Audio only:
Protestants often argue that Catholic views prevent one from having the assurance that one is in a state of salvation—in contrast to Protestant views that allow one to be fully assured that one is in a state of grace before God.
A Reformed Baptist who recently did this is Jimmy’s friend Gavin Ortlund.
But friends can disagree, and so in this video, Jimmy looks at Gavin’s claims and shows why it’s actually Catholics who have greater assurance than their Protestant brothers do.
Transcript:
Coming Up
GAVIN ORTLUND: In Roman Catholic theology, there’s mortal sin and venial sin. And then you also have a distinction between perfect contrition and imperfect contrition. This theology leaves a person in a state of uncertainty rather than the bright, clear promises that are founded in the word of God.
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
And you can also help me keep making this podcast—and you can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Introduction
Gavin Ortlund is a YouTuber who runs a channel called Truth Unites.
He comes from a Reformed or Calvinistic Baptist background, and he’s much more thoughtful than many individuals publishing on YouTube in the sphere of theology—or what you might call FaithTube.
Gavin’s a really nice guy, and I consider him a friend.
We don’t always agree—as you’d expect from the fact he’s a Reformed Baptist and I’m a Catholic—but friends can have disagreements.
Despite the facts that Gavin reads historical theology, that he reads others sympathetically, and that he is much better versed than many, I think that Gavin displays evidence of bias against Catholicism in that he can apply double standards when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Today, we’re going to look at an example of that.
Recently, Gavin released a video short titled “This Roman Catholic Doctrine Steals Assurance.”
In it, he argued that various aspects of Catholic belief will rob Christians of the assurance of salvation that they ought to have.
He thereby implied that Protestantism—or at least his particular form of Protestantism—doesn’t do this.
So that’s what we’re going to be taking a look at today.
Now, I should point out that—in titling this video—I’m not claiming to know Gavin’s heart, and he doesn’t know mine. Our telepathy just isn’t that good.
Subjectively speaking, either one of us might have more assurance of salvation than the other.
But—as we’ll see in today’s video—my Catholic views give me more reason for assurance at the different stages of the Christian life than Gavin’s Reformed Baptist views do.
Assurance of Salvation
Many groups in the Protestant community place a great deal of emphasis on what they call assurance of salvation, by which they mean the subjective confidence that one is a state of grace and will be saved on the last day.
There is no question that God will keep his promises, and so we can all be objectively sure of salvation. If we respond to the gospel in the way God asks us to, we will be saved.
But not everyone feels confident that they have done so or will continue to do so, and thus there can be subjective uncertainty about this matter.
In some circles, the issue of assurance is used as an evangelistic tool. The idea is that evangelizers can go to someone and ask the question: “If you died tonight, do you know if you would go to heaven?”
Most people will express some degree of uncertainty, which is what the evangelizer wants to hear.
Because if the person responds by saying anything that indicates any degree of doubt or uncertainty about where they’d go, they can then say, “Would you like to be sure of where you’d go?”
And then they can explain their understanding of the gospel and how it gives great assurance that one will be saved.
A Reformation-Era Controversy
The issue of assurance became a topic of discussion in the period of the Protestant Reformation and has been an aspect of the controversies—or polemics—between Catholics and Protestants ever since.
This is a larger issue than you might think, and it goes in a bunch of different directions. So I won’t be able to fully cover it today.
However, it’s been common for many Protestants to claim that the Catholic understanding of things undermines the idea of assurance, while the Protestant understanding provides assurance.
This is then used as a selling-point for Protestantism on the idea that you want to adopt the system that provides assurance.
That’s essentially what Gavin is doing in his YouTube short—presenting the idea that Catholic thought undermines assurance as a reason not to be Catholic.
So we’ll take a look at Gavin’s short and see what he has to say.
Appeal to Emotions vs. Evidence
Before we do that, though, I’d like to note a couple of things.
First, as presented, the argument we’ve just covered is an emotional argument that is not based on evidence.
The idea of having assurance of salvation is emotionally attractive, and the idea of not having a subjective feeling of confidence in one’s salvation is emotionally unattractive. So the primary pull in the argument is emotional.
It’s an appeal to emotions rather than an appeal to evidence about what is actually true.
You can see this by imagining a parallel argument. Suppose that someone who believes in the existence of hell is talking with a universalist—or someone who believes that all people go to heaven.
The universalist might say, “Wouldn’t you like to have assurance that you and everyone you love—and all human beings—are going to heaven? You can’t have that on your system since you believe God allows some people to go hell. And—unless you have infallible knowledge of your own soul—you can’t rule out the possibility that you’re one of them. If you really want assurance of salvation, you need to be a universalist like me.”
This offer of what you could call Universal Assurance is indeed more appealing on an emotional level than the assurance Gavin is offering—which deals with particular individuals and thus may be called Particular Assurance.
If particular assurance is good, universal assurance would be even better! That would solve all kinds of problems we had an assurance that God saves everybody!
The problem is that it also clashes with evidence that we have.
Thus a person who believes in hell could respond to the universalist by saying, “I’m sorry, but I take what the Bible says seriously, and the Bible holds out hell as a real possibility. I thus acknowledge that what you’re saying is emotionally attractive, but I’m constrained by the evidence I have, which seems to preclude what you’re saying.”
In the same way—even if we grant that Gavin’s version of Protestantism offers more assurance of salvation than the Catholic understanding—a Catholic will still feel constrained by the evidence we have.
And whenever an emotional argument conflicts with an evidential argument, we need to give priority to the evidential argument.
Now, in Gavin’s YouTube short, he doesn’t get into the biblical evidence for his position. As we’ll see, he doesn’t even state clearly what his position is. He just says it involves more assurance.
And he might justify that by saying, “Hey, it’s just a YouTube short! I don’t have the time to go into all the evidence!”
And that’s fair. I totally understand. But we have biblical evidence that is relevant to the topics at hand, and so we’re going to need to get into some of that evidence.
Different Levels of Assurance?
This leads us to the second initial remark I wanted to make.
Gavin’s argument in the short is based on the idea that there is a difference between the level of assurance one can have as a Catholic and the level of assurance one can have under his understanding of Protestantism.
In the video, he provides arguments for why the Catholic understanding involves less assurance than he would like.
But he doesn’t provide any arguments for why his system involves any greater assurance.
Therefore, to come to an accurate assessment of the situation, we need to ask ourselves the question of just how much assurance Gavin’s system provides and whether there really is a difference between the assurance that the two viewpoints offer.
As well as asking which viewpoint is better supported by the evidence we have.
Gavin’s Opening Statements
With that in mind, let’s begin looking at the short.
