Assurance of Salvation

[BryanW92]

I Just go to the Bible .. see what it says about Christ and salvation .. live that in the best place you can.

That is literally what we all do. Methodists do that. Presbyterians do that. Lutherans do that. Baptists do that.

Christ and salvation is so easy a child can understand. All the grand theologies are for us to better grasp the things that are really not understandable. This is why I switched from Methodist to Presbyterian, with a huge change in theology, yet God and salvation remained the same. The Methodists are my brothers and sisters in Christ, just as much as the Presbyterians are.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That is literally what we all do. Methodists do that. Presbyterians do that. Lutherans do that. Baptists do that.

Christ and salvation is so easy a child can understand. All the grand theologies are for us to better grasp the things that are really not understandable. This is why I switched from Methodist to Presbyterian, with a huge change in theology, yet God and salvation remained the same. The Methodists are my brothers and sisters in Christ, just as much as the Presbyterians are.

Hey I've got a retired Lutheran Pastor, a Reformed Seminary CFO, and a couple of former SBC'ers in my congregation. Ha!

 

[GraceSeeker]

I also found Graceseeker's response very helpful. People who believe in OSAS really ignore Hebrews because it so clearly points to the possibility of apostasy.

You know what is funny? It was a Baptist who pointed out that particular passage to me. Because we were such good friends, we could and did discuss theology without trying to convince the other of anything. And what came out of those conversations is that while we had different names for it, our concepts of eternal security and entire sanctification in the end didn't end up being that different from one another.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You know what is funny? It was a Baptist who pointed out that particular passage to me. Because we were such good friends, we could and did discuss theology without trying to convince the other of anything. And what came out of those conversations is that while we had different names for it, our concepts of eternal security and entire sanctification in the end didn't end up being that different from one another.

The beauty of exegesis and edifying discussion without an agenda.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I don't know if you will ever get over the notion that we are all Christians, will you? To say that I am Methodist or Baptist is to say that "I am of Wesley" or "I am of Calvin." (1Cor 1:12) That is, those titles "Wesleyan," "Calvinist," are almost sure signs that those who claim them are not following Christ but men.

Can we at least acknowledge that we all desire to follow Christ?

skypair

I get that we are all Christians. But do you get that all Christians see through lenses unique to their own situation?

For instance:
Consider the announcement to Mary that she is going to be with child. Do you think that all Christians are going to understand that passage in the same way? Or even that they should? I don't.

I believe that men and women are, very appropriately, going to respond to this passage differently, because they are going to see this passage through different sets of eyes. Why? Because my wife can more easily identify with Mary, but I can more easily identify with Joseph. Yet, neither of us could perhaps understand it as well as a teenage girl.

Consider the parable of the lost sheep, or Ezekiel's analogies to the "shepherds" of Israel. Do you suppose it makes any difference to one's understanding of the story if one happens to have been raised among shepherds or if one was raised in a suburb?

Whether you recognize it or not sometimes people don't want just any old Christian answer to a question, they want an answer that comes through the particular lens of being a Christian who is also a man, or a woman, or a shepherd, or something else. And respecting that person is to let them hear from those they have asked to hear from without injecting something they didn't ask for. So, when a member of this Wesleyan sub-forum asks about how something is viewed "in the Methodist world", unless you're a Methodist Christian, why would you respond?

 

[GraceSeeker]

It is no coincidence that even today we are baptizing folks into our respective churches and expecting them to follow the church. Whatever that church says about Christ, we are expected to follow in order to be a member of that church, right?

Maybe in other communions, but not in the United Methodist Church. We would ask that of those who we ordain to Word and Sacrament, but we make no such request for simply being a member of the United Methodist Church.


So, see, you learned something about United Methodists today that it appears you didn't know. But, sadly, it appears you were willing to speak about it based on assumptions, an assumptions that has proven to be false. This is why I previously suggested that perhaps you ought not to be speaking forth on behalf of Methodists when you aren't one. If you had listened, you wouldn't have made this mistake and revealed your ignorance on this matter.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Why not just know the elects are elects in the bible and leave it to that.

That way, we won't go into meism and let it be all about God.

"Election" is not a Wesleyan doctrine tulipbee. We aren't Calvinist. We believe that predestination besmirches the very character of God because it ultimately makes God responsible for evil.

I would have gone farther than circuitrider. The reason we don't know "the elects are elects in the bible and leave it to that," is because that isn't in the Bible.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I would have gone farther than circuitrider. The reason we don't know "the elects are elects in the bible and leave it to that," is because that isn't in the Bible.

