fruit of one's labor. There is, then, no assurance. For us, assurance is based on the objective promise of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, you asked how this should play out. I've dealt with that question extensively in the following threads. None of them are long, so I suggest that you give them a read.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1681.html
http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1572.html
http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1790.html
http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1727.html
God bless