How do You Know You are Saved

[Rick W]

There's no way I could go back to being what I was, not after tasting the freedom from the bondage of the world I was once chained with. There's nothing back there for me. Nothing.
No, I can't go back. I know I'm saved looking ahead to the promises fulfilled. This is my hope, my faith, my only future. The past is gone, dead. And so is the old man that the world knew.
:smt102

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Is your Salvation real?
How do you know you are saved from death, hell, and the grave.....

You don't, because salvation is an ongoing process, not a one-time event.

As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). So salvation is a past, present, and future event; an ongoing process.

Read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Assuran ... vation.asp

 

[mutzrein]

I think we can know that what God says is true, but only He knows our hearts and has the final judgement. It's not anything to worry over if we fervently love Him and seek Him. It's a matter that is hidden to us really. The goats are surprised at their rejection because of all of their works, and the lambs are surprised that they have done works toward Christ at all. For me, I can be assured or doubt based on my emotions, because I'm human, but really I should simply believe God's Word on the matter.

With sincere faith, and by walking in the Spirit, we can obey the command mean of love. Love that sets all affection upon the Lord, and love that abounds from us to others...radiating love. This love is honest and in the light, and it is followed by washing the feet of the saints, practicing hospitality, caring for children and widows, giving to the poor, and so on all in the name of Jesus. Our belief in God, since we take Him at His Word, should also instill in us a Holy fear that makes us hate sin, pride, self-rightesousness, and all manner of evil...we should not want it in our lives.

God is also merciful to us, though, when we fail, when we lack knowledge. These things are part of being immature believers. As we learn about Jesus, and practice being like Him, by His grace we will mature past some of the fundamentals. He knows the work He will complete in us. We should study to show ourselves approved to Him (this includes the New Testament instruction in righteousness), love His precepts as David, repent when we stumble (because we are not lawless having the Spirit in us), and be willing to let God use us in any way. It's the lawless that will practice evil, even if their works appear good, and they are eventually given over to it, because they have not the Spirit in them, but are self-righteous.

Since I have been following Him, He has been transforming me into His image, and I can not do that myself, but He has given me the mind of Christ and the wisdom of the Spirit so that I may participate in following Him, and all of this is to bring me to maturity...to bear fruit or Him. This is an ongoing process.

The Lord bless you.

Lovely - I enjoy reading your posts and they do indeed bless me. And it is not only what you write, but the spirit in which it is written. Thankyou and the Lord bless you.

Now I'm wondering if some are discussing the issue of being 'saved' at cross purposes with others. In an earlier post I equated (for the purpose of that post) being 'saved' with the being 'born again'. Now to me this is a 'one time' event. It was the moment that I was given eternal life. However, I also agree with you that salvation is an ongoing process. As one who has been given life I am made accountable for that gift - which means I do indeed have a race to run, the goal of which is salvation.

So you see I have been saved from death (the result of Adam's sin). This was a one-time event and without my will. But now, since I have received (eternal) life, my will is evident because I must 'work out my salvation' in fear and trembling.

So, 'yes' I am saved, but I have not yet attained the goal of this salvation - which of course is an ongoing and transforming process.

Blessings

 

[one_lost_coin]

.

Lovely - I enjoy reading your posts and they do indeed bless me. And it is not only what you write, but the spirit in which it is written. Thankyou and the Lord bless you.

Now I'm wondering if some are discussing the issue of being 'saved' at cross purposes with others. In an earlier post I equated (for the purpose of that post) being 'saved' with the being 'born again'. Now to me this is a 'one time' event. It was the moment that I was given eternal life. However, I also agree with you that salvation is an ongoing process. As one who has been given life I am made accountable for that gift - which means I do indeed have a race to run, the goal of which is salvation.

So you see I have been saved from death (the result of Adam's sin). This was a one-time event and without my will. But now, since I have received (eternal) life, my will is evident because I must 'work out my salvation' in fear and trembling.

So, 'yes' I am saved, but I have not yet attained the goal of this salvation - which of course is an ongoing and transforming process.

Blessings

It is a process that spans ones lifetime of which we recieve freedom from original sin through our baptism as well as many other gifts the Holy Spirit not being the least of which. We can loose our salvation if we do not perservere in grace, we will recieve forgiveness when we fall if we ask. The branch that was joined to the vine will be removed and burned if it doesn't bear fruit. This belief is as old as the Church.

Once saved always saved has some truth in it. It also has serious flaws. I do street evangelism where I live and we go and ask people who are about to enter strip clubs if maybe that night they just turn away and begin again with a new life. I can not tell you how many Christians we encounter who don't have to turn away because they have accepted Jesus into there hearts by saying the believers prayer and are convinced that they will be saved because of that one moment. Pray for them because their lives are not over and there is always hope but they are decieved Paul is very clear the adulters will not inherit the Kingdom of God. They are convinced that they can presume upon the mercy of God and walk in anyway after all they know they are going to be with God so why not have the sinfull pleasures of this life till then. I guess they think they can have it all.

