I keep thinking about the parable of the farmer and his seed. Does that connect in anyway?

Yes, it probably does. The good seed is the persevering seed? What do you think?

Scot, so within this framework could we say that assurance is conditional? There is no blanket “once saved, always saved,” but you have assurance only as you walk with Jesus (however fitfully) and not away from him. I’m so glad you use marriage as the metaphor. It so readily exposes the theological myths around salvation.

Please, John Gill isn’t anonymous. I posted a link to his very (unusually) brief overview of the Book of Hebrews regarding this question of perseverance awhile back. Here it is. I understand my own comments being deleted, but the link to Gill didn’t deserve to be lost just because he came with me into the blog. It’s worth throwing into the mix…

Assurance is conditional since it is normally seen as a subjective state within the believer.

John, I’ve always thought of it as — I have the assurance that I’m not gonna drown as long as I’m in the boat.A question that always challenges me is, what exactly are we seeking assurance of? Sorry, forgot whose blog this was for a minute!

Scot, I really like the marriage metaphor, too–something we can hold onto that holds up pretty well. When we get married, we take a vow/make a commitment and our status changes from married to single. That change of status doesn’t define marriage (as you said) but dictates the focus of future life–two becoming one. In salvation, we have been rescued from the dominion of darkness. We are a new creation, changed from slaves to sons. Becoming one in Him. But who is the good spouse? Who is the good son?It isn’t a meritorous perseverance but a fitting response to the commitment made. There is no turning back.

Goodacre just posted this:http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/hebrews2006I say we all pitch in and send Scot over! Scot, great posts, and i love the autobiographical nature. I don’t think evangelicalism has completely missed the boat on faithfulness/perseverance, but, as with personal righteousness (viz. imputed righteousness; Rev 19:7-8), most sectors seemed to have relegated it to a footnote in the smallest possible font. Which means many, many lay people (and some “professionals”) miss it.Maybe a blog on what illustrates/proves assurance in our lives (I Jn 3:16-23)?

John Gill,We hear you saying that Hebrews does teach preservation, unlike Mr Barrow who thinks Hebrews teaches that one can be finally lost who was once a believer (?). Since he denies perseverance, he must mean that the believer can fall away and that would mean a denial of perseverance. Which means he must equate perseverance with the elect being preserved.The issue, Mr. Gill, is there evidence that one can distinguish between the true believer and the not-true believer in Hebrews?

JB Hood,Thanks for this. I did get this in my e-mail this morning, too.I’m all for being pitched in to go to St Andrews, which I’m sure you understand — to play golf!?

Hm. I see it now! You’re an Arminian.This, afterall (slapping forehead) is what you’ve been trying to explain… OK. There are many of you…

S.,Were you formerly blogging under the name of Tooaugust?

Once, as a seminary student, I started a research paper on Eternal Security (which I never completed). When looking up a passage in Calvin’s Commentaries (I forget which passage, but it was a key one in the argument), I was surprised to find that John Calvin didn’t believe in Eternal Security. What he seemed to be saying was that one could have true faith, and yet not be one of those predestined for salvation. If that were the case, he/she would actually be predestined to fall away.

Thanks for pulling the thread through Hebrews. That was a helpful analysis of the place of perserverance in our salvation. I think the marriage analogy is helpful in this regard.As to the ongoing Assurance/Insurance debate, do you think the debate itself somewhat reflects a certain American sentiment, since we are such a security societ that, seemingly, has insurance for everything?

The oddest thing has happened in American Evangelicalism: it has taught, whether aloud or not, the idea of “once saved, always saved” as if perseverance were not needed.My MA thesis (Augustine and the Justification Debates: Did Calvin Step too far in the Right Direction?) is primarily written to address this “oddest thing.” I argue (and of course, convincingly I think) that Calvin’s movement away from Augustine regarding the doctrine of justification opened the door for the contemporary “Free Grace” sotieriology of Charles Ryrie and the Dallas Theological Seminary crowd. The widespread decimation of this perspective is amazing. As I argue in my thesis, a line of continuity can be drawn from Calvin to Charles Hodge, Hodge to Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Chafer to Charles Ryrie (who explicitly teaches this “odd” view). Without question, Ryrie bases his “free grace” sotieriology on the Reformed doctrine of justification, and it could not stand without it (though it requires dispensationalism’s separation of Israel and the Church as well—which is why you don’t see such a view until the rise of dispensationalism in the late 1800s).This too is one of the reasons that I’ve moved from Calvin to Augustine–Augustine’s doctrine of justification does not readily lend itself to the “free grace” position.

Gerald,Thanks for this. I suspect then, that the Arminian leanings I have are as much Augustinian as they are anything elese. Which would make me happier.

Scot, you write, “Assurance is conditional since it is normally seen as a subjective state within the believer.” Aren’t there some who teach an assurance of salvation as a propositional fact apart from “the subjective state within the believer”? Just like we are declared righteous, we are declared assured (of eternity).

Were you formerly blogging under the name of Tooaugust?No. I just learned of your blog, and current posts on your change, from Steve Hays’ Triablogue. If you havn’t already go to the link and see what he’s written about you, if you have interest.

John,The doctrine of assurance, as it was classically taught by the Puritans and as it is presently understood are miles apart. Most seem to think that a judicial declaration should determine a subjective confidence, and I can see the logic.But the Puritans didn’t teach it this way; it was more about assurance of being one of the Elect.

To me, the classical statement on assurance is made by Paul in the fourth chapter of Philippians. After telling them to stand firm in verse 1 (your point) he says in verse 7, “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” That peace is our assurance, guarding our hearts and mind in our salvation in Christ Jesus. He later explains how one can stand firm in that assurance. In verse 13 he says, “I can do everything through him [Christ] who gives me strength.” Paul appears to have the same key, standing firm, and when that is done assurance comes in the peace of God applied to our hearts and minds and strength to continue comes from Christ Jesus our Lord.