Post 420 Ramblings
or
"Get Saved or Die Tryin'"
G.D.O'Bradovich III
April 22, 2016
1
I attribute this week's manic behavior and the lack of a timely completion for this paper to the rock in the sky, that mother of all lunacy. With that said, my papers on “The Reasonableness of Protestantism”, “The Gnostic Roman Church: Heir of Simon Magus” and “Why I am not a Protestant”, with apologies to Bertrand ("Berty" to his friends) Russell, will not be written.
The previous time I attended a protestant church, circa 2002, a “revival” was the explicit reason for going, and as Apprentice Sarah Louise accompanied my host and I, the Gentle Reader may correctly assume nothing transpired as expected. My host assured me that my first revival would showcase “Christian” music, and since I had no previous experience with either traditional Christian music or contemporary Christian music, I may be excused for believing it was Rock music. Earlier this week, my host invited me to attend my first Bible study. In order to be aware of the church's activities in the community, I reviewed its website and on Wednesday, April 20th, I trekked to Clinton for their Bible study. Of course, no amount of mental preparation can anticipate all possible scenarios of the irrational, for example, five dozen children screaming during dinner could not have been foreseen. It seems that Great Occultists and children share at least one opinion: “good behavior” does not guarantee heavenly admittance.
For their Bible study, I envisioned that a passage to be read, followed by the approved understanding of the text, to be followed by another reading and this pattern would continue for the allotted time. Based on this reasonable assumption, I was anticipating to learn what this church teaches. I was not expecting only two verses to be read: Judges 17:6 and 21:25. “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” As this sentence is an example of exact repetition, only one sentence was read. The passage was not explained by the group moderator, so we attendees discussed our individual understanding of its meaning and arrived at a consensus, that is, we offered opinions on the text and the final conclusion was that their Bible is the foundation of their morality. I have omitted superfluous comments, ridiculous statements and personal inquiries that had no direct relationship to the explicit purpose their Bible study, therefore, over an hour of “chit chat” has been omitted. From their website, I learned that their Bible is the foundation of their beliefs, so my experience of their Bible study was: 1. Two passages of their Bible was read, 2. The offering of opinions and, 3. concluding with their Bible as the standard. Being a guest, it would be inappropriate, and a display of poor manners, to expressly note the fallacy of circular reasoning, however, I doubt that anyone present realized the fault in reasoning, so any anxiety was limited to Yours Truly.
I understand the passages from Judges to mean, firstly, that each person used his own reasoning to form a moral framework and, secondly, there was no explicit standard of agreement for a moral system. It seems that the Law was unknown during the time of the Judges until it was discovered hundred of years later in the Temple by Hezekiah. Since the Law was given in the Pentateuch, and found later, we cannot be certain when the Law was lost, although we are confident it was unknown during the time of the Judges. Fortunately, our group agreed that their Bible was the standard, yet I felt uneasy, not with this conclusion, but with the implications for this conclusion. After all, their organization used their Bible to justify their opinions on slavery, women suffrage and interracial marriage. Except for the removal of certain books from their Bible's predecessor in the early 19th century, their standard has remain unchanged, yet their opinions on their exegeses have changed. By the 1880s, few people were promoting slavery; by the 1940's, few people would deny that woman should be allowed to vote; by the 1980s, interracial marriage was not issue. We expect that by the 2030s, same sex marriage will not be an issue, as their opinions on their interpretation of their Bible will change.
Because Apprentice Graham wrote extensively on the topic of Ba'al worship, my discussion on the text from Judges would be: large sections of the Old Testament describe Israel's multiple conversions to worshiping the Master: they dedicated buildings to him, they worshiping the host of heaven and manufactured images of the Master and images of the host of heaven. It is evident that the worship of the Master was more appealing to Israel than trying to keep the Law.
