“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[Jimmy_B]

“Once Saved Always Saved” or “OSAS” is an errant belief that many Protestant Christians hold to and there are many different “Protestant” definitions of what “OSAS” actually means.

Which leads us to the second errant Protestant belief, which allows for the “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

These two beliefs came from man’s ego and and his own intellect and not from God. They are both anti-biblical and anti-Christian, they are nonsensical and they do not work in the real world. They are both a contradiction.

Many more beliefs that are false have arose from these first two false beliefs (OSAS and Personal interpretation) and they have cause much division and many, million individual cases, where people actually belong to the “religion of their own intellect and ego” and not to any Church that Jesus Christ founded and that God intended for all men.

I am a Roman Catholic, so obviously I disagree with these two fabricated, man-made errors; “OSAS” and “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Adam14]

What about people who attend OSAS churches that are never exposed to the Catholic church? This really does happen, and in several cases, depending on where in the US you live. I grew up going to a Baptist church. I knew that the Catholic church existed, but I knew nothing about what it tought, and I saw it as another denomination. Then I viewed the different denominations(I included Catholics in this) as, some prefer choclate mikshakes, some prefer vanilla, I prefer strawberry…but we’re all drinking milkshakes…only the flavor is different.

I can’t even tell you where a Catholic church was located in my home town (maybe next town over?).

My point is, I don’t think OSAS churches are intentionally doing this in spite of the Catholic church, or in spite of what they know to be the truth, but instead believing this because they think IT IS the truth.

Should they be shunned for not knowing?

 

[Jimmy_B]

What about people who attend OSAS churches that are never exposed to the Catholic church? This really does happen, and in several cases, depending on where in the US you live. I grew up going to a Baptist church. I knew that the Catholic church existed, but I knew nothing about what it tought, and I saw it as another denomination. Then I viewed the different denominations(I included Catholics in this) as, some prefer choclate mikshakes, some prefer vanilla, I prefer strawberry…but we’re all drinking milkshakes…only the flavor is different.

I can’t even tell you where a Catholic church was located in my home town (maybe next town over?).

My point is, I don’t think OSAS churches are intentionally doing this in spite of the Catholic church, or in spite of what they know to be the truth, but instead believing this because they think IT IS the truth.

Should they be shunned for not knowing?

Hello Adam14,

Good post, I agree and there is definitely some truth to this…

We should pray for all of our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters and for ecumenicalism, which results in true Christian unity…unity in Christian beliefs.

Peace

 

[ckempston]

I actually agree with you on OSAS, because it’s simply not Biblical, and agree to an extent that there is a correct interpretation to any given scripture, and it is not subjective; however, is it not your personal interpretation that the Catholic Church is the true church, or that the Magesterium is the interpretive authority? That’s circular reasoning. You’re accusing Protestants of a fallacy, but are also committing one yourself. The accusation of “personal interpretation” is often a straw man argument against non-Catholics. Most people don’t believe in personal interpetation, but correct interpretation. For the most part, the Bible means what it says, and says what it means. The only time it doesn’t do this is when it makes use of Jewish idioms and makes statements in a cultural context. There is no need for a Magesterium to interpret, just a little homework.

The vast majority of differences from Catholics and Protestants come from the assumptions that each brings to Biblical interpretation. For Catholics, it’s deference to the Magesterium. For Protestants, it’s deference to the philosophies of either Calvin or Luther, (sola scriptura, sola fide). Simply making an observation here, not agreeing or disagreeing with any of these.

 

[Bwsherman]

I actually agree with you on OSAS, because it’s simply not Biblical, and agree to an extent that there is a correct interpretation to any given scripture, and it is not subjective; however, is it not your personal interpretation that the Catholic Church is the true church, or that the Magesterium is the interpretive authority? That’s circular reasoning. You’re accusing Protestants of a fallacy, but are also committing one yourself. The accusation of “personal interpretation” is often a straw man argument against non-Catholics. Most people don’t believe in personal interpetation, but correct interpretation. For the most part, the Bible means what it says, and says what it means. The only time it doesn’t do this is when it makes use of Jewish idioms and makes statements in a cultural context. There is no need for a Magesterium to interpret, just a little homework.