You have to admit though; it's a tempting notion to leave salvation outside of human responsibility. I'm elect or I'm not, everything I do or don't do is because God did or did not guide me to do it. Or, alternatively, pray a magic prayer and poof, your soul goes to heaven no take-backs.

Frankly, I think it's harder to be a Methodist. To take Biblical obedience seriously and understand that God created us as his companions and has expectations of how we should live, and we are responsible in part for our own salvation (insomuch as our need to accept it). And it's neither a single magical act or a predestined thing.

 

[BryanW92]

Y

Frankly, I think it's harder to be a Methodist. To take Biblical obedience seriously and understand that God created us as his companions and has expectations of how we should live, and we are responsible in part for our own salvation (insomuch as our need to accept it). And it's neither a single magical act or a predestined thing.

Why is it harder? What would it take to lose your salvation? What does it take to get it back? God's Grace is a gift of infinite value and no cost to us, the sinful humans--right? So, you get this free, but valuable gift, and its yours except that you can lose it through...what? Do you have to do bad things? Do you lose it if you fail to do enough good things? Is it (7x70)+1 little sins and *poof* it's gone?

What do you tell your parishioners when you are explaining that God's gift of grace is revocable?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Why is it harder? What would it take to lose your salvation? What does it take to get it back? God's Grace is a gift of infinite value and no cost to us, the sinful humans--right? So, you get this free, but valuable gift, and its yours except that you can lose it through...what? Do you have to do bad things? Do you lose it if you fail to do enough good things? Is it (7x70)+1 little sins and *poof* it's gone?

What do you tell your parishioners when you are explaining that God's gift of grace is revocable?

No, and I think we covered this earlier. Salvation isn't something we lose on accident or even that a sin or a certain number of sins causes us to lose it. But we can walk away from it. We can CHOSE to reject our own salvation.

So it's not harder because I'm afraid of losing my salvation. It's harder because I'm responsible for accepting God's grace, and for continuing to grow in Christ. LOTS of Baptists, Reformed, Catholics, you name it have the same feelings about God. But in the church I grew up in, Salvation was this one time thing. You pray this prayer that they told you to pray and then you were permanently saved. It didn't matter what happened next. Shoot, that's great! No responsibility to grow in Christ or stay connected to God; because I said the prayer!

So, some of that was tongue-in-cheek. But, I think you understand the point. You're a Reformed Presbyterian so we're likely to differ on a lot of these things; but the basis is there. We both understand Grace to be God's gift, for free, available to everyone. And we both recognize a responsibility to accept it. What I was referring to, had more to do with the doctrine of Predestination; that nothing you do matters it was already decided. And the variation of OSAS that I grew up with, which said that a special prayer saved you forever.

"Revocable" is a strong word. First, certainly, God could revoke his gift. He's God. To say it's irrevocable is to say that God is incapable or not permitted; which isn't true. But, I also don't believe God is a liar. The scriptures seem clear to me that this gift is free and he won't snatch it away. Perhaps, a better word would be "rejectable". In that you or I, as we freely chose to accept God's gift, may freely choose to reject it. We can do either at any point in our lives. We don't lose our free will when we are saved. So, we can freely reject God.

Maybe in other communions, but not in the United Methodist Church. We would ask that of those who we ordain to Word and Sacrament, but we make no such request for simply being a member of the United Methodist Church.


So, see, you learned something about United Methodists today that it appears you didn't know. But, sadly, it appears you were willing to speak about it based on assumptions, an assumptions that has proven to be false. This is why I previously suggested that perhaps you ought not to be speaking forth on behalf of Methodists when you aren't one. If you had listened, you wouldn't have made this mistake and revealed your ignorance on this matter.

To piggy back on this, because I realize now how little of Methodism is actually known, as it seems, by Skypair (he didn't seem to be aware of connectionalism, maybe even under the assumption that we were a lay-led denomination that hired it's own Pastors and Pastors were Ordained in the local church, etc. etc.)

Here's what I, or any other United Methodist Clergy person, would publicly ask of an adult who could answer for themselves being baptized;

It's important to note, first, that a lot is said 'before this' in the liturgy that is prescribed for this use. Baptism of adults who can answer themselves is called the Baptismal Convenant III

1) Do you truly and earnestly repent of your sins?
2) Do you believe in God the Father?
3) Do you believe in Jesus Christ?
4) Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?
5) Do you receive and profess the Christian faith as contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament?
6) Do you promise, according to the grace given to you, to keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of your life, as faithful member(s) of Christ's Holy Church?

7) Do you desire to be baptized in this faith?

