OO, evangelical, and fundamentalist views on assurance of salvation

[Josh]

Probably the most significant doctrinal difference that has emerged between Old Orders and evangelical-fundamentalists (which includes most conservative Anabaptists) is “assurance of salvation”.

CAs generally speaking maintain a belief that Old Orders believe in “salvation via works” and that they are not legitimately born again. Due to this, they feel comfortable treating them as a mission field and as heathers, and recruit them for their own churches, usually with a new confession of faith (but strangely rarely requiring them to be rebaptised).

OOs on the other hand, as did all Anabaptists before the revivalist era in the late 1800s, consider claiming one has assurance of salvation to being “proud” or “high minded”. They prefer to say they have a hope of salvation.

This is a thread to discuss those differences.

[silentreader]

Probably the most significant doctrinal difference that has emerged between Old Orders and evangelical-fundamentalists (which includes most conservative Anabaptists) is “assurance of salvation”.

CAs generally speaking maintain a belief that Old Orders believe in “salvation via works” and that they are not legitimately born again. Due to this, they feel comfortable treating them as a mission field and as heathers, and recruit them for their own churches, usually with a new confession of faith (but strangely rarely requiring them to be rebaptised).

OOs on the other hand, as did all Anabaptists before the revivalist era in the late 1800s, consider claiming one has assurance of salvation to being “proud” or “high minded”. They prefer to say they have a hope of salvation.

This is a thread to discuss those differences.

One of the problems is that non-OOs think of this hope as a bland, ambivalent come-what-may hope, whereas the hope that is meant is the NT flavor of hope, which is a living hope, one with undercurrents of assurance, and which affects their lives.

[Neto]

Probably the most significant doctrinal difference that has emerged between Old Orders and evangelical-fundamentalists (which includes most conservative Anabaptists) is “assurance of salvation”.

CAs generally speaking maintain a belief that Old Orders believe in “salvation via works” and that they are not legitimately born again. Due to this, they feel comfortable treating them as a mission field and as heathers, and recruit them for their own churches, usually with a new confession of faith (but strangely rarely requiring them to be rebaptised).

OOs on the other hand, as did all Anabaptists before the revivalist era in the late 1800s, consider claiming one has assurance of salvation to being “proud” or “high minded”. They prefer to say they have a hope of salvation.

This is a thread to discuss those differences.

One of the problems is that non-OOs think of this hope as a bland, ambivalent come-what-may hope, whereas the hope that is meant is the NT flavor of hope, which is a living hope, one with undercurrents of assurance, and which affects their lives.

And, this is the sense in which the early anabaptists would have used the term 'hope'. Bbilically speaking, "uncertain hope" is an oxymoron.

[Josh]

To quote from Hebrews, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

The OO hope is a rather simple one, based on a verse just like that, as opposed to "assurance of salvation" based on complex, systematic theology.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think all OOOs have the same understanding of salvation. And I think at least some OOOs have difficulty clearly explaining their views of salvation, at least to outsiders like me.

[Soloist]

I don't think all OOOs have the same understanding of salvation. And I think at least some OOOs have difficulty clearly explaining their views of salvation, at least to outsiders like me.

Perhaps some have a relatively simple understanding of salvation and can’t explain the theological background?

I have a hope of salvation and I think it’s a little arrogant to assume. I feel like to a point it’s the intersection of Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy.

A pastor once stood up and said “I don’t understand relationship of faith and works” I personally felt at the time he should but I think there is a complexity that people pretend is simple and admitting we don’t understand everything is intellectually honest. I can respect him more now although we would have fairly deep disagreements as to Christian conduct.

[Ernie]

I have a lively hope.

Below is an assurance that has given me a lot of security over the last twenty years, whenever I have taken paths that my relatives and friends have not considered wise, as I went through a deep intellectual faith crisis, going through a health journey the last eight years, and the last decade being one of my hardest, as I have been misunderstood, misrepresented, shamed, and discredited by people I trusted.

But this is what I am banking on, and what gets me up in the morning and gives me enthusiasm for living another day...

I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that He (not me) is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think all OOOs have the same understanding of salvation. And I think at least some OOOs have difficulty clearly explaining their views of salvation, at least to outsiders like me.

Perhaps some have a relatively simple understanding of salvation and can’t explain the theological background?

I have a hope of salvation and I think it’s a little arrogant to assume. I feel like to a point it’s the intersection of Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy.

I don't think I'm assuming anything here. I'm sharing experiences I have had with a few people. And I have met Amish who believe that many Amish are not saved. I don't know if they are right or not. But this makes me cautious about lumping all Amish into one category.

I don't think all evangelicals fit in one category either. I think a lot of evangelicals believe something like this:

https://www.gotquestions.org/lordship-salvation.html

The doctrine of lordship salvation teaches that submitting to Christ as Lord goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ as Savior. Lordship salvation is the opposite of what is sometimes called easy-believism or the teaching that salvation comes through an acknowledgement of a certain set of facts.

But that depends a LOT on what you mean by Evangelical. And people who believe this as a doctrine may have no idea how to apply it to their lives - or they may be resistant to applying it, even though they believe it. To me, any healthy form of Christianity needs certain elements:

1. A recognition that God is God and we are not, that he is truly Lord.
2. Knowing about God's grace and his ability to transform our hearts and forgive our sins.
3. A daily walk, before God, by his power and wisdom and grace, knowing our weakness and folly.
4. Loving God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength.
5. Loving our neighbor as ourselves - concretely, by serving and supporting others who serve.
6. Turning our hearts toward God, trusting in God, turning away from what is evil.
7. A living relationship with the Bible.
8. A living fellowship with other Christians.

To me, these things are at the heart of faith. I see people who live this way in many traditions. I don't know of any faith tradition where I think everyone's lives look like that. The Mennonite churches I have been part of get this right - but many in my denomination do not.

A pastor once stood up and said “I don’t understand relationship of faith and works” I personally felt at the time he should but I think there is a complexity that people pretend is simple and admitting we don’t understand everything is intellectually honest. I can respect him more now although we would have fairly deep disagreements as to Christian conduct.

I agree with what you said above.

But when we look at groups of Christians, I think that's another place where we should recognize that "there is a complexity that people pretend is simple". And an awful lot of posts on MN make judgements about people or groups based on broad stereotypes. People are too quick to be experts about other people. Some threads call for instant judgements about people or groups most of us know little about. There's always a lot more than we see.