Debate: Catholic Assurance of Salvation

This exchange took place in the combox of the video by Kenny Burchard: “Can Catholics even know if they’re saved?” (9-19-24). I provide the biblical research for the videos in this series, called Catholic Bible Highlights. The Protestant commenter’s words will be in blue. I have cited all of them.

*****

The answer to the video’s title question must be answered with an unequivocal NO. Catholics cannot know the certainty of their salvation because, “Nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262). The fact that there are so many “conditions” must surely put Catholics in a frazzled state of mind.

We must also answer “no” to the question because all fans of the Pope are seeking to be, “supernaturally endowed to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts for the salvation of the soul” (ibid, p. 261).   But where is this mandate found in the Bible, let alone how can any Catholic ever know if they’re doing enough? The fact is, they can’t. A salvation based on works is sure to backfire come Judgment Day.

Finally, we must answer “no” because they are taking a position that has no biblical precedent; namely that “Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee [climax] in the death of sacrifice on the cross, [but] it is not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption….” (ibid. 185).

I wonder what Jesus would think about those who don’t consider him the “efficient cause” as to the saving of the soul?

It’s not “NO” at all. Catholics are as much assured of their salvation (if they are free of mortal sin) as any Protestant. The bottom line is that no one knows the future, and whether they will fall away or not. Calvinists play the game, when one of their number falls into sin and rebellion, of saying that they never were saved, because their theology requires them to do that. But they don’t know that. Even John Calvin said we can’t know for sure who is in the elect and who isn’t.

What must be better understood here is the Catholic belief in “moral assurance of salvation.” I wrote about it. Here is a large chunk of the article:

The degree of moral assurance we can have is very high. The point is to examine ourselves to see if we are mired in serious sin, and to repent of it. If we do that, and know that we are not subjectively guilty of mortal sin, and relatively free from venial sin, then we can have a joyful assurance that we are on the right road.

I always use my own example, by noting that when I was an evangelical, I felt very assured of salvation, though I also believed (as an Arminian) that one could fall away if one rejected Jesus outright. Now as a Catholic I feel hardly any different than I did as an evangelical. I don’t worry about salvation. I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God. I trust in God’s mercy, and know that if I fall into deep sin, His grace will cause me to repent of it (and I will go along in my own free will) so that I can be restored to a relationship with Him.

We observe St. Paul being very confident and not prone to lack of trust in God at all. He had a robust faith and confidence, yet he still had a sense of the need to persevere and to be vigilant. He didn’t write as if it were a done deal: that he got “saved” one night in Damascus and signed on the dotted line, made an altar call and gave his life to Jesus, saying the sinner’s prayer or reciting John 3:16.

The biblical record gives us what is precisely the Catholic position: neither the supposed “absolute assurance” of the evangelical Protestant, nor the manic, legalistic, Pharisaical, mechanical caricature of what outsider, non-experienced critics of Catholicism think Catholicism is, where a person lives a “righteous” life for 70 years, then falls into lust for three seconds, gets hit by a car, and goes to hell (as if either Catholic teaching or God operate in that infantile fashion).

The truth of the matter is that one can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. The mortal / venial sin distinction is itself explicitly biblical. All this stuff is eminently biblical. That’s where we got it!

In the article, I back this up with tons of Scripture.

“But where is this mandate found in the Bible, let alone how can any Catholic ever know if they’re doing enough? The fact is, they can’t.”

It is in the data regarding the examination of conscience. See my paper on that topic.  Excerpt:

We Catholics believe in being very self-aware and “vigilant” in the spiritual life: we’re always examining ourselves to make sure that our hearts are oriented towards God (as a result — always — of God’s grace, that we must seek and ask for).

This very self-examination is what Protestants sometimes critique and scorn as “uncertainty of salvation,” as if it were a bondage or something undesirable, or altogether lacking in the hope and joy and peace that we have in Christ. Not at all. St. Paul expressed something that I believe is very much along these lines:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (RSV) Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Paul also wrote to the same Corinthians about the same necessity of self-examination:

1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

“A salvation based on works is sure to backfire come Judgment Day.”

I agree! I disagree, however, that the Catholic Church teaches Pelagianism. Look up the first three canons on justification from the Council of Trent. Even John Calvin agreed with them in his critique of Trent. And they teach salvation by grace alone, not by works, just as in Protestantism.

