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 ... Read more on Catholic.com