Roman Catholic dogma still rejects justification by grace through faith alone in favour of faith formed by love. It also rejects assurance of salvation in this life as presumption.
It appears to me that this assertion (that Catholics reject assurance) is unsupported and is just as much a caricature of Catholic teaching as Catholics asserting - ‘Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think ... all they have to do is “accept Christ as their personal Savior,” and it’s done’.
Catholics state that “one can be confident of one’s present salvation.” Further, “salvation can be lost through mortal sin”. (Now ‘mortal sin’ sounds very Catholic so I had to check it out but in Protestant jargon it means “backsliding” as opposed to “stumbling”.) Now, side stepping a point of semantics (that by rejecting Jesus one was never ‘saved’), this strikes me as biblical. We are warned about those who profess faith but fall away or worse become false prophets (Matt 7:21; Matt 24:9-13). So Catholics are right to qualify assurance.
What about the Holy Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance (Eph 1:13-14)? Well, we can still turn our backs on the Spirit since we are warned against grieving the Spirit (ie backsliding) (Eph 4:30; 1 Thes 5:19). Evidently we can discard or throw away our guarantee.
To keep this thread active for a little while longer I’l admit that I’m confused! Angus, can you please confirm which Catholic principle you wish to promote as being biblical? And can you do so in one paragraph or less? Tanx. :-)
Although I’m a little confused about what the thread is for, I am pleased to see the subject raised.
Certainly you can see in many of the writings of Catholics a sense of assurance.
I think that the Catholic approach is to not make it mandatory.
The Protestant position often seems to make it necessary to salvation, whereas the Catholic one is to make it something you receive from God as a result of knowing Him.
In many ways Assurance is simply a logical flow on from coming in contact aith Jesus and giving yourself into His care. He loves, He saves, he is not fickle but constant.
But there is the issue of self deception and the parables of those who said “But Lord, didn’t we heal and cast out demons in your name?” yet He says “I never knew you.”
Some of the somewhat more extreme Protestant writings I have actually say you cannot be saved unless you have assurance of salvation. I find this difficult as the emphasis is on me, my belief… therefore my works (ie; belief) whereas the Catholic one is more on Grace.
I prefer option B.
Having said all that… where is this thread going? Have I made a side comment or is it with the plot?
To keep this thread active for a little while longer I’l admit that I’m confused! Angus, can you please confirm which Catholic principle you wish to promote as being biblical? And can you do so in one paragraph or less? Tanx. :-)
Heather.
Using words of one syllable or less …
I agree, Owen, that our assurance must be because of Jesus’ work, not because of anything that we’ve done.
As someone very wise said to me sometime last year, “Assurance is not assurance of our faith, assurance is assurance in God’s faithfulness.”
To keep this thread active for a little while longer I’l admit that I’m confused! Angus, can you please confirm which Catholic principle you wish to promote as being biblical?
Hi Heather. Yes, on rereading my initial post I certainly could have been a lot clearer. Anyhow, I believe Catholics are correct to qualify “assurance of salvation” by adhering to the biblical truth that “Not everyone who says to me [Jesus], ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 7:21). Mark Baddeley (who I quoted above) evidently finds a difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching on assurance with the strong implication that we have more or full assurance of salvation. I would argue that “full assurance of salvation” is unbiblical. The “full assurance of hope” (Heb 6:11) and “full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22) I believe refers to having full confidence in God’s promises which is of course quite different to full assurance of salvation.
Angus
I sooooo agree with you.My distrust of “hyper-assurance” esp.as it has been presented tome by more fundo groups has really maed me uneasy over the years.
2 Corinthians 13:5
5Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?
Another verse that could be relevant to what you are talking about.
It’s a shame when we people say “Oh it’s okay, So and So maybe be living in unrepentant sin, but I heard him pray the prayer of forgiveness, so obviously he’s saved”
Also;
Jude v21
21Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
Interesting stuff we would be unwise not to ponder.
