Is there a difference between 'certainty' and 'assurance' as they relate to the individual's salvation? And a related question, must salvation be empirically proven in order for it to be real? Finally, is certainty opposed to faith?
You guys talk and I'll listen.
Old Doxoblogy
Monday, April 17, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
First answer: No. They both mean that that there is no doubt in my mind about my salvation.
Second answer: No, if by "real" you mean shown to be real in the here and now. In order to empirically prove salvation to a human, the human must be able to observe the end result; i.e. observe what happens after his death; observe whether he is saved or damned
Third answer: No. I can't prove salvation, so the only way I can be certain of it is through faith. They are not opposed. Faith is the cause, and certainty and assurance are the result.
Hmm... both consist of 9 letters, both contain 5 consonants and 4 vowels... O yeah, they mean the same thing, too.
Well, not exactly. You can be certain on your own, but assurance is something you are given.
I assure you the check is in the mail, God assures you that your sins are forgiven. The value of assurance is dependent on the giver. Assurance demands trust.
Certainty is dependent on observable facts.
You can be certain that God's assurance is trustworthy.
I think I'm with David on this. Certainty depends on observable material evidence, while assurance depends on the one who assures.
I wondered if that would be the tack. I used definitions that make those two words synonyms. If I use your guys' definitions then I would have the same view as you I think.
Post a Comment