Gavin begins by saying:
GAVIN: In Roman Catholic theology, there’s mortal sin and venial sin.
Okay, so that’s true. Catholic teaching does recognize a difference between mortal sin—which takes one out of a state of grace—and venial sin—which does not.
I find it a little annoying that Gavin puts the word “Roman” in front of Catholic. Historically, this has been an anti-Catholic trope in Protestantism, but that’s too big a discussion for us to go into today.
I’d just note that it’s not our term of self-designation. We call ourselves Catholics, and to deny Catholics their preferred term will be as annoying to informed Catholics as it would be to deny Protestants their preferred term and insist on modifying it.
There are some Catholics who do just that and—to my mind—create needless division and hostility by referring to “Protestant heretics” or the “Protestant rebellion” or “Protty boys” or similar things.
I think that denying people their preferred term for their group adds heat rather than light to a discussion, and so I don’t do that.
And neither does the Catholic Church. In its official documents, it lets people have their own preferred terms for themselves.
In the interest of not causing unnecessary snags in dialogue—especially in a context where we all know who is being discussed—I would invite Gavin to do the same.
But Gavin is right that Catholic doctrine does distinguish between mortal and venial sin.
So let’s see what he says next.
GAVIN: And then you also have a distinction between perfect contrition and imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition can obtain forgiveness of mortal sins even without the sacrament of penance if a person intends to receive it as soon as they can.
This is a little short on detail, and some things could be phrased a bit differently, but what Gavin says here is essentially correct.
Catholic teaching does recognize a difference between perfect and imperfect contrition, and perfect contrition can return you to a state of grace even before sacramental confession.
But thus far, Gavin has just been laying the groundwork for his argument.
So now we’re going to get to the substance of the argument itself.
A Human Element
Gavin now says:
GAVIN: But in all of these things, there is a human element of, well, how do you know if it’s a perfect contrition?
Okay, so Gavin says there’s a human element involved in assessing whether one has perfect contrition or not.
That’s true.
Contrition is not a familiar word to most English speakers, but it refers to repentance from sin so that you turn your will away from sin and reject it.
The term connotes the emotions that accompany repentance, like sorrow for sin and detestation of sin, but what is essential is the rejection of it by the will.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies the difference between perfect and imperfection contrition when it says:
When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). . . .
The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) . . . is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (CCC 1452-1453).
So, basically, if you love God above all things and thus reject sin, you have perfect contrition.
And if you reject sin because of anything other than love of God—like how ugly the sin is or because you fear punishment—it’s imperfect contrition.
Note that these two are not mutually exclusive. You can have both perfect and imperfect contrition. You can reject sin both because you love God above all things and because sin is ugly and brings punishment.
So the key question you need to ask yourself if you want to be reconciled with God before going to confession is: Do I love God above everything else? Is he—as infinite goodness and love—my highest priority? If push came to shove, and I had to make a choice between God and something else, would I choose God or the other thing?
If the answer is that you would choose God, you have perfect contrition and thus reconciliation with God even before you go to confession—no matter what other concerns you have about sin being ugly or what fear of punishment you have.
God is your highest priority, and that means you are fundamentally spiritually aligned with him and thus in union with him.
Is there a human element in making this judgment? Is there a hypothetical possibility that you are mistaken?
Sure. We make human judgments in everything we do. There is no way to avoid that.
And—as we’ll see—the exact same thing is true of people coming from Gavin’s point of view.
The Conditions for Mortal Sin
Gavin then jumps backwards from the question of whether one has perfect contrition—which is of concern after one has fallen into mortal sin—to the conditions that are needed for mortal sin to occur in the first place.
He says:
GAVIN: The question of what constitutes full knowledge and deliberate consent and so forth, you will get different views about this. There are different opinions. There is ambiguity for assessing this in how this works out in real life.
Here Gavin is referring to two of the three conditions that need to be fulfilled for a mortal sin to occur.
The Catechism states:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: [1] “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also [2] committed with full knowledge and [3] deliberate consent” (CCC 1857).
The Catechism goes on to explain more about each of these three conditions and how to identify them, but Gavin is correct that there is a human element involved in making that determination.
And people have different opinions on this.
However, as we’ll see, there is similar uncertainty in the historic position Gavin identifies with.
Anger?
Now Gavin considers a couple of specific examples. First he says:
GAVIN: Extreme anger is a mortal sin.
Uh . . . no, it’s not.
Properly speaking, anger is an emotion or what Catholic theology refers to as a passion.
By itself, it does not engage the will, and sin can only be committed when someone makes a choice, when they engage their will.
It doesn’t matter how mild or extreme anger itself is; unless you engage your will, there is no sin.
As St. Paul says in Ephesians:
Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil (Ephesians 4:26-27).
So you can be angry without sinning. As long as you aren’t willfully holding onto the anger longer than is rational, and so long as you aren’t letting the devil have an opportunity to lead you into further sin through anger, anger itself is not sinful.
In fact, Jesus himself got angry. Mark records that when Jesus encountered the man with the withered hand, his opponents were carefully watching him to see if he’d heal the man on the sabbath . . .
And looking around at them with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored (Mark 3:5).
And yet Jesus was without sin. So anger itself is not sinful, and—as long as it doesn’t engage the will—it doesn’t matter how intense or extreme that anger is.
But, based on his mistaken premise, Gavin now asks a question:
GAVIN: Okay? How extreme? Ha-ha!
Ha-ha! Gavin continues:
GAVIN: You say, well, you have to have deliberate knowledge and consent. Okay? If I’m really angry and I know I’m angry, how angry? At what point do I cross the line into a mortal sin? This is not a hard science. There’s subjectivity and ambiguity involved in this.
As we’ve covered, anger by itself is not a sin. It has to engage the will to become a sin at all, much less a mortal one.
However, if anger is united with an act of the will—such as deliberately or willfully desiring harm to come to another—it becomes sinful. It then acquires the grave matter needed for mortal sin if you choose to desire that grave harm to come to the person. Thus the Catechism says:
If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin (CCC 2302).
Missing Mass
Now Gavin offers another example.
GAVIN: Missing mass without good reason will often be classified as a mortal sin. But how good of a reason if you’re sick, what if you just have a cold? Ha-ha!
Ha-ha! The Catechism states:
The faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) (CCC 2181).
So here the text says a serious reason—and it uses the Latin word seria—which means basically what serious means in English. It’s not trivial, but it’s also not grave. Do you don’t have to be gravely ill, but something trivial—like having an infected hangnail—would not be enough.
