Is it sinful to assume that your salvation is “guaranteed”?

[BibleReader]

For me, the Scripture which settles this issue is the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, in Luke.

At Luke 18:9-14, we see the Publican, shaking with fear and begging God for mercy, because of his enormous sins, clearly not confidant that he is Heaven-bound.

We see the Pharisee, a solid citizen who tithes, fasts, and thanks God while praying, clearly confidant that he is Heaven-bound.

Christ declares the non-confidant sinner to be “justified” – Heaven-bound.

He declares the confidant solid citizen to be “not justified” – not Heaven-bound.

 

[Milliardo]

The problem of OSAS is in the circular logic that goes with it. Simply put, it cannot be defended. It can be explained away; which simply means you can use loopy reasoning for it, but then actually be logical…? No. How loppy can OSAS get? I am not sure if it has been shown here, but here’s how problematic OSAS can go:

OSAS claim that our sins past, present and future are all forgiven. We don’t have a problem with past and present, as indeed we need to repent of them and leave them behind. But future…? The logic of OSAS is such that one is saved from sin after accepting Christ. But then that logic naturally falters at once, since why is there a need to confess one’s future sins if one is saved from sinning in the first place? So the answer is the one we get above–that we don’t know about the future, and so we need to confess our sins that we’ll do in the future. But that’s counter to the logic of OSAS since by confessing the sins you’ll still commit, then you’re not even sure if you’re saved or not in the first place, so you need a safeguard to ensure that you won’t be condemned of those sins. So the OSAS holder will say that when we accept Christ, then we won’t commit any sin anymore–which then runs into the logic of why one needs to confess sins that won’t even be committed to in the first place. See the loopy logic? It becomes more and more illogical, and the holder of OSAS would have to run in circles to satisfy each and every one of them.

 

[sandusky]

Milliardo:

So the OSAS holder will say that when we accept Christ, then we won’t commit any sin anymore

The apostle John, who believes in OSAS, says that the one who says he doesn’t sin is a liar. Where do you come up this that the “OSAS holder will say that when we accept Christ, then we won’t commit any sin anymore?”

You need to take Gottle’s advice, and understand the position. It’s clear that you don’t understand it.

 

[ekim61]

miguel:

I don’t know if it’s sinful to assume that your salvation is guaranteed. I certainly think it’s an error to assume that. And the error leads to people thinking they can sin with impunity. Anyone who thinks that isn’t going to take sin seriously. What a dangerous belief. But I’m sure the devil approves.

I was in the Baptist church for 5 years and they don’t teach that, a saved person will continue sinning because they know they are saved and cannot lose there salvation. Although this may be how some individuals think.

They do however say that if someone does continue to sin then that person was not saved to begin with, they were not completely repentant.

I am not defending the OSAS doctrine. There are some good people in the protestant churches who truly love and serve our Lord Jesus and will be in heaven one day.

 

[sandusky]

catsrus:

I think it’s sinful and arrogant to presume to know the mind of God as regards anything.

Read 1 Cor 2. Paul tells us how it is that one understand spiritual things, and he concludes the chapter by saying that believers have the mind of Christ.They don’t just know it; they have it: the understanding.

 

[Milliardo]

sandusky:

The apostle John, who believes in OSAS, says that the one who says he doesn’t sin is a liar. Where do you come up this that the “OSAS holder will say that when we accept Christ, then we won’t commit any sin anymore?”

You need to take Gottle’s advice, and understand the position. It’s clear that you don’t understand it.

Read my post again, sandusky. John supports OSAS? Funny you can come up with that. Like I said, OSAS becomes problematic once you come go to the loopy logic that accompanies it. We take what you said now and thus come up with this problem (again, it helps to reread): if you say that you will commit sin still, then what does that make of OSAS, sandusky? Is that still OSAS? How can you say you’re saved if you will still commit sin? See, that’s where the whole problem comes in. Now you’ll say that for as long as we hold fast to Christ, we won’t sin. That’s not OSAS anymore, since there’s a condition that comes in (as long as one holds on to Christ). But OSAS doesn’t say that now, does it sandusky? It follows the loopy logic that Luther invented, and that as long as one proclaims Christ, then even if one sins over and over, he is still saved. Sandusky, can you explain to us where in the Bible can be found a verse that equates sin to holding fast to Christ?