The vast majority of differences from Catholics and Protestants come from the assumptions that each brings to Biblical interpretation. For Catholics, it’s deference to the Magesterium. For Protestants, it’s deference to the philosophies of either Calvin or Luther, (sola scriptura, sola fide). Simply making an observation here, not agreeing or disagreeing with any of these.

If there is no need for a Magesterium, than how does objective truth become evident for Christianity? You say that all one needs to do is a little homework and that the Bible means what is says and says what it means, but you must concede that there are many exceptions to this rule. In those exceptions, who can decipher that fact from the fiction? I too believe what you say about the Bible being mostly straightforward, but I also believe that what I Timothy 3:15 says is true,

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

 

[cazayoux]

What about people who attend OSAS churches that are never exposed to the Catholic church? This really does happen, and in several cases, depending on where in the US you live. I grew up going to a Baptist church. I knew that the Catholic church existed, but I knew nothing about what it tought, and I saw it as another denomination. Then I viewed the different denominations(I included Catholics in this) as, some prefer choclate mikshakes, some prefer vanilla, I prefer strawberry…but we’re all drinking milkshakes…only the flavor is different.

I can’t even tell you where a Catholic church was located in my home town (maybe next town over?).

My point is, I don’t think OSAS churches are intentionally doing this in spite of the Catholic church, or in spite of what they know to be the truth, but instead believing this because they think IT IS the truth.

Should they be shunned for not knowing?

Thankfully, we are only culpable of what we understand. (unlike civil law)
As Catholics, we have the fullness of the truth, which means we have more responsibility with what that truth we know.

Luke 12:48

Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

It seems to me that if OSAS was true, Paul’s letters would have been much shorter. Along the lines of “no worries, y’all are good!”

michel

 

[ckempston]

Please provide an example. I am not saying that none exist, but I think, excluding apocalyptic writings, there is nothing that has an impact on one’s salvation that is in any way confusing. I stand by my statement that the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

I have not totally concluded that there is no need for a Magesterium, but I have my doubts, partly based on the circular reasoning I just pointed out. I’ve been reserving judgment for some time in my life. I am not Catholic, though I was raised Catholic in my early life, and most of my “personal” interpretation tends to agree with the Catholic interpretation after years of study; though, for a long time, I was decidedly anti-Catholic. That in itself could be made into an argument for the Magesterium, but again, I reserve judgment.

 

[cazayoux]

Please provide an example. I am not saying that none exist, but I think, excluding apocalyptic writings, there is nothing that has an impact on one’s salvation that is in any way confusing. I stand by my statement that the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

2 Peter 3:16

In them there are some things hard to understand

 

[ckempston]

I’m familiar with 2 Peter 3:16, but what I was looking for was an example of one of these “confusing” passages. It’s also not clear that Peter was addressing all of Paul’s writings, or even if any of the writings he was addressing are part of the Canon, because we certainly do not have all of the Apostle’s writings (i.e. there are 3 letters to the Corinthians and we only have two).

 

[Oblaidon]

Here is a common point of interpretation:

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Catholics believe and can biblically defend that Jesus meant what he said. Not symbolically. This could lead us into another whole debate, but this is an example of interpretation. There are many more.

 

[TriuneUnity]

2 Peter 3:16

Fortunately, Peter does not say “There are many things in them that are hard to understand for the purposes of salvation; so feel free to not pay much attention to those, let the Magisterium tell you how to be saved.”

 

[ckempston]

How is that passage confusing? I can Biblically defend, based on my personal interpretation, that Jesus meant what he said too. The problem is Catholics don’t just stop at interpreting what Jesus said, they add the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation.

What Catholics are really trying to say is that if someone distorts a passage, this is evidence for the need of a Magesterium. That can’t be tested or proven. The inverse claim can be made just as easily: that if someone interprets a passage correctly, this is evidence that we don’t need a Magesterium.