Roman Catholic dogma still rejects justification by grace through faith alone in favour of faith formed by love. It also rejects assurance of salvation in this life as presumption.
It appears to me that this assertion (that Catholics reject assurance) is unsupported and is just as much a caricature of Catholic teaching as Catholics asserting - ‘Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think ... all they have to do is “accept Christ as their personal Savior,” and it’s done’.
Hi Angus and all,
If I can just add my 2c worth.
I think there needs to be a distinction made between Roman Catholic teaching and what individual Roman Catholics believe.
As far as I can tell, the teaching of the Council of Trent is still in place. Have a look at the section on Justification. You can read the anathemas against those who believe in justification by grace through faith. It also specifically teaches the the good works of the Christian contribute toward attaining eternal life, and that if our sin is great enough then we can loose eternal life. It is because of this teaching that the Christian cannot have assurance in the Work of Jesus alone since we also must contribute toward salvation (with God’s help).
Andrew
It’s true that there is disparity between what individual Catholics believe as compared with officialchurch teaching. But I would add that there is much taught in the Catholic church that is at odds when selectively placed alongside teachings of, to use your example, the Council of Trent.
I’m not using the word ‘selectively’ as a dig at you. I find that the word “Catholic” is true when referring to the Church of Rome, the range of theological opinion and teaching is vast indeed. I know priests who object to the ex cathedra pronunciation of Mary’s Assumption. Consequently they do not teach it at all.
I know Catholics who are very protestant, even fundamentalist in the biblical literalist sense of the word. I know some who are fairly New Age.
But then I can accurately say the same thing about many protestants too. The difference being one lot belong to one church, while the others belong to a multiplicity of churches.
The pronunciations of Trent were as much political as they were theological (perhaps more so) and need to be seen in that light. ie; an admixture of politics and theology. I suspect that the RC church often does do just that. The non-renunciation of those proclomations was also, I think a political and theological decision. In this case, not to meet the challenge of those political/ theological upstarts the “Protestants” but to address the danger of a rift between those who hold to the newer catholic theology and those who hold to the older.
As per Angus’ original suggestion, I’ve moved the discussion on assurance here. I hope people will forgive me for the lack of continuity with the rest of the thread, but I felt that placing my questions here was a better option that either hi-jacking a thread or starting a thread of my own.
Here’s the discourse so far:
Bob Cameron - 23 October 2008 01:11 AM
Joshua Aldersley - 23 October 2008 12:57 AM
Hey Bob,
I’m assuming you’re talking about the assurance thing as something you are concerned about. I also noted that it was part of the Sydney Anglican strategy during WYD to save Catholics from the fires of Hell. I’m just wondering what makes you think “assurance” is the ultimate must have accessory for every dedicated Christian? Sometimes I wonder if Protestants simply assume that someone must, or at least should have assurance and don’t stop to think about why they believe this.
Leaving aside the caricature [ “must have accessory :-) ], I think assurance is a necessary corollary of faith. No, I’m not saying that if you don’t have assurance, you don’t have faith. But I would say that if you lack assurance your faith is weak, or that if your assurance ‘slips’ (so to speak) it’s because your faith has weakened. There are some who would say if a person has no assurance then they do not have saving faith—I’m not one of them; nor was Calvin btw. But what a pity not to have that confidence which the gospel holds out to us, that if we trust Jesus and his promises, we have, not “will have” eternal life!
Observing the recent antics during WYD in which Catholics were asked “whether they were sure they would go to heaven if they died tonight”, I couldn’t help but think that the question was rather loaded and manipulative. The implication is that if you don’t have assurance, at worst you’re not a Christian, and at best your faith is defective and inferior to the Protestant questioner.
