What is Salvation

A fairly recent series on Calvinism in a podcast that I have been following for some time raises an interesting issue. Much of the evangelical community leans to a “Calvinist” view of salvation/atonement while certain portions of the community follow an Arminian view. The two views are not exactly what most of us think they are, and it might be argued are not as far from each other as the average follower of either thinks. In fact, outside of the question “what is predestination?” there is really only one issue in the minds of the average believer. That is the assurance of salvation. And that assurance is often stated in terms of “once saved, always saved,” or it is stated conversely that salvation can be lost.

But if you ask a true Bible scholar, and card-carrying, 5-point Calvinist, “once saved, always saved” is a misrepresentation of the Calvinist position.

If this is the case, how do the New Testament writers refer to assurance, and to the “joy of your salvation” if it is not a certain thing?

Before you go ballistic on me for suggesting that salvation has no assurance, consider the parable of the sower found in Matthew 13. Here we find that seed was scattered and each seed fell into one of four places.

• First, the path. There, it could not get into any kind of soil and was picked off by the birds.
• Second, stony ground. There was some soil surrounding it, but there was insufficient nutrition and the sun caused the rocks to get really hot, and whatever managed to spring up quickly died.
• Third, among the weeds. There was some good soil. But there was too much competition for nutrients and sunlight, and the young plants died.
• Last, the good soil. Plenty of nutrition and no competition for the necessary sunlight.

Notice that the seed begins to grow in three of these. Might even grow for a significant period of time. Two of them receive the word but it eventually dies. One is referred to as having been received with joy. Do we suggest that they simply did not believe? Or did not believe enough? If they simply didn’t really believe, then what was the joy about? If they didn’t believe enough, then how much is enough?

And if the comments on the stony ground and the weeds are about how the word grows in us, then what is the meaning of salvation based upon a point-in-time “decision” worth? What is the point in time? How can you suggest that happening upon a stranger (while doing one of those Summer missions events in Chicago or wherever) and reading through the “Roman Road” tract or some other alternative and getting them to “pray the sinner’s prayer” is anything? If it is the ticket to heaven, then how can stony ground or weeds be given time to take their toll? That kind of instant salvation “for all time” would presume to avoid the soil issue completely.

Or is this whole discussion something different? Must salvation progress through this life straight into the next with all benefits applicable thereto or alternately be found outside the good field either dead or in dire need? Or is it carved in stone due to a single event in the past and therefore without any possibility of shortcoming (or requiring of something like a purgatory time of reformation to be released into the general population of the redeemed)? Can these views be reconciled?

I am not suggesting that I know the answer, or that I think a certain way is correct. Instead, I am wondering out loud whether we have a real understanding of what is salvation. And whether it is truly in the way that we think it. Can a salvation that is a line-in-the-sand decision be worked out with fear and trembling?

Have we misconstrued that the once-for-all sacrifice mentioned in Hebrews as unable to be repeated is about salvation? Or is it more correctly about the uselessness of an Old Testament sacrifice to any who have taken the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus? And is it that we do not need to ask for his sacrifice again (or more correctly, the application of the once-for-all sacrifice be made again)?

But does that deny that we need to ask for forgiveness again, or even continually?

Have we mistakenly confused an objective conclusion and decision that Jesus is the Messiah with salvation which is an endless process? Are we ignorantly holding to the idea that a one-time decision to believe in Jesus is the salvation that cannot be taken away or fail? It surely requires no work. Or fear. Or trembling. It does not require that we currently believe or obey. Only that we once believed.

Now, circling back to the question about assurance of salvation, if salvation is argued to be other than the result of an irreversible decision (no matter how much one may later argue that they have reversed anyway), where is the joy of salvation and the assurance of faith? I would argue that it is in the fact that the joy of salvation is secure when one is believing. There is assurance when you believe. When you believe, you have the assurance that "whosoever believes . . . shall not perish." If I believe, why would I be worried about the results of not believing? While I may be able to cease believing, it is not something that can be stolen from me without my participation. And since I believe, I am assured the benefits of that belief.