Can a Person Judge Themselves as Being Saved Without Absolute Assurance?

[maxwel]

If false assurance exist, which most will agree that it does then 100% "no if ands or buts" assurance cannot. Claims of 100% personal assurance cannot exist with the specter of flawed reasoning always present. The biblical promises of assurance are general in nature and apply to Christians as a group. This assurance should never be assumed on a personal level.

DJ2,
I will have to politely disagree with your post, and I will explain why.
Please don't take this as any kind of personal insult.
There are many wonderful Christians who disagree on this issue.


1. This type of argument is common, and often made by smart people... but it contains a logical error.

2. Here is the argument

A. False assurance exists
B. Therefore genuine assurance cannot exist.

This is a non sequitur, meaning the conclusion does not follow the premise.
The premise has no ability to cause any such necessary conclusion.

The existence of a FALSE thing has no effect on the existence of a REAL thing.
- Have you ever met a fake Christian?
- How about a fake Navy Seal?
- How about a fake twenty-dollar bill?

Does the existence of a fake thing make all the REAL things CEASE TO EXIST?
Of course not.

To find a FALSE Navy Seal does not disprove the existence of REAL Navy Seals

Often in life, we actually find it's just the opposite.
Usually we can only have a FALSE thing, if we first have a GENUINE thing which can be falsified.
(This happens because "false" is nothing more than a NEGATION of a thing... so before we can have a negation of a thing, we must first have the thing.)
Example: You can't have a FALSE twenty-dollar bill if there is not first a REAL twenty-dollar bill to falsify.


But regardless of this, the argument above is still a non sequitor, and doesn't work as proof of anything.


I am NOT saying everyone who disagrees about assurance is an idiot, or that they may not have some good arguments, I am ONLY saying that this particular argument has a logical error, and doesn't work.

 

[DJ2]

DJ2,
I will have to politely disagree with your post, and I will explain why.
Please don't take this as any kind of personal insult.
There are many wonderful Christians who disagree on this issue.


1. This type of argument is common, and often made by smart people... but it contains a logical error.

2. Here is the argument

A. False assurance exists
B. Therefore genuine assurance cannot exist.

This is a non sequitur, meaning the conclusion does not follow the premise.
The premise has no ability to cause any such necessary conclusion.

The existence of a FALSE thing has no effect on the existence of a REAL thing.
- Have you ever met a fake Christian?
- How about a fake Navy Seal?
- How about a fake twenty-dollar bill?

Does the existence of a fake thing make all the REAL things CEASE TO EXIST?
Of course not.

To find a FALSE Navy Seal does not disprove the existence of REAL Navy Seals

Often in life, we actually find it's just the opposite.
Usually we can only have a FALSE thing, if we first have a GENUINE thing which can be falsified.
(This happens because "false" is nothing more than a NEGATION of a thing... so before we can have a negation of a thing, we must first have the thing.)
Example: You can't have a FALSE twenty-dollar bill if there is not first a REAL twenty-dollar bill to falsify.


But regardless of this, the argument above is still a non sequitor, and doesn't work as proof of anything.


I am NOT saying everyone who disagrees about assurance is an idiot, or that they may not have some good arguments, I am ONLY saying that this particular argument has a logical error, and doesn't work.

Rest assured no insult was taken. I assume I can expect the same from you.

I do not believe this is a non sequitur issue. I agree the existence of a counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine. The subject at hand is not a tangible object such as a Navy Seal or twenty dollar bill but a notion or idea.

Certain ideas if true negate the existence of other ideas.

Example: If John is 25 years old, he cannot also be 35 years old. If the statement that John is 25 years old is true then the statement that he is 35 years old cannot be true. The existence of the fact that John is 25 years old negates any claim that John is 35 years old. The claim of John being 35 years old may exist but it is a false claim.

Therefore the existence of false personal assurance negates the existence of true personal assurance. Both notions cannot exist side by side.

Few things if any are 100% assured. I am not even sure if this is good or bad.

If you find error in my reasoning please respond.

 

[maxwel]

Rest assured no insult was taken. I assume I can expect the same from you.

I do not believe this is a non sequitur issue. I agree the existence of a counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine. The subject at hand is not a tangible object such as a Navy Seal or twenty dollar bill but a notion or idea.

