Audio only:
In this episode, Dr. Karlo Broussard responds to a comment made to his video “Real Assurance Without ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’” that included four counter arguments. He shows why these arguments fail to disprove his exegesis of 1 John 5:13 and explains why they do not succeed as favorable arguments for the doctrine of eternal security.
TRANSCRIPT:
Hey friends,
Welcome back to the channel. So glad to have you here with me.
So today’s episode is a bonus episode—off the beaten path of our weekly fully produced episodes—in which I’m going to respond to a comment that was made in response to my previous video “Real Assurance Without Once Saved Always Saved,” in which I explain why I don’t think St. John teaches in 1 John 5:13 that believers can have an absolute assurance they’re going to heaven.
The comment involves four counter arguments to my video, each of which is based on a biblical text: Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:13-14,s Heb. 12:2, and John 14:1.
My response is going to be two-fold. First, I’d like to offer a general answer to these arguments as counters to my video on 1 John 5:13. Second, I’ll deal with each of the passages individually and see whether they prove what this person thinks they prove.
Note that I’ll deal with these objections in more detail in future episodes, but I wanted to deal with them here insofar as they’re presented as a challenge to my video. Also, they have a bit of a personal touch that demands a specific response.
But before I get to my response, I’d like to thank my patrons who are watching and/or listening. Like I’ve said before, we can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support.
And those who aren’t patrons yet, I’d like to invite you to consider becoming one. For just $5 per month, you can get early access to my episodes, watch the episodes free of Youtube ads, and get access to my 6-hour online short course entitled “How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism,” which comes with Lecture Notes totaling to just over 20,000 words. You can sign up at doctorkarlo.com with doctor spelled out.
Okay, so let’s begin with my more general response.
>>>>>>>General Response
These objections are presented as counter arguments to my comments on whether John teaches in 1 John 5:13 believers can be absolutely sure they’re going to heaven. But they don’t engage anything I said in the video. So it’s a bit unclear as to what they intend to prove with this counter arguments.
Perhaps this person concedes that 1 John 5:13 doesn’t teach believers can have an absolute assurance that they’re going to heaven, in which case he or she thinks 1 John 5:13 is off the table as evidence for believers having absolute assurance they’re going to heaven.
Or, maybe these arguments are simply diversions to not have to deal with my comments. I don’t think I want to grant this since that would not be a charitable read.
Or, perhaps this person appeals to these other verses as a way of shedding light on 1 John 5 :13, the idea being that if these four passages prove that believers can have absolute assurance they’re going to heaven then we should interpret 1 John 5:13 accordingly.
The problem with this possible motivation is that it would still would leave untouched my argument in my video for why John is not teaching believers can have an absolute assurance they’re going to heaven but rather teaches believers have a moral or reasonable assurance. If that argument succeeds, then we would have reason interpret these four passages presented as counter arguments accordingly.
Alright! Let’s now turn to each of the objections.
Objection #1: Phil. 1:6
The first appeals to Phil. 1:6. The comment reads, “……”
Here’s what Phil. 1:6 reads: “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
The argument seems to be that since Paul says he is “sure” Christ will bring to completion what he began in the Philippians, then it follows Paul is absolutely sure that the Christians in Philippi will be finally saved. And then he puts a personal touch on it, asking me, “Is Paul talking about you in this Scripture?”
Let me address the argument first.
The objection assumes that by “sure” Paul means absolute assurance—an assurance that excludes the possibility of all doubt. But that’s not necessarily true.
The Greek word for “sure” is pepoithos, which means “convinced.” Now, such conviction could be either absolute or non-absolute. One or the other is not necessitated by the word itself. Paul could very well be conceiving of his conviction of one of moral assurance and not absolute assurance. So the mere appeal to this verse can’t serve as a defeater of the view that we can’t have absolute assurance of final salvation.
Now, as to which degree of conviction does Paul have in mind? Well, the second meaning of the word is “having confidence.” So that would seem to favor the moral assurance sense of the conviction that Paul has in mind.
Moreover, what Paul says elsewhere about his own assurance of entering heaven is telling. For example, in 1 Cor. 4:4 he talks about how he’s not aware of anything being against him (like sin) but yet he’s not “acquitted” (justified) and he leaves that up to the Lord. Also, in 1 Cor. 9:27, Paul expresses the possibility of him being disqualified from receiving the prize of salvation. Given these teachings, we can reasonably conclude that Paul doesn’t have absolute assurance in mind when he speaks of being “sure” that Jesus will bring to completion what he began in the Philippians. Instead, Paul has a reasonable assurance in mind.
