Misunderstanding (on Both Sides) Assurance of Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Writer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Writer

Guest
As former Protestants who are excited about being involved in the RCIA process now, my wife and I have the unique position of seeing time after time how much vocabulary acts as a roadblock in our understanding and communications with our brothers and sisters within the Protestant traditions. I thought I would share one example, the assurance of salvation, and see what some other views about this topic are. I think it is very important that we exercise great care in our characterizations of other believers, unless we are certain that we have a solid grasp of what we’re discussing. Otherwise, we are just widening the separation between ourselves and working against Pope John Paul’s call for Christian unity.

I recently began reading Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism and have really enjoyed it. In the chapter entitled “Salvation”, however, I noticed that Karl K. asserted that all Protestants subscribe to the Calvinistic doctrine which holds that “once saved always saved”. This belief is identified as “assurance of salvation”, but I don’t think that’s quite accurate.

As a kid, I was raised primarily in the Nazarene Church (while going to Catholic schools much of the time), and I never heard this belief within this denomination. I then attended a Free Methodist university (Seattle Pacific University) and again never heard this “once saved always saved” concept articulated there, except perhaps as something to be argued against. As my family continued its spiritual journey through other denominations such as the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and the Episcopal Church (to name a few), this was never a belief we remember ever hearing supported. It may be a doctrine of the Baptists, but I have not yet verified this is the case. Being interested, I decided to take a few minutes to research the official Nazarene position on this topic. An excerpt is copied below. (See http://www.nazarene.org/gensec/we_believe.html, if interested.)

*We believe that all persons, though in the possession of the experience of regeneration and entire sanctification, may fall from grace and apostatize and, unless they repent of their sins, be hopelessly and eternally lost. *

Anyway, I thought perhaps a Protestant, or two, might want to try to clarify what assurance of salvation means to them and, conversely, what it does not mean. For example, I don’t think that most Protestants discount free will to such an extent that they believe a soul’s destiny is not affected in the case of a backsliding believer, or the former Christian.

***Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. ***

Philippians 2:12
 
Hello! 🙂

I don’t have the book or article you are reading in front of me, but I found this link from Catholic Answers: Assurance of Salvation? – and here, at least, we seem to be addressing not all Protestants, but some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

I am not a Protestant, but half of my relatives are in various denominations including Baptist and Presbyterian (I’m not sure which sub-groups of these groups they belong to.) Anyway, the Baptist ones insist that you get “saved” and that your salvation cannot be dissolved by anything. The Presbyterians keep talking about predestination, and how the “elect” are chosen by God to be his people, and that no matter what they will have salvation. These sound similar, but with so many Protestant groups out there, it would only stand to reason that there are equally as many stances on this issue.
 
40.png
Cherub:
Hello! 🙂

I don’t have the book or article you are reading in front of me, but I found this link from Catholic Answers: Assurance of Salvation? – and here, at least, we seem to be addressing not all Protestants, but some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

I am not a Protestant, but half of my relatives are in various denominations including Baptist and Presbyterian (I’m not sure which sub-groups of these groups they belong to.) Anyway, the Baptist ones insist that you get “saved” and that your salvation cannot be dissolved by anything. The Presbyterians keep talking about predestination, and how the “elect” are chosen by God to be his people, and that no matter what they will have salvation. These sound similar, but with so many Protestant groups out there, it would only stand to reason that there are equally as many stances on this issue.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting… I would have guessed the Baptists felt that way, but I am a little surprised about the Presbyterians. Wonder if it’s just a case of personal opinion vs. an actual church position of theirs?
 
I am a Catholic, married to a Baptist. I can tell you from personal experience that the Baptist church is divided on this issue - some affirm it, others deny it. I have also participated in theology debate forums for a good decade or more, and those who hold this position are quite vehement about it. Historically, the idea is derived from Calvinist double-predestination coupled with the immutability of God. In a nutshell, if God has predestined you to be saved, and God doesn’t change His mind, then you’re going to be saved. The scriptural evidence supporting the doctrine directly is kind of spotty at best. If you debate a Calvinist (e.g., Presbyterians) about it, they will generally try to prove predestination and immutability, from which they believe assurance automatically flows. It’s always a more interesting debate when you hit someone who denies Calvinism but affirms assurance (as some in my wife’s church do).