What about a cold? Well, per the principle of love your neighbor as yourself—which I understand Jesus was kind of big on—you need to consider not only yourself but also other people if you have a communicable disease.
You may be young and healthy, and so to you a cold may be no big deal, but you have to be mindful of other people whose health and immune system may not be as strong as yours.
Colds can cause people to be miserable for days on end. They can cause them to miss work. And—out of love of your neighbor—you should not be causing your neighbor to be miserable for days on end or have to take time off from work.
Therefore, if you have a cold—even if it’s not a big deal to you—love your neighbor and Stay Home! until you are well past the infectious stage.
Getting to the General Argument
GAVIN: I’m not trying to be pedantic here. I think these are the things that really come up in real life.
Oh, no disagreement there. These questions do come up in real life, and they need to be answered.
That’s why I provided answers to the questions you asked.
GAVIN: I mean, if I was under this theology . . .
I love the way Gavin phrases this. It really calls back to Reformation-era polemics.
Note the incredulous tone of voice he has. Making it sound absurd that he could ever be “under” this theology.
And note the use of the word “under.”
He could have used a neutral term like, “If I were convinced of this theology” or “If I subscribed to this theology.”
But by using the word “under” he calls back to Reformation-era polemics by making Catholic teaching sound like a sinister, overarching system that people are “under.”
As opposed to something that people are convinced of and believe.
Also note the dismissive pfft! he puts in front of the word “theology”—as if it’s scarcely worth being called a theology.
Let’s hear it again!
GAVIN: I mean, if I was under this theology . . .
Love that!
GAVIN: I mean, if I was under this theology, I would certainly have these questions like, how do I know?
And if you were under this theology, I’d be right here to cover your back, brother. Answering people’s questions is what I’m all about.
But don’t worry, Gavin. We’ll get to the pfft! theology that you’re . . . under . . . soon.
GAVIN: There’s always a mixture of imperfection in everything we do. We never know our sins perfectly. Psalm 119 asks a very poignant question, who can discern his error?
You’re right that there’s a mixture of imperfection in our ordinary judgments, and this clip contains an ironic illustration of that.
I’m afraid you had a memory slip, Gavin. It isn’t Psalm 119 that contains that statement. I understand the confusion, though.
Part of it is that Psalm 119 is very famous, because it’s the longest chapter in the Bible. 176 verses long! But I reread them all to make sure the quotation wasn’t there, because I got your back, bro!
The other reason for the memory slip is the similarity of the Psalm’s number. It isn’t 119 but just 19.
The specific passage you’re thinking of is Psalm 19:12, which says:
Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults (Psalm 19:12).
And it’s true that there’s a limit to our ability to discern our errors, which is something we’ll come back to.
First, though, what’s your bottom line about Catholic teaching?
GAVIN: And so the ultimate state is that this theology leaves a person in a state of uncertainty.
And your alternative to that is . . .
GAVIN: Rather than the bright, clear promises that are founded in the word of God.
Okay, so we’re a little short on detail here. You don’t name any of those bright promises, so I’m not sure what you specifically have in mind.
You could say that’s because this is just a YouTube short, and that means you can’t cover the full subject, which I totally understand. That’s not unreasonable.
It looked like your short was cut down from something else, so I searched your channel to see if I could find what it might have been from.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t, but I did find another, very interesting video that we’ll get to.
And—even without knowing what specific passages in Scripture you’re thinking of—I get the gist: You’re claiming that my Catholic teaching generates more uncertainty about salvation-related matters than your Reformed Baptist teaching does.
Thus you make an emotional appeal that—as phrased here in the short—does not contain evidence backing the claims you’re making for your own system.
So now let’s do what you didn’t do in the short and consider both positions together.
A Common Framework
To do that, let’s establish a common framework for comparing assurance on the Catholic understanding and the Reformed Baptist understanding.
In particular, let’s consider certain moments that occur in the Christian life:
- The first moment is Conversion, when we first come to Christ and are saved
- The second moment is Examination, when we examine ourselves to see whether we’re in the faith—as St. Paul says
- The third moment is Sin, when we damage our relationship with God through our misdeeds
- And the fourth moment is Restoration, when we are restored to fellowship with God through repentance and grace
It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Catholic, a Reformed Baptist, or any other type of Christian. These four moments occur for Christians of every stripe.
- There’s a moment when we come to God and are saved by his grace
- There are periodic moments where we examine ourselves and our walk with God
- There are moments when we sin, which raises the question of how badly we have sinned and how much we have damaged our fellowship with God.
- And there are moments where we repent of sin and are restored to fellowship with God.
So these moments are common to all Christians. They are things we all have to do.
So let’s look at what kind of assurance is available in both the Catholic and the Reformed Baptist perspectives.
What we’ll do is go through the 4 moments of the Christian life we’ve identified and see what kind of assurance both views provide and whether one view has an advantage over another in terms of assurance.
Reformed Baptist Understanding
As a guide to the Reformed Baptist position, we’re going to use the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is a widely received doctrinal standard among Reformed Baptists.
I want to make it clear, though, that I don’t know if Gavin agrees with everything the Confession says. He may disagree with some points, so we should be aware of that.
I’m only using the Confession to get an approximation of what Gavin is likely to believe since he’s part of the general theological school that uses it.
If I have specific information about the details of Gavin’s views, I’ll use that instead.
So with that as background, let’s go through the four moments of the Christian life that we’ve identified.
Conversion
On the Catholic point of view, there are three things that the Bible indicates we need to do to come to God and receive his grace of justification:
- Repentance from sin
- Faith in God and Christ
- And Baptism in water
That’s not to say people can’t be saved without all three of these, but they are the normal way of salvation.
The Reformed Baptist way of salvation uses different language, but it’s similar. For example, it says:
Faith . . . is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (London Baptist Confession 11:2).
This passage says that faith is “the alone instrument” of justification because Protestants have a preference for using the phrase “faith alone,” even though that phrase is never used in the New Testament in a positive sense.
We don’t need to let that detain us, however, because Catholics don’t have a problem with the formula as long as you understand justifying faith as including the virtues of hope—or trust in God—and charity—or love of God and neighbor.
As St. Paul says in Galatians 5:6:
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).
And that’s what we have here, since the Confession says that justifying faith is no dead faith but worketh by love.
So Catholics and Reformed Baptists seem to be in agreement: Justifying faith includes more than intellectual belief and incorporates love.
We hit a difference when it comes to baptism, though. Many Baptists believe that baptism is just a symbol and does not actually impart God’s grace to us.
