Evangelicals: How do you know you have "Saving Faith"?

[mikeledes]

From what I gather, a person can only know if they have saving faith after they die if the OSAS supporters are right. A person can be a devout Christian and believe that he/she has saving faith. And yet, if that person fall away, then the OSAS crowd says they never had genuine faith to begin with. How do you know you have not deceived yourself into believing you have saving faith?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[apophasis]

OSAS is a blank check for sin.

Rom. 5:18 - 6:2 "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life (how? through us? NO!) through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin (i.e., with Christ) still live in it?"

You can sin all you want, even kill people and show no remorse whatsoever, and yet still proclaim God as King. ???

There’s a history full of this behavior by those who believed you could lose salvation.

OSAS was invented by Luther to satisfy his conscience.

Proof?

Even the demons believe in Jesus. Are they saved?

If demons “believed in Jesus” they’d be saved. The gospel message to believe in Christ for salvation was/is not delivered to demons but to the fallen posterity of Adam only. There is no salvation program for fallen angels. The Son became a Man, not an angel.

 

[apophasis]

Are you prepared to say that a lack of works means that one lacks saving faith? If not, please amend you platitude above to:
A saving faith has no relationship to works.

Actually, a saving faith no longer has a relationship to sin. The saved, with Christ, “died to sin” (see my post # 195). Being now, positionally, in the resurrected Christ they have been "freed from sin"Rom. 6:22-23 "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life (this “outcome” is immediate, not future). For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.You still fail to grasp, to fully comprehend, ALL that salvation is, Phil, based on divine revelation.

Are you prepared to say that if a man believes he is saved through works at all, he has no saving faith? The object of saving faith is Christ Himself and HIS redemptive work on our behalf.

 

[mrs_abbott]

From what I gather, a person can only know if they have saving faith after they die if the OSAS supporters are right. A person can be a devout Christian and believe that he/she has saving faith. And yet, if that person fall away, then the OSAS crowd says they never had genuine faith to begin with. How do you know you have not deceived yourself into believing you have saving faith?

God Bless,
Michael

Deception is a sin and if you try and believe in something that doesn’t exist (ex. the fact that you have a saving faith when you in fact don’t), sets you up for judgement before God.
Only the person themselves can know whether or not they are saved. To say you are when you aren’t is a sin of deception.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Are you prepared to say that a lack of works means that one lacks saving faith? If not, please amend you platitude above to:
A saving faith has no relationship to works.

You don’t need to do works to be saved. Works compliment a saving faith because it’s part of it. It’s something that should naturally flow from it.
Too often the message is lost when the books of James and Ephesians are read in contradiction to one another, instead of together in context.

 

[mrs_abbott]

No problem jumping in. Im sorry that most of what I wrote has missed its target.

Its important to realize that the fact that Christ died for our sins does not obviate his commandment to love one another.

Not everyone is going to heaven.

It’s important to realize that sin separates us from God.

Phil

Sin definitely separates us from God and I agree that not everyone is going to Heaven.
I also agree that Christ died for our sins and instructed us to love one another as He has loved us.
So what are we arguing about?

 

[mikeledes]

Matthew 10:22

22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

2 Timothy 2:12

12If we endure, we will also reign with Him

What does persevering to the end mean?

God Bless,
Micael

 

[mrs_abbott]

Matthew 10:22

22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

2 Timothy 2:12

12If we endure, we will also reign with Him

What does persevering to the end mean?

God Bless,
Micael

Not giving up when our sins seem to get the best of us. There are times when we fall, some harder than others, but it’s crucial to get back up and follow the path to Heaven again.
2 Tim 2: 10-13
**10
Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory.
11
This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him;
12
if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.
13
If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. **

 

[mikeledes]

Deception is a sin and if you try and believe in something that doesn’t exist (ex. the fact that you have a saving faith when you in fact don’t), sets you up for judgement before God.
Only the person themselves can know whether or not they are saved. To say you are when you aren’t is a sin of deception.