Certain ideas if true negate the existence of other ideas.

Example: If John is 25 years old, he cannot also be 35 years old. If the statement that John is 25 years old is true then the statement that he is 35 years old cannot be true. The existence of the fact that John is 25 years old negates any claim that John is 35 years old. The claim of John being 35 years old may exist but it is a false claim.

Therefore the existence of false personal assurance negates the existence of true personal assurance. Both notions cannot exist side by side.

Few things if any are 100% assured. I am not even sure if this is good or bad.

If you find error in my reasoning please respond.

Excellent, I'm really glad we can discuss this politely.

Ok, let me point out a problem in the above post.


Your example is spot on.
John cannot be both 25 years old, and 35 years old... at the same time.
If one statement is true, then the other must be false.
A logical contradiction cannot be true.
I completely agree with all of this.

However, your example does not actually correspond with the issue of "the existence of assurance".

When we talk about john's age, we are talking about ONE PERSON.
One person cannot be both 25 and 35 at the same time.
However, DIFFERENT PEOPLE could be both 25 and 35 at the same time.

This is the problem.

When we talk about assurance either being false or true, we are talking about assurance in DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

- John may have FALSE ASSURANCE
- John cannot halve FALSE ASSURANCE and GENUINE ASSURANCE at the same time.
- However, while John is having FALSE ASSURANCE, it is entirely possible for Mary to have GENUINE ASSURANCE AT THE SAME TIME.
- Just as John could not be a false christian and a true christian at the same time, but he COULD BE a false christian at the same time Marry is a true Christian.

Your original premise was simply that "FALSE ASSURANCE EXISTS".
- I'll go with that; I believe someone who is NOT saved could be confused by someone, and believe they are saved and assured of heaven.
- But just because John may have a false assurance, this does not mean genuine assurance cannot exist in his friend Mary... both false assurance and genuine assurance can both be true propositions which exist, as real truths, in different people.
- Just as "fake" Christianity in one person does not prove there cannot be "real" Christianity in a different person.
- When we are talking about different people, we are talking about INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS... propositions which simply have no causal affect on each other.

The existence of FALSE assurance in one person does not, and cannot, logically prove that GENUINE assurance cannot exist in someone else.





To reiterate, this does not prove there ARE no good arguments against assurance.
There may be.
I'm just pointing out problems with THIS argument.

 

[DJ2]

Excellent, I'm really glad we can discuss this politely.

Ok, let me point out a problem in the above post.


Your example is spot on.
John cannot be both 25 years old, and 35 years old... at the same time.
If one statement is true, then the other must be false.
A logical contradiction cannot be true.
I completely agree with all of this.

However, your example does not actually correspond with the issue of "the existence of assurance".

When we talk about john's age, we are talking about ONE PERSON.
One person cannot be both 25 and 35 at the same time.
However, DIFFERENT PEOPLE could be both 25 and 35 at the same time.

This is the problem.

When we talk about assurance either being false or true, we are talking about assurance in DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

- John may have FALSE ASSURANCE
- John cannot halve FALSE ASSURANCE and GENUINE ASSURANCE at the same time.
- However, while John is having FALSE ASSURANCE, it is entirely possible for Mary to have GENUINE ASSURANCE AT THE SAME TIME.
- Just as John could not be a false christian and a true christian at the same time, but he COULD BE a false christian at the same time Marry is a true Christian.

Your original premise was simply that "FALSE ASSURANCE EXISTS".
- I'll go with that; I believe someone who is NOT saved could be confused by someone, and believe they are saved and assured of heaven.
- But just because John may have a false assurance, this does not mean genuine assurance cannot exist in his friend Mary... both false assurance and genuine assurance can both be true propositions which exist, as real truths, in different people.
- Just as "fake" Christianity in one person does not prove there cannot be "real" Christianity in a different person.
- When we are talking about different people, we are talking about INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS... propositions which simply have no causal affect on each other.

The existence of FALSE assurance in one person does not, and cannot, logically prove that GENUINE assurance cannot exist in someone else.





To reiterate, this does not prove there ARE no good arguments against assurance.
There may be.
I'm just pointing out problems with THIS argument.