“I wonder what Jesus would think about those who don’t consider him the ‘efficient cause’ as to the saving of the soul?”

“Efficient” and “sufficient” are two different concepts. “Sufficient” is defined at Dictionary.com as “adequate for the purpose; enough.” “Efficient” is defined as “producing an effect, as a cause.” The cross was 1000% sufficient for the salvation of anyone. But it’s not 100% efficient because the damned refuse to freely assent and cooperate with God’s free gift of grace for salvation. As a result, they go to hell and even the cross can’t prevent that outcome, because God allows them to make that sad choice.

Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is not 100% efficient for the salvation of all, given human free will. It’s sufficient for anyone who accepts God’s mercy and the free gift of salvation by grace alone. If it were efficient, no one would go to hell, and universalism would be true. But we know from the Bible that it’s not. We deny irresistible grace, because it’s not a biblical doctrine.

I am familiar with your articles and even quoted you in one of my papers; namely, your statement on “merit” saying that, “Our meritorious actions are always necessarily preceded and caused and crowned and bathed in God’s enabling grace”.

I disagreed violently with that statement because it’s a half truth, that ultimately amounts to no truth at all. I mention it here because it will relate to your current comment.

Essentially, you failed to make the distinction between being SAVED by grace (defined as God’s unmerited FAVOR) and its secondary meaning, as you correctly point out above, of it being defined as his “enabling grace” (or “actual” grace, that being the power to perform this that or the other thing). The problem with Catholicism is that those in her ranks are hoping for heaven based on the good deeds they do with God’s ENABLING grace, explicitly stated in CCC 1821, but NOWHERE mentioned in Scripture.

In your comment, you mention the free gift OF God’s grace FOR salvation which only proves you’re trusting in his ENABLING grace to do good deeds, rather than saying we are saved BYYYY grace…WITHOUT the merit of works (the biblical view). You prove your own point by saying, “I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God”.

Well that’s nice, but THAT’S NOT THE GOSPEL Mr. Armstrong. Nor is Mr. Ott’s proclamation I made previously that salvation will be granted when God’s grace “supernaturally endows” someone “to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts FOR the salvation of the soul” (ibid, p. 261).

NO! Only faith in the “extraordinarily heroic act” of Christ’s life and death saves the soul (Romans 5:10) and nothing more or less than that. It is the charity of what Christ has done altogether OUTSIDE of us that saves, not the charity of the Holy Spirit IN us!

You admit to trusting in the latter by mentioning your hand-clapping SERVITUDE, but it can never be. Neither will the statement by Robert Sungenis pass the fiery eyes of the Judge on that final day; namely, “Works become JUST AS MUCH a salvific part of the individual’s justification as his faith” (Not By Faith Alone, p. 172). That book came with the official stamps of approval by the higher ups, as well as page after page of endorsements from all the typical Catholic luminaries. (Can’t recall if you were one of them and I’m too lazy to get up and look). [I wasn’t]

So: unless I receive some sort of rebuttal, be it resolved then that the RCC attaches a salvific EFFICACY to such things as that coin you dropped in the homeless man’s hat, and THAT COIN may be considered to have “JUST AS MUCH” saving power as the blood that dripped down Calvary’s cross. Like it or not, this is what logically follows such thinking and it is…  DIS-graceful.

As you can see, I’ve put aside the topic of assurance for now because it’s more important it be emphasized that assurance, let alone salvation, does NOT result from works that COME FROM grace. Scripture says that salvation “is by faith, that it may be ACCORDING TO grace” (Romans 4:16; i.e., his unmerited favor); it does not say, “by faith according to works that COME FROM grace”, which is exactly what Catholicism teaches and must be countered for those of us inclined to do so.

Yes, the works that come from his grace-producing power may be derivative of, may be a consequence of, and may actually PROVE grace is active, but good works cannot be compared to the blood of Christ, nor can it CONSIST of the saving grace of Romans 4:16; namely, a free gift which is said to be “guaranteed” by faith, and I would say, faith ALONE. God does not give us that free gift based on what WE do, but based on faith in what someone ELSE has done. Neither do those works have any part in the SAVING grace (not enabling grace) in which we now STAND (Romans 5:2).