These are the questions asked of those who can answer for themselves. Though, by and large, we baptize children of faithful baptized parents, the questions we ask are similar and addressed to the parents and not the children. When the children get older, we ask them those 6 questions (the 7th, obviously, omitted as we do not re-baptize), publicly in front of the church.

So, as GraceSeeker said; we are not confessional. In fact, I don't really know many churches who couldn't use our Baptismal liturgy and still fit theologically with their church. That's because we're not Baptizing into the United Methodist Church, but into Christ's holy universal church. They might join as members of the UMC; but they are Baptized into Christ's church.

If you were Baptized a Roman Catholic, a Baptist, a Presbyterian; in any Christian tradition that invoked the Holy Spirit; your Baptism is recognized in the UMC as a Christian Baptism; and we will not (It's absolutely prohibited) re-baptize you.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Another thing to point out; that also might simply be a lack of understanding.

The congregational forums are a place for teaching and discussing specific theologies. The rules of the forum specifically forbid teaching theologies other than the congregational theologies (ex., teaching or arguing Baptist theology in the Methodist forums, or Methodist theology in the Baptist forums).

There are places for all faith traditions to meet and discuss theology though; and maybe some folks weren't aware of that, and thought they were supposed to barge into the Methodist forum and argue their theology.

Unorthodox Christian Discussions - For discussing theologies outside of mainstream evangelical Christianity.
Formal Debate - For structured debate on a wide variety of political, social, and theological topics.
Theology - For discussion of theology from all Christian faiths that fits within the guidelines of "Orthodox Christians" (but not just "Orthodox" Christians, ha! Meaning, Christians who are creedal, as opposed to those who espouse other ideologies, like universalism. And not just members of Greek, Assyrian, etc., Orthodox churches)

The forum is FULL of opportunities to debate theology. These forums here, like Wesley's Parish, are a small reprieve for discussion in very specific contexts, and though it doesn't seem to be enforced right now; it does not allow for the teaching or arguing of theologies outside of the namesake (i.e., outside of Methodism in the Methodist forum)

 

[GraceSeeker]

You have to admit though; it's a tempting notion to leave salvation outside of human responsibility. I'm elect or I'm not, everything I do or don't do is because God did or did not guide me to do it. Or, alternatively, pray a magic prayer and poof, your soul goes to heaven no take-backs.

Frankly, I think it's harder to be a Methodist. To take Biblical obedience seriously and understand that God created us as his companions and has expectations of how we should live, and we are responsible in part for our own salvation (insomuch as our need to accept it). And it's neither a single magical act or a predestined thing.

Well, you've found part of the 2%. I don't think it is any harder to be a Methodist than it is a Baptist or Presbyterian. None of becoming or staying a Christian is our work. Yes, we cooperate with God in "working out our salvation" in terms of faithful living, but I don't think we do so more than other denominations. We just use different names, like "social holiness" while others use "obedience", to talk about it.

 

[BryanW92]

No, and I think we covered this earlier. Salvation isn't something we lose on accident or even that a sin or a certain number of sins causes us to lose it. But we can walk away from it. We can CHOSE to reject our own salvation.

So it's not harder because I'm afraid of losing my salvation. It's harder because I'm responsible for accepting God's grace, and for continuing to grow in Christ. LOTS of Baptists, Reformed, Catholics, you name it have the same feelings about God. But in the church I grew up in, Salvation was this one time thing. You pray this prayer that they told you to pray and then you were permanently saved. It didn't matter what happened next. Shoot, that's great! No responsibility to grow in Christ or stay connected to God; because I said the prayer!

So, some of that was tongue-in-cheek. But, I think you understand the point. You're a Reformed Presbyterian so we're likely to differ on a lot of these things; but the basis is there. We both understand Grace to be God's gift, for free, available to everyone. And we both recognize a responsibility to accept it. What I was referring to, had more to do with the doctrine of Predestination; that nothing you do matters it was already decided. And the variation of OSAS that I grew up with, which said that a special prayer saved you forever.

"Revocable" is a strong word. First, certainly, God could revoke his gift. He's God. To say it's irrevocable is to say that God is incapable or not permitted; which isn't true. But, I also don't believe God is a liar. The scriptures seem clear to me that this gift is free and he won't snatch it away. Perhaps, a better word would be "rejectable". In that you or I, as we freely chose to accept God's gift, may freely choose to reject it. We can do either at any point in our lives. We don't lose our free will when we are saved. So, we can freely reject God.

I'm a Reformed Presbyterian now, but this is the question that no one in the UMC ever answered without talking in circles. It made me doubt whether the entire theology is flawed or if it had become flawed by creeping universalism in the latter 20th century.

