“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[justasking4]

Jimmy B;4015629]Hello sola_scriptura,

You gave two explanations of OSAS, which essentially mean the same thing, that is; that a person who is “Saved” will no longer sin. Both semantical arguments given, are confusing, defy any understanding of the human condition and free-will and are both non-biblical and in error.

OSAS is anti—biblical and anti-Christian and doesn’t make any logical sense. OSAS, wrongly assumes that one’s Salvation, prior to Final Judgment…. has been predetermined, hence, assuming God’s role prior to God’s

Final Judgment.

This is the problem with “personal interpretation of the Bible”….”match the verse to the belief”. This process will unfortunately, lead many to the loss of their Salvation… it won’t”Save” them…
Did you not just do here the very thing that you tell us not to do by giving us your personal interpretation?
I don’t believe that God is going to allow us to have a slick; defense attorney to make semanical arguments on our behalf, during our Final Judgment…
Do you believe then in I John 2:1 which says we do have an “Advocate”?
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous]"]An Advocate means in this verse— It is properly a verbal adj. referring to an aid of any kind. In the Greek writers, used of a legal advisor, pleader, proxy, or advocate, one who comes forward in behalf of and as the representative of another. Thus, in 1 John 2:1, Christ is termed our substitutionary, intercessory advocate.

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G3875).

Please try again…thank you.
What verses of the Scripture does the Catholic church offically use to teach that man is not secure in his salvation in Christ?

 

[po18guy]

What verses of the Scripture does the Catholic church offically use to teach that man is not secure in his salvation in Christ?

You’ve heard all of this many times, but I guess you need to be remnded from time to time: Everything about Judas’ end, “it would be better for him if he had never been born” as well as Paul’s exhortation to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” and Saint Peter’s words about those who have the faith, but become entangled in this world, ending up worse than they started. With more time, I’ll get you the chapters/verses.

Where does scripture say you cannot lose salvation. I mean specifically, not allegorically or metaphorically? I’m wondering.

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;4016548]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What verses of the Scripture does the Catholic church offically use to teach that man is not secure in his salvation in Christ?

po18guy
You’ve heard all of this many times, but I guess you need to be remnded from time to time: Everything about Judas’ end, “it would be better for him if he had never been born” as well as Paul’s exhortation to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” and Saint Peter’s words about those who have the faith, but become entangled in this world, ending up worse than they started. With more time, I’ll get you the chapters/verses.

Can you get the Catholic Church’ offical interpretation? That would help me to know what the church offically teaches about this.

Where does scripture say you cannot lose salvation. I mean specifically, not allegorically or metaphorically? I’m wondering.

A couple to look at would be:
(John 10:28). How can eternal life be eternal if it can be lost particularly when Jesus said that they will never perish. If they will never perish, then they can’t lose their salvation. Also, Paul says that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38-39).

 

[minkymurph]

Can you get the Catholic Church’ offical interpretation? That would help me to know what the church offically teaches about this.

A couple to look at would be:
(John 10:28). How can eternal life be eternal if it can be lost particularly when Jesus said that they will never perish. If they will never perish, then they can’t lose their salvation. Also, Paul says that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38-39).

I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church will give you an official interpretation of what the Church teaches on anything.

John 10.28. Eternal life cannot be lost once it has been given. While we are still on Earth and not in heaven, we have not yet reached that state of grace.

Romans 8:38-39. I believe Paul said this in the context of not being afraid of what anyone can do to us. I don’t believe he was teaching that unrepented sin will automatically be forgiven. It is not possible to repent fully of every single sin we commit for a variety of reasons. It is possible to be unaware of certain sins we have committed and unaware of their affect on others. We also may have neglected to put to right any wrongs we may have committed against others when we had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we must rely on God’s mercy. I would say that it is presumptious to assume we will automatically enter heaven anyway because we believed in Jesus.

It is also possible to reject Christ after knowing the truth.

Hebrews 10:26-31. If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice left. There is only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the fiery wrath that is to *devour your enemies * and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it where not holy … will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

I know my friend who believes in ‘Once saved always saved’ would say that a person who falls after being saved, we know it happened; the fraud of Ananias and Sapphira,would say that that person was not ‘really saved’ in the first place. Therefore, how can we conclude that anyone is ‘really saved?’