 

[sandusky]

Millardo:

Now you’ll say that for as long as we hold fast to Christ, we won’t sin. That’s not OSAS anymore, since there’s a condition that comes in (as long as one holds on to Christ).

I ask you again, where do get these ideas? You are speaking about something of which you exhibit no understanding.
Millardo:

It follows the loopy logic that Luther invented

I’ll take Luther’s loopy logic over your non-understanding any day. At least, he knew what he was talking about.
Millardo:

Sandusky, can you explain to us where in the Bible can be found a verse that equates sin to holding fast to Christ

No I cannot, Millardo. But so what? That concept of sin as holding fast to Christ is nowhere in the argument for OSAS. Again, you don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

[reen12]

To me, the question might be better posed, as:

Is our justification and salvation* in* Christ? Is His
righteousness our righteousness? Can I trust Him
to save me if I do my best, with the lights that I have,
to serve Him and worship God through Him?

Presumption means to take my justification and my
salvation for granted, while knowingly doing those
things that violate what Christ commanded.

Presumption does not mean trusting Christ to keep
His promises.

IMHO, it is this very attitude which separates RCC
theology from some of the other Christian denominations.

The emphasis is on “fear and trembling” and not on
trust in Christ. An emphasis on “what must I do or
not do” rather than the peaceful acceptance of what
Christ has done, and the living out of His commands
in gratitude and love. To rest in Christ, as a sheep
in the arms of the Shepherd. To cast my sins on
the mercy of Christ…as, humanly speaking, I can be
aware of same.

To have a certainty of my salvation, not out of presumption,
but out of trust…Christ will keep His word.

It is the difference between a juridical mindset and
a relational mindset.

cf. thread, covering topic of the “certainty of salvation”,
titled: For Lutherans…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67141&highlight=reen12

Just my thought,

Best,

reen12

 

[Mt19_26]

If one presumes that their salvation is assured they are committing the sin of presumption. Jesus makes it very clear that our salvation is not guaranteed and that we need to live holy lives if we expect Him to say “well done” and welcome us into His Kingdom when our time comes. If we look around in the world today we see people left and right not living what one would call a holy life and yet they all expect to make it to heaven. Many of them believe this because they assume they are guaranteed that no matter what they do as long as the accept Jesus as their savior they will make it. This is what many protestant denominations preach. This is not what Jesus Christ preaches.

 

[Philthy]

What is the difference between:

• assuming,
• having confidence in,
• and knowing (believing you know, really)

your salvation is assured?

Im not sure why the assumption of salvation would be sinful. I think it is probably a healthy state of mind for those who know they are loved by God and are doing his will. It is very different to assume you will be saved than it is to say it is impossible that you will not be saved. Im quite shocked by the disproportionate responses condemning the assumption of salvation.

Just for the record, does anyone here assume that they are going to hell?
If not, how is that different than assuming you are saved?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

BLB_Oregon:

Yes! Presumption and despair are sins against hope. So while we may (and should) confidently live in hope, we may not abandon fear of offending God, for in so doing we give way to overconfident presumption:

From the CC:
"When God reveals Himself and calls him, man cannot fully respond to the divine love by his own powers. He must hope that God will give him the capacity to love Him in return and to act in conformity with the commandments of charity. Hope is the confident expectation of divine blessing and the beatific vision of God; it is also the fear of offending God’s love and of incurring punishment.

“There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).”

IF you think that to “confidently expect” to be saved is significantly different than “assuming” then you have a point - I don’t see the big difference myself. What is an assumption other than a confident expectation? You included the term presumption (vs assumption) in support of your statements. Are they equivalent?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

StratusRose:

It’s the premise that God knows the state of your soul better than you do.

I dont know. We are talking about an ASSUMPTION. Not that we know FOR SURE. Certainly not that we know better than God.