Gavin’s view is a bit different. He does say that baptism imparts grace, but he does not believe that it ordinarily brings a person from spiritual death to spiritual life. He contrasts his view with Catholic belief in baptismal regeneration and says:
GAVIN: Here’s my proposal as an alternative to that. It is a powerful ceiling and means of grace and communication of the spirit and communication of assurance and all these things, but it’s not actually what causes you to become alive to God because regeneration is when you go from dead and sin to alive to God. And the Baptists are saying, no, I don’t think that’s actually what happens when you’re baptized. I don’t think baptism causes that. I think it’s associated with that. It symbolizes that. It seals that and so forth, but it’s not actually the cause of that.
Gavin thus thinks that baptism does impart grace, but not regeneration and thus not justification or salvation.
So where does that leave us in terms of which system provides more assurance of salvation?
Well, I think I’m going to have to give the advantage to the Catholic understanding, here.
On the Catholic view, baptism works ex opere operato, which is a Latin term that means it derives its efficacy from God and is not based on the dispositions of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.
The alternative is known as ex opere operantis, which would hold that a rite only becomes effective because of the proper dispositions of the minister or the recipient.
But baptism doesn’t work that way. The sacraments derive their efficacy from God, and so as long as you don’t deliberately do something to block the efficacy of a sacrament—such as saying in your heart, “Ha-ha! I’m going to trick this priest by only pretending to convert to Christianity; I’m consciously and deliberately rejecting the baptism in my heart,” then the sacrament will work.
This means that even if a person has shaky faith or shaky repentance at the time they are baptized, as long as they’re intending to receive baptism and become a Christian, the sacrament will be valid.
Afterward, they can look back on their baptism and have assurance that they are a Christian.
On the other hand, on Gavin’s view, baptism does not bring you from spiritual death to spiritual life, and so that means you can’t use it as a sure sign of being spiritually alive.
To determine that, you have to look back at the two preceding conditions: faith and repentance.
But these are only subjectively assessed, and without an external sacrament that guarantees one entering a state of salvation, that’s going to lead to after-the-fact questioning of whether one had the right kind of faith and the right kind of repentance.
What if your faith was a bit shaky when you converted? Did you place your faith in exactly the right thing? What if you still had some lingering attachments to sin? What if they were more serious sins?
Because the Reformed Baptist view doesn’t have a sacrament that’s guaranteed to work despite our human frailties, I’d thus have to say that the Reformed Baptist view is going to result in less assurance than the Catholic view.
Examination
Okay, now what about the periodic examinations of ourselves and our walk with God that Christians do?
This is something that St. Paul says we should do. In 2 Corinthians 13:5, he writes:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.
Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Corinthians 13:5).
In addition to the New Testament telling us to examine ourselves, many Christians naturally do a periodic self-check.
This may be done for purposes of seeing whether one is growing in the spiritual life and if there are areas one needs to work on.
But they also periodically ask themselves if they’re in a state of salvation.
From a Catholic point of view, the matter can be determined by asking a simple set of questions:
- Have you been baptized? If yes, we can proceed to the next question.
- Were you deliberately thwarting the baptism? Such as by only pretending to become a Christian? If no, we can proceed to the third question.
- Have you committed any mortal sins that you haven’t confessed? If the person says no, then they’re in a state of salvation. If they say yes they have, that leads to a fourth question.
- Have you made an act of perfect contrition with the intention to go to confession? If yes, the person is in a state of salvation. If no, then they need to do so.
So a Catholic can determine quite easily in a periodic self-examination whether they are in a state of salvation. They just need to ask a few questions. I thus give the Catholic view high marks for assurance here.
Now, how about the Reformed Baptist position? Well, the London Confession of Faith has a whole section on assurance of salvation, and it says:
Although temporary believers, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God and state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace (1689 London Baptist Confession 18:1).
Now, this does say that those who “truly believe in the Lord Jesus” and “love him with sincerity” and “endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him” may be assured that they are in a state of grace.
But this way of phrasing it actually opens up a bunch of possibilities for doubt:
- How do I know that I truly believe in the Lord Jesus? Maybe I don’t have the right kind of belief.
- How do I know that I love him with sincerity? Maybe my love isn’t sincere but is motivated by self-interest.
- And how do I know that I’m trying to walk before him in good conscience? Maybe I’m not trying hard enough.
These are exactly the kinds of things that people with a scrupulous or fearful conscience worry about.
Further, if you’re looking for assurance in a periodic self-check, a few things in the passage that will immediately cause you some alarm.
It says, “temporary believers, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes” “of being in the favor of God and a state of salvation.”
Wait a minute! How do I know I’m not a temporary believer who will fall away in the future—or another unregenerate man? This is an alarming possibility for the fearful or scrupulous since, as Psalm 19:12 says,
GAVIN: Who can discern his error?
So this is pretty alarming if you’re concerned about your salvation. And it gets worse, because the Confession goes on to state:
This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it (1689 London Baptist Confession 18:3).
Wait! I’m supposed to get an infallible assurance? An assurance that has no possibility of being wrong?
Now—as someone who knows that language doesn’t always mean what it sounds like—this had me wondering if “infallible assurance” might not mean what it sounds like. For example, could it be objectively infallible in the sense that God’s promises are infallibly true, and it’s not talking about the subjective assurance an individual believer will have as to whether he’s done what is needed to receive those promises.
But no, we are talking here about the subjective assurance a believer has, because it goes on to say that “a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be a partaker of it.”
So this is a subjective infallible assurance.
But since human reason is fallible, how am I supposed to get that? The Confession goes on to say:
Yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of means, attain thereunto (1689 London Baptist Confession 18:3).
So the Holy Spirit is supposed to enable me—without giving me extraordinary revelation—to somehow use some means correctly to enable me to arrive at a state of infallible assurance that exceeds the power of human reason.
This is not sounding plausible.
And—even then—it says I—as a true believer—may have to wait a long time to get this assurance. So I may have to go without assurance of salvation for a long time.
The Reformed Baptist perspective is not providing a lot of assurance here.
I may have to go without assurance for a long time, and then the Holy Spirit is supposed to enable me to get to infallible assurance without giving me private revelation but in a way that exceeds the power of fallible human reason.
Which is frankly not plausible if God doesn’t give me special revelation.
Well, suppose that I finally get there. Will I forever remain in this state of assurance? The next section of the Confession says:
True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted (1689 London Baptist Confession 18:4).
So I—as a true believer—may have this infallible assurance, but then it may be shaken, diminished, and intermitted—meaning interrupted.
How might that happen? The Confession continues:
. . . as by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light (1689 London Baptist Confession 18:4).