I would also ask; why did Peter raise Dorcas, a member of the early Christian community and highly thought of, from the dead? Did she go to heaven? If not, why not and where, or what state was her soul in if not in heaven?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello sola_scriptura,

You gave two explanations of OSAS, which essentially mean the same thing, that is; that a person who is “Saved” will no longer sin.

I don’t think OSAS posits that we no longer “sin” once we are saved, and I know perseverance of the saints does not. Indeed the entire reason why we need a Savior is because we’re sinners. The reformed (Calvinist) view is that if a person is truly regenerated by God then they are predestined.

We believe God does not regenerate people in futility. If one truly believes in the Lordship of Christ then they will persevere. There is some nuance between the doctrines of perseverance and OSAS (also called “eternal security”).

I found a good commentary on OSAS:

In John 10:28-30, Jesus says: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." The forgiveness of God through Christ is sufficient to cover all of our sins – past, present, and future. There is nothing a person can do that God cannot forgive. This doctrine is supported by Romans 8:38-39, Ephesians 4:30, and Jude 24, among others. (link here)

Calvinist (reformed) denominations go through hoops to explain why our doctrine of perseverance of the saints is not the same as OSAS (typically ascribed to by Baptists). However, I personally see little practical difference between them, and the more I learn about both doctrines the more I agree with them.

*The Bible teaches that man is inherently sinful – that a sinful nature is a part of all of us (Romans 3:10). This means that even after being saved, every single believer is going to sin from time to time. Thinking that we can live a perfect, sinless life after our salvation is not only unscriptural, but arrogant (James 2:10). If we are not eternally secure, this sinning will cause us to lose our salvation, but how much sin is too much? There is no scriptural “yardstick” given to tell us how many or what kind of sins are enough to void our salvation. Without eternal security, the Bible would describe a situation where Christianity is a perpetual game of Russian Roulette; a life in which condemnation and salvation alternate every time we sin and confess, and we never know if we’re saved or not.

Scriptural passages (Ephesians 2:8-9, Isaiah 64:6) indicate that our attempts at good deeds will never earn us a place in heaven. We cannot make up for our past, present, or future sins by doing good works. A saved believer will, as a natural product of their faith, shun sin and practice good works (James 2:18). If “once saved, always saved” is not true, then by necessity we are saved both by our faith and our works. If we can do sinful things, or not do good things (James 4:17) and lose our security, then our good deeds are a part of our salvation. This is concept is contradictory to Scripture. It also creates an unlivable scenario where we have to try to do enough good to outweigh our sinful natures. The doctrine of “eternal security” goes hand in hand with the doctrine of “saved by faith alone.” To deny eternal security is to endorse a “faith plus works” salvation system (see Id.).*

Both semantical arguments given, are confusing, defy any understanding of the human condition and free-will and are both non-biblical and in error.

First of all the idea of election & predestination couldn’t be more Biblical, the Catholic Church does not deny this. Indeed the earliest proponent of doctrines like irresistible grace and unconditional election was St. Augustine, who is viewed as one of the preeminent fathers of the RCC. Indeed John Calvin drew most of his theological inspiration from Augustine.

When you say “denial of free will” isn’t Biblical I suppose you have to expand on that statement. Obviously when the question of free will versus determinism is discussed in theology we talk about whether our free will has anything to do with God’s elective choices. The clear answer is no.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Question on Calvin; what led him to conclude that the real presence is not real and that baptism doesn’t save? I assume he had a reason. Did he dismiss these teachings on the basis of pre-destination?

He was mostly influenced by the theology of John Wycliffe and Huldrych Zwingli on sacramentology. He read the supernatural sense out of the passages instituting the Lord’s Supper.

I am sure there was a little bit of “everything Catholics teach is wrong therefore the real presence is wrong” assumptions that he was reading into the pertinent texts as well.

 

[ellammcg]

Also, Paul says that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38-39).

Christ died for us while we were yet sinners out of His love for us so I would say His love for us is constant whether we are saved or not.

Scripture Catholic lists a bunch of Bible verses and quotes from the early church fathers concerning salvation:
scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html

 

[cazayoux]

Also, Paul says that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38-39).