Thank you for your reply.

The existence of FALSE assurance in one person does not, and cannot, logically prove that GENUINE assurance cannot exist in someone else.

The above quote is not my point. My point is simply that no one can say with 100% assurance that they know that they are not part of the "false assurance" crowd. The very existence of faulty reasoning makes impossible the claim of not being at least susceptible to it. Since we cannot guarantee to be without faulty reasoning, any claim of 100% assurance of our salvation is more of a hope, which is the basis of faith.

Only a omnipotent being can make a claim with 100% assurance.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Only a omnipotent being can make a claim with 100% assurance.

Not necessarily. Kindly give some serious thought to this Scripture (1 John 5:13):

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Some questions to ask in this connection:

1. Is John writing by Divine inspiration, or is he simply conjuring up his own ideas? Divine inspiration

2. Does that mean that God Himself is giving assurance to the believer? Absolutely

3. And is the assurance of eternal life given to all those who believe on the name of the Son of God? Absolutely

4. Does this verse say that we can KNOW that we have eternal life? Absolutely

5. And does it not reiterate that we are to keep on believing on the name of the Son of God? Absolutely

6. So when God says something twice are we to simply believe it and rest in it? Absolutely

 

[maxwel]

Thank you for your reply.



The above quote is not my point. My point is simply that no one can say with 100% assurance that they know that they are not part of the "false assurance" crowd. The very existence of faulty reasoning makes impossible the claim of not being at least susceptible to it. Since we cannot guarantee to be without faulty reasoning, any claim of 100% assurance of our salvation is more of a hope, which is the basis of faith.

Only a omnipotent being can make a claim with 100% assurance.

Ahhh... well that would be an entirely different argument than where we started.
You started by saying that based on a particular premise, assurance cannot EXIST - which ddidn't logically work.
Now you're saying that based on that same premise, assurance cannot be PROVEN - which is a much more tenable position.

At the risk of helping my opposition too much, I would add that this new position of saying "assurance cannot be proven" does not even logically require the original premise. You would not have to show the existence of "false assurance" in order to question our ability to HAVE 100% assurance.

Anyway, I disagree with this position of course, and there are counter points etc, but what you're stating now is a perfectly reasonable argument.



God Bless,
Max

 

[DJ2]

Not necessarily. Kindly give some serious thought to this Scripture (1 John 5:13):

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Some questions to ask in this connection:

1. Is John writing by Divine inspiration, or is he simply conjuring up his own ideas? Divine inspiration

2. Does that mean that God Himself is giving assurance to the believer? Absolutely

3. And is the assurance of eternal life given to all those who believe on the name of the Son of God? Absolutely

4. Does this verse say that we can KNOW that we have eternal life? Absolutely

5. And does it not reiterate that we are to keep on believing on the name of the Son of God? Absolutely

6. So when God says something twice are we to simply believe it and rest in it? Absolutely

1st John 5:13 is most certainly describing the existence of assurance for the believer. This is not in question. The question is simply, how can we as individuals be assured that this assurance applies to us?

In other words does the assurance in 1st John 5:13 apply to Mormons or JV? Is the existence of their assurance better then ours. Is our assurance superior to their assurance. If their assurance is in doubt, can our assurance also be in doubt?

Where doubt exist, 100% individual personal assurance cannot.

So yes to all six of your questions. God has given His assurance to His believers. The question of who are His believers is not so assured.

 

[maxwel]

1st John 5:13 is most certainly describing the existence of assurance for the believer. This is not in question. The question is simply, how can we as individuals be assured that this assurance applies to us?

In other words does the assurance in 1st John 5:13 apply to Mormons or JV? Is the existence of their assurance better then ours. Is our assurance superior to their assurance. If their assurance is in doubt, can our assurance also be in doubt?

Where doubt exist, 100% individual personal assurance cannot.

So yes to all six of your questions. God has given His assurance to His believers. The question of who are His believers is not so assured.

Dj2,

I really appreciate you discussing this stuff so politely, and honestly.

Let me point out something that I think may undermine your argument going forward.

If you start out by saying that John 5:13 proves assurance for the believer actually EXISTS,
then I think you'll have a really difficult time trying to prove it exists but we can't KNOW if it APPLIES to us.