I dont believe in OSAS (unless you mean post-mortem OSAS)
Phil

 

[Philthy]

OK, I’m rethinking this…I didn’t grasp the full significance of the “guarantee” element. I knew something was up when I saw how disproportionately people chose “yes”.

Here’s what I think:

• Its OK to assume you are in a state of Grace
• Its OK to assume you will be saved
• Its NOT OK to assume your salvation is “guaranteed”

That seems better. My apologies for feeling so comfortable disagreeing with y’all earlier…

Phil

 

[reen12]

It is this very issue of “certainty” that I find interesting. Here’s part of a post I made to another thread:

quote: reen12

…justification is more than a “feeling”, but I
additionally maintain that it is this “emotional” uncertainty
that makes all the difference, in the Christian life.

God created us rational animals, with emotions, in His
image and likeness.

Analogy: a kid has been told that h/she is loved by
h/her father. That is “intellectual” knowledge.

If this kid senses that this love is “conditional”, h/her
relationship with that father will be different, entirely,
than a kid who knows h/her father loves, unconditionally.

The kid will always be “on edge.” “uncertain.”
The equivalent, IMO, of "am I certain that I am in
“the state of grace.” i.e. “Would I be accepted into
heaven, if I died right now?”

…]

So, IMHO, justification does have a marked emotional
effect, depending on which definition of justification one
holds with. “certainty” versus “non-certainty”.
If I say I’m certain, I may be accused of “presumption”
or “it is impossible to know the mind of God.”

“But what about trusting in His promises?”

I consider the whole issue one of “mindset.”
I hold that it is an almost insurmountable task,
to convey the reality of Blessed Assurance, to
those who were raised in other traditions.

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

“Echoes of mercy, whispers of love.”

Best,

reen12

PS: If you have time, check the link, and read about the
soldiers, and what they said to one another.
And that is the difference, and why I’ve left Catholicism,
and embraced Jesus and Blessed Assurance. If those
men could go with hearts in peace and comfort, that’s
what I want, in terms of loving Jesus and being loved
by Him, all the while trusting in His promises.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

I think the nature of the answer lies in the person’s state of animation. If the person is, as shown below, walking around thinking his salvation is guaranteed, then he just let’s all go in a sort of pride, then he is at fault.

If he thinks, “If I serve God then my salvation is guaranteed” then this leads him to do good things so as to serve God, this is not so bad.

The first is assuming and presuming. Assuming happens when one expects something with incomplete facts, and presuming happens when one prematurely expects something (it seems equal but it is not). Thus, we will never know until our salvation, so we cannot presume so confidently (expect prematurely) nor are we sure how God will judge us (because we don’t know what he knows) so we shouldn’t assume.

The best bet is to have faith that salvation is guaranteed to someone living in a constant effort of humility (and this is a tough one) and charity. Thus one would be hopeful.

God bless,
Aaron

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I sort of fumbled back and forth on this one. I think a little fear of hell is healthy and feeling 100% positive that you will go to Heaven is dangerous. If you’re so sure you’re going to Heaven, what drives you to not sin? You can be forgiven and there’s no danger to your salvation.

I’m not even talking an insincere confession. When I sin, I always feel immensly stupid afterwards. Knowing that and thinking that I’m guaranteed a spot in Heaven, what have I got to worry about sinning? I can have the momentary “”“pleasures”"" of sin without struggling with my conscience or wasting energy fighting sin. I’ll just sin, feel momentarily bad, then move on, probably to sin again and again and again in the same way without any fighting back.

I need that humbling aspect that, while God is stretching out His saving arm to me, I have to do my part and take it.

I’m not worthy of Heaven and I’m not so incredibly special that God doesn’t care how I behave and that I can treat Him like dirt and still get a seat at His banquet. Pride goeth before the fall…

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Just had another thought: what about Purgatory.

Jesus stressed the importance of praying for the dead. If I’m going to Heaven, then my mom must be because, as far as I know, she’s more devoute and sinless than I am. And my Grandparents must have because I never saw them sin! So then I don’t pray for them.