A person can deceive themselves without necessarily intending to (i.e. mistaken).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Not giving up when our sins seem to get the best of us. There are times when we fall, some harder than others, but it’s crucial to get back up and follow the path to Heaven again.
2 Tim 2: 10-13
**10
Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory.
11
This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him;
12
if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.
13
If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. **

Thank you for your reponse. Anyone else?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mrs_abbott]

Thank you for your reponse.

God Bless,
Michael

Anytime!

 

[japhy]

If demons “believed in Jesus” they’d be saved. The gospel message to believe in Christ for salvation was/is not delivered to demons but to the fallen posterity of Adam only. There is no salvation program for fallen angels. The Son became a Man, not an angel.

Demons believe in God, which means they believe in Jesus. They know he’s real, they know who he is. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19, KJV)

The point is, belief in Jesus is part of salvation, not the whole of it.

As for Luther:

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

It’s one thing to admit that “we will commit sins while we are here”, but it’s another to say “be a sinner, and let your sins be strong”!

 

[Contarini]

Demons believe in God, which means they believe in Jesus.

You do not understand what “belief in Jesus” means. Medieval theologians distinguished between “credere Deum” (belief that God exists), “credere in Deo” (belief in what God has revealed), and “credere in Deum” (trust in God linked to love and good works). Demons do not believe *in *God or Jesus. In fact, Aquinas would say that there is a sense in which they don’t even have unformed faith (which according to Aquinas itself cannot save), because even that for humans involves some kind of motion of the will attracted by truth and goodness to get us from opinion to certainty. Demons, on the other hand, have certainty without any love of the truth. So they do not believe even in the sense in which a Christian in mortal sin believes.

The classical Protestant view is simpler on this point: you have the faith of demons, which is merely intellectual and is also the “faith” of a human being not in a state of grace; and then you have saving faith, which comes along with love and good works although it does not need love or good works to be perfected.

As for Luther:
It’s one thing to admit that “we will commit sins while we are here”, but it’s another to say “be a sinner, and let your sins be strong”!

Do you have any understanding of the context for this statement? Don’t you think it’s a bit bizarre to ignore all the theological writings in which Luther explained his theology in great detail, and fixate on one letter to a close friend who could be counted on not to misunderstand Luther’s hyperbole?

Luther explicitly taught that faith would always come along with love and good works, and that a person who truly believed on Christ would struggle against the works of the flesh and would only sin out of weakness. That is the background against which the letter to Melanchthon must be read. Melanchthon knew that, and Luther knew that he knew that. Luther knew that Melanchthon was trying very hard to be holy, so he could use this kind of deliberately shocking language to make a point. Taking the letter out of this context is dishonest.

Edwin

 

[Philthy]

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin (i.e., with Christ) still live in it?"

No doubt, Apo, that you believe this somehow supports OSAS and that is your reason for posting it. I don’t see it my friend.
I see Paul speaking to those who died to sin (“we”) and exhorting them to live holy lives - ie Christians.
With specific reference to the last verse, notice that it is actually a clarification of your bolded verse. The only logic I can see that would make sense is that some believers were being lulled into believing that sin not only wasnt an issue, but rather that it would increase grace among (them which is always a good thing). Paul clearly refutes such a notion with his follow up. But whereas you see this verse somehow stating an eternal, unalterable (OSAS) reality as a result of the fact that they died to sin - and therefore have entered - irrevocably - into eternal glory, I see the entire question; Namely - if we had to die to sin in order to be restored to life in Christ , how can we expect to remain alive in Christ while we are still alive to sin? The obvious answer is that we cannot. Paul is not making a technical, theological point - he is making a practical, eternal one. Sinning separates you from the life of Christ. If you are living a live characterized by sin you are not alive in Christ - you have either forfeited the life offered and paid for, or you had never entered into it to begin with. Both possibilities render OSAS untenable. The former contradicts it outright, the latter renders it essentially useless.

 

[Contarini]

OSAS is a blank check for sin. You can sin all you want, even kill people and show no remorse whatsoever, and yet still proclaim God as King. ??? OSAS was invented by Luther to satisfy his conscience.

