The OSAS doesn’t make sense, because if someone turns away from the faith, then they weren’t saved to begin with. However, anyone could be deceived into believing they are saved, and so any claim that a person is saved can’t be certain because they can turn away from the faith in the future. This is not logical and does not make sense.
I know catholics believe we cannot be infallibly sure of our own salvation. There is no problem here, and makes sense.
However, I came face to face with a protestant minister recently (he works at UMC, although theology wise is a general protestant). He says one can lose his/her salvation but a person can have assurance of his/her salvation when that person has it.
Now my question is, is there some fallacy or illogical aspect that does not make sense in this viewpoint, that one can be certain of one’s salvation but can also lose his/her salvation (similar to how I pointed out how OSAS is illogical). This isn’t necessarily from a scriptural viewpoint, but more from a logical standpoint on whether it makes sense.
This is an important point because Catholics are often criticized for not being able to provide any assurance of salvation. In actuality, it is the other way around. Catholics have the sacraments which are objective signs of grace, and we can look to our own faith and conduct as indicators of whether we are heaven-bound. If we are not conscious of any mortal sin, we are probably good. If we are in an adulterous relationship, we need to end that and go to confession. Assuming a well-formed conscience, we can be quite certain of our salvation. On the other hand, if you belive in a Calvinistic idea of justification, if you fall away (by whatever standards you happen to have), that means that no matter how much you thought you believed, your whole Christian life was a total lie. There was no grace whatsoever. That’s quite a nightmare if you stop to think about it. Most don’t.
For what that minister says it is hard to know exactly what he means without asking him more questions. At the very least, it is impossible to have infallible assurance because we could also be delusional. Even if you supposed that the elect somehow had infallible knowledge that they were elect, the reprobate could also think they had the infallible knowledge that they were elect, and so believing you are elect is not sufficient to be elect.
Calvin himself in his Institutes (III.2.11) talks about those who by all outward appearances have grace and who are inwardly convicted of their salvation, but in reality are delusional.
I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that 479the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html
.