I just read over the whole chapter.
More specifically Paul is talking about *those that are *in Christ, in the spirit, living according to the spirit cannot be separated from the love of God.

This does not say that one cannot falter at living in the spirit by say … living according to the flesh (sinning?).

I would still agree that some outside thing doesn’t separate us from God, we do that ourselves when we sin.

It has me wondering though … God loves us regardless of what we believe, right. He loves all of his children. Even the athiests. … so God loving us isn’t the issue, it’s how we love God back, right?
Does God love those in hell, those that separated *themselves *from God?
Maybe I’ll start a thread with this question.

michel

 

[sola_scriptura]

I just read over the whole chapter.
More specifically Paul is talking about *those that are *in Christ, in the spirit, living according to the spirit cannot be separated from the love of God.

This does not say that one cannot falter at living in the spirit by say … living according to the flesh (sinning?).

I would still agree that some outside thing doesn’t separate us from God, we do that ourselves when we sin.

It has me wondering though … God loves us regardless of what we believe, right. He loves all of his children. Even the athiests. … so God loving us isn’t the issue, it’s how we love God back, right?
Does God love those in hell, those that separated *themselves *from God?
Maybe I’ll start a thread with this question.

michel

God forgives us for sin. Christ broke down the barrier of sin between God and man, so you’re wrong sin does not separate us from God. Through Christ we have redemption in spite of our sin nature (that is the whole purpose Jesus died after all).

2 Tim. 4:18, "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

We in the reformed community believe there is no such thing as falling in and out of grace. If one loses faith at some future point we believe they never really had faith to begin with. The true saints will always persevere. So much is obvious by the presentation of predestination in Scripture. Election isn’t a ongoing process by God, it is a past event, already completed.

 

[t68ware]

God forgives us for sin. Christ broke down the barrier of sin between God and man, so you’re wrong sin does not separate us from God. Through Christ we have redemption in spite of our sin nature (that is the whole purpose Jesus died after all).

Sin does not seperate us from God?? Really?? How can a Holy God associate with sin? Even when we sin as Christians, that sin creates a barrier, that is why we are told to repent. The New Testament is very clear of our need to repent, before we are Christian and after we become Christians. Sin is serious and we cannot treat it so carelessly.

 

[t68ware]

I do have a question as to the second part of the OP statement regarding personal interpretation of Scripture. If personal interpretation of 'Scripture is wrong, does that mean every Catholic who reads the Bible understands it exactly the same? Is there no variation on what a passage could mean?

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Calvinist (reformed) denominations go through hoops to explain why our doctrine of perseverance of the saints is not the same as OSAS (typically ascribed to by Baptists). However, I personally see little practical difference between them, and the more I learn about both doctrines the more I agree with them… Indeed the earliest proponent of doctrines like irresistible grace and unconditional election was St. Augustine, who is viewed as one of the preeminent fathers of the RCC. Indeed John Calvin drew most of his theological inspiration from Augustine.

When you say “denial of free will” isn’t Biblical…

Hello again sola_scriptura,

Note: Your quotes are in blue.

sola_scriptura wrote -
Calvinist (reformed) denominations go through hoops to explain why our doctrine of perseverance of the saints is not the same as OSAS

Why?

sola_scriptura wrote -

However, I personally see little practical difference between them…

Isn’t that what I said already and you disagreed with me, didn’t you?

sola_scriptura wrote -
Indeed the earliest proponent of doctrines like irresistible grace and unconditional election was St. Augustine, who is viewed as one of the preeminent fathers of the RCC. Indeed John Calvin drew most of his theological inspiration from Augustine.

Calvin took Saint Augustine out of context and misinterpreted him, the same way that he took Bible verses out of context and misinterpreted them. He was mistaken in both instances.

Not every word uttered by a Catholic Saint, Catholic Pope or Doctor of the Church is considered, “infallible”. If you truly understood Catholicism, then you would know this.

I am not surprised that Saint Augustine was taken out of context here and I am not surprised by this misinterpretation, of the beliefs of Saint Augustine here, either.

Are you asserting that Saint Augustine was a Protestant or a non-Catholic Christian?