Now, I agree with you, and I think John 5:13 does show clearly that assurance exists.
But, if you assent to this, I think it's going to leave your argument on really weak ground a few steps further down the road.


Have a great Sunday.
: )

 

[DJ2]

Ahhh... well that would be an entirely different argument than where we started.
You started by saying that based on a particular premise, assurance cannot EXIST - which ddidn't logically work.
Now you're saying that based on that same premise, assurance cannot be PROVEN - which is a much more tenable position.

At the risk of helping my opposition too much, I would add that this new position of saying "assurance cannot be proven" does not even logically require the original premise. You would not have to show the existence of "false assurance" in order to question our ability to HAVE 100% assurance.

Anyway, I disagree with this position of course, and there are counter points etc, but what you're stating now is a perfectly reasonable argument.



God Bless,
Max

Point well taken. My use of "assurance cannot exist" was wrong. Assurance cannot be proven is the proper way to address the issue. A simple but important error on my part.

Nevertheless, an unproven claim of 100% assurance of salvation on a individual and personal level has little value. When one believes they have been assured of the prize, the race is but a formality.

 

[CherieR]

Try not to rely too heavily on feelings or experiences. Those are not as reliable. Look to Scripture. Consider what you believe about Jesus( especially about who he is and what he did)and compare with the Bible. Consulting with other believers in Christ about their beliefs about Jesus is also a good idea.Consider reading the book of 1 John. If you are having doubts about your salvation, try to get to the root of the doubts if possible. For instance if you are having doubts because of a sin struggle and wondering if you are saved. Or say if you are having some doubts about the Christian faith and you wonder if you can still believe even though there is doubt. Yes, faith and doubt can coincide. Doubt is not the opposite of faith. Doubt has the potential to make faith stronger. I am not saying either of these is how you feel, I am only giving some examples.

I would also suggest that you can ask God to fill you/baptize you with the Holy Spirit if having doubts. I don't believe it is the same thing as receiving the Spirit. I had someone pray for me to be filled with the Spirit( can't remember his exact words) and that helped me with being comfortable calling God Father. It did not eradicate all doubt because there was a time or so that I had thought of the rapture and had a thought of what if it already happened?

Once again, don't rely too heavily on experiences. Experiences may help some, but you want to be grounded in the word, what Scripture says. Don't go solely on what other people say the bible says... look into it yourself. If you are having doubts, seek to find out why. Most likely there will be some kind of reason as to why and you can talk to others about it( perhaps a pastor, family, or friends) and also look into what the bible says. If you are having doubts and don't know why, you can pray to God about it and ask him why and also talk to others. If you cannot pinpoint some reasons why, someone else may be able to point out possible reasons. Especially if the person knows you really well or if you have many conversations with the person about it.

I don't know whether or not you are experiencing doubts about salvation or not or perhaps knows someone experiencing that. If you are experiencing doubt, don't feel bad about it. It is normal.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So yes to all six of your questions. God has given His assurance to His believers. The question of who are His believers is not so assured.

Once again you are not believing what the Bible says externally, and what the Holy Spirit says internally. So to answer you question, God has given us a further confirmation as follows (Romans 8:16):

The Spirit itself [Himself] beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God

 

[DJ2]

Once again you are not believing what the Bible says externally, and what the Holy Spirit says internally. So to answer you question, God has given us a further confirmation as follows (Romans 8:16):

The Spirit itself [Himself] beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God

What the Bible says externally is that Christians can be assured of salvation.

On the question of "what the Holy Spirit says internally". You will have to explain what you mean by "internally".

On your use of Romans 8:16, the question still remains. How can we be assured that we are the children of God that the verse speaks of.

Until our names are read out loud from the Book of Life, there can be no 100% assurance.

 

[maxwel]

What the Bible says externally is that Christians can be assured of salvation.

On the question of "what the Holy Spirit says internally". You will have to explain what you mean by "internally".

On your use of Romans 8:16, the question still remains. How can we be assured that we are the children of God that the verse speaks of.

Until our names are read out loud from the Book of Life, there can be no 100% assurance.

DJ2,

Although your statement here is a perfectly rational statement,
I don't think it's going to hold up your position very well.