A popular Protestant work supporting the doctrine is R.C. Sproul’s “Chosen by God”, if you’re interested. One of the Sunday school classes at my wife’s church used it as a textbook - so I had to read it for myself 🙂 Needless to say, I wasn’t convinced. But if you want an introduction to the “for” argument, it’s a good place to start.
 
40.png
Writer:
That’s interesting… I would have guessed the Baptists felt that way, but I am a little surprised about the Presbyterians. Wonder if it’s just a case of personal opinion vs. an actual church position of theirs?
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert on the Presbyterian beliefs, but my relative who gave me this impression has said things to that effect so often that I am just guessing it is true.

Here is something I found on the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church, USA) website about Predestination: Predestination

It is a little hard for me to understand exactly what the driving points are just by reading it, but perhaps there is something useful that you can make out here. 😃 It’s kind of confusled.
 
we are using that book CAtholics & Fundamentalism in a class this year, and in my reading of it it never says “all Protestants believe” in predestination, assurance of salvation or anything else. In this book he is addressing that narrow range of protestant, or non-catholic, denominations that subscribed to the “6 fundamentals” or derived from that movement.
 
I am currently in RCIA and have read Keating’s book. I found the chapter on salvation seriously weak. He doesn’t devote nearly the time and effort I thought he should have. And yes he made some generalizations that I don’t hold to. I am in the process of reading a book by Robert A. Sungenis called Not By Faith Alone. which I hope will be a bit more exhaustive on the subject. I’ve been a OSAS for 20 yrs and am for the first time re-evaluating my position. I could talk all night on this, but I’ll spare all of you:)…thanks
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
we are using that book CAtholics & Fundamentalism in a class this year, and in my reading of it it never says “all Protestants believe” in predestination, assurance of salvation or anything else. In this book he is addressing that narrow range of protestant, or non-catholic, denominations that subscribed to the “6 fundamentals” or derived from that movement.
Click to expand...
Okay… Thanks. Maybe I read it too fast. I’ll take a second look, but the Nazarene Church members would probably consider themselves “fundamentalists”, and I know they oppose this doctrine.
 
Hi,

I live in the bible belt. Nashville, TN. I have never met a Protestant that doesn’t believe that he/she is saved and going straight to heaven to be with the Lord**. Not one**. They have excepted Jesus as their personal Lord and savior, and the CAN’T loose their salvation. PERIOD!

That’s what they say and that’s how they live.

John
 
Some Baptists, like my Grandmother, believe that once saved, always saved. But then again, she also contradicts herself every other sentence, so you may just want to forget I sait that 😉 As far as the Presb. are concerned, from what I understand, predestination plays an important role in their salvation.

The main reason Salvation is often split up into “protestant” and “catholic” views is because of the Catholic Church’s emphasis on works. Afterall, we must remember that Faith is dead without works, but some Protestants don’t understand what that means. I have many relatives for example, who think the “works” set forth by the Catholic Church as paying to pray, etc.

It all comes with education, which is key in all walks of religion.
 
Northwind:

If you have any specific issues / passages relating to OSAS that you’d like to discuss or that you think Keating was weak on, let us know and we’ll see what we can do. I’ve debated the topic hundreds of times, so I’d be glad to go through it with you if you’d like. As in most topics, there are “problem verses” that both sides of the debate have to deal with. IMHO, the doctrine of OSAS has far more problem verses to explain than the opposite side, and the explanations OSAS writers (like Sproul) have come up with for their problem verses are pretty weak compared to the explanations the other way.
 
40.png
SteveT:
Northwind:

If you have any specific issues / passages relating to OSAS that you’d like to discuss or that you think Keating was weak on, let us know and we’ll see what we can do. I’ve debated the topic hundreds of times, so I’d be glad to go through it with you if you’d like. As in most topics, there are “problem verses” that both sides of the debate have to deal with. IMHO, the doctrine of OSAS has far more problem verses to explain than the opposite side, and the explanations OSAS writers (like Sproul) have come up with for their problem verses are pretty weak compared to the explanations the other way.
Click to expand...
Okay… Can someone remind me what the acronym OSAS means? I work for a government agency, so I my brain is about to explode with acronyms already, I’m afraid! 🙂

I also would be interested in learning more about Northwind’s specific concerns. I am not supporting a Calvinistic understanding of salvation, but my concern is that writers like K. Keating are uniting all Protestants, or even all fundamentalists, under a single banner on this particular issue. I think it is more complicated than that, however, and I don’t believe that over-simplification does anyone any good.

