Blessed Assurance/OSAS

[reen12]

I’ve asked this question on the Apologetics forum, but
now realize that I should have asked the question on this
forum.

Is there a non-Catholic Christian denomination that
holds to Blessed Assurance, without holding to
Once Saved, Always Saved?

I looked up a reference that said that Blessed Assurance
is a term used to convey Once Saved, Always Saved.
aka Perserverance of the Saints].

Well, I sure can’t hold with OSAS, but need to know
if Blessed Assurance invariably implies OSAS.

In short, would a Lutheran, for example, hold to Blessed Assurance without holding with OSAS?

I am aware of the RC position on both issues, and
if someone feels the need to post same, fine.

I simply want to know the answer to my question:

Is there a non-Catholic Christian denomination that
holds to Blessed Assurance, without holding to
Once Saved, Always Saved?

Many thanks to any who can address my query,

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[Contarini]

Reen,

As I think you know, Lutherans don’t believe in OSAS. Neither to Methodists and others of a Wesleyan tradition. Yet (speaking as someone from a Wesleyan background and letting the Lutherans speak for themselves), assurance is very important in Wesleyan theology. However, we have traditionally separated it from the “new birth” experience itself. In other words, unlike some Protestants, we recognize that you can have a living relationship with Christ without being assured of it. I would say that I struggle with assurance myself, but it isn’t something I let myself worry about (I have found Catholic teaching comforting in this respect, actually–too often assurance teaching leads to spiritual torment). However, I do believe that people can (and I would say that at times I do) have a positive, definite sense of peace with God which is a genuine sign of a real relationship. However, it is not an infallible sign–it can be mistaken, as everyone admits.

My views, however, are not the point here. Sorry for the digressionn. As a matter of historical fact Wesleyan Protestants do believe very firmly in assurance. In fact, Fanny Crosby, who wrote “Blessed Assurance,” was a Methodist.

Edwin

 

[MariaG]

Although the term “blessed assurance” was not used, in a Nazarene Church I went to, they definitely believed one could “know” whether or not we were going to heaven.

Yet they also believed one could “backslide yourself straight into hell”.

But I never heard the term blessed assurance used.

Not much help. Sorry.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Contarini,

Many thanks for your reply, Edwin. *

If you’ll be patient, as I ask a couple of additional questions:

My understanding of Blessed Assurance went like this:

If a person has a lively faith, which includes following
the commands of Christ- to the best of their ability,
with God’s grace - this brings with it the comfort of
knowing that they are saved, for Christ will keep His promise.
In other words, Blessed Assurance.

I saw the distinction between this and OSAS as:
a person may sin seriously, but it is not likely that
he/she would, because of their relationship with
Christ…and even if serious sin was committed,
an immediate turning back to Christ, in repentence,
restores Blessed Assurance.

To me, the difference between this sense of assurance
and the RCC position is this: trust.

I trust Christ to keep His promise, not in any
presumptious manner, but as a living, breathing
assurance that I am saved, and am safe with the
Shepherd. [Analagous to: I am assured of the
love of my spouse…]

The thing that gets me with the “state of grace”
business is that it sounds more like a stock quote
than a trusting relationship, in which my salvation
is assured [the corollary being: repentence immediately
restores assurance.]

quote: Contarini

As a matter of historical fact Wesleyan Protestants do believe very firmly in assurance. In fact, Fanny Crosby, who wrote “Blessed Assurance,” was a Methodist.

So Fanny Crosby did not believe in OSAS, as a Methodist?
Veryyy interesting.

cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/l/blesseda.htm

Any thoughts on the above, Edwin?
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my original post,

reen*

 

[reen12]

Hi, Maria

quote: Maria

Although the term “blessed assurance” was not used, in a Nazarene Church I went to, they definitely believed one could “know” whether or not we were going to heaven.

Yet they also believed one could “backslide yourself straight into hell”.

But I never heard the term blessed assurance used.

Not much help. Sorry.

Actually, that is a great help, to me, to know that.

Many thanks, for taking the time to reply,

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

**Joint Declaration On The Doctrine Of Justification
The Lutheran World Federation And The Catholic Church

Assurance of Salvation**

We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace.

This was emphasized in a particular way by the Reformers: in the midst of temptation, believers should not look to themselves but look solely to Christ and trust only him. In trust in God’s promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves.

Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise, to look away from one’s own experience, and to trust in Christ’s forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God, who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life. In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.

 

[reen12]

The other thought to consider is this, I think:

When Christ said: My peace I give you, not as the
world gives…

I think He meant assurance. Gathered around the
Shepherd, huddling near Him, in peace of mind,
heart and soul…

"Fear not, little flock…

“Re-assurance”?

reen12

 

[Contarini]

reen12:

Hi, Contarini,

So Fanny Crosby did not believe in OSAS, as a Methodist?
Veryyy interesting.

cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/l/blesseda.htm

Any thoughts on the above, Edwin?
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my original post,

reen

If by the “above” you mean the hymn–well, it was my favorite hymn when I was a child, and I’m still fond of it. It doesn’t teach eternal security, if that’s what you’re asking.