You're talking about the Christian's epistemology, and saying "how do we know that we know."

How do we know that we know:
A. Atheist:
For the atheist this is a TERRIBLE problem - they have a very difficult time answering questions like this, as their world view doesn't really account for any kind of absolute place from which to BEGIN any chain of reasoning.
B. Christian:
But for the Christian, this is a relatively simple question.
There are a number of ways to deal with issues of "knowing."

*And for purposes of debate, I would just force you to state ANY proposition about God which you know for certain, and then I would make you give your EXACT REASON for "knowing", and then I would apply YOUR OWN EXACT REASON FOR KNOWING to this debate, and show that the same principle that allows you to KNOW THAT THING is the same epistemic principle that allows ME TO KNOW THIS THING... essentially trapping you in your own words.

* If for some reason that didn't get me where I wanted to go, I would make you answer questions until you DID take a position on some particular point that WOULD allow me to get where I was trying to go.

* The simplest approach to debate is to get someone to take a clear stand on some VERY PRECISE POINT which you know cannot be logically defended.

* Either quickly, or slowly, I would eventually trap you by your own epistemology... and this whole argument would be lost.



I think there are better ways to go about defending your position on assurance.

Please just look through what I wrote above, and give it some thought.
I don't actually want to do all this debating with you.
: )

Like I said, I think there may be better approaches to defending your position.



God Bless
Max

 

[maxwel]

Dj2,

Let me add one more thing.

The debate methodology I described above is not "trickery."
It is more a type of logical analysis.
You can't trap someone in their words if there is no logical contradiction somewhere.


I think you're a perfectly smart guy, I just don't think this particular argument is the best way to argue your position.

 

[Nehemiah6]

On the question of "what the Holy Spirit says internally". You will have to explain what you mean by "internally".

There is nothing to explain. God -- the indwelling Holy Spirit -- assures His children within their spirits that they are God's children, just as a human father assures his children that they are his children. And that is exactly what Paul was saying.

 

[valiant]

What the Bible says externally is that Christians can be assured of salvation.

On the question of "what the Holy Spirit says internally". You will have to explain what you mean by "internally".

On your use of Romans 8:16, the question still remains. How can we be assured that we are the children of God that the verse speaks of.

Until our names are read out loud from the Book of Life, there can be no 100% assurance.

That is a sad position. I can know whether I have truly believed in Jesus Christ and in His resurrection from the dead. And that is the grounds for my assurance (John 3.16; Rom 4.24).My salvation is totally dependent on Him

 

[DJ2]

There is nothing to explain. God -- the indwelling Holy Spirit -- assures His children within their spirits that they are God's children, just as a human father assures his children that they are his children. And that is exactly what Paul was saying.

There is much to explain. Your answer reeks of circular reasoning.

How do you know you are a child of God? The indwelling voice of the Holy Spirit tells me so.

How do you know this voice is of the Holy Spirit? Because the indwelling voice of the Holy Spirit tells me so.

Your defense holds no weight except to those who choose to trust your claims.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

1 Corinthians 4:4-5
[4] For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.
[5] Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God.

Some believe that they got saved by repeating some words that the pastor told them to repeat but that person didn’t get saved truly repenting but they considered themselves saved because they repeated some words that the preacher said to repeat after him,

but that person may have said those words because they wanted to Impress their parents or maybe there Is a girl there that they wanted to Impress,etc...But GOD said no one can come to ME unless the father that sent me,draw him.

The person has to come to GOD In TRUTH.GOD looks at the heart,man looks at outward appearances.

 

[valiant]

Some believe that they got saved by repeating some words that the pastor told them to repeat but that person didn’t get saved truly repenting but they considered themselves saved because they repeated some words that the preacher said to repeat after him,

but that person may have said those words because they wanted to Impress their parents or maybe there Is a girl there that they wanted to Impress,etc...But GOD said no one can come to ME unless the father that sent me,draw him.

The person has to come to GOD In TRUTH.GOD looks at the heart,man looks at outward appearances.

but if they truly believe in our Lord Jesus Christ He saves them

 

[seed_time_harvest]

but if they truly believe in our Lord Jesus Christ He saves them

The sky Is blue.