I see that we have completely skirted my original objection: that every Catholic must, at some point, determine via personal interpretation, that the Catholic church is the true church. If personal interpretation is wrong in every other case, then Catholics are guilty of special pleading along with circular reasoning. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[RCCDefender]

Yes, personal interpretation of the Bible…

For the protestant to simply read the Bible they must lean on the Magesterium. If they need no Magesterium then I am sure they can easily show me either:

a) where in the Bible it says which specific tomes should be there

or

b) evidence that they have found all the hundreds of tomes that were written at the time and they have perused them and found which specific ones were divinely inspired, warranted a place in the Book of books, and that their conclusions happen to match those of the Magesterium.

Otherwise the protestant must admit to borrowing from the authority of the Catholic Church, which we certainly don’t mind, but it might be nice sometimes to receive credit where credit is due.

Peace.

 

[cazayoux]

Fortunately, Peter does not say “There are many things in them that are hard to understand for the purposes of salvation; so feel free to not pay much attention to those, let the Magisterium tell you how to be saved.”

Fortunately he doesn’t say “everyone grab their bible and figure it out for themselves without any direction from the church that Christ himself founded”

… wait … Matthew addresses what to do if someone doesn’t properly follow teachings …

Matthew 18:17

tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church…

 

[ckempston]

Yes, personal interpretation of the Bible…

For the protestant to simply read the Bible they must lean on the Magesterium. If they need no Magesterium then I am sure they can easily show me either:

a) where in the Bible it says which specific tomes should be there

or

b) evidence that they have found all the hundreds of tomes that were written at the time and they have perused them and found which specific ones were divinely inspired, warranted a place in the Book of books, and that their conclusions happen to match those of the Magesterium.

Otherwise the protestant must admit to borrowing from the authority of the Catholic Church, which we certainly don’t mind, but it might be nice sometimes to receive credit where credit is due.

Peace.

I don’t have a problem with this any more than I have a problem with leaning on the Jews who gave us the Old Testament. Does that mean the Jews have authority over the Catholic church to tell her what to believe? Didn’t think so.

The Word of God has been preserved by God. Over the millenia, he has used individuals, nations, and organizations to do so. Not one of them, taken individually, holds a corner on the Truth.

 

[cazayoux]

I don’t have a problem with this any more than I have a problem with leaning on the Jews who gave us the Old Testament. Does that mean the Jews have authority over the Catholic church to tell her what to believe? Didn’t think so.

The Word of God has been preserved by God. Over the millenia, he has used individuals, nations, and organizations to do so. Not one of them, taken individually, holds a corner on the Truth.

Interesting question … who defined the canon of the old testament?
The Catholic Church did!

Jews didn’t have a canon for scripture.
They defined one in the 90’s, after Christ established his church and after the destruction of the temple.
As Christians we do not believe the Jews had any authority to define a table of contents for the old testament.

michel

 

[TriuneUnity]

Interesting question … who defined the canon of the old testament?
The Catholic Church did!

Jews didn’t have a canon for scripture.
They defined one in the 90’s, after Christ established his church and after the destruction of the temple.
As Christians we do not believe the Jews had any authority to define a table of contents for the old testament.

michel

The author of a book defines his canon, not the audience. Only God can decide what is canonical simply by the fact that He has authored it. The Jews had the canonical writings and KNEW they had the Word of God without an infallible body proclaiming it to be so. And most importantly, Jesus expected them to abide by that canon.

 

[ckempston]

Fortunately he doesn’t say “everyone grab their bible and figure it out for themselves without any direction from the church that Christ himself founded”

… wait … Matthew addresses what to do if someone doesn’t properly follow teachings …

Matthew 18:17

Never, in the whole New Testament, does “church” mean Magesterium. Ekklesia means gathering of the body or those called out. It never denotes the leaders of the church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Fortunately he doesn’t say “everyone grab their bible and figure it out for themselves without any direction from the church that Christ himself founded”

… wait … Matthew addresses what to do if someone doesn’t properly follow teachings …

Matthew 18:17

Simply by the fact that Paul wrote how to be saved means he expected his audience to understand what he was writing.

Matt 18:17 has nothing to do with the context of Paul’s writings on salvation.