Another way I’ve heard this question is: Do you have to believe in eternal security to be saved?
Technically assurance and eternal security are two different things. Eternal security is the fact that the believer is saved forever and can never lose their salvation no matter what. Assurance of salvation is the personal belief that you are eternally secure.
Linguistically speaking, to “believe” something is to know that it’s true, to be convinced, to be persuaded, to have assurance of it. That is true in koine Greek, and it’s true in modern English. So, to believe in Jesus “for” his free gift of everlasting life, is to know you have it. It’s to have assurance of salvation. It is the same thing as being “assured” that you have eternal life.
Some FG teachers say that the concept of eternal security is embedded in the term eternal life. However, translators are divided on the term “eternal” in the phrase “eternal life” since it can also mean, “life in the age to come.” So, the eternally secure nature of the phrase is one possible conclusion that can be derived from the term “eternal life” but I don’t believe it’s a required conclusion the reader must draw to be saved.
The idea that a would-be believer has to have considered whether eternal life can be lost, does not seem to be inherent in the requirement to believe. It is a clear conclusion from Biblical context, but I don’t believe a person has to have fully considered all of the logical eventualities to be saved. We know Eternal Life can’t be lost from context and inference, but the notion is left unsaid in many of the NT’s evangelistic conversations. So, I don’t think a new believer to whom it hasn’t occurred to consider eternal security, lacks salvation because they haven’t yet considered it. Now, it is suspect if a person outright denies eternal security at the moment of their saving faith, but if a person has not considered it at the moment of belief, the lack thereof does not constitute a lack of saving faith, in my view.
So, for me the traditional questions we ask about salvation are enough to confirm adequate assurance of salvation. These types of questions might include:
Are you going to heaven when you die?
Are you saved?
Do you have eternal life?
If a person who believes in Jesus can truthfully answer “yes” to one of these questions, I am satisfied that they have experienced an adequate level of assurance to be saved (Provided they understand the other terms of the gospel—it’s apart from works, it’s only in Jesus, and it’s by faith alone).
Technically, if someone, at any point in their life, could have truthfully answered those questions “yes” I’m convinced they will be in Heaven forever with Christ (provided they understood the other terms of the gospel).
Let’s deal with some hypotheticals!
Some teachers imply the would-be believer must consider a handful of hypothetical extrapolations in order to confirm they have experienced true assurance or a real saving faith.
While I believe a simple assurance of salvation (as defined above) is required for saving faith, I do not believe assurance is defined by extrapolated hypotheticals.
Hypotheticals can be used to great affect to verify that a person understands the terms of the saving message. However, we must be careful not to imply that someone who has never considered those hypotheticals is unsaved.
It’s possible to have a simple saving faith, without having considered the hypothetical potentialities. It’s possible to have assurance that Jesus has saved me without yet having considered all my other beliefs that are in logical contradiction with my new saving faith. It’s even possible to have simple saving faith, while simultaneously holding faulty beliefs about the automatic (or non-automatic) life-style outcome that will result from saving faith.
At the moment of saving faith a person may not have yet considered:
Would I still be saved if someday I fall into a lifestyle of sin?
Would it prove I never really had eternal life if I don’t endure?
Would I still be saved if someday I stop believing?
I believe a person can have saving faith, having never considered the “if statements” about eternal security. However, if at the moment of evangelism, someone did consider these possibilities and answered “no” to any of them, I’d continue to try to convince them of the truthfulness of eternal security, because it is the basis of so much in the Christian life.
There is a difference between never having had assurance and having an embedded belief that might later erode assurance. I think we have confused the two.
I can (1) currently believe, (meaning I’m completely sure) I have a friend named Lula, while also (2) believing I have occasional schizophrenic hallucinations. If a month from now I become convinced that Lula was not real, but a hallucination, that does not invalidate the fact that I truly believed, and was assured I had a friend named Lula at a given time. I had assurance, even though I had an embedded secondary belief that would eventually erode that confidence.
Some might argue that I should have known. I should have been able to logically extrapolate. I should have anticipated that my secondary belief would dissolve my confidence in the first belief. But the expectation that a person be able to logically extrapolate eventual pitfalls, is not a good basis for evaluating whether or not a person has experienced assurance. We’ve confused the two.
A person can (1) have assurance they are saved by their faith alone in Christ alone, while (2) also believing that The Holy Spirit will automatically produce good works in his life apart from the will of the believer. Of course, later on down the line, if they continue to live in sin, it would be easy for them to lose their assurance that they are saved. The fault lies with the embedded, secondary belief which can erode their original assurance, but that’s not the same thing as never having assurance in the first place. It simply didn’t occur to them at the time of saving faith that their secondary belief was flawed.
A person can (1) have assurance they are saved by their faith alone in Christ alone, and (2) also believe that hypothetically a person can lose their salvation if they continue in sin. Obviously, later the secondary belief about the hypothetical situation can erode their assurance, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have assurance they were saved. It didn’t occur to them that the secondary faulty belief is the equivalent to a works salvation. If it hadn’t occurred to them at the moment of their saving faith, I’m convinced that they are covered by Jesus grace. That’s because they assumed they would not lose their salvation because they assumed Jesus would not allow them to fall into sin. They had faith in Jesus for salvation, and a faulty belief about who’s responsibility it was to live a Godly life.
I’m convinced that a person can have assurance that they are saved by Jesus, while also holding faulty hypothetical views about what might happen in the future. I do not believe the logical contradiction necessarily means they never had assurance.
I’m confident that if a child can believe and be saved (Luke 18:17) then considering a myriad of hypothetical potentialities must not be a requirement, because children do not do that naturally. Add to that the fact that we don’t see the use of future-facing hypothetical “if statements” as a confirmation process present in the NT’s evangelistic conversations.
So, I’m confident that, while “having assurance” is a synonym for believing (as defined above), the definition of assurance does not include the requirement to have answered or even considered hypothetical extrapolations about eternal security. My personal preference is to help the potential believer consider some of the hypothetical possibilities at the point of evangelism, but I do not intend to divide from other groups of believers who do not approach gospel presentations in the same way.