What happens if I’m wrong? I could be praying and offering up sacrifice for them and other souls in Purgatory to help them get to Heaven faster, but I’m not. I’m thinking about how happy they must be when really they’re suffering.

In short: for your soul and all those who have died! You never know what good it may do!

 

[reen12]

Dear aaronjmagnan,

quote: aaronjmagnan

Thus, we will never know until our salvation, so we cannot presume so confidently (expect prematurely) nor are we sure how God will judge us (because we don’t know what he knows) so we shouldn’t assume.

Thus, we will never know until our salvation…

Thanks for stating that which, in IMHO, reflects the direct opposite
of Blessed Assurance, so clearly and concisely.

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Dear MariaGorettiGrl,

quote: MariaGorettiGr

I’m not worthy of Heaven and I’m not so incredibly special that God doesn’t care how I behave and that I can treat Him like dirt and still get a seat at His banquet.

But that’s the point. No one is “worthy” of heaven, IMHO.
Jesus makes us worthy, because His righteousness
is our righteousness.

We can show our faith in Him, and our gratitude to Him,
by following His commands, and repenting when we sin.

Jesus has already* done* the work. Our “work” is to
follow His commands, out of love and gratitude, as
well as obedience, and* trust* Him for our salvation.

• other* issue, to me.]

Best,

reen12

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Milliardo:

The problem of OSAS is in the circular logic that goes with it. Simply put, it cannot be defended. It can be explained away; which simply means you can use loopy reasoning for it, but then actually be logical…? No. How loppy can OSAS get?

If people constantly misunderstand it, of course it’s going to seem “loopy”. ​

I am not sure if it has been shown here, but here’s how problematic OSAS can go:

OSAS claim that our sins past, present and future are all forgiven. We don’t have a problem with past and present, as indeed we need to repent of them and leave them behind. But future…?

They too must be confessed:​

• 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.
• If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;
• but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
• If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
• If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
• If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ##

The logic of OSAS is such that one is saved from sin after accepting Christ. But then that logic naturally falters at once, since why is there a need to confess one’s future sins if one is saved from sinning in the first place?

Because assurance of salvation, which comes to its fruition in our being numbered with the blessed in Heaven hereafter, is not a guarantee that we shall be free of sin here in this world in the meantime. That is why hope is so necessary - for to have this assurance, is to have assurance of something not yet fully possessed; something for which God’s Almighty Providence is trusted: IOW, “The LORD will provide”. To have assurance of salvation does not do away with faith or hope or love - if anything, it supplies them with fresh motives.​

Your question seems to be confusing the perseverance of the saints (to give it its right name - it’s the P in TULIP, in case anyone was wondering) either with impeccability, or with its twin, sinless perfection. Neither is required by the logic of OSAS. In fact, Calvinist authors spend a good deal of time warning their readers against carnal security, lack of watchfulness, and the like. ##

So the answer is the one we get above–that we don’t know about the future, and so we need to confess our sins that we’ll do in the future. But that’s counter to the logic of OSAS since by confessing the sins you’ll still commit, then you’re not even sure if you’re saved or not in the first place, so you need a safeguard to ensure that you won’t be condemned of those sins.

I think this has been explained​

So the OSAS holder will say that when we accept Christ, then we won’t commit any sin anymore–which then runs into the logic of why one needs to confess sins that won’t even be committed to in the first place.

See above - that inference from OSAS is mistaken (at least if we are talking about the Reformed understanding of OSAS)​

See the loopy logic? It becomes more and more illogical, and the holder of OSAS would have to run in circles to satisfy each and every one of them.

Again, see above for why the logic is not loopy - read a Puritan or two on the topics you mention, such as sin. Alexander Whyte (my favourite Reformed author) speaks of sin so often that C.S. Lewis thought he did so too much.​

We need to avoid caricaturing what others believe - if we don’t, we can hardly complain of how they caricature ours.

Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God ?

See the link and the commentaries on the questions.

BTW - there is no assuming about OSAS.

Hope that helps ##