The previous time I attended a protestant church, circa 2002, a “revival” was the explicit reason for going, and as Apprentice Sarah Louise accompanied my host and I, the Gentle Reader may correctly assume nothing transpired as expected. My host assured me that my first revival would showcase “Christian” music, and since I had no previous experience with either traditional Christian music or contemporary Christian music, I may be excused for believing it was Rock music. Earlier this week, my host invited me to attend my first Bible study. In order to be aware of the church's activities in the community, I reviewed its website and on Wednesday, April 20th, I trekked to Clinton for their Bible study. Of course, no amount of mental preparation can anticipate all possible scenarios of the irrational, for example, five dozen children screaming during dinner could not have been foreseen. It seems that Great Occultists and children share at least one opinion: “good behavior” does not guarantee heavenly admittance.
For their Bible study, I envisioned that a passage to be read, followed by the approved understanding of the text, to be followed by another reading and this pattern would continue for the allotted time. Based on this reasonable assumption, I was anticipating to learn what this church teaches. I was not expecting only two verses to be read: Judges 17:6 and 21:25. “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” As this sentence is an example of exact repetition, only one sentence was read. The passage was not explained by the group moderator, so we attendees discussed our individual understanding of its meaning and arrived at a consensus, that is, we offered opinions on the text and the final conclusion was that their Bible is the foundation of their morality. I have omitted superfluous comments, ridiculous statements and personal inquiries that had no direct relationship to the explicit purpose their Bible study, therefore, over an hour of “chit chat” has been omitted. From their website, I learned that their Bible is the foundation of their beliefs, so my experience of their Bible study was: 1. Two passages of their Bible was read, 2. The offering of opinions and, 3. concluding with their Bible as the standard. Being a guest, it would be inappropriate, and a display of poor manners, to expressly note the fallacy of circular reasoning, however, I doubt that anyone present realized the fault in reasoning, so any anxiety was limited to Yours Truly.
I understand the passages from Judges to mean, firstly, that each person used his own reasoning to form a moral framework and, secondly, there was no explicit standard of agreement for a moral system. It seems that the Law was unknown during the time of the Judges until it was discovered hundred of years later in the Temple by Hezekiah. Since the Law was given in the Pentateuch, and found later, we cannot be certain when the Law was lost, although we are confident it was unknown during the time of the Judges. Fortunately, our group agreed that their Bible was the standard, yet I felt uneasy, not with this conclusion, but with the implications for this conclusion. After all, their organization used their Bible to justify their opinions on slavery, women suffrage and interracial marriage. Except for the removal of certain books from their Bible's predecessor in the early 19th century, their standard has remain unchanged, yet their opinions on their exegeses have changed. By the 1880s, few people were promoting slavery; by the 1940's, few people would deny that woman should be allowed to vote; by the 1980s, interracial marriage was not issue. We expect that by the 2030s, same sex marriage will not be an issue, as their opinions on their interpretation of their Bible will change.
Because Apprentice Graham wrote extensively on the topic of Ba'al worship, my discussion on the text from Judges would be: large sections of the Old Testament describe Israel's multiple conversions to worshiping the Master: they dedicated buildings to him, they worshiping the host of heaven and manufactured images of the Master and images of the host of heaven. It is evident that the worship of the Master was more appealing to Israel than trying to keep the Law.
2
I find it interesting that one event can be explained in at least two ways. I understand the food brought to the descendant's family as a social custom or convention, if there was a meaning to this custom, it is largely forgotten today, except in Egyptian studies. The modern understanding seems to be that it is done to demonstrate “caring”. Although I am uncertain as to the veracity of this opinion, I agree that certain words convey nothing with action. To state that one hates a person is fundamentally different than assault. While we cannot know individual's feelings, overthrowing tables in the Temple can be reasonably understood as disapproval.