I have my own theories on the issue of assurance. In short, I believe that Martin Luther was obsessive-compulsive and the doctrine of assurance was merely a theological innovation Luther read into the text to help him deal with his own inner demons. From this case of pathology, assurance is now one of the staples of Protestant belief, assumed without much further contemplation.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I can understand the appeal of assurance. Certainty is certainly nice and comfortable, not to mention black and white. Especially for a teenager or a university student facing uncertainty concerning his or her future it could be very reassuring. However, at the same time, life is not black and white, but rather full of ambiguity. Indeed, it is this very ambiguity that makes my faith vibrant and allows me to grow as a person.
I guess I have many questions about assurance, but hopefully these will suffice for now:
(1) What exactly is “assurance”?
(2) How do you know you have assurance? In other words “How do you have assurance of your assurance ... of your assurance?”
(3) Say a person who previously and sincerely claims to have had assurance backslides and denounces Christianity. Was this person’s assurance a sham?
(4) If so, how do you know your assurance is not a sham?
Hi again Joshua. Assurance refers to the confidence a Christian should have of complete forgiveness following genuine repentance that restores our right standing with God. This forgiveness is based solely on God’s grace through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, and not on anything that we have done to earn that forgiveness. As Christians we can be confident of our salvation if we remain faithful to our calling. However, any “assurance of salvation” is contingent on continuing faithfulness. We can also be fully assured that God will remain faithful to his promises to us, and the Holy Spirit he gives us is that guarantee. God won’t turn his back on us, but we can turn our back on God if we so choose.
Thanks Angus. Broadly speaking I’d agree with what you are saying. God is faithful to His promises even when we lose faith in God. God chooses to hold onto His own and I don’t believe we can “fall away” in the sense that we lose track accidentally. That said, we can make the conscious and deliberate decision to reject God if we so choose. This is what the Catholic Church understands as mortal sin.
It should be noted that Catholicism believes that the degree of our culpability depends upon our level of freedom and knowledge, lack of knowledge (spiritually speaking) being something that inhibits our freedom. As Christians, we are growing daily in our level of both freedom and knowledge, but we will not be fully purified until God has completed the good work He has started in us and He has promised to complete. In this sense, though I am saved, I am still in the process of being saved and eagerly await the day when I am fully free, which is God’s work of salvation completed.
I don’t accept the doctrine of Assurance insofar as it focusses on us. Where it focusses on God, that He is faithful and true it is valid. But where it comes down to our subjectivity I think it is flawed. Where it is limited by time it is flawed.
eg: I may believe I am saved and tonight, should I die, will go to heaven. But God may see that my repentance is not true, that my heart has not changed and that I have simply tricked myself into thinking that I am right with Him.
or
I may indeed repent truly, I may indeed have, through Christ’s sacrifice, entered into His life. But then I may also, indeed turn away. (I understand I may be treading the heady waters of heresy to Calvinist thought here - apologies)
The truth of whether or not I am saved is known to Christ. I do not need to know anything other than He is true and that I am fickle. I choose therefore to rely more and more on His constancy. (OK, that is probably total tosh- I probably fail to do that more than succeed in doing it).
My only real problem now days is that many protestants get really anxious about this attitude and think it constitutes a lack of faith.
I get puzzled about their anxiety and occasionally offended when they get pushy.
But God may see that my repentance is not true, that my heart has not changed and that I have simply tricked myself into thinking that I am right with Him.
Yes, this was what I was getting at when I asked questions 3 and 4. Your answer very much sums up my feeling on the subject, Owen.
But God may see that my repentance is not true, that my heart has not changed and that I have simply tricked myself into thinking that I am right with Him.
Yes, this was what I was getting at when I asked questions 3 and 4. Your answer very much sums up my feeling on the subject, Owen.
I think deep down we know whether we genuinely believe. Are we trusting God to transform us into his people, loving and honouring him and each other (however imperfectly we do that)? Ultimately it is Spirit working in us to change us, so the evidence of lasting faith is in bearing the fruit of the
Spirit (eg love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control as per Gal 5:22-23).
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