Luther did not believe in OSAS. In fact, he says in the Galatians commentary that if you don’t struggle against the works of the flesh, you will lose faith and (if you do not repent) eventually be damned. You are completely misinterpreting Luther.

And DO NOT quote me that one letter from 1521 ('sin boldly"). It is not the key to Luther’s entire teaching–on the contrary, what Luther teaches in more formal settings provides the key to what he was trying to say in that letter.

Even the demons believe in Jesus. Are they saved?

As I said in my previous post, the demons do not believe in Jesus in any sense. Believing in does not just mean “knowing who he is.” There is a huge difference between believing that (which may simply denote opinion or knowledge) and believing in, which involves an act of will.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have a serious problem with the phrase “absolute assurance.” What does this really mean? What does it really mean to know something?

It appears to me that violent Muslim extremists who blow themselves up have “absolute assurance” that their actions will merit them Paradise. Clearly, this is ridiculous, and yet there actions speak loudly. They have a profound, but seriously misguided conviction.

I cannot accept the phrase “absolute assurance;” it’s intellectually bankrupt. It may even be a form of spiritual pride. I would, however, say that one can have a deep and profound faith. This seems very reasonable to me, particularly if one lives out the tenets of that faith.

Assurance is based on the promise of Christ.​

It’s a red herring to bring Muslims into it; the doctrine of assurance in this thread is a specifically Christian one, so what others may mean by the word is irrelevant to the present discussion. The word has a specific meaning, just as “conversion” has. I hope there won’t be irrelevancies about football conversions, just because the word is not limited to meaning conversion in religion

As for pride - any form of faith in Christ could be a delusion, precisely because faith, like assurance, is not vision. But if Christian faith in Christ is not disqualified by not being vision, why should assurance be disqualified either ? ##

As an Evangelical, it became apparent to me that my zealous brothers and sisters in Christ could not have “absolute assurance” concerning interpretation of the Bible. If they did, they contradicted one another.

Assurance in discussions of the doctrine of salvation (the subject of this thread) has nothing to do with that. So why bring it in ?​

The thread is about assurance of salvation; this assurance is founded upon the promises of Christ - it owes nothing to human strength, but is rebuke to all human pride, even the most subtle. How can that which is clean contrary to the unrighteousness that remains in the believer, be said to favour it ?

The alternative seems to be, that we should trust in ourselves for salvation, & not in the promises of Christ - & how does that differ, ultimately, from atheism ? We have no righteousness of our own to being to God, no anything at all. So if we are saved at all, we need a whole salvation, by a whole Christ, from beginning to end, in every respect: so what is this about trusting Him for some of our salvation, but not for all of it ? He is not trustworthy on & off, like a badly-working boiler, but in all things, without any reserve: what we have to do, is to be conformed to Him Who is all this. And that too is totally His work, by His indwelling Spirit. That we don’t believe His promises, is our sin & our fault - it is no reason not to believe Him. ##

I’m certain their hearts were in the right place, and there is no doubt they loved the Lord. It’s just not possible to have non-contradictory interpretations when the final authority rests on each individual’s understanding. This, in part, is why much of the Christian world is fractured.

Ultimately this is a matter of faith. It’s not a matter of “absolute assurance.” I’m not impressed with what you think you “know.” After all, how do you “know” that what you “know” is not your imagination or self-deception? You must have faith to think that you “know,” and there is nothing absolute about that.

Assurance is not faith, but it is a fruit of faith.​

As for your question - ask it of St. Paul:

2Ti 1:11 For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
2Ti 1:12 and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.

…cont’d]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…cont’d & ended]

Again, this is a matter of having a deep and profound faith. That’s why when it comes to interpretation of scripture, I have a deep faith that the Church’s stance trumps my own understanding. (and this of course is a different “can of worms.”)

Finally, the only thing Christians can absolutely agree on concerning interpration of scripture, is that we can’t agree, particularly if each individual is the final authority. If scripture interpreted itself, we wouldn’t have thousands of denominations.