If you mean your more general reflections, I tend to agree. I’m not sure this is totally incompatible with Catholicism, though. The traditional “state of grace” language does have problems, but might it not be expressed in different terms without changing the teaching itself? I can’t find anything to object to in what is being affirmed, only in the lack of relational language. (One could argue over whether a single act could break one’s relationship with God, but I think the Church is right that it could. I’m not sure I agree that the list of such actions–“mortal sins”–is as long as traditional Catholicism has taught, but that’s another issue.)

Edwin

 

[reen12]

Hi, Contarini,

quote: Contarini

If you mean your more general reflections, I tend to agree. I’m not sure this is totally incompatible with Catholicism, though.

I think your right on this, and it’s one of the reasons
I pursue this topic. It does say the “same thing”,
in essence, but it’s the “tone of voice” if you will.

quote: Contarini

I can’t find anything to object to in what is being affirmed, only in the lack of relational language.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. One of the points I
stress, is the replacement of “relational” with “juridical”
language, in Catholicism.

And, as far as I can see, Benedict XVI wishes the
Church to return to scriptual “language” and away
from an over-reliance on Scholastic Theology, in
both catechesis and evangelization.

Surely, the Prodigal Son, and The Good Shepherd are
more loving reflections of God, in relation to man,
than are "state of grace’ and, my favorite, “perfect contrition”-
which I maintain is an impossiblity - for one facing death,
with serious sin on their conscience. God didn’t “wire”
us, in such a fashion, IMHO.

Replace the language of “perfect contrition” with the language
of the Good Shepherd…and a sea-change takes place,
in terms of a person’s relation to God, I think.

Thanks for your thoughts, Edwin,

reen12

 

[Philthy]

reen12:

Hi, Contarini,

It does say the “same thing”,
in essence, but it’s the “tone of voice” if you will.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. One of the points I
stress, is the replacement of “relational” with “juridical”
language, in Catholicism.

And, as far as I can see, Benedict XVI wishes the
Church to return to scriptual “language” and away
from an over-reliance on Scholastic Theology, in
both catechesis and evangelization.

Surely, the Prodigal Son, and The Good Shepherd are
more loving reflections of God, in relation to man,
than are "state of grace’ and, my favorite, “perfect contrition”-
which I maintain is an impossiblity - for one facing death,
with serious sin on their conscience. God didn’t “wire”
us, in such a fashion, IMHO.

Replace the language of “perfect contrition” with the language
of the Good Shepherd…and a sea-change takes place,
in terms of a person’s relation to God, I think.

reen12

Hi reen-

You are still stuck on this, huh? As I told you months ago, you are hung up on the semantics of expression. The Catechism needs to be explicit in order to convey ACCURATELY what the faith is; the beauty of that expression is secondary. Just look at how difficult it is for someone to grasp the simple term “blessed assurance”. It’s a beautiful expression, but unfortunately does not convey accurately its intent. Some mean OSAS (accurate term) with blessed assurance, and some don’t. Beautiful, but inaccurate and potentially harmful if misunderstood. That is where all the technical terminology comes in to articulate its meaning. This scholastic language increased, no doubt, as a result of the Reformation and the ensuing theological struggles.
As an aside, I was thinking of you this Sunday when we sang one of the hymns in church. I can’t remember the exact name, but its title ended with…blessed assurance! Something like, “How Wonderful is Your Blessed Assurance”. So the term is not opposed by the Church, and you may rejoice in it freely.

Peace,

Phil

 

[MariaG]

posted by reen 12

To me, the difference between this sense of assurance
and the RCC position is this: trust.

I trust Christ to keep His promise, not in any
presumptious manner, but as a living, breathing
assurance that I am saved, and am safe with the
Shepherd. [Analagous to: I am assured of the
love of my spouse…]

The thing that gets me with the “state of grace”
business is that it sounds more like a stock quote
than a trusting relationship, in which my salvation
is assured [the corollary being: repentence immediately
restores assurance.]

Hi,

I would have to disagree with you on there being a difference in what the Catholic Church teaches and for example what the Nazarene Church taught. Today, I could say I know I am going to heaven with the same surety that I did then. Why? Because I trust in the Lord.

It appears others have spoken to you of this, but I know( ) you are hung up on semantics here. In the Nazarene Church I was asked to give my testimony along with 4 others on the assurance of salvation.

It went along the lines of “I used to think people who said I know I am saved were arrogant and presuming upon God. I stand before you today to tell you I know I am saved.” I could give the same talk today as a member of the Catholic Church.

However, I do believe that some in the Catholic Church in fear of presuming upon God, Never, EVer would say such a thing. But it does not mean it is not true. I think it fits prefectly with the CA explanation.

Blessings,
Maria

 

[trustmc]

OSAS is a doctrine that is unique only to Calvinists. These are typically all Presbyterians and some Evangelicals. The Baptists seem to be split over OSAS and Blessed Assurance. Lutherans, Anglicans and Wesleyans have strikingly similar views on the tenuousness of salvation as the Catholic Church.