There is another way to look at the issue of predestination, which simply acknowledges that God knows who will be saved (since he is omniscient), but that this knowledge does not affect the free will of the believer to continue in his belief or fall away. It seems ridiculous that some Protestants believe that a believer could become an atheist at the end of his life and still be saved, and I hope this perspective isn’t too widespread in the Protestant churches!

PS. Thanks for the links people have included on this thread. They have been a helpful resource.
 
One thing that Catholics need to keep in mind when addressing the beliefs of Protestants is that, for most of them, there is no authoritative magisterium defining what they believe. Therefore, simply because many Protestants profess the once saved always saved position we cannot assume that this is the general belief of all Protestants.

On the other hand, it is important for Protestants to remember that not all Protestants believe as they do. In fact, I am amazed at the number of Protestants I have encountered who seem to have this idea. Simply because some groups do not believe in “once saved always saved” does not mean that there aren’t any Protestants (demoninational or not) who do. Writer, you may not have encountered this idea among Protestant groups to which you have been exposed but I have talked with Protestants who firmly believe this. I would have to double-check, but I believe that this believe is also expressed in the book “Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us” edited by John H. Armstrong. I have also seen tracts and fliers from various Protestant groups claiming these exact beliefs.

I guess what I am saying is that the Catholic Church has to address all of the varied claims that come from Protestantism. Therefore, when you see a claim about “what Protestants believe,” it is most likely an unfortunate generalization.

In regard to Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” in his preface, Mr. Keating gives “a few words about what not to expect. [Catholicism and Fundamentalism] will be no thorough review of fundamentalism as a whole and still less of Protestantism. The focus is on that part of fundamentalism actively engaged in anti-Catholic work and on the issues brought up in that work. Just as fundamentalists form a subset of all Protestants, so actively anti-Catholic fundamentalists are a subset of all fundamentalists…and even then there is room to consider only representatives of the movement and only some of their charges. Do not expect this book to discuss what it is not meant to discuss. (There is little more frustrating for a writer than to be accused of badly handling a topic he had no intention of discussing anyway.)” (page 11) Mr. Keating is clear that he was only attempting to address some of the charges against Catholicism brought up by some of those who fit into the narrow category he calls, anti-Catholic.
 
In regard to Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism:
will be no thorough review of fundamentalism as a whole and still less of Protestantism. The focus is on that part of fundamentalism actively engaged in anti-Catholic work and on the issues brought up in that work. Just as fundamentalists form a subset of all Protestants, so actively anti-Catholic fundamentalists are a subset of all fundamentalists…and even then there is room to consider only representatives of the movement and only some of their charges. Do not expect this book to discuss what it is not meant to discuss. (There is little more frustrating for a writer than to be accused of badly handling a topic he had no intention of discussing anyway.)" (page 11) Mr. Keating is clear that he was only attempting to address some of the charges against Catholicism brought up by some of those who fit into the narrow category he calls, anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point… I guess I have never been part of a Protestant church that fell into the category of anti-Catholic. I remember reading that in the introduction, but when one reads the chapter “Salvation”, one certainly has the impression that he is referring to a larger group–it’s a bit confusing. For one thing, I’d argue that the Nazarene and Free Methodist denominations, as examples, might be considered as fundamentalist in doctrine. They, however, do not accept “once saved always saved”–unless the Free Methodist position differs from what I recall–and I would not call them anti-Catholic as a whole. Sadly, I think some of the confusion between mainline Protestants and Catholics on issues such as this center on different understandings of the meaning of the words we throw around. On the other hand, I do agree that many Fundamentalists believe this, but I just don’t think it’s quite as clearly agreed upon in their circles as Karl K. indicates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top