The opinion was offered that television has contributed to the lowering of moral standards and social conventions I took Saint Paul's good advice, and declined to reveal that I haven't owned a television for over sixteen years, nor did I suggest that neither television nor telephones have anything to do with morality. Morality has no dependency on technology, the idea that printing books is immoral is laughable. I doubt that few people would have suggested that trains or cars were destroying the moral fabric of society. We suggest that we were experiencing an example of people believing that one's surroundings, watching TV, affects their morality, how they behave. This is a reversal of cause and effect. My morality does not necessitate a need for a TV, therefore I don't have one.
Before the commencement of their Bible study, I was asked if I had a “home church”. I assumed this was technical jargon, assumed the question meant if I currently attend church, generally, and answered in the negative. I was enthusiastically told that “You have a home church now”. It seems obvious that if I felt the need for attending church in the preceding three decades, I would have do so, and since I haven't attended, there must not be a personal need. It is clear to me now that there are two types of people; whose who honestly enjoy the company of groups of people or those who feel that there is safety in numbers, and those who enjoy the company of a few. The gulf between these two groups is as great as the chasm between those who enjoyed high school and those who didn't.
God is all good, all powerful and all knowing. This statement seems reasonable, yet if true, how can there be evil in the world? Since it is obvious to anyone that evil can not exist given these pious statements, talented thinkers have created the concept of “free will”, whereby people have the option of choosing between various actions. “Free will” attempts to justify the proposition that people are inherently “bad”, but they can choose “good”. Why “free will” begins with the premise that people are “bad”, and not “good”, has not been explained to my satisfaction. These talented thinkers must create various reasonings and explanations in an attempt to justify their promotion of the idea of free will. It would be easier to suggest that God is beyond his creation, since “the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who believe not”, than to believe in “free will”.
The opinion was offered that television has contributed to the lowering of moral standards and social conventions I took Saint Paul's good advice, and declined to reveal that I haven't owned a television for over sixteen years, nor did I suggest that neither television nor telephones have anything to do with morality. Morality has no dependency on technology, the idea that printing books is immoral is laughable. I doubt that few people would have suggested that trains or cars were destroying the moral fabric of society. We suggest that we were experiencing an example of people believing that one's surroundings, watching TV, affects their morality, how they behave. This is a reversal of cause and effect. My morality does not necessitate a need for a TV, therefore I don't have one.
Before the commencement of their Bible study, I was asked if I had a “home church”. I assumed this was technical jargon, assumed the question meant if I currently attend church, generally, and answered in the negative. I was enthusiastically told that “You have a home church now”. It seems obvious that if I felt the need for attending church in the preceding three decades, I would have do so, and since I haven't attended, there must not be a personal need. It is clear to me now that there are two types of people; whose who honestly enjoy the company of groups of people or those who feel that there is safety in numbers, and those who enjoy the company of a few. The gulf between these two groups is as great as the chasm between those who enjoyed high school and those who didn't.
God is all good, all powerful and all knowing. This statement seems reasonable, yet if true, how can there be evil in the world? Since it is obvious to anyone that evil can not exist given these pious statements, talented thinkers have created the concept of “free will”, whereby people have the option of choosing between various actions. “Free will” attempts to justify the proposition that people are inherently “bad”, but they can choose “good”. Why “free will” begins with the premise that people are “bad”, and not “good”, has not been explained to my satisfaction. These talented thinkers must create various reasonings and explanations in an attempt to justify their promotion of the idea of free will. It would be easier to suggest that God is beyond his creation, since “the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who believe not”, than to believe in “free will”.
3
“Getting saved”, in the words of Apprentice Tyler, “is cheap grace”. I don't know what the nature of either “getting saved” or “cheap grace” is, so I have no opinion, yet I recall from the revival that salvation was a priority. It seems that if “getting saved” guarantees heaven as the final destination, then church attendance is superfluous to this specific understanding of Christianity. We cannot reconcile the guarantee of heaven with the proposition of acceptable behavior, as “being good”, we are informed, is not the criterion for the heavenly kingdom. Clearly, there is a considerable number of ideas in this version of Christianity that can be classified as technical jargon. As none of these terms are defined, I have no opinion on their merits.