Using a Catholic Saint, a Catholic Doctor of the Church or a Catholic Pope to try to disprove any aspect of Catholicism is ridicules but this isn’t the first time that I have seen it attempted here.

Could you please sum-up the Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) belief, using one or two sentences, or better yet, could you please provide all of the Bible verses, which allegedly support this belief?

Additionally, if OSAS is a Christian truth, then why do Protestants themselves disagree on this point?

Thank you, God Bless you!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello again sola_scriptura,

**Note: Your quotes are in **blue.

Why?

Isn’t that what I said already and you disagreed with me, didn’t you?

Calvin took Saint Augustine out of context and misinterpreted him, the same way that he took Bible verses out of context and misinterpreted them. He was mistaken in both instances.

Not every word uttered by a Catholic Saint, Catholic Pope or Doctor of the Church is considered, “infallible”. If you truly understood Catholicism, then you would know this.

I am not surprised that Saint Augustine was taken out of context here and I am not surprised by this misinterpretation, of the beliefs of Saint Augustine here, either.

Are you asserting that Saint Augustine was a Protestant or a non-Catholic Christian?

Using a Catholic Saint, a Catholic Doctor of the Church or a Catholic Pope to try to disprove any aspect of Catholicism is ridicules but this isn’t the first time that I have seen it attempted here.

Could you please sum-up the Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) belief, using one or two sentences, or better yet, could you please provide all of the Bible verses, which allegedly support this belief?

Additionally, if OSAS is a Christian truth, then why do Protestants themselves disagree on this point?

Thank you, God Bless you!

First, have you ever read your own greats like Augustine “City of God” or Aquinas “Summa Theologica”? I’ve read them … both great works. Calvin did not misconstrue Augustine as he did not agree with him completely. However, Augustine did believe in unconditional election & irresistible grace … just read his work.

Regarding OSAS and perseverance, there is one nuance. We (reformed protestants) believe if one “falls out of grace” or backslides (as a Baptist would put it) then they never had saving faith to begin with, indeed they had no sincere faith & thus were never saved. This is said to be a nuance between us & the OSAS view, however, I just don’t think OSAS includes those who never had real faith – so I agree the distinctions are largely semantical.

We simply don’t think God plays yo yo with salvation. He’s not in the great beyond wondering whether we’re going to make some future mistake or for some reason stop believing, He already knows, God is omniscient. We also acknowledge that salvation is not something we as humans initiate. It is God’s sovereign choice & we cannot know why we’re elected.

It has nothing to do with our character that’s for sure. In fact the more despicable of a sinner you are it seems the more likely Jesus came for you.

 

[Filius99993]

First, have you ever read your own greats like Augustine “City of God” or Aquinas “Summa Theologica”? I’ve read them … both great works. Calvin did not misconstrue Augustine as he did not agree with him completely. However, Augustine did believe in unconditional election & irresistible grace … just read his work.

Regarding OSAS and perseverance, there is one nuance. We (reformed protestants) believe if one “falls out of grace” or backslides (as a Baptist would put it) then they never had saving faith to begin with, indeed they had no sincere faith & thus were never saved. This is said to be a nuance between us & the OSAS view, however, I just don’t think OSAS includes those who never had real faith – so I agree the distinctions are largely semantical.

We simply don’t think God plays yo yo with salvation. He’s not in the great beyond wondering whether we’re going to make some future mistake or for some reason stop believing, He already knows, God is omniscient. We also acknowledge that salvation is not something we as humans initiate. It is God’s sovereign choice & we cannot know why we’re elected.

It has nothing to do with our character that’s for sure. In fact the more despicable of a sinner you are it seems the more likely Jesus came for you. This is the Bible reveals, pure & simple.

No it isn’t what it reveals. When you say that its simple, you clarify it’s complications. What’s simple is the mind that interprets it. But you don’t really have the authority to interpret it.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello sola_scriptura,

Your quotes are in blue.

First, have you ever read your own greats like Augustine “City of God” or Aquinas “Summa Theologica”? I’ve read them … both great works.

Yes I have and I agree and encourage everyone to read these famous works and other famous works, which support Catholicism…

everyoner Calvin did not misconstrue Augustine as he did not agree with him completely.

This is a fair statement.