Remember that I know the Wesleyan theology. Not as well as all of you, but I'm a pretty well-informed layman.

But, I always heard that it's "harder" for Methodists, which seems to confer a sense of superiority over those simple-minded Calvinists and Baptists. In your explanation you say that "harder" means that you can choose to reject salvation. That's not hard! That's more work than just keeping it once you get it, but its not really hard.

So, let's say you do reject it. Is that final? Can you ask for it back? If you can, was it ever really gone? In the Reformed camp, we admit that a person can turn their back on their salvation and reject it, but the sovereign God must keep them on the roster since they can get it back. As you say, baptism is only once and salvation is only once. I agree. So, if it is once and you can reject it and get it back, then mathematically, you can't have ever truly lost it. Can you be reborn in Christ and then reborn out of Christ?

I agree that many OSAS types do "set it and forget it": getting baptized, walking up to the altar, and then never doing a Christian thing again in their life. That's a problem with people, not with theology or soteriology.

If you are in Christ, have the Holy Spirit, and are "saved", then who would really reject it and, more importantly, him? To reject salvation is to reject grace and to reject God...after you have known God. You guys like to say "My God is too big for that". Anyone who could reject salvation never knew God and therefore could not have had salvation. "My" God is too big for that!

When I was getting disgusted with the UMC and my local church, I did flirt with the idea of giving it all up and going back to my old pre-Christian life. But every time I thought of it, I knew that I could not. As I tried various denominations and found them all wanting, I kept going back to the idea that this stuff isn't for me. But, I would immediately have powerful thoughts that this IS for me. If rejecting Christ was possible for a person who is in Christ, I would have.

 

[BryanW92]

Another thing to point out; that also might simply be a lack of understanding.

The congregational forums are a place for teaching and discussing specific theologies. The rules of the forum specifically forbid teaching theologies other than the congregational theologies (ex., teaching or arguing Baptist theology in the Methodist forums, or Methodist theology in the Baptist forums).

There are places for all faith traditions to meet and discuss theology though; and maybe some folks weren't aware of that, and thought they were supposed to barge into the Methodist forum and argue their theology.

Unorthodox Christian Discussions - For discussing theologies outside of mainstream evangelical Christianity.
Formal Debate - For structured debate on a wide variety of political, social, and theological topics.
Theology - For discussion of theology from all Christian faiths that fits within the guidelines of "Orthodox Christians" (but not just "Orthodox" Christians, ha! Meaning, Christians who are creedal, as opposed to those who espouse other ideologies, like universalism. And not just members of Greek, Assyrian, etc., Orthodox churches)

The forum is FULL of opportunities to debate theology. These forums here, like Wesley's Parish, are a small reprieve for discussion in very specific contexts, and though it doesn't seem to be enforced right now; it does not allow for the teaching or arguing of theologies outside of the namesake (i.e., outside of Methodism in the Methodist forum)

OK. Point taken.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

So; two things I hear that I disagree with, but I hear a lot.

"They weren't saved in the first place". Yes, I think they were. And now they aren't (assuming they aren't)

"Can you get it back?" Yes. You can. You can also never choose to get it back. So it can be 'lost' (rejected, really)

Okay, so maybe 'easier' was a bit of a stretch. I'll own that one. I guess it's just a product of my experience. "Set and forget" OSAS always left me feeling like, that can't be right; God can't be that simple. And while functionally Methodism is essentially the same in the ease of accepting Grace (and as you pointed out well, how 'easy' it is to not reject God); I appreciate what feels to be as a more obedient approach; which is recognizing that one CAN reject God.

I don't think that's a superiority thing. I have a genuine love and appreciation for my brothers and sisters of all faith traditions. And I am sure you have an excellent Wesleyan background, and you've demonstrated that countless times on these forums. You're a well informed individual, even if we don't see eye to eye on every issue of doctrine. And that's okay.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

OK. Point taken.

That wasn't directed at you, friend. You're presenting questions and theological discussion in the lens of Wesleyanism, you're encouraging us to embrace similarities and not differences, and challenging us to recognize where we're similar. You're also sharing your story of moving away from Methodism, all of that is appreciated.

The difference is when folks come in and argue and demand we accept an entirely different theology. I haven't seen you demand or argue or really even teach reformed theology, simply encourage us to take a step back and view it broadly. There's a difference there, and it's a difference between this being an edifying place to be and a place of animosity.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Another thing to point out; that also might simply be a lack of understanding.

The congregational forums are a place for teaching and discussing specific theologies. The rules of the forum specifically forbid teaching theologies other than the congregational theologies (ex., teaching or arguing Baptist theology in the Methodist forums, or Methodist theology in the Baptist forums).

