[For your convenience I've linked all my Scripture references to the appropriate passages on esv.org, so do yourself the favor and take the time to check them out, and be like the noble Bereans who made sure that what they were taught matched up with God's Word.]
So I’ve tried several different ways to intro this, but I can’t find anything that works, so we’ll just dive in. I want to talk about three different aspects of the doctrine of the assurance of salvation: (1)the biblical basis for the doctrine of assurance, (2) who can have assurance, and (3) the practical application of the doctrine.
So let’s tackle the biblical basis. I want to start with a slight caveat. I very much dislike the phrasing “once saved, always saved”. I think the language of this phrase is very unbiblical, because rarely do the apostles refer to being “saved” as something that happens on earth. Most of the times that word is used, it is within the phrase “you will be saved”, not “you are saved”. When the New Testament authors refer to the state of a person’s heart in the here and now, they use words and phrases like “in Christ”, “saints”, “those who are called”, “regeneration”, etc. Salvation most often refers to salvation from the future wrath to come (at death); so when you ask “can I lose my salvation”, well of course not, because you don’t have it now–but it’s very possible that you may not get it. So anways, back to the topic at hand. Kind of.
There are two ways to approach any issue: the doctrinal basis and the strictly Scriptural basis. In other words, you can develop a general, comprehensive belief system and argue from there, or you can open to specific texts and argue from there. But I would submit that you absolutely must do both. For to only argue from doctrine is to stand on the authority of men’s logic, but to argue only from isolated texts is to miss the broader context of the rest of the Bible. And also, if you only do one but not the other, you can’t really argue with the other side, because both sides have their own doctrines to argue from which are equally logical, and both sides have their own texts that they work from to prove a point which are equally inspired. If you want to really be able to hold a good discussion with the opposition, you have to be able to show that your doctrine makes better sense of the Bible both as a whole and in specific texts. And if you really want to interpret and apply Scripture well, you must be able to understand the specific meaning in the larger context.
So here’s how all that applies to the doctrine of assurance (finally). Those who believe that there is no assurance of salvation offered to Christians very often point to texts such as Hebrews 3 and 6, Rom 2:6-7, Rev 2:10,3:5, and others which emphasize human responsibility and seem to imply conditions upon the surety of our salvation. Or sometimes, those who reject assurance will also argue from the more abstract/logic level, saying that if “once saved, always saved” is true, then it takes away all incentive for holy living and gives license for sin (which, I might point out, Paul addresses in Romans 6, but that’s beside the point). Conversely, those who support the doctrine of assurance bring up passages like Rom 8:31-39, John 10:28-29, 1 John 2:19, Phi 1:6 and other verses that emphasize the inexorable love of God and his promise to save us completely. Likewise, those who preach assurance also tend to debate from the abstract/logic side, saying things like “if we couldn’t do anything to save ourselves in the first place, then how can we do anything to lose it?”. So on both sides you have good logic and plenty of textual support, but obviously one of them has to be right and the other has to be wrong. Either you can or you cannot “lose your salvation”–there is no middle ground.
But the answer, I believe, can only be found by looking at what Scripture says at a whole, and what each passage is really about in context, of itself and of the rest of the Bible. And at this point it would take WAY too long for me to try to walk through all of Scripture and try to show you why I have become convinced that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation (Rom 9:15-16), and that He is the active agent even in the hearts of men (Phi 2:13), so while those in the visible church may not really be regenerate(1 John 2:19), those who truly are in Christ by faith(Rom 3:21-22) will one day enter His rest (Heb 4). But I would love to sit down and talk through it, and/or recommend books and sermons. It’s not just enough to know the right things–you have to be able to understand why, and be able to interpret Scripture for yourself, or else at the first surface challenge you might be misled or shaken in your faith. So I challenge you, if you’ve just always believed in the doctrine of assurance, but could not defend it from both a doctrinal and scriptural angle, dig in. It’s well worth the effort, and along the way you will learn a lot about who God is and what it means to be a Christian.
Next we’ll look at the question “How can I be sure that I will be saved?”
Trey,
I always enjoy reading each of what you guys post. And, I agree with your position on assurance. God is faithful to finish what He starts and that is the basis of our assurance. One thing I would encourage you on is not to separate the three tenses of salvation. Each is clearly taught in Scripture, but they are inseparable. To see one is to see to begin to see the other. In a text like Ephesians 2:8, the tense is perfect. The action is finished and remains finished to this day. Paul is saying you were saved in the past and continue to be saved. When Peter speaks of the salvation to come (1 Peter 1:5), he demonstrates that we have neither seen nor known the full measure of what has been accomplished in our salvation—but it will be revealed. He is not speaking of a different salvation than Paul described to the Ephesians. So, while we may not care for a cliché such as “once saved always saved,” it does a pretty good job of summarizing the meaning of “saved” as a perfect tense verb. I have been saved (completed in the past and so it remains), I am being saved (1 Cor 1:21-present passive-kept by God), and I will be saved because I was saved and continue to be saved. This, in itself is one of the strongest over-arching arguments for our assurance. To say you may not get it in the future because you have not received it yet actually inverts the reality. I will be saved only because I have already been saved and continue to be saved. The division of future salvation from present and past salvation undermines its very nature. To make a very loose analogy, separating the tenses of salvation is as impossible as separating the Trinity. The essence of each is so intrinsically connected to the other that, although they be distinct, they cannot be divided.
Thanks for the correction, Dr. Sheehan. I got a little carried away in my debunking, and ended up being unbiblical in my critique. I still think the the “getting saved” terminology can be misleading at times, but it was wrong of me to accuse it of being unscriptural and unprecedented.
I’ll flesh out a little more of what I’m getting at in the next two parts (there are three total, so far), so maybe in context what I’m saying won’t seem quite so bad. But thanks for keeping me in check.