What we do is the manifestation of what we really believe. Ideas and peoples opinions can lead us into harmfull directions if accepted and lived out. God gave us the Church under the inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth and it is His Church that is the rock the pillar and bulwark of the truth it is to Her we are to listen. If there are differing opinions so be it let the truth be heard because someone is right and someone is not as right although in some cases the same thing is being said in different ways.

The point is the truth matters because what we believe is what we live and one day like Shaderach Meshack and Abendigo we are going to be placed in that all consuming fire which is God and only what is pure will remain. We are called to grow in Holiness and that is a lifetime of walking with God.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

..It is a process that spans ones lifetime... ..Once saved always saved has some truth in it. It also has serious flaws.....

Well put. When someone asks me if I have been "saved," I answer: "I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I trust in him alone for my salvation, and, as the Bible teaches, I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), knowing that it is God's gift of grace that is working in me."

 

[Catholic Crusader]

We need to let Scripture tell us how "salvation" ios achieved and not impose our own systems on it.....

And in so doing, you impose your own interpretation of the scriptures on it. That is why Jesus chose teachers to teach, not Bibles to hand out.

 

[Drew]

We need to let Scripture tell us how "salvation" ios achieved and not impose our own systems on it.....

And in so doing, you impose your own interpretation of the scriptures on it. That is why Jesus chose teachers to teach, not Bibles to hand out.

I do not think what you say here works unless perhaps you are going to say that particular persons have been "appointed" as authoritative rather than others.

Let's be clear: Someone needs to interpret the Scriptures. I suspect that you and I will agree that it is naive to say "they require no interpretation". So who gets to do the interpretation? You seem to be suggesting that a special sub-class of persons gets to do this. I am not sure how where you ground that belief.

So let me ask you this: On what basis do I ascribe greater "interpretative" authority to Fred rather than Joe?

I lean to the position that there are no "classes" of persons when it comes to Biblical interpretation. None of us comes out of the womb "appointed" to be teachers while others are somehow expected to not engage the Scriptures for themselves.

I do not deny the value in listening to other views, but I sense that you come from the position that certain people, simply by virtue of the position they occupy in a church government, are to serve as "interpreters" while the rest of us are to uncritically accept their teaching, without searching the Scriptures for our ourselves.

I am skeptical of such a position but am interested to hear a defence for it, if indeed I am understanding you properly.

Why can't we simply read the Scriptures and draw out their meaning for ourselves, of course accounting for the ideas of others?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

We need to let Scripture tell us how "salvation" ios achieved and not impose our own systems on it.....

And in so doing, you impose your own interpretation of the scriptures on it. That is why Jesus chose teachers to teach, not Bibles to hand out.

I do not think what you say here works unless perhaps you are going to say that particular persons have been "appointed" as authoritative rather than others.

Let's be clear: Someone needs to interpret the Scriptures. I suspect that you and I will agree that it is naive to say "they require no interpretation". So who gets to do the interpretation? You seem to be suggesting that a special sub-class of persons gets to do this. I am not sure how where you ground that belief.

Simple: Jesus had many disciples but only 12 apostles. It is only to the 12 (or actually 11) that He gave the mandate to teach. That is their function. We all have different fuctions in the body, and different gifts to carry them out. As for the teaching gift, that was handed down (through laying on of hands) to those appointed by the apostles, and then on, and on down the line.

[So let me ask you this: On what basis do I ascribe greater "interpretative" authority to Fred rather than Joe?

On the basis of whether they can trace their succession from the original apostles through the valid sacrament of ordination: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

......None of us comes out of the womb "appointed" to be teachers while others are somehow expected to not engage the Scriptures for themselves.

True. We do not come out of the womb appointed. Those who seek to be teachers must go to the apostles successors to be ordained . And, I NEVER said we should not read the scriptures for ourselves. But reading them for uplifting, and formulating doctrine, are two very different things.

I do not deny the value in listening to other views, but I sense that you come from the position that certain people, simply by virtue of the position they occupy in a church government, are to serve as "interpreters" while the rest of us are to uncritically accept their teaching, without searching the Scriptures for our ourselves.

Yup, thats what I am saying. But I would qualify that by saying that these "certain people" as you put it, are only infallibly correct in their interpretation under very specific and rare circumstances: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I am skeptical of such a position but am interested to hear a defence for it, if indeed I am understanding you properly.

Its simple, really. Jesus chose apostles, made Peter the leader, and gave them authorities that all the other disciples did not have. Later, in Acts, the hierarchy develops further. The apostles appoint Deacons (greek - diakonos ), Priests (greek - presbyteros ), and Bishops (greek - episkopos), and each have different duties.

A good read is Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Church History) written BEFORE the year 325 AD. In it, he traces not only the successors of Peter (the bishops of Rome) but also the successors of the other apostles.

Why can't we simply read the Scriptures and draw out their meaning for ourselves, of course accounting for the ideas of others?