There are places for all faith traditions to meet and discuss theology though; and maybe some folks weren't aware of that, and thought they were supposed to barge into the Methodist forum and argue their theology.

Unorthodox Christian Discussions - For discussing theologies outside of mainstream evangelical Christianity.
Formal Debate - For structured debate on a wide variety of political, social, and theological topics.
Theology - For discussion of theology from all Christian faiths that fits within the guidelines of "Orthodox Christians" (but not just "Orthodox" Christians, ha! Meaning, Christians who are creedal, as opposed to those who espouse other ideologies, like universalism. And not just members of Greek, Assyrian, etc., Orthodox churches)

The forum is FULL of opportunities to debate theology. These forums here, like Wesley's Parish, are a small reprieve for discussion in very specific contexts, and though it doesn't seem to be enforced right now; it does not allow for the teaching or arguing of theologies outside of the namesake (i.e., outside of Methodism in the Methodist forum)

OK. Maybe make that 3%. I don't worry about this as much as others seem to. I certainly don't mind Bryan's questions/comments, he was an active United Methodist lay speaker until just recently when he changed local congregations for reasons more related to pastoral care than theology.

I don't even mind skypair's questions, to the extent that they are questions anyway.

I only object when people don't let those who are asking for answers specifically from a Methodist perspective to receive them and inject their thoughts which definitely do not represent Methodist ways of thinking and then suggest that they can do so because they are biblical and that if ours don't agree with them that ours must not be; they seem unable to conceive that it might be that our views are the biblical ones and that it might be their views which have drifted from what the Bible really says to erroneous human interpretations.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

OK. Maybe make that 3%. I don't worry about this as much as others seem to. I certainly don't mind Bryan's questions/comments, he was an active United Methodist lay speaker until just recently when he changed local congregations for reason more related to pastoral care than theology.

I don't even mind skypair's questions, to the extent that they are questions.

I only object when people don't let those who are asking for answers specifically from a Methodist perspective to receive them and inject their thoughts which definitely do not represent Methodist ways of thinking and then suggest that they can do so because they are biblical and that if ours don't agree with them that ours must not be; they seem unable to conceive that it might be that our views are the biblical ones and that it might be their views which have drifted from what the Bible really says to erroneous human interpretations.

We're of one mind on that one. That wasn't directed at Bryan, or to Skypairs questions. It was sort of an afterthought to remind folks who want to be argumentative and demanding and debate even when the question is about a methodist perspective; that there is a place for that.

I appreciate Bryan's questions too. And even a handful of Skypairs. But, like you, there's a line and I feel it's been crossed a few times in this forum.

 

[BryanW92]

I guess it's just a product of my experience. "Set and forget" OSAS always left me feeling like, that can't be right; God can't be that simple.

This is the great thing that I've learned from the last year: God is that simple. Its not a Calvinist thing. Its a God thing. You guys know it too.

If I discover the greatest lasagna in the world, I will tell everyone about it. I can't help myself. Same thing for sports teams that we support even when they suck. There are so many things in this life that we become fanatic about.

So the problem with the set it and forget OSAS folks isn't that they oversimplified God. Its that they don't think that he's the greatest lasagna in the world. I mean, I have to serve God because...he's God and he made me one of his own (whether by election or by my own free will). He speaks universes into existence! He invented cats and gravity and Coulomb's Law and Avogadro's Number.

Once a person knows him through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, I don't think anyone has the power to truly reject him. You can turn your back for a while or hide behind a bush, but that's only temporary while his power is still working on you.

A couple months ago, I got a call from the District Office. I was still on the Certified Lay Speaker list of people who can and will fill a pulpit. They wanted to know if I'd preach in a UM church across town. I explained that I've left the church and all. She asked me if I'd still like to preach since I'm on the list and fully qualified. I explained that I'm Presbyterian now and my theology would make it uncomfortable to preach in the UM pulpit.

But after I hung up (after getting myself removed from the list), I did think that I would have loved to preach on the absolute greatness of God--the one who creates universes and not the one who waits patiently for humans to make a choice.

 

[GraceSeeker]

But after I hung up (after getting myself removed from the list), I did think that I would have loved to preach on the absolute greatness of God--the one who creates universes and not the one who waits patiently for humans to make a choice.

I never understood why you had to leave the UMC to discover the absolute greatness of God. That's a point of shared theology, not a point of difference. But I am glad you discovered it, and if leaving the UMC was necessary to discover it, then I'm glad you ended up leaving as well -- if only to complete your own spiritual journey.