One of the members of our small group suggested that the Rapture may happen in our lifetimes. Although the second coming of Christ has been promoted as dogma for several centuries, the modern idea of a Rapture has its origins in the 1840s, and while their Bible remains the standard, new understandings of it proliferate. Since the idea of a Rapture is a product of American influence, I have serious reservations about this interpretation of the Rapture being correct.
One of the more pious suggestions during our session was to “be Jesus to the world”. I was amused by this idea, as Jesus' opinions about the established religion were accompanied by his violent, some may say sacrilegious, actions in the Temple. Although everyone agreed with this pious statement, I am certain I was the only one in the group thinking about Jesus attacking the authority of the Temple. From that suggestion alone, it seems that I have a fuller understanding of Jesus' behavior than those in the discussion group. When we see Jesus, it will the Day of Wrath, that Dreadful Day. He will be the Judge of the Living and the Dead, not our friend.
Before going to their Bible study, I unsuccessful searched for my KJV Bible, however I found the Latin Vulgate Bible. I consider the Vulgate Bible as one of my prized possessions that is not an heirloom. The cost was about a week's pay and this was not an unreasonable price, as I assumed that this would be the only Latin Bible I would ever need. After all, Latin is a dead language and cannot change, however, I could not foresee Rome offering a new version a few years later. The Orthodox Church has no dogma on the Bible and, while the Roman Church states that they have a Bible, they cannot provide one that has not changed during the previous five centuries. I can fluently read the Vulgate with the Roman pronunciation, but I cannot understand it fluently. The difference between reading and understanding is not distinguished by most people, especially if the text is in one's native language. Therefore, it seems that everyone can read a certain passage and have little difficulty in understanding it, however most people lack either the ability to understand the reasonable implications of the text or apply their knowledge to the text in order to enjoy a fuller understanding of it-the task of reading can be the joy of learning.
One of the members of our small group suggested that the Rapture may happen in our lifetimes. Although the second coming of Christ has been promoted as dogma for several centuries, the modern idea of a Rapture has its origins in the 1840s, and while their Bible remains the standard, new understandings of it proliferate. Since the idea of a Rapture is a product of American influence, I have serious reservations about this interpretation of the Rapture being correct.
One of the more pious suggestions during our session was to “be Jesus to the world”. I was amused by this idea, as Jesus' opinions about the established religion were accompanied by his violent, some may say sacrilegious, actions in the Temple. Although everyone agreed with this pious statement, I am certain I was the only one in the group thinking about Jesus attacking the authority of the Temple. From that suggestion alone, it seems that I have a fuller understanding of Jesus' behavior than those in the discussion group. When we see Jesus, it will the Day of Wrath, that Dreadful Day. He will be the Judge of the Living and the Dead, not our friend.
Before going to their Bible study, I unsuccessful searched for my KJV Bible, however I found the Latin Vulgate Bible. I consider the Vulgate Bible as one of my prized possessions that is not an heirloom. The cost was about a week's pay and this was not an unreasonable price, as I assumed that this would be the only Latin Bible I would ever need. After all, Latin is a dead language and cannot change, however, I could not foresee Rome offering a new version a few years later. The Orthodox Church has no dogma on the Bible and, while the Roman Church states that they have a Bible, they cannot provide one that has not changed during the previous five centuries. I can fluently read the Vulgate with the Roman pronunciation, but I cannot understand it fluently. The difference between reading and understanding is not distinguished by most people, especially if the text is in one's native language. Therefore, it seems that everyone can read a certain passage and have little difficulty in understanding it, however most people lack either the ability to understand the reasonable implications of the text or apply their knowledge to the text in order to enjoy a fuller understanding of it-the task of reading can be the joy of learning.