(Likewise, if Catholics had been faithful to their true beliefs, we probably wouldn’t have had a Reformation. Of course this is conjecture.)

Do any Non-Catholics here even care how the Early Church “interpreted” scripture, particularly concerning issues of justification? If no, why not?

Peace and Blessings…

Assurance of salvation is an entirely different topic from Bible interpretation. It only confuses the discussion to treat them as identical or related merely because the word “assurance” can be applied to both.​

 

[christcnection1]

…cont’d & ended]

Assurance of salvation is an entirely different topic from Bible interpretation. It only confuses the discussion to treat them as identical or related merely because the word “assurance” can be applied to both.​

I disagree. The concepts are unique and different, but intimately interconnected. Furthermore, the posted issue goes to a more foundational issue: authority. To assume one has assurance of salvation based on scripture verses, also assumes one has the correct interpretation of passages of scripture.

A simple example of this is that the majority of Non-Catholic Christians believe in Sola Fide and Imputed Righteousness. Many are assured of their right-standing with God, based on the assurance that they are correctly interpreting specific verses. I think this is a slippery slope.

Again, as a side note, I’m not measuring their love for God, desire to know truth, or suggesting they are not “saved.” This was not my intent at all.

The only other point I wanted to make is that one can’t be absolutely assured that their assurance of salvation is for sure. In other words, one could be absolutely, positively convinced that they are “saved,” and come to realize on that dreadful day that they were not truly in Christ. (This, however, is rare in my opinion.)

My goal wasn’t to jump into the heat of the discussion; rather, it was to approach the topic from a different vantage point. I wasn’t trying to misdirect the conversation either.

However, if anyone is wondering, I am “assured” that I am saved, if Jesus is truly Lord and Savior, and died for our sins. Of course my faith in Jesus Christ is better defined as a deep and profound faith. We know that Paul speaks of the “hope of being found in Christ.” I also have this blessed “hope.”

Perhaps our disagreement is over semantics. In that case, this was simply a misunderstanding. I just don’t see how some of the language used by our separted brethren reflects a holistic view of scripture concerning issues of Justification in the Bible.​

The only question I have for you is this:

If one whole-heartedly embraces the concept of “absolute assurance” based on their understanding of salvation (imputed righteousness), is this potentially dangerous and/or does it potentially distort one’s assurance that they are truly saved?

(And this view, of course, is derived from their understanding of scripture.)

As a Catholic, I think you would agree.​

Please do not get upset my beloved Non-Catholic siblings in Christ. I love you and I firmly believe that the vast majority of you will be with us in our eternal home.

 

[apophasis]

The thread is about assurance of salvation; this assurance is founded upon the promises of Christ - it owes nothing to human strength, but is rebuke to all human pride, even the most subtle. How can that which is clean contrary to the unrighteousness that remains in the believer, be said to favour it ?

The alternative seems to be, that we should trust in ourselves for salvation, & not in the promises of Christ - & how does that differ, ultimately, from atheism ? We have no righteousness of our own to being to God, no anything at all.** So if we are saved at all, we need a whole salvation, by a whole Christ, from beginning to end, in every respect: so what is this about trusting Him for some of our salvation, but not for all of it?** He is not trustworthy on & off, like a badly-working boiler, but in all things, without any reserve: what we have to do, is to be conformed to Him Who is all this. And that too is totally His work, by His indwelling Spirit. That we don’t believe His promises, is our sin & our fault - it is no reason not to believe Him. ##

Assurance is not faith, but it is a fruit of faith.​

As for your question - ask it of St. Paul:

2Ti 1:11 For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
2Ti 1:12 and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.

…cont’d]

Beautifully stated, Michael. Saving faith being a personal trust in the One who has ALL the power to do so - completely. Anything less is not faith at all.

 

[Philthy]

Michael. Saving faith being a personal trust in the One who has ALL the power to do so - completely. Anything less is not faith at all.

I agree. It still doesn’t obviate the command to love one another, however, and to be held accountable (for choosing to personally place our trust in something other than Christ) when we fail to do so.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.