So here the Confession names multiple things that can interrupt my assurance:
- Negligence in preserving of it—so I could fail to preserve my assurance
- Falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit—so falling into sin will hurt my assurance
- Sudden or vehement temptation—so even my temptations can deprive me of assurance
- God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance—or face—so God might withdraw my assurance from me, and thus
- God allowing even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light—so it may just be God’s will for me to not have assurance
The Reformed Baptist perspective isn’t really providing the believer a lot of assurance here.
It says that you may—after a long time and many difficulties—arrive at an infallible assurance, but that you then may lose this assurance through multiple different factors.
It thus seems that the Reformed Baptist perspective provides for only temporary assurance on the part of the true believer.
Compared to the Catholic system of just asking yourself a few questions during a periodic self-examination, I’m going to have to say that it looks like the Reformed Baptist position as stated here will result in less assurance.
Sin
Now we turn to the third moment in the Christian life, which is what happens when we commit sin and need to assess what our response should be.
One thing we can all agree on is that we need to repent. So that much is good.
But beyond that, how do you know whether you need to take further action to repair your relationship with God?
There are obviously sins of different magnitudes. If we had to do something special over every passing bad thought we have, we’d end up paralyzed; but if you do something really bad—like commit adultery—some kind of great action to express sorrow and repair the damage we’ve done is needed.
It’s thus okay to shrug off a passing bad thought, but it’s different with something like adultery.
This much we can all agree on.
The Catholic understanding recognizes the difference between these two kinds of sins, and it divides sins into either being venial or mortal.
Venial sins are those that do not fundamentally extinguish the spiritual life in our souls, so they do not threaten our salvation.
While mortal sins do kill the spiritual life in our souls, meaning they take us out of salvation, and so we need to be restored to that, which requires something more.
How one gets back into a state of salvation is something we’ll deal with in the 4th and final moment of the Christian life that we’ve identified—Restoration—but we’re not yet at the stage of dealing with that.
Presently, we’re looking at how to diagnose what kind of sin we’ve committed so that we know what kind of further action we need to take.
And—as we discussed earlier in the episode—the Catechism of the Catholic Church spells out the conditions that must be met for a mortal sin to occur. It says:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857).
So the three conditions are:
- Grave matter, meaning that some kind of grave offense must have been committed against God or against another human
- There must be Full knowledge of the moral character of the act
- And one must give Deliberate consent to it—meaning that it was a deliberate choice and not—for example—something done while one is partially incapacitated or as a reflex or under a psychological compulsion
Only if all three conditions are fulfilled does a mortal sin occur. If any one of them is not fulfilled, the sin will be venial.
For example, suppose that you sleep with your wife’s identical twin sister. That provides the grave matter of adultery.
But—since it’s your wife’s identical twin—you might not realize that it wasn’t your wife that you’re sleeping with. In that case, you would not have full knowledge of the moral character of the act, and so any sin would not be mortal.
Or suppose that—in the middle of sleeping with her—the twin suddenly announces who she is. But by that point in the process—in the heat of passion—it’s too late to stop and the act is completed. In this case—due to the heat of passion—the act was not a deliberate choice and so the sin would not be mortal.
It’s only when all 3 conditions are met together that the sin is mortal.
I’d thus give the Catholic viewpoint high marks when it comes to providing a way to assess whether the sin is one that requires further action.
Now, in his YouTube short, Gavin tried to cast doubt here by pointing to a couple of what he regarded as iffy examples, like how anger could lead to mortal sin or when missing Mass is not justified.
And there certainly are borderline cases where it can be harder to tell.
But that does not mean that assurance is fundamentally undermined for a Catholic. In the large majority of situations, a properly educated Catholic can tell whether a sin was mortal or not if he thinks about it.
The mere fact that there are some cases that are harder does not mean that most cases are not clear.
And the assurance that a Catholic can have in this matter is clearly greater than what a Reformed Baptist can.
Because at least Catholics have a system for classifying sins by their severity. This system has clearly stated criteria. And even if there are border cases where the application of those criteria is open to discussion, that’s better than what the Reformed Baptist system has.
Because the Reformed Baptist system has no method for classifying the severity of sins at all.
That’s right. No guidance whatsoever.
In ranking the severity of sins, it’s every man for himself.
In the absence of any comparable architecture for classifying sins, the determination of their severity is left entirely up to the subjective intuitions of individuals.
So if you’re an individual with a scrupulous conscience, your intuitions are going to tell you that you need to be worried about every sin you commit.
This is especially the case when the London Baptist Confession says:
There is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary (1689 London Baptist Confession 15:5).
Notice what this says: “There is no sin so small but it deserves damnation.”
Now, it follows this up by saying that God will forgive any sin if you repent, but for a person with a scrupulous conscience, hearing that even their smallest sin is worthy of damnation will focus their attention on even the smallest of sins they commit and make them fearful that they are really in the doghouse with God.
And it’s not just people with small sins that need to be afraid of God’s displeasure, because the Confession states:
There is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations (1689 London Baptist Confession 15:2).
So even “the best of men may” “fall into great sins and provocations.” Which has consequences, because the Confession states:
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure; and in that condition they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance (1689 London Baptist Confession 11:5).
So—if you are one of the best of men who has fallen into great sins, or if you are an ordinary man who has committed one of the least sins that is still worthy of damnation—you are one of those who may by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure.
And in that state, you will have not usually the light of his countenance restored to you—meaning God’s face won’t shine upon you until you do the things we’ll discuss in the Restoration section.
Thus, even if you aren’t afraid that you’re one of the unsaved, you can still have abundant reasons for not feeling the assurance of God’s pleasure and of having fellowship with him because of your sins.
And that’s only dealing with the issue of fellowship with God. Now let’s turn to the issue of salvation.
There are some Baptists who believe in a position called Once Saved, Always Saved.
According to once saved, always saved, all of a person’s sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven at the moment of conversion. And so—for a saved person—there are no actions whatsoever that—even in principle—would result in a person losing their salvation.
A Christian could go out and willfully and repeatedly commit adultery or murder or anything else—and even die doing so—and they would not lose their salvation because they were forgiven for every sin they will ever commit at the moment of their conversion.
But this is not what Reformed Baptists believe. Instead, they believe in a position known as Perseverance of the Saints.
According to this view, there are sins that a believer could commit that—in principle and if he didn’t repent of them—would cost a believer his salvation.
It’s just that God will cause all true believers to either refrain from committing these sins—or he will cause the person to repent before they die.
Thus the London Baptist Confession states:
Though [the saints] may . . . fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein . . . yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end (1689 London Baptist Confession 17:3).