It was suggested that people do things because of tradition, not because they understand why they do what they do. I hope this is not true, as this would indicate there are many unaware people. Since morality can be understood as both convention and tradition, the morality of one time and place is not the morality of another time or place. Although we were discussing people and their understanding of tradition, I realized this idea of tradition and awareness could apply to distinct groups of people, that is, churches. If their Bible were truly the standard for Christianity for hundreds of years, then there would be no Sunday worship, there would be no Christmas or Easter, there would be no immortal soul, to name just a few traditions that would have been abandoned. The tradition that heaven is available to all will also be relegated to the trash bin, as their Bible clearly teaches that only certain virgin males from the tribes of Israel are destined for heaven. Since only 144,000 men will enter heaven, then we ask: why should anyone want to become a Christian? What is the result of the conflict between their Bible explicitly stating that only Israelites are worthy of heaven, and their oral tradition that all can get saved? The tradition is maintained, while the clear meaning of their Bible is ignored. Why? The traditional goal of heaven is so well established, so ingrained in their belief system, as to never be questioned; while Revelations can be conveniently ignored, as it is not well understood or it is mystical or any plausible reason talented thinks can offer in defense of their oral tradition.
On a personal note, I can't “get saved” because I don't believe it works that way, where “it” is understood as the mechanics of the process of salvation. “I believe, therefore it is true” cannot necessarily be a true statement anymore than “I feel, therefore it is true”. In good conscious, I cannot claim something that I have no reason to believe is factual or demonstrable or is likely or is opposed to the church history; for to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite. Although “I'm saved” sounds good, where “good” is understood as “certainty”, we recall that it sounds good to say that God is good, powerful and knowing, yet we are certain that God cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing. The two oldest churches are very clear on their position regarding the next life: “Outside of the saints who are currently in heaven, we don't know who else can assuredly reach heaven”, and anytime the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church agree, I take notice, for any agreement between them on theology is rare, although we understand that agreement, by itself, cannot be the basis for truth. It is unreasonable for us to believe that generations of members of both churches are retroactively consigned to the fires of Hell because of their Bible, while ancient traditions and teachings are ignored as these are not found neither in their innovative Bible nor in their modern exegeses of their Bible.
On a personal note, I can't “get saved” because I don't believe it works that way, where “it” is understood as the mechanics of the process of salvation. “I believe, therefore it is true” cannot necessarily be a true statement anymore than “I feel, therefore it is true”. In good conscious, I cannot claim something that I have no reason to believe is factual or demonstrable or is likely or is opposed to the church history; for to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite. Although “I'm saved” sounds good, where “good” is understood as “certainty”, we recall that it sounds good to say that God is good, powerful and knowing, yet we are certain that God cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing. The two oldest churches are very clear on their position regarding the next life: “Outside of the saints who are currently in heaven, we don't know who else can assuredly reach heaven”, and anytime the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church agree, I take notice, for any agreement between them on theology is rare, although we understand that agreement, by itself, cannot be the basis for truth. It is unreasonable for us to believe that generations of members of both churches are retroactively consigned to the fires of Hell because of their Bible, while ancient traditions and teachings are ignored as these are not found neither in their innovative Bible nor in their modern exegeses of their Bible.
When reason fails us, we are forced to rely on the questionable science that is philology, or knowledge so called. The following information is courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary. Unfortunately, we could not find “getting saved” under the entry “get”. Generally, we research words or ideas that are well established and, typically, there is no need to include citations after the year 1800, however, due to the recent nature of topic, we have included all citations for our research.
This entry, for “save”, was updated in December, 2012. I have underlined the use of “save”, and for older texts, I have included the modern spelling in brackets.
1225c (▸?c1200) St. Katherine (Royal) (1981) l. 475
Monnes unmihte þet he neodeles nom uppon him seoluen us for to saluin.
1340 Ayenbite (1866) 98
Godes zone þet com to þe wordle to zeche an to souy þet þet wes uorlore.
