The Reformation of the 16th century was essentially targeted at the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines. The Reformers held to Sola Scriptura, the sole authority of Scripture on the faith and practice of believers, while the Roman Catholic Church stood on the authority of the Church and Tradition of equal or higher value than Scripture. The Reformers argued for election (as the Bible does in so many places) but the Roman Catholic Church denied it. The Reformers demonstrated that the Bible says you can know that you have eternal life; the Roman Catholic Church cursed the idea. The Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon XVI declares that if anyone believes that they can be certain that they will persevere in salvation to the end, "let him be anathema." Cursed. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church to this day is what we might term "Conditional Security" -- your only assurance of salvation is to remain faithful until the end. And you can't know that until, you know, the end.
It's not just the Catholics. Those Christians termed "Arminian" (even though they may not claim it, admit it, or even know it) assure us that true believers can and do lose their salvation. Big names like C.S. Lewis and Roger Olson have denied eternal security. They are certain you cannot know. I myself have been told on more than one occasion that I can have no assurance of my salvation. (I find it odd because the person telling me that seems to be quite certain of his own.) Salvation is available, but never sure. Confidence is okay, I suppose, but you can never have assurance of salvation.
Over against this idea you find Scripture. John wrote, "I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). The author of Hebrews wrote, "Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith" (Heb 10:22). Paul declared, "I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day" (2 Tim 1:12). These are about assurance as opposed to security. It is possible to have security without assurance. Security in salvation is what God does (e.g., Phil 1:6; John 10:28-29; Eph 4:30; Rom 8:38-39). Assurance is my recognition of it. It is entirely possible to be completely secured by God in salvation and to lack assurance of that security. It is equally possible to be quite assured of the possession of security that you don't actually have. But Scripture teaches that salvation is secured (by God) and, therefore, we can know (assurance) that we have eternal life. (Note: If you "have eternal life" and lose it, in what possible sense is it "eternal"? In what sense did you "have" it?)
Which all leads to my question. How do you know? How do you know that you are not one of those to whom Jesus referred in Matthew 7:21-23 who are quite sure they are "in" but are not? How do you know you're not fooling yourself? If you're quite sure -- you have assurance -- where does it come from? How can you know?
The question is a bit difficult at the outset given the biblical certainty that some will have assurance that they shouldn't have (Matt 7:21-23). On the other hand, there are actual, biblical tests we can apply. Peter wrote that we must make our "calling and election sure" and told how (2 Peter 1:5-10). As mentioned earlier, John wrote his first epistle for the purpose of helping us rightly ascertain that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). Jesus said that the world can tell we are His if we love the brethren (John 13:35). Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). Now, we know we can and will sin, so this isn't talking about sinless perfection (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1), but there is still a tool there. Paul wrote, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3), meaning that a Christian who does not acknowledge the Lordship of Christ is not a Christian (see also Rom 10:9). There are tests. Jesus told His disciples, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). You should certainly check your own fruits. John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). How are you with sin? Happy? Or not? There are tests. There are processes. There are facts to which we must agree and heart conditions that we must possess and attitudes we must have. It's not like they're not available. It's just that there are still those who are confident in their salvation when they shouldn't be, and I don't want to be that.
I have assurance of my salvation. I'm not asking for myself. But others may not. What do you have that gives you confidence that your relationship with God is real and alive? How do you know you're saved? What tests or verification do you use? I'm just wondering.
10 comments:
I can remember in my earlier blogging years a man who seemed to be a one-note song, and this was it: You can know. I think of him often, because I disagree. I'm not sure we actually can know. I do believe that if we are saved, that there's nothing that any of us can do to lose it. But that "if" is probably the biggest "if" in all of creation. So here's why I'm not sure. It's because in so many ways I fail the test, and that's the ways I know about.
I hear you, Danny, but I'm still stuck with John's, "So that you may know that you have eternal life." If we have it on biblical authority that we can know, perhaps there is something else we're misunderstanding. Like what the tests are.
For instance, John said that the one born of God cannot sin (1 John 3:9). That sounds pretty straightforward ... and exclusive. Turns out that he wasn't saying "sinless perfection." He was saying "a continuous practice of sin." In Peter's test, he says, "If these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:8). So maybe these tests are not absolutes -- "You have arrived ... or you're failing." More of an arc, a direction, an aim. Not "Where are you?" but "Where are you going?"
The bigger question is how can we “know” the Bible is True?
I just started Miracles by CS Lewis and he talks about what it means to “know” things. I think that what level of certainty and evidence constitute knowledge would be an interesting discussion.
Perhaps, but I would need to correlate "what it means to 'know' things" with John's "you can know." That is, if we constitute a "knowing" that makes it impossible to "know that you have eternal life," I would consider it a problem (that version of "knowing," since God's Word can't be wrong).
I think we see this trend where anything less that 100% certainly to a level that will absolutely convince s skeptic is what people expect. Or, they expect it of those they disagree with, while holding themselves to a lower standard. So, it seems like trying to come up with a level that constitutes “knowing” could be an interesting exercise.
It might be an interesting exercise, but given 1) the inability to come up with ANYTHING that convinces everyone universally and 2) the certainty of the double standard where "You must have that level of absolute certainty or you will be wrong, but I can just be fairly comfortable without any real reasons, and I'm right," I would think it would be a pointless one. (Besides, measuring and standardizing "levels of knowing" seems to be nigh unto impossible anyway.)
By the "levels of knowing", are you talking about the differences between knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, or some sort of certainty scale?
Some "certainty value". Knowledge is data you know. Understanding is knowing how it works. Wisdom is knowing what to do with it. But I think Craig is talking about a "certainty threshold," so to speak.
For example, I think most of us agree that Julius Caesar existed. We’d even say we know that. Yet it’s clear that we can’t prove it to a 100% certainty. So, what is the threshold?
Dangerously, it sounds like "general concurrence".
Post a Comment