Now, recall this person asks, “Is Paul talking about you in this Scripture?” The expected answer to the rhetorical question seems to be yes. And if that’s the case, then the projected conclusion would be that I can have absolute assurance that I’m going to heaven. But even if that’s what Paul was teaching here (which he’s not, as I’ve shown), it’s at least logically possible that he’s not talking about me but only about the Christians in Philippi, since he’s addressing them specifically. So maybe the Christians in Philippi had absolute assurance that they would go to heaven. But that wouldn’t mean I have it.
Now, I concede that what Paul teaches here applies to all Christians. But that doesn’t create a problem for us as Catholics because, as I’ve argued, we have good reason to think that Paul is not envisioning an absolute assurance here but merely a reasonable assurance, or moral assurance.
Objection #2: Eph. 1:13
Alright! Let’s now turn to the next challenge taken from Ephesians 1:13, which actually is both verses 13 and 14: Here’s how the person puts it:
“………”
Here’s the full text:
“In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 ¶ who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
My first response is that the objection assumes the Holy Spirit guarantees our possession of the inheritance. But that’s not what Paul says. Instead, he says the Holy Spirit guarantees the inheritance itself. In other words, the inheritance is promised and the Holy Spirit guarantees that the promise will remain. But just because an inheritance is promised to us doesn’t mean we can’t forfeit that inheritance.
For example, a parent might promise an inheritance to his child. But that promise assumes the child remain in good standing with the parent all the way to the time when the child comes to possess it. If the child were not to remain in good standing with the parent, then the child wouldn’t be able to possess the inheritance when the time came.
Now, it’s at least possible that Paul here envisions a similar situation—the Holy Spirit guarantees our inheritance of heaven on condition that we remain in good standing with God until death. Given that this is a legitimate interpretation of the text given what Paul says, it follows that the text as it stands can’t serve as a defeater of the view that we can’t have an absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven.
Objection #3:
Let’s now turn to the next challenge, which is taken from Hebrews 12:2. The person comments,
“…….”
And then adds a personal question: “Dr. Karlo is that a description of you?”
Concerning the personal question, the short answer is yes.
But as to whether Hebrews 12:2 supports the view that we can have an absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven, the answer is no.
Here’s what the author of Hebrews writes:
“[We look] to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.” …..A better translation is that Jesus is the origin or author of our faith.
Now, this person seems to be appealing to this passage as evidence for the objective reality of once we’re saved, then we’re always saved. And given that revelation, it would follow that subjectively we can have an absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven.
But this conclusion doesn’t follow from what Hebrews 12:2 says.
Notice all the author says is 1) Jesus is the author of our faith and 2) Jesus the perfecter of our faith. Those two propositions are logically distinct from the proposition: For whomever Jesus authors the gift of faith he will perfect it for him so he can enter heaven.
The latter proposition is what Hebrews 12:2 would have to say if it were to prove the ‘once saved, always saved’ doctrine. But that’s not what Hebrews 112:2 says.
Therefore, Hebrews 12:2 doesn’t support the doctrine of eternal security. And since that’s the case, it follows that we cannot derive the doctrine of subjectively having absolute assurance we’re going to heaven.
Objection #4:
Finally, we come to the last challenge. The comment reads,
“…….”
That’s a quote from John 14:1.
Notice here the challenge is more a consequential nature, rooted in the words of Jesus. The idea is that if we can’t have absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven, then our hearts would be troubled. But Jesus says, “let not your hearts be troubled.” Therefore, we can have absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven.
The problem here is that premise one assumes that we must absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven in order for our hearts not to be troubled, as if we can have peace and joy without metaphysical certainty.
But we don’t even follow that principle in our everyday lives. For example, I don’t have absolute certainty that my wife loves me. It’s logically possible that she’s lying to me. But I don’t fret about it because I good reason to think that she does in fact love me, based on the things she does to manifest that love toward me. The same is true for all of us in relation to our parents. We don’t have the assurance that excludes the possibility of all doubt that our parents love us. Yet, we don’t fret about it because we have good reason to believe that they do, based on the loving things they do for us.
So, the principle that the objection is based on—namely, that we can’t be at peace without metaphysical certainty, simply isn’t true. And if that’s the case, then we have no reason to think that our hearts would be troubled for not having absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven. The reasonable assurance that we can have based on signs of grace in our lives, which is what I talked about in my previous video, is a basis for having joy and peace.
Finally, I’ll say this: that this person would be troubled at the thought that he couldn’t be absolutely certain that he’s going to heaven is more of a problem for him than it is for our theological view. Like I said, a reasonable assurance is sufficient to exclude a paralyzing fear. So this challenge is more of an expression of his or her own personal disposition than it is a challenge to my argument.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out our website at catholic.com and my website at karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. You can find me over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time.