1384▸c Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Royal) (1850) James i. 21
In myldenesse, or homelynesse, receyue ȝe the word insent, or ioyned, that mai saue [L. salvare] ȝoure soules. [may save]
1390c (▸a1376) Langland Piers Plowman (Vernon) (1867) A. i. l. 82
Tech me..Hou I may saue my soule. [save my soul]
1449▸c R. Pecock Repressor (1860) 261
If it be seid..‘The crosse of Crist saued the world..’, the dewe vndirstonding ther of is this: ‘Crist bi his crosse..saued the world’.[Christ saved the world]
1480c (▸a1400) St. Barnabas l. 14 in W. M. Metcalfe Legends Saints Sc. Dial. (1896) I. 249
He callit paule to safe & succur syndry sawle. [to save]
1500a (▸c1340) R. Rolle Psalter (Univ. Oxf. 64) (1884) xiii. §1. 47
Þat is þare is na god þat dampnnes or safes.
We note that all of the above citations are of a secondary nature, as indicated by reference year in parentheses. Luther published this New Testament in 1522, and his complete Bible in 1534.
1526 W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection i. sig. Fvi,
I am passed my purgatory, and I am saued. [I am saved.]
1534 (▸?a1500) Shearmen & Taylors' Pageant l. 546 in H. Craig Two Coventry Corpus Christi Plays (1931) 19
A seyd there schuld a babe be borne..To sawe mankynd that wasse for-lorne. [to saw mankind...]
1537 W. Turner tr. Urbanus Regius Compar. Olde Learnynge & Newe sig. G.iiv,
Only Christ ought to raygne in mans conscience by his worde, which onely maye saue and condempne. [may save...]
1549 H. Latimer 2nd Serm. before Kynges Maiestie 6th Serm. sig. Uiiv,
We can not be saued wythout fayeth, and fayth commeth by hearynge of the worde. [be saved]
Of the four citations for the 16th century, three of them are related to Christianity.
1616a Shakespeare Twelfth Night (1623) iii. ii. 67
For there is no christian that meanes to be saued by beleeuing rightly, can euer beleeue such impossible passages of grossenesse. [be saved]
1666 J. Bunyan Grace Abounding §202,
I was again much under this Question, Whether the Blood of Christ was sufficient to save my Soul?
1688 J. Bunyan Good News for Vilest of Men 87
Nor is he [sc. God] so willing to save as some pretended Gospellers imagine.
Of the three citations for the 17th century, two of them are related to Christianity.
1709 I. Watts Hymns & Spiritual Songs (ed. 2) iii. 311
The God of Mercy..Who saves by his Redeeming Word, And new-creating Breath.
1726 E. Bird Fate & Destiny 153
Their [sic] cannot one Soul be Saved, by all his or their Pains, which is ordained to Hell.
1774 Crit. Rev. Oct. 280
His death was not an atonement, in the sense of that, which influences God to save; but as the means by which God saves.
1786 R. Burns For G. H. Esq. 4
But with such as he, where'er he be, May I be sav'd or d——'d.
Of the four citations from the 18th century, all are related to Christian salvation, although the 1786 entry is by a poet.
1830c T. Moore Epit. on Tuft Hunter 20
He'd rather be Genteelly damn'd beside a Duke Than sav'd in vulgar company.
1841 T. Carlyle On Heroes iv. 210
Luther learned now that a man was saved not by singing masses, but by the infinite grace of God.
1858 W. Arnot Laws from Heaven 2nd Ser. xiii. 101
It is grace accepted that saves.
1893 F. Thompson Poems 61
There is no expeditious road To pack and label men for God, And save them by the barrel-load.
1897 Leaves of Healing 26 Feb. 314/1
Believe that Jesus saves; believe that Jesus heals [etc.].
There are five citations from the 19th century and from the year 1858 we learn that accepted grace saves.
