Dear Christis,

I apologise for not having replied sooner to Martin Oliver’s letter of issue 35 in response to my article Once a Christian, always a Christian in issue 34. I realise that this article was published quite a while ago, but I feel that the forceful points brought forth by Martin in his letter need a reply.

Firstly I would like to apologise to Martin and anyone else who felt uncomfortable or unedified with my arguments attempting to show the possibility of security in salvation, and my methods of cultivating this assurance. Though, I still hold to the ideas expressed in my article, I realise that I need to elaborate on some of its sections in order to try and remove some of the misunderstandings I feel Martin has with regard to my arguments.

Though I believe that it is possible to obtain assurance in ones eternal position with God, ( though I stress, as I did in the article, that I am sometimes tempted not to believe it ) and is something I would like to see people to cultivate, I definitely do not reckon that such a certainty is a pre-requisite to salvation. As such I would not wish for a second to take away the hope of salvation from those who do not have this eternal confidence. This would indeed be appalling, divisive and damaging to the body of Christ.

I can understand Martin’s qualms with St Paul’s statement that we are “being transformed into his (God’s) likeness with ever increasing glory”. I can sympathise with his worry that he feels that he is, in many ways, becoming more imperfect and that, according to these words, he is therefore outside God’s grace. If it is any consolation I can recognise these same trends in myself. However, I feel that this is not necessarily due to us getting progressively more depraved, but rather the problems we experience can often be due to an awakening of our soul to the reality of the world. It is through this which we, in the end, learn more about ourselves, creation as a whole and the true nature of the love of God. Thus I expect Martin will be pleased to hear that I do not think that a reader should take this passage of Scripture and use it as a test of the integrity of his salvation. Such subjective introspections on this text will often please the arrogant rather than the humble. Instead, I feel that comfort can be taken from it when it is considered simply as expressing that as the Spirit of God moves more in one already saved, and thus sincerly open to His Spirit, then his love for God and his wish for more of His Spirit cannot but grow (though he will not necessarily always be able to recognise this), and that as such he can never logically fall away.

According to sentiments mentioned above, I would certainly agree with Martin that one does not have to consciously reason through my ‘algorithm’ to be saved; we are saved by faith alone, not by an analytical self-evaluation of it. The only reason I decided to include it was that it was through some similar process that I was able to gain self-assurance of the integrity of my faith. As such, I thought it might be of use to others. If it is not however, as appears to be the case with Martin, then I would not hesitate to advise people to discard it.

I do however, contrary to the opinion of Martin, still believe that the word ‘election’ with regards to salvation is a pertinent one. If our Lord Jesus Christ felt that it was an appropriate word (or rather its closest equivalent in Aramaic) then I think we have no option but to use it and try to understand precisely what he meant by it.

Yours, in the name of the one, true God, who by his abundant grace sent his only, begotten Son, Jesus Christ, that though we are all sinners, we might know the blissful perfection of salvation,

Andrew Filby