Mike

 

[reen12]

quote: trustmc

OSAS is a doctrine that is unique only to Calvinists. These are typically all Presbyterians and some Evangelicals. The Baptists seem to be split over OSAS and Blessed Assurance. Lutherans, Anglicans and Wesleyans have strikingly similar views on the tenuousness of salvation as the Catholic Church.

Thanks, trustmc, for a concise account. I appreciate it.

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: Maria

However, I do believe that some in the Catholic Church in fear of presuming upon God, Never, EVer would say such a thing. But it does not mean it is not true

I’m glad you stated it, this way. This way of wording

the reality “speaks” to me.

A poster, on another website, was speaking of Christ

giving Peace, Joy and Mercy, and I thought:

Yes, that’s what I’ve been trying to say, clumsily enough,

in trying to convey what I mean by Blessed Assurance.

It’s a matter of “tone of Voice.” The tone

conveyed, by the Shepherd:

“Fear not, little flock…”

It’s the tone I find missing, in Catholicism.

Thanks for your help, Maria, I do appreciate it.

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, Philthy,

Good to hear from you! I’ve enjoyed our
exchange of thoughts, in the past.

As to:
quote: Philthy

You are still stuck on this, huh? As I told you months ago, you are hung up on the semantics of expression

.

Not solely a matter of semantics, but rather
semiotics, [part of which is semantics] in
terms connotative and denotative.

This sticking with something until I understand same,
may constitute a puzzle, if the matter, under discussion,
is seen, solely in terms semantic.

Though I will agree with the following:

quote: Philthy

Beautiful, but inaccurate and potentially harmful if misunderstood. That is where all the technical terminology comes in to articulate its meaning.

in terms of: “…if misunderstood.”

When the technical explanation becomes the message,
obscuring Biblical imagery and language, that’s when
I protest.

Kindest regards, Philthy, :tiphat:

reen12

 

[DaveBj]

Interesting discussion.

In my 12 years of growing up as a Pentecostal (Church of God, Cleveland, Tenn), and then subsequently in my 29 years as a seriously practicing adult Christian, the only mentions of “blessed assurance” that I ever heard were either in the lyrics to Fanny Crosby’s hymn, or in references to that hymn.

In fact, I learned to sing that hymn in the CoG, which believes in backsliding (and some of whose members practice it every week).

The hymn’s lyrics are open to personal interpretation, as are all literary works, but they convey a definite message to me: Whereas it may be true that I cannot predict what the end of my life will be like, right now, as I find myself doing the “do’s” and not doing the “don’ts,” I can sing, “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine; oh, what a foretaste of glory divine.” If, however, I get into deliberate mortal sin, and I am still claiming the promise proclaimed in those lyrics, then my thinker has a problem.

DaveBj

 

[MariaG]

Thanks for your help, Maria, I do appreciate it.

reen12

:tiphat: You are welcome! Glad I could help.

 

[reen12]

Hi, DaveBj

quote: DaveBj

The hymn’s lyrics are open to personal interpretation, as are all literary works, but they convey a definite message to me: Whereas it may be true that I cannot predict what the end of my life will be like, right now, as I find myself doing the “do’s” and not doing the “don’ts,” I can sing, “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine; oh, what a foretaste of glory divine.” If, however, I get into deliberate mortal sin, and I am still claiming the promise proclaimed in those lyrics, then my thinker has a problem.

Thank you for your reflections on this, DaveBj.
It’s how I see it, as well.

It’s terms and definitions, the “tone” -that got me
feeling “looney” on the subject!

“Mortal sin” = "extinguishing the life of God, in the soul"
scared me out of my wits, when introduced to such
“concepts” in terms of 1950’s catechesis.

Layer on concepts such as:

“good confession” “worthy communions”
“perfect contrition” and I was near witless,
with fear.

As an adult, I think of “mortal sin” as “serious sin”
with no difficulty whatever. It was biblical
imagery that strengthened and comforted my
heart and soul - and Fanny Crosby’s hymn was
most welcome, to this little sheep.

Surely, Amazing Grace, as well*,* carries a different “tone”
than the terms that I listed, above.

God bless you, for sharing your thoughts on this
with me, DaveBj.

reen12

 

[Strider]

Ah, a good friend returns, as I knew she would. Welcome back, Maureen.
This thread is typical of you in that it comes from your subjective, poetic, linguistic bent.
As I see the Catholic view, it’s not the threats from God that we need to worry about, but our own weaknes. Yes, God is merciful and our Lord redeemed us, but we, in our pride and foolishness, can turn away from him in a moment of weakness or under powerful tempotation. It’s the old concupiscence thing.
Sure, I have “blessed assurance” in the Lord, it’s me I have to worry about.
I also see the danger of presumption in this assurance - one of the “unforgivable sins” against the Holy Spirit.

Your old “wet blanket” friend,
Strider