I think, though, it is fair to distinguish between the fact of our salvation and our knowledge of the fact of our salvation. And we may further distinguish between our knowledge of the fact of our own salvation and our knowledge of the fact of someone else's salvation. All theologies have to make these distinctions, but how they approach them would be different. OSAS, as I see it, would approach these questions in the followng ways:
1. The fact of our salvation -- salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It is the object (Christ) that saves, and not our faith. As such, faith is not in faith but in Christ. Moreover, it is not our knowledge of our salvation that saves, but Christ that saves. It is, therefore, possible for a person to be saved and not know it. It is also person for a person to believe a false gospel, think they are saved, and be wrong about that (and so Matt 7). But the fact remains, that if a person places their faith in Jesus Christ alone, then they have eternal life, which by definition cannot be lost or forfeited.
2. The knowledge of our own salvation -- this doctrine is commonly called assurance. The implications of OSAS as defined just above should be obvious. I have often talked about having absolue certainty of my salvation (as opposed to moral certainty), and I have charged that any view that does not permit absolute certainty contradicts the OSAS gospel. I still hold that as true. The reasoning behind the argument is as follows:
- 1. If true, OSAS necessarily entails that absolute assurance is possible;
2. OSAS is true;
3. Therefore, absolute assurance is possible
- 1. If true, OSAS necessarily entails that absolute assurance is possible;
2. Absolute assurance is not possible;
3. Therefore, OSAS is not true
Also, it is important to note that the OSAS argument itself only follows if a person has met the conditions of the OSAS gospel, namely, that they have trusted Christ. This is important, too, because OSAS freely admits that there are some people who think that they are saved who are not. For OSAS does not equate conviction that you are saved with believing the gospel. Put directly, OSAS does NOT say this:
- 1. All who are convinced they are saved are, in fact, saved;
2. I am convinced I am saved;
3. Therefore I am saved
Bottom line here: the logic of OSAS makes absolute or logical assurance possible. If any position makes that assurance impossible, then it is inconsistent with the OSAS gospel.
3. The fact of someone else's salvation -- I think we have to be very careful here. No OSAS advocate can make an assessment on whether or not a person actually possesses eternal life. All the OSAS advocate may say--and I have actually said this in the clinical setting--is something like this, "Mr X, Jesus says that everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life. You say you[r loved one] have [has] believed in Him, correct? Therefore, on the authority of Jesus Christ, I am telling you that if what you say is true, if you[r loved one] have [has] trusted Christ, then you have eternal life, right this second. That life cannot be lost. I will see you in eternity!"
Some might object that I am robbing the man of absolute, logical assurance with my qualifer "if you are telling the truth." But I am not. OSAS does not say, "If anyone states they believe in Christ . . ." It is, "If anyone believes in Christ." This goes to a point K made some time back. I do not have access to anyone's internal life. I can only go on what they tell me. There is, then, a special epistemological problem when talking about my assurance of someone else's salvation. I can look back in my own life and know fore sure whether or not I do or did believe in Christ, and from that, I can run out the logic and know whether or not I do or do not have eternal life (per the OSAS claim). I cannot do that with anyone else. What I can do is assess their reasoning based on their own words.
Let me give you a real example from my own life. I had a professor once with whom I argued for about two years about this issue. I always assumed he was saved and just deeply confused. I mean, sure, he believed a false gospel now, but the thought never crossed my mind that he hadn't at some point in the past just trusted Jesus. He was saved even if he wasn't sure of it.
But one day, he dropped this bomb on me: "Chris, I have never believed what you are saying. Never in all my years have I thought it was that simple." He went on to explain that he had never believed that because it is not that simple and continued to press with his false gospel. It dawned on me then that he might not have been saved at all! If he had never trusted Christ, then he wasn't really saved in the first place!
Does that deny OSAS? I don't think so. It just takes the "if" seriously in the major premise of the OSAS gospel: "If a person trusts Christ alone for their salvation, then they have eternal life." Just because a person claims to have trusted Christ, it does not so follow that the did. They could have believed a false gospel (so, again, cf Matt 7:21-23).
That, however, does not negate the logical possibility of absolute, logical assurance. For I can still say, "I know I have believed the gospel. And I have good reason for thinking that so and so has believed the gospel, despite what they affirmnow. Therefore, I know that both of us are really saved, even if we disagree on this matter."
All of this is why it is so important that we define what the gospel is and is not. It's also important why we distinguish between salvation itself, the assurance of our own salvation, and our assurance of other people's salvation. One issue is ontological, the other two are epistemological. And I think that both of you would agree with every word I've written. I just think that in the midst of all this, we've gotten the proverbial epistemological and ontological wires crossed.
Yes, no?