So true believers can fall into grievous sins and even remain in grievous sin for a time. It’s just that God will renew their repentance before they die—so that they will ultimately be saved.
This raises a new terror for the person of scrupulous conscience, because—at the moment they are committing these grievous sins that are worthy of damnation—they are empirically indistinguishable from people who were never saved.
You’ll recall that the Confession said that temporary believers and other unregenerate men . . . vainly deceive themselves with false hopes . . . of being in the favor of God and the state of salvation.
Well, if I’ve fallen into grievous sins—whatever I subjectively think those to be—how do I know I’m not just one of those temporary believers who was never regenerate and thus never saved?
This is one of the flaws in the reasoning of Reformed Baptists—as well as other Calvinists—when they talk about perseverance of the saints as providing comfort and assurance to the believer.
In comparison to the Catholic view that a saved person can commit mortal sins and lose salvation.
Both positions result in a lack of assurance about one’s salvation.
Because on the Reformed view, if someone has committed what they regard as grievous sins, they won’t think that maybe they have just now lost salvation.
Instead, they will think that they never were saved—and so that throws the whole of their Christian experience into doubt.
A Reformed person will find themselves saying, “If God causes the saints to persevere, and I’ve committed grievous sins, maybe I was never a genuine Christian at all! Maybe I never accepted Christ! Maybe I was fooling myself! Maybe I’ve never been saved.”
They’ll then start trying to remember the details of their initial conversion experience and what their faith and repentance were like.
Only good luck with that after years or decades, because our memories get fuzzy!
And many of us had shaky faith and repentance at the beginning of the Christian life in the first place!
So the fear that one has been self-deceived throughout all of one’s Christian life will grow, causing even greater anguish.
Whereas a Catholic can acknowledge all of their prior Christian life and say, “Well, I was a genuine Christian in a state of salvation, but I messed up and committed a mortal sin. Now I need to go to confession.”
I thus must give the Catholic understanding higher marks than the Reformed understanding when it comes to assurance in assessing the gravity of sin.
Restoration
So now let’s talk about the 4th and final moment of the Christian life that we identified: Restoration after sin.
For a Catholic, the process is simple: If you’ve committed a mortal sin, just repent and go to confession.
Jesus told his disciples:
Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld (John 20:22-23).
Jesus thus empowered his ministers to forgive sins. So just go to confession and, when you’re absolved, you have the words of Christ assuring you that you’re forgiven.
I can tell you from my own experience that, once I became a Catholic, confession became one of my favorite sacraments, because they’re nothing like hearing a man empowered by Christ to forgive your sins say, “I absolve you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That’s awesome!
And it’s interesting to me that Gavin feels his way toward this in that full-length video on assurance I mentioned. At one point, he recommends the following to help people get assurance:
GAVIN: Ask someone to pray for you and lay hands on you. Don’t do it alone. We really need other people sometimes with this shared. You also need someone in your real life who can lay hands on you and pray for you, and this comes out of the second thing that Romans eight 16, it says, the spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit can give you that testimony, and a lot of times I think that happens through prayer and ask someone to lay hands on, I really believe this. As you know, I’m pretty charismatic. Lay hands and pray for the Holy Spirit and just, I mean, things happen. God is a real God. He things and assurance is one of ‘em.
I think this is great! Gavin has basically reinvented the sacrament of confession.
Someone has committed sin or otherwise lacks assurance with God. So to get that assurance, he says go to someone and share what’s going on with them. There is prayer. And there is a specific action to make the ceremony concrete.
The differences are that in Gavin’s version it isn’t a priest you go to—it’s anybody—and in Gavin’s version it’s laying on of hands rather than pronouncing the words of absolution.
But he’s right: The Holy Spirit is real. God does things. And giving assurance is one of them!
My message for Gavin is: You’re right!
Only Jesus got there first!
And he gave his ministers the promise that the absolution would work. So it’s not just a hope.
The sacrament of confession thus provides powerful reassurance to the faithful, because they know they’ve been forgiven.
From the subjective point of view, giving them this assurance is the purpose of confession.
So, high marks go to the Catholic understanding of how to have assurance in the Restoration phrase.
Now, in his original YouTube short, Gavin brought up the related subject of perfect contrition, which can reconcile you with God even before you can get to confession.
But making an act of perfect contrition is not difficult. Since repentance is an act of the will, if you want to be reconciled with God before you can go to confession, just decide that God is your highest priority because he’s the greatest good.
He’s infinitely good, and he’s infinite love, so of course he should be your highest priority!
If called upon to choose between God and any creature, just decide that you’ll choose God.
I’d suggest that in doing this, you don’t cause yourself problems by imagining scenarios of grave temptation that you’re not in. Trust God to give you the grace you need if such situations arise and just make the basic decision to choose the highest good—God—now.
The basic decision to make an act of perfect contrition is thus simple, though there is—as always—the fact of human fallibility.
But notice what Gavin’s criticism was directed to, because nobody has to make an act of perfect contrition. It’s not essential. It’s an optional backup in case you find it difficult to remain as you are until you can go to confession.
Personally, I’d make an act of perfect contrition as soon as I become aware of the need for one and then go to confession. But it’s not required of me.
Consequently, Gavin is criticizing the fact that there is some unavoidable subjectivity of judgment in the backup for a sacrament designed by Christ to give the faithful assurance!
Looked at another way, the Catholic system offers great assurance with the sacrament of confession—and even greater assurance is available through perfect contrition before going to the sacrament.
Now, let’s look at the Reformed Baptist alternative.
First, let’s consider the person who is not doubting their salvation but is worried that they may be in the doghouse with God. What are they supposed to do to be restored to fellowship?
You’ll recall that we read a passage from the London Baptist Confession that said:
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified (1689 London Baptist Confession 11:5).
And I want to stop right there and give the authors of the London Baptist Confession a compliment.
Because today, many Once Saved, Always Saved Baptists—and even some Reformed Baptists—say that at conversion God forgives all of your sins—past, present, and future. This is nonsense, because otherwise Jesus would not have taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to say:
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors (Matthew 6:12, ESV).
. . . to use a common Protestant translation.
You don’t need to pray for forgiveness if you’ve already been forgiven for your future sins. Praying for forgiveness implies that as we commit new sins, they need to be forgiven.
So I compliment the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession on this. In their footnotes, they even cite the same passage from the Lord’s Prayer to prove the point. So, good job!
But now let’s read the rest of what they said:
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure; and in that condition they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance (1689 London Baptist Confession 11:5).