Good day.

Again, we do not teach salvation by works. We teach justification by grace alone: by faith alone (initially), and then after that, salvation by the grace-enabled faith that organically contains within itself grace-enabled works, without which it is dead. Good works must be done after initial justification, and can’t be separated from the overall equation of salvation and arbitrarily placed in a separate box of “non-salvific sanctification.” The latter interpretation was not taught by the Church fathers and was introduced by Philip Melanchthon 1500 years after Christ. Protestant scholars Alister McGrath (an expert on the history of justification) and Norman Geisler affirm this.

Works alone don’t save us. That’s the heresy of Pelagianism. But they are necessary / non-optional in conjunction with grace and faith. The Bible massively teaches this (contrary to you saying that it never does). Recently, I compiled 78 Bible passages that establish this beyond any conceivable doubt, along with 37 that teach the doctrine of merit.

You can’t just repeat Protestant slogans and the usual handful of verses that are almost always mentioned. You have to actually grapple with and incorporate relevant Scripture. You have offered three verses: that we can easily harmonize with our view. I have 78 on the relationship of salvation, faith, and works. For this discussion to proceed, you have to show us all how all those Bible passages can and must be interpreted within the framework of “faith alone” soteriology. I say that they cannot. It’s impossible. Meanwhile, you have still not fully comprehended Catholic soteriology. It contains some subtleties and complexity, because it’s based on the Bible, which also contains things difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:16), so this is to be expected.

“the RCC attaches a salvific EFFICACY to such things as that coin you dropped in the homeless man’s hat, and THAT COIN may be considered to have “JUST AS MUCH” saving power as the blood that dripped down Calvary’s cross.”

That’s not what we believe. As a Catholic apologist for now 34 years, I have never ever said anything as ridiculous as — or within a million miles of — your example of giving someone a coin in charity, and that this supposedly has as much saving power as Christ’s blood. It’s a caricature. You get nowhere creating straw men and knocking them down. We believe that sanctification can’t be separated from justification and salvation, and that works have some relevance to salvation, because Jesus and Paul and all other Bible writers said so. I just summarized this compelling biblical teaching in a recent 1000-word article for National Catholic Register. Here is the heart of that:

Jesus taught that “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 7:19), and when directly asked about how one obtains eternal life, He said, “keep the commandments” and, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor” (Mt 19:16-17, 21). Jesus stated that His disciples who had done the good, self-sacrificing works of leaving “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands” for His sake, would “inherit eternal life” as a reward (Mt 19:29).

Jesus said that those who would receive “eternal life” (Mt 25:46) would because “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35), and then He clarified that if they “did it to one of the least of these my brethren” they “did it” to Him (Mt 25:40). He also said, “love your enemies, and do good, . . . and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35) and that “those who have done good” will be saved (Jn 5:29), and, “do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand” (Rev 2:5). Jesus stated that the saved were those who were “sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18).

St. Paul taught the same: “as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” (Rom 1:17); “to those who by patience in well-doing seek for . . . immortality, he will give eternal life . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:7, 10); “the doers of the law . . . will be justified” (Rom 2:13). The “end” of “sanctification” is “eternal life” (Rom 6:22), and indeed we are “saved, through sanctification” (2 Thess 2:13); we’re “fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17; cf. 1 Pet 4:13). He taught that we must do many good things and be fruitful in order to be saved:

Galatians 5:14, 19, 21–23 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” . . . [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: . . . [21] . . . those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.

2 Thessalonians 1:8, 11 inflicting vengeance . . . upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . . [11] To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

1 Timothy 4:12, 15-16 . . . set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. . . . [15] Practice these duties, . . . [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Paul frequently makes many similar points in his letters: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13); “work heartily, . . . knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Col 3:23-24); “woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness” (1 Tim 2:15); “aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Tim 6:11-12); “keep the commandment. . . . do good, . . . be rich in good deeds, . . . so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Tim 6:14, 18-19).

All of this (and several more passages I have from NT writers besides Paul) contradicts the Protestant “pillar” of “faith alone”: where works are – although highly urged – optional in the sense that they supposedly have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. The Bible — as always — is clear, and it refutes faith alone soteriology and proves the Catholic view of justification and salvation.