However, Augustine did believe in unconditional election & irresistible grace … just read his work.
**

I have, and I own the books, Irresistible Grace does not amount to OSAS, especially the way in which many non-Catholics define OSAS today… wouldn’t you agree?

*Regarding OSAS and perseverance, there is one nuance. We (reformed protestants) believe if one “falls out of grace” or backslides (as a Baptist would put it) then they never had saving faith to begin with, *
**

Now, isn’t this just a case of semantics or the attempt to try to justify the major and obvious flaw in this doctrine?

indeed they had no sincere faith & thus were never saved. This is said to be a nuance between us & the OSAS view, however, I just don’t think OSAS includes those who never had real faith – so I agree the distinctions are largely semantical.
**

“Largely semantical”…so you do agree

We simply don’t think God plays yo yo with salvation. He’s not in the great beyond wondering whether we’re going to make some future mistake or for some reason stop believing, He already knows, God is omniscient. We also acknowledge that salvation is not something we as humans initiate. It is God’s sovereign choice & we cannot know why we’re elected.

We are the ones who play, “yo-yo”, by are own behavior.

It has nothing to do with our character that’s for sure. In fact the more despicable of a sinner you are it seems the more likely Jesus came for you.

He came for all of us…

 

[minkymurph]

God forgives us for sin. Christ broke down the barrier of sin between God and man, so you’re wrong sin does not separate us from God. Through Christ we have redemption in spite of our sin nature (that is the whole purpose Jesus died after all).

2 Tim. 4:18, "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

We in the reformed community believe there is no such thing as falling in and out of grace. If one loses faith at some future point we believe they never really had faith to begin with. The true saints will always persevere. So much is obvious by the presentation of predestination in Scripture. Election isn’t a ongoing process by God, it is a past event, already completed.

God is not compelled to forgive unrepented sin. Neither is he compelled to forgive repented sin, he promises he will. To take God’s forgiveness to granted is to me, the sin of presumption.

I am Catholic, and I don’t believe in ‘falling in and out of grace.’ What I do believe is that there are varying degrees of grace. To explain, those in heaven have the fullness of grace. I believe there are those on earth who acheive the fullness of grace in their lifetime. I also believe their are those who do not achieve the fullness of grace in this lifetime. I believe it is possible that any of us may reject grace. It’s not about falling in and out of grace, it’s about becoming God-like which is bestowed in us.

I have a close, long term friend who is a big believer in pre-destination. I find her beliefs in relation to pre-destination abhorrent. I apologize if I sound uncharitable but I don’t share her view, which is the only view I know in regards to ‘once saved always saved,’ that we are born children of the devil and God pre-destines people for hell. I do not accept that God pre-destines individuals incapable of accepting him and then sends them to hell for their choice. How can you send a person to Hell for rejecting you when you made them that way in the first place? That is unjust and God is not unjust.

God may well have foreknowledge of those who will accept him and those who will reject him. To me, foreknowledge is not the same thing as pre-destining people to accept or reject God and to guess at God’s foreknowledge to me, is to claim to know the mind of God. I appreciate that others do not mean it that way, but that is what it means to me. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but to me, the belief that if a person falls that means they where never really saved in the first place is a cop-out.

We don’t know what individuals will go to heaven. Only God knows that and we hope to be among them. If it was all signed, sealed and delivered we would have no need of faith or hope. I don’t see how any human could claim to know for sure that everything was sealed in the past. Does anyone save God really know why the fall happened? Does anyone really know what God’s eternal plan was, which has not changed? It may be something we haven’t in our wildest dreams thought of.

Incidently, no one has responded to my question about Dorcas.

 

[sola_scriptura]

However, Augustine did believe in unconditional election & irresistible grace … just read his work.
**

I have, and I own the books, Irresistible Grace does not amount to OSAS, especially the way in which many non-Catholics define OSAS today… wouldn’t you agree?

I agree. Irresistible grace & OSAS are two different doctrines. One might be used to justify the other but the two doctrines are not inseparable.

*Regarding OSAS and perseverance, there is one nuance. We (reformed protestants) believe if one “falls out of grace” or backslides (as a Baptist would put it) then they never had saving faith to begin with, *

 

[po18guy]

Can you get the Catholic Church’ offical interpretation? That would help me to know what the church offically teaches about this.