1922 H. S. Miller Christian Workers' Man. 213
Jesus Himself, a living Saviour, saves and keeps.
1933 H. G. Wells Shape of Things to Come ii. iv. 169
It had a touch of Rasputinism, this revival of the ancient heresy that one must sin thoroughly before one can be saved.
1956 Life 1 Oct. 145/1,
I think Christ will save me from my sins, and I hope I won't commit any more.
1980 H. Carpenter Jesus vii. 93
What matters..is Jesus's power to save now: he is the living Lord, rather than just a historical figure on whose teachings the Church is based.
2002 R. Webber Younger Evangelicals ii. v. 86
In the union between god and man in the person of Jesus, Divine Action is united to human response. He, the God-man, alone is able to save.
2006 Daily Tel. (Austral.) (Nexis) 7 Oct. 22
Limbo's population has no prospect of going anywhere, unlike the souls in Purgatory who will be saved on Judgment Day.
The Gentle Reader can reach their own conclusions regarding the reasonableness that salvation occurs in this life and when this American innovation was first formulated. Since the Rapture is said to take away the living Christians, it seems reasonable to suggest that the modern understanding of the Rapture and the assurance of salvation are corresponding beliefs.
When the original charter of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was adopted in 1858, it contained the following statement which continues as a part of the “fundamental laws.”
From “The Second London Confession [1677]”:
This entry, for “save”, was updated in December, 2012. I have underlined the use of “save”, and for older texts, I have included the modern spelling in brackets.
1225c (▸?c1200) St. Katherine (Royal) (1981) l. 475
Monnes unmihte þet he neodeles nom uppon him seoluen us for to saluin.
1340 Ayenbite (1866) 98
Godes zone þet com to þe wordle to zeche an to souy þet þet wes uorlore.
1384▸c Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Royal) (1850) James i. 21
In myldenesse, or homelynesse, receyue ȝe the word insent, or ioyned, that mai saue [L. salvare] ȝoure soules. [may save]
1390c (▸a1376) Langland Piers Plowman (Vernon) (1867) A. i. l. 82
Tech me..Hou I may saue my soule. [save my soul]
1449▸c R. Pecock Repressor (1860) 261
If it be seid..‘The crosse of Crist saued the world..’, the dewe vndirstonding ther of is this: ‘Crist bi his crosse..saued the world’.[Christ saved the world]
1480c (▸a1400) St. Barnabas l. 14 in W. M. Metcalfe Legends Saints Sc. Dial. (1896) I. 249
He callit paule to safe & succur syndry sawle. [to save]
1500a (▸c1340) R. Rolle Psalter (Univ. Oxf. 64) (1884) xiii. §1. 47
Þat is þare is na god þat dampnnes or safes.
We note that all of the above citations are of a secondary nature, as indicated by reference year in parentheses. Luther published this New Testament in 1522, and his complete Bible in 1534.
1526 W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection i. sig. Fvi,
I am passed my purgatory, and I am saued. [I am saved.]
1534 (▸?a1500) Shearmen & Taylors' Pageant l. 546 in H. Craig Two Coventry Corpus Christi Plays (1931) 19
A seyd there schuld a babe be borne..To sawe mankynd that wasse for-lorne. [to saw mankind...]
1537 W. Turner tr. Urbanus Regius Compar. Olde Learnynge & Newe sig. G.iiv,
Only Christ ought to raygne in mans conscience by his worde, which onely maye saue and condempne. [may save...]
1549 H. Latimer 2nd Serm. before Kynges Maiestie 6th Serm. sig. Uiiv,
We can not be saued wythout fayeth, and fayth commeth by hearynge of the worde. [be saved]
Of the four citations for the 16th century, three of them are related to Christianity.
1616a Shakespeare Twelfth Night (1623) iii. ii. 67
For there is no christian that meanes to be saued by beleeuing rightly, can euer beleeue such impossible passages of grossenesse. [be saved]
1666 J. Bunyan Grace Abounding §202,
I was again much under this Question, Whether the Blood of Christ was sufficient to save my Soul?
