Sometimes
Latter-day Saints are usually asked if they are 100% sure of their salvation,
and if they died tonight (pleasant thought . . . ) if they were sure they would
die while in a “saved” (read: justified) state. Perhaps the leading proof-text
to support this “assurance” (based on the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”
and its variants):
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. (1 John 5:13)
Firstly, it
should be enough that one can “know” they, at the present time, have salvation,
but one cannot claim they can infallibly claim that, say, this day in 20 years
from now, one will be in a saved state, especially in light of texts that show
regenerated (not superficial) believers can lose their salvation (Heb 6:4-6;
10:26). Furthermore, those who cite this verse engage in eisegesis—when one
reads the previous verses of this chapter, one finds that the author of this
epistle is presenting a series of tests to see if one can know they have this
assurance, showing that this confidence is not one that fits the rubric of “eternal
security” theologies, but a subjective one.
Latter-day
Saints can, and do, have confidence in their salvation; for instance, we can
look back at a fixed point in time, namely when we were baptised and confirmed
for a remission of our sins, as well as one’s spiritual witness of the
truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, as well on a weekly basis when we renew
our baptismal covenants, as well as other things which show our trust in the
work of Christ (the efficacy of baptism, confirmation, and the sacrament have
their basis on the atoning work of Christ). This is much better than basing one’s
salvation in an alleged spiritual experience, coupled with a very errant
theology that, in spite of all its claims, cannot offer true assurance. Note
the following quotes from a work by a Protestant scholar:
It is an extraordinary thing that Knox did not clearly
realise—none of the Reformers apparently realised—that by grounding assurance
on election, rather than on merit, they were only pushing the problem of
assurance back one stage, and pushing it into what appeared to be an even more
terrifying form. For if salvation depends on merit, and I doubt of my
salvation, I can at least do something about it: I can try harder to be good.
But if salvation depends on God’s election, and I doubt my election, I land in
complete and hopeless paralysis. There is nothing I can do about that. If God
has not elected me, what hope or help have I? Apparently none. (McEwen, Faith
of John Knox, p.72, as cited by Graham Redding, Prayer and the
Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition [London: T&T Clark,
2003], 117)
The Westminster [Confession of Faith] documents’ conception
of God’s covenant relationship with humankind in contractual terms ultimately
leads to a loss of assurance of grace and salvation. There are two striking
features of the Confession’s teaching in this regard. First, it suggests
that ‘infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith’ (Westminster
Confession, 18.3) Second, it suggests that a true believer ‘may wait long,
and conflict with many difficulties, before he be a partaker of it’ (Westminster
Confession, 18.3). The qualifying assurance that true believers are ‘never
utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ
and brethren and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the
Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived’ (Westminster Confession,
18.4), does little to counterbalance the main thrust of the Confession’s
teaching on the matter . . . [one may] correctly [conclude] according to this
teaching it seems that a believer could die without assurance. (Redding, ibid.,
p. 174).