The church may not have dogmatically defined this, since it generally does so only in answer to heresies.

A couple to look at would be:
(John 10:28). How can eternal life be eternal if it can be lost particularly when Jesus said that they will never perish. If they will never perish, then they can’t lose their salvation. Also, Paul says that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38-39).

Paul says “love” of God, not “salvation” of God. Don’t you love your children even when you punish them?

Judas was baptized, he taught alongside Christ. He was given power over demons. Thus, Satan was not in him. By any definition, Judas was saved. But Christ, a better authority, tells us of a horrible end for Judas. That’s not OSAS.

Matthew 26:24 “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Mark 14:21 “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Luke 22:22 “The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.”

Paul tells us that salvation is ongoing, as we must “continue” and “work” while experiencing “fear” and “trembling”. That is not OSAS.

Philippians 2:12 “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling…”

Peter teaches that, similar to the parable of the sower, there are some who are saved, but the cares of the world overcome them and they are worse off than before. That’s not OSAS.

2 Peter 2:20 “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.”

Combine the foregoing with the fact that nowhere in scripture does it say that you cannot lose your salvation. All of the evidence points 180 degrees opposite. The best source is Christ, followed by the Apostles.

OSAS puts your God to the test, by either assuming salvation, or daring Him to save you, in spite of the sins you have committed.

Deuteronomy 6:16 “Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.”

Psalm 78 and 106 speak of the error of putting God to the test. The best, most pure and perfect source of all is our Lord Jesus:

Matthew 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ "

Luke 4:12 Jesus answered, "It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ "

OSAS is simply a gross misinterpretation of scripture. Saint Peter counselled those in the early church, and his words apply even more today.

2 Peter 1:19-20 “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Need further proof? Look at the first date in which OSAS was promulgated. There might be an argument if it traced back to the early church, but it came 1,500 +/- years later. That is not a good sign.

 

[cazayoux]

God forgives us for sin.

I agree … and the next question is ‘how’?
By what mechanism?
Did God tell us to confess our sins to men?

While we do **confess **that Jesus is Lord…
Romans 10:9-10
[9] because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
[10] For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

what do we do with these verses?

James 5:16
[16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

Matthew 9:6-8
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Why IS that last word plural?

John 20:21-23
[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Christ broke down the barrier of sin between God and man

Agreed …

sin does not separate us from God.

Now you have to ignore quite a lot of scripture (or twist it) to actually believe this. (jesus is the vine, we are the branches, some branches removed, and thrown in the fire …)

Hebrews Chapter 7 is talking about Jesus being the perfect priest (as opposed to those in the temple).
Hebrews 7:26
[26] For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Doesn’t sound like Jesus is snuggling up with sinners.
He came so that sins could be forgiven.
It is quite a different ‘take’ on it to say, that “sin does not separate us from God”.
We have to ASK for forgiveness?
We cannot enter His perfect heaven with the stain of sin on us.
Jesus doesn’t cover a stained soul, he actually CLEANS the sin out of it.
Jesus’ love is incompatible with sin. They are polar opposites. Sin is nothing less than turning away from Him. Sin is the absence of Jesus. Jesus and sin are incompatible.

Through Christ we have redemption

YES! We agree.
We could never have gained redemption by our own efforts.

with love, brother

michel

 

[guanophore]

Can you get the Catholic Church’ offical interpretation? That would help me to know what the church offically teaches about this.

No, ja4, I don’t think that would help you at all. I think you have been shown the official Catholic teaching. You either don’t understand it, or are simply rebellious against it. I pray that you ignorance is invicible. However, I don’t think it is healthy for you to continue in you efforts to malign Catholicism here on CAF. It would be safer to refrain from that.

A couple to look at would be:
(John 10:28). How can eternal life be eternal if it can be lost particularly when Jesus said that they will never perish. If they will never perish, then they can’t lose their salvation. Also, Paul says that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38-39).

Well, we understand eternal life differently, don’t we? Think of it as a river that aperson enters at a certain point in time. One can leave, and never come back. One’s choice to exit the river is no reflection on the nature of the river. It will still continue flowing because that is it’s nature.