1688 J. Bunyan Good News for Vilest of Men 87
Nor is he [sc. God] so willing to save as some pretended Gospellers imagine.
Of the three citations for the 17th century, two of them are related to Christianity.
1709 I. Watts Hymns & Spiritual Songs (ed. 2) iii. 311
The God of Mercy..Who saves by his Redeeming Word, And new-creating Breath.
1726 E. Bird Fate & Destiny 153
Their [sic] cannot one Soul be Saved, by all his or their Pains, which is ordained to Hell.
1774 Crit. Rev. Oct. 280
His death was not an atonement, in the sense of that, which influences God to save; but as the means by which God saves.
1786 R. Burns For G. H. Esq. 4
But with such as he, where'er he be, May I be sav'd or d——'d.
Of the four citations from the 18th century, all are related to Christian salvation, although the 1786 entry is by a poet.
1830c T. Moore Epit. on Tuft Hunter 20
He'd rather be Genteelly damn'd beside a Duke Than sav'd in vulgar company.
1841 T. Carlyle On Heroes iv. 210
Luther learned now that a man was saved not by singing masses, but by the infinite grace of God.
1858 W. Arnot Laws from Heaven 2nd Ser. xiii. 101
It is grace accepted that saves.
1893 F. Thompson Poems 61
There is no expeditious road To pack and label men for God, And save them by the barrel-load.
1897 Leaves of Healing 26 Feb. 314/1
Believe that Jesus saves; believe that Jesus heals [etc.].
There are five citations from the 19th century and from the year 1858 we learn that accepted grace saves.
1922 H. S. Miller Christian Workers' Man. 213
Jesus Himself, a living Saviour, saves and keeps.
1933 H. G. Wells Shape of Things to Come ii. iv. 169
It had a touch of Rasputinism, this revival of the ancient heresy that one must sin thoroughly before one can be saved.
1956 Life 1 Oct. 145/1,
I think Christ will save me from my sins, and I hope I won't commit any more.
1980 H. Carpenter Jesus vii. 93
What matters..is Jesus's power to save now: he is the living Lord, rather than just a historical figure on whose teachings the Church is based.
2002 R. Webber Younger Evangelicals ii. v. 86
In the union between god and man in the person of Jesus, Divine Action is united to human response. He, the God-man, alone is able to save.
2006 Daily Tel. (Austral.) (Nexis) 7 Oct. 22
Limbo's population has no prospect of going anywhere, unlike the souls in Purgatory who will be saved on Judgment Day.
The Gentle Reader can reach their own conclusions regarding the reasonableness that salvation occurs in this life and when this American innovation was first formulated. Since the Rapture is said to take away the living Christians, it seems reasonable to suggest that the modern understanding of the Rapture and the assurance of salvation are corresponding beliefs.
When the original charter of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was adopted in 1858, it contained the following statement which continues as a part of the “fundamental laws.”
From “The Second London Confession [1677]”:
God hath appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world by Jesus Christ, when every one shall receive according to his deeds; the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment; the righteous, into everlasting life. XX. The Judgment
Depending on how one views chronology, as early, or as late as the year 1677, Baptists stated that on the Day of Judgment, everyone will receive their reward based on their “deeds” or works. There is no indication that either these English Baptists in 1677, or American Baptists in 1858, believed in assured salvation. Therefore, we conclude that the concept of assured salvation must be dated after the year 1858, however, due to the deficiencies of philology, we are not certain of the exact year.
In conclusion, in light of our distant experience with a revival and with our recent experience of their Bible study, we earnestly forward to tomorrow's timeless anniversary:
In conclusion, in light of our distant experience with a revival and with our recent experience of their Bible study, we earnestly forward to tomorrow's timeless anniversary: