Before addressing more directly the doctrine of "assurance of salvation", I
need to first make a few clarifications that may remove or limit confusion. The Catholic
position is not that God gets His kicks from pulling the carpet out from under our feet;
or that He would arbitrarily withhold salvation and be unfaithful to His promise. Nor is
the Catholic position that one earns salvation. A slave cannot do anything to become a
son; only God can make him so. Salvation cannot be earned, but a Son/Daughter is free to
renounce their inheritance if they wish (more on that later).
The largest difficulty with the typical formulation of the doctrine of assurance is
that it is really the Catholic position in disguise. Nay, it is the Catholic doctrine
which gives assurance, and the Reformed doctrine which does not. Reformed Protestants say
that if I am regenerated and have saving faith I have infallible assurance of salvation
(by the way, it seems everyone is infallible except Rome). Not even serious sin has any
effect on this assurance. Granted that they claim that "real saving faith" is
followed by good works and the process of sanctification - Jonathan Edwards described
sanctification in terms that would make the greatest saints shake in their boots - still,
most would claim that a few slip ups now and then does not put one's salvation in
jeopardy. In contrast to Antinomians, Reformed Protestants insist that good works follow
saving faith. Antinomians insist that all one needs to do is say a few words accepting
Christ and it matters nothing what kind of life one lives thereafter. It is here that the
Reformed position tries to balance on the infinitely thin edge between the Catholic
position and the Antinomian because if I claim "saving faith" and later
apostatize, the Reformed Protestant says that I never really had "saving faith"
to begin with; but this throws "infallible assurance" out the window. How do I
know if I am regenerate? What objective proof is there? How do I know that I will not fall
away and prove that my conversion was not authentic? If I am reprobate I could certainly
fool myself. In fact the Westminster Confession explicitly states that I can (Westminster
Confession of Faith chapter X #IV). If as I mentioned earlier, sin does not affect my
salvation how do I know if I have fallen away or not? The greatest irony of all, however,
is that in order to verify my elect state I need to do good works. The more good works I
do, the more my elect status is confirmed. This is works righteousness! Is this assurance
or confusion? It is an argument that defies examination: If I ask for objective evidence
that a person is of the elect and not just a reprobate fooling himself, he responds that
"he just knows, that’s all"; and the reason I do not is because I am a
reprobate. Talk about authoritative magisterium! At least no Catholic Pope ever infallibly
defined who goes to hell and who doesn’t. The Reformed "popes" are much
more heavy-handed than the Catholic Pope. It boils down to this: how do we know who is
reprobate and who is not? Anyone who agrees with my interpretation is of the elect of
course. Anyone who does not, isn’t.
The Catholic position is the one that gives true assurance. How does a child know that
his father is his father? Does he require a DNA test? No. A child has assurance that he is
his father’s son because he lives in his father’s house; we live in our Father's
house: the church. He eats at his father’s dinner table; we eat at our Father's
table: the Eucharist. His father disciplines the child; our Father disciplines us. The
child’s mother is his father’s spouse; Mary – our spiritual mother - is the
"spouse of the Holy Spirit" (cf. Luke, chapter 1). The child knows his
father is his father because he is born into his family; we are born into God’s
family through baptism.
The Catholic position is the one that gives true assurance because it is the only one
that has objective proof that we have received God's grace: the Sacraments. We have
assurance that this status is irrevocable; baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul.
This is why the baptized that choose to renounce their inheritance and their Father suffer
more (in Hell) than the unbaptized. The Catholic position is not based on subjective
feelings of being regenerated without tangible evidence; the human heart is deceitful. We
know we are sons and daughters through baptism. But sons and daughters that, if they wish,
are free to choose the fodder for pigs, instead of the feasts of their Father's house.
Mortal sin means spitting in your Father’s face and telling Him that you do not want
your inheritance; and that you want to worship yourself instead. All who are in Hell
deliberately chose to be there; no one goes to Hell on accident.
God’s sovereignty is too fragile if He cannot allow us free will. Does God want
to sneak a bunch of dirty sinners into Heaven who are no more than robots without free
will? Or does God want to raise up sons and daughters whom He glorifies and empowers with
his own Divine life - including free will - to choose Him freely or reject Him freely? We
did not get free will on our own; it is God's gift. If man has no free will, and is saved
apart from any cooperation with grace, then the reprobate is also damned apart from any
free will. This makes God the author of evil; which in my opinion is blasphemy! The
Catholic position is all that we are that is good is a gift of God's grace; but we also
have the ability to reject grace. How the two can exist together is a mystery. Calvinists
try to argue that even though God is the author of evil, He is so in a way that does not
make Him responsible for it. While this is an attempt to avoid impugning the integrity of
God, I don’t believe that it avoids the anomaly in the Calvinist position and is, I
believe, an attempt to affirm free will without admitting it. The Catholic position -
including the mystery of free will - is the only way to avoid impugning God’s
integrity and affirming the dignity of man; who is not a robot, but rather, made in the
image of God.
If the Reformed view is correct, what is the meaning of the word "hope?"
I have deliberately avoided reference to scriptural passages because those who oppose
my position have read their Bible’s too and have certain ways of interpreting away
any passage I may use. Any reference to, or warning against falling away is simply passed
off as referring only to those who outwardly appear Christian but are not really in the
elect. But this is reading one's own theology into the text. The Catholic can simply read
the text for what it says. For example: Romans 11:22: " …
provided you continue in His kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off." I simply
believe this means if you do not continue in His kindness you will be cut off. But if one
wishes to say it really means that one was not really in His kindness to begin with etc.,
it still gives the same net result, it just takes more words to get there.
A few of the passages that warn against falling away:
Matthew 6:12-15
Matthew 18:21-35
Luke 8:13
Luke 12:42-46
Luke 15:11-32
John 6:66-71
John 15:1-10
John 17:12
Romans 8:13
Romans 14:15-23
1 Corinthians 9:23-27
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
1 Corinthians 10:12
2 Corinthians 11:2-3
2 Corinthians 12:5
Galatians 5:1-4
Galatians 6:7-9
Colossians 1:21-23
1 Timothy 5:21
1 Timothy 1:5-6
1 Timothy 1:19-20
1 Timothy 4:1
1 Timothy 6:10
Hebrews 3:12
Hebrews 6:4-6
Hebrews 10:23-29
Hebrews 2:1
2 Peter 2:20-22
Revelation 22:19
"The reason that a Christian does not hang himself out of some deranged desire
for Heaven is because he doesn’t take it for granted that he is at all worthy of
Heaven; and that he is all the better suited for it having endured this life like a
man." – G. K. Chesterton
We face real dangers because we are called to great heights. Salvation is free, but it
is not cheap.