So they say that such believers have not usually the light of God’s countenance—or face—restored to them until they do 4 things:
- First, they humble themselves
- Second, they confess their sins
- Third, they beg pardon
- And fourth, they renew their faith and repentance
Well, those are basically the things that—on the Reformed Baptist view—you need to do to get saved in the first place.
And those things are certainly good. In fact, every Christian should do those things when they’ve sinned.
But how do they compare for assurance with the Catholic understanding that adds to them the sacrament of confession—a moment where a minister empowered by Jesus Christ’s promise forgives you by God’s grace?
I’m afraid I’ve got to give the edge there to the Catholic understanding.
I’ll feel more assured if I do all the things the London Baptist Confession says and then go and have forgiveness pronounced on by a man empowered by God to do that than if I just do the things the London Baptist Confession says.
So: Advantage, Team Catholic.
Now, what about those Reformed Baptists who are questioning their salvation?
They’ve fallen into sins that—at least to them—suggest that they may not have ever believed or been regenerate. They think that the whole of their Christian life may have been a lie. They were just fooling themselves through the human capacity for self-deception.
What are they supposed to do?
Well, the answer from the Reformed Baptist perspective is the same: They should humble themselves, confess their sins—at least to God—beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
Only—since they’ve called the entirety of their Christian life into question—a new possibility arises. If what they originally did in converting to God wasn’t enough, how do they know what they do now will be enough?
Are they sure their faith now is solid enough and that it’s the right kind of faith? It wasn’t before!
Are they sure that their repentance now is solid enough and properly motivated? It wasn’t before!
If they can’t be sure of their past—which they thought was genuine—then they can’t be sure of their present, either.
Because if my conversion didn’t work then, how can I know it worked now?
And so there are people in the Baptist tradition who get stuck trying to repeat the conversion process. They may say the sinner’s prayer over and over again. Or if their church has altar calls, they may come down repeatedly, week after week, in the hope that one of these conversions will take.
And this is not a secret fact. It is well-known to pastors.
Whereas a Catholic simply has to go to confession and can then move on.
The Catholic system thus gets better marks for assurance in the Restoration process than the Reformed Baptist system.
The End of Life
Now let’s look at a surprise, bonus, 5th moment in the Christian life—the moment of our deaths.
Before we get to that moment, what assurance can we have that we will be in a state of grace when we pass from this life?
From a Catholic point of view, we can’t have an infallible assurance that we will, because we retain the use of free will.
So we can’t know with infallible certainty that we will not misuse our free will just before the end.
But we can make a probabilistic argument that we won’t. If we’ve been following Christ for years, if we realize that he is the supreme good and we need to be with him in the afterlife, then we’ll be powerfully motivated not to misuse our free will.
So we probably won’t.
It is hypothetically possible that a Catholic might get to the end of life and—after having spent years following Christ—that we might decide to chuck it all at the last minute.
But why would we? That would be stupid and ridiculous—as well as contrary to the virtuous habits we’d been building all our lives.
So, even though it’s hypothetically possible, it’s highly probable that we won’t.
Now, what about someone coming from the Reformed Baptist tradition?
Given the promise that God will cause true believers to persevere until the end of life, you might think that this gives them an advantage in terms of assurance.
But no. Because there’s always the possibility of self-deception. Remember, as Psalm 19:12 says:
GAVIN: Who can discern his error.
And the London Baptist Confession said:
The best of men may . . . fall into great sins and provocations (1689 London Baptist Confession 15:2).
And:
Temporary believers . . . may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God and state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish (1689 London Baptist Confession 18:1).
And there’s no time limit on being a temporary believer. A person might outwardly convert to the Christian faith but remain unregenerate in his heart. He might live his entire life that way. And then—being a temporary believer—he might fall away right before the end.
In fact, he might even die still outwardly professing the Christian faith and thinking that he’s saved!
As Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:
Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?”
And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matthew 7:21-23).
So—despite what the London Baptist Confession claims about believers gaining infallible assurance in this life—we really can’t have that.
Human judgment is fallible, and so—on the Reformed Baptist view—there is always a possibility of self-deception. And there is a possibility that one will fall into grievous sin at the end and not repent before death, indicating that one was only a temporary believer.
Now, you can make a probabilistic argument that this won’t happen to a person. If they’ve lived long as a Christian and practiced Christian virtue, then that strengthens the argument they will remain faithful until the end.
But we can’t know that with infallible certainty. Not unless God breaks in and gives us a special, divine revelation and tells us what our future is.
The Catholic and the realistic Reformed Baptist are thus in the same position. We both can make probabilistic arguments that we will finish this life in God’s grace, but we can’t say so with the note of infallibility.
I thus don’t give an advantage to either Catholics or Reformed Baptists on this final moment we’ve considered.
Assurance in Both Camps
The fact is that God is at work in the hearts of both Catholics and Baptists, and both of them can have assurance that they are in a right relationship with God.
Not infallible assurance, of course, since we both have human judgment, but real assurance.
There is also a lack of assurance in both communities, and I’ve seen this from both sides.
I used to be Protestant, and I was fully aware of people with doubts and scrupulous consciences in the Protestant community.
In fact, a friend of mine—who was a Protestant Christian counselor—told me that every Protestant book on counseling has material on how to deal with people who are afraid, either for their salvation or for their relationship with God.
And Gavin knows about this lack of assurance, too. In his YouTube short, he makes it sound like Catholics have no assurance, while Protestants can have it abundantly, but he’s doing an apples and oranges comparison.
He’s comparing scrupulous Catholics to non-scrupulous Protestants, but he’s well aware that Protestants who lack assurance exist.
In fact—that other video of his I mentioned?—it’s directed to his audience, which is primarily Protestant, and it’s titled “How to Get Assurance of Salvation.”
In it, he says things like this:
GAVIN: There are so many anxieties and so much unrest and so much disillusionment and falling away. I want to be a recentering hopeful voice a friend to people. I want to make this video about how do you get assurance of salvation and a should we have assurance of salvation? Let me introduce it with a scene from surprised by joy, one of my favorite books, CS Lewis’s autobiography. He describes how basically it was very easy for him as a boy to become an atheist because he was desperately ready to get rid of his religion.
He explains why he says in spiritual technique, I had rendered my private practice of that religion a quite intolerable burden. It came about in this way like everyone else. I had been told as a child that one must not only say one’s prayers, but think about what Walen was saying. At first, it seemed plain sailing, but soon the false conscience, St. Paul’s law, Herbert’s Pratt came into play. One had no sooner reached amen than it whispered. Yes, but are you sure? You were really thinking about what you said? And then more subtly were you, for example, thinking about it as well as you did last night? The answer for reasons I did not then understand was nearly always no, very well said, the voice, hadn’t you then better try it over again and one obeyed, but of course with no assurance that the second attempt would be any better.