We can, to a point. But, as in Acts, when they made a binding decision on circumcision, the matter is closed. We must hear and believe. Fast forward to the 4th century: Another Council of the apostles' successors made a binding decision on which books belong in the New Testament. We hear and believe. To reject this is to introduce denominationalism, which is exactly what happened when Church authority was rejected during the so-called Reformation.
There have been councils at least once a century for 2000 years. Here are the main ones:
http://www.piar.hu/councils/

 

[lovely]

Mutz,

I agree completely with your post...it is important to make the terms clear, and I caught that you were trying to define it earlier on. Saved=born again, and I agree it is a one time conversion, and I trust that God will not make me ashamed. Working out that salvation is ongoing and leads those who truly have the Spirit to bear fruit. The Lord bless you too. :D

 

[Vic C.]

Mutz,

I agree completely with your post...it is important to make the terms clear, and I caught that you were trying to define it earlier on. Saved=born again, and I agree it is a one time conversion, and I trust that God will not make me ashamed. Working out that salvation is ongoing and leads those who truly have the Spirit to bear fruit. The Lord bless you too. :D

Tina,

No need for shame when God is getting all the glory. Neither you nor I, nor Ed nor any of us, would be here if it wasn't for Him. We'd be somewhere on some secular site REALLY embarrassing ourselves. 8-)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.... I agree it is a one time conversion..

Then why does the Bible show it in past, present, and future tenses? The Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). So salvation is a past, present, and future event; an ongoing process.
I DO agree that being born again is a one-time event. But that is not salvation, but rather only the beginning of the process.

 

[lovely]

Catholic Crusader,

I want to understand exactly what you are saying, because it doesn't seem very different to what I am saying, in my mind anyway.

Would you say that you can be born again more than once, or would you say that as you work out your salvation you must continue to be born again, and again, during that process.

Would you agree with these statements?
I am a born again believer, who is in the process of working out my salvation. I am not a born again believer, and I have no salvation to be worked out.

Can you also define what you mean when you say born again?

The Lord bless you.

 

[lovely]

You know, Vic. I hate to think of just what I would be without Him, or how I would have grown apart from His Light of Truth...I would certainly have more shame than I could bear, and I would have to change my screen name for sure. It's impossible to think lovely things, things about the Lovely One, when you are filled with unlovely things. I suppose my secular site name would have to be unlovely.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Catholic Crusader,

I want to understand exactly what you are saying, because it doesn't seem very different to what I am saying, in my mind anyway.

Would you say that you can be born again more than once, or would you say that as you work out your salvation you must continue to be born again, and again, during that process.....

You are born again only once, and I believe baptism is the normal means by which one is born again. And, to me being born again means becoming an adopted son of God, a member of the family of God.

Salvation, however, is an ongoing process in which works of charity (done by God's grace) play an integral part. I believe "onve saved always saved" is a dangerous false doctrine.

Here are some tracts that explain my position more clearly:
http://www.catholic.com/library/salvation.asp

 

[Rick W]

So when do I share in His resurrection unto eternal life?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

So when do I share in His resurrection unto eternal life?

Please clarify.

 

[waitinontheLamb]

Catholic Crusader,

I want to understand exactly what you are saying, because it doesn't seem very different to what I am saying, in my mind anyway.

Would you say that you can be born again more than once, or would you say that as you work out your salvation you must continue to be born again, and again, during that process.....

You are born again only once, and I believe baptism is the normal means by which one is born again. And, to me being born again means becoming an adopted son of God, a member of the family of God.

Salvation, however, is an ongoing process in which works of charity (done by God's grace) play an integral part. I believe "onve saved always saved" is a dangerous false doctrine.

Here are some tracts that explain my position more clearly:
http://www.catholic.com/library/salvation.asp

Baptismal regeneration is clearly not taught in the Bible. The opposite is true.

It is by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, that no man can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Baptism is a work.

And how might I ask, can a baby choose to be born again?

 

[Rick W]

So when do I share in His resurrection unto eternal life?

Please clarify.

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

OK, so the old man dies. Dead. Dead with Christ.

I'm born again. How can I be born again if the old man is not dead? And if the old man is indeed dead then when do I share in His resurrection? If I don't share in His resurrection but am still dead then where was I born again? Through the resurrection of Christ? If indeed I'm a new man then am I alive in Christ or not?

 

[dadof10]

It seems as though you are saying you are forgiven for all sin. Past, present and future. Is this your position?

yes

Were you baptized with water or the spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit? Or both?

As for me I was saved then I arranged for my water baptism because then I wanted to do that. Before I was saved I could care less about being baptized one way or another.

If you believe all future sin is forgiven, how do you interpret verses like Rom:2? It's obvious that Paul means our salvation is dependant on our behaviour, at least to some extent.

 

[dadof10]

Baptism is a work.

I keep waitin' (pun intended, though bad : ) for someone to show where Scripture teaches this. I think, to Paul, the word "works" means "works of the Law" as in Galations. I think you are using too broad a definition to support sola-Fide.