I like that passage. It speaks to a common human struggle, whether it’s in our prayer life like that or just in our general relationship with God, where you have this sense of uncertainty and unsettledness like wondering, where do I stand as a pastor? I’ve discovered Christians frequently feel this way in their relationship with God, and it’s very unsettling. It’s like in a human relationship. If you have a boss who never gives you feedback and you’re never sure and he’s hard to please and you’re not sure, you never know where you stand. Or maybe you have a friend who’s an extreme introvert and they never tell you what they’re actually thinking, and it leaves you always wondering, and that’s very unsettling. Lots of people feel that way in their relationship with God. Lots of true Christians have this unsettled feeling in their walk with God. Is God pleased with me? Have I done enough? Am I on the right path?
And Gavin goes on like that, discussing the problem of lack of assurance and how he thinks assurance is possible and how you might try to obtain it.
He discusses this for 30 minutes, and that testifies to the reality of this problem—including in the Protestant community—in contrast to the dismissive, 90 second short where he criticizes Catholicism.
But when you put the two viewpoints beside each other and look at which will actually provide more practical assurance in this life—especially for scrupulous or fearful people—the advantage goes to the Catholic system.
- When it comes to Conversion, the Catholic has a promise from God that baptism will put you into a state of salvation unless you do something bizarre like knowingly and deliberately faking becoming a Christian.
- While Reformed Baptists don’t have this promise and thus must scrutinize their faith and repentance to see if they were what God wanted. If their faith or repentance was shaky, they may lack assurance.
- When it comes to periodic self-Examination, Catholics only need to ask themselves some simple questions: Were you baptized? Were you consciously and deliberately thwarting it? And do you have any unconfessed mortal sins? If not, you’re in a state of grace.
- While for Reformed Baptists, there may be temporary believers and others who are just fooling themselves, so one must scrutinize one’s interior life and ask—in the words of the London Baptist Confession—whether one truly loves Jesus, whether one loves him with sincerity, and whether one is truly endeavoring to walk before him in good conscience. And God forbid that one look back on one’s conversion and decide one’s faith at the time was shaky or that one’s repentance at the time was shaky.
- When it comes to assessing the gravity of Sin that one has committed, Catholics have a system for classifying the seriousness of sin with criteria that can be applied, providing them with assurance that they do or do not need to take special action beyond repenting.
- While for Reformed Baptists there is no system with criteria for classifying the severity of sins. It’s all up to individual intuitions, which won’t help the fearful get assurance, especially when the London Confession of Faith says that even the smallest sin is worthy of damnation.
- And when it comes to Restoration after sin, Catholics have a simple procedure: If you’ve committed mortal sin, go to confession, and when you’re absolved, you can have assurance because you’ve been absolved by a priest Christ has empowered to forgive you, so you have Christ’s own promise. And even before you go to confession, you can make an act of perfect contrition and have assurance.
- While for Reformed Baptists, there is no such assurance-giving rite. That’s why Gavin came up with the surrogate form of confession where you go to someone for prayer and laying on of hands, only Christ hasn’t specifically empowered that person to forgive sins, and it ultimately comes down to scrutinizing your interior life and asking whether you’ve—in the words of the London Baptist Confession—properly humbled yourself, confessed to God, begged pardon, and renewed your faith and repentance in the way that you should. Worse, if you’ve fallen into sin, you may call into question the whole of your prior Christian life. Consequently, many Baptists get trapped in a cycle—similar to the one C.S. Lewis described—of repeated attempts to do exactly the right thing, even though you don’t have confidence that it worked any better now than it did then.
Having lived as both a Protestant and a Catholic, I thus find that the Catholic way of handling these issues just gives more assurance than the Protestant way does.
The Catholic Church has procedures—backed by divine promises—like baptism and confession—as well as some simple questions to ask—that let you know you’re in a state of grace so you can have assurance.
Of course, it takes time for a Christian to mature into using this system correctly and—just as in the Protestant community—people may veer into having a lax conscience or a scrupulous conscience before they find the right balance.
But at least there’s a framework and a training program to get there in the Catholic community.
In fact, I’ve spelled out how to do that training for priests who work with scrupulous, fearful individuals.
These people start by coming to priests with moral quandaries about whether something is or would be a mortal sin.
- So step 1 is you explain the principles of what is and is not mortal sin to them, you apply them to the case they propose, and you help them see the answer.
- Then, if they keep coming back with new quandaries—which is a sign they’ve developed scrupulosity in a pathological way—you do this a few more times.
- Then you tell them, “Okay, you know the principles now, so you give me your analysis of the situation, and I’ll tell you if you are right.”
- And finally—when they’ve been right a number of times—you say, “You’re consistently doing the correct analyses. You don’t need to come to me. Just have confidence in the correct analyses you’re already making!”
And this works! I know people who were absolutely crippled by scrupulosity in the beginning who have worked this program and experienced virtually total liberation from the condition.
I’ve seen some really amazing transformations as people learn how to analyze the situations for themselves.
But there’s nothing like this in the Protestant community, because they don’t have a way to use criteria to distinguish between different sins and what level of spiritual threat they pose.
Between that and the assurance the divine promises the power the sacraments give us, I thus find that active Catholics just have more assurance than active Protestants do.
And that includes me! I know I’m a lot more secure in my relationship with God than I was when I was Protestant.
Whether you believe the Catholic viewpoint or not, at least we’ve got a system that—if you use it—is designed to reassure people that they are where they need to be, so they can have assurance before God.
Conclusion
Now, before closing, I want to point out that Gavin is not bound to believe the London Confession of Faith the way a Catholic is bound to believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So he might reject large portions of what we’ve covered today. If so, I hope he’ll let me know, because I want to accurately understand the views of my friends.
And I do regard Gavin as a friend.
As you can see, we have some differences of opinion in this area, and that’s okay. Friends can disagree with each other.
I will say that I don’t think that Gavin’s YouTube short was his finest work. I think it compared apples and oranges, and there were some—probably unintentional—slights in it, like the inappropriate chuckles and the pfft! and the incredulous tone.
But I know that Gavin really tries to do high quality work that is thoughtful and kind to everyone. I try to do the same thing.
And I’d ask the listener—whatever part of the theological spectrum you find yourself on—to view both Gavin and me—and everyone else—with kindness.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
And you can also help me keep making this podcast—and you can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!
VIDEO SOURCES:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maljG9PeIis