A Case for Once Saved Always Saved

[SteveVH]

How does one do the will of God? How is one able to persevere? Is it the work of of God or Man; it cannot be both because it is a “New Covenant” made by God alone to Man. Man is not part of the contract; this is why it is a “free gift”. Those that believe they are partners of the New Covenant; IOW believe the Covenant/Contract is between God and man and man and God, not only has missed the point of the New Covenant, but show they have never entered it from God’s perspective, which is the one that actually counts toward salvation.

I am almost certain you will disagree with that; those that do disagree are not disagreeing with me, but with what God has said and what the New Covenant actually is and by whom it is enforced.

I would challenge anyone to show and prove a single person that entered into the New Covenant from God’s perspective, then was able to break that one way Covenant on their own. This would be arrogance on the part of the man because this would be saying two things: 1) God failed by breach of His own contract & 2)The New Covenant is a contract established between God to Man and, and, and between Man to God.

I have not read the entire thread and have not visited it in awhile. When I first visited the thread there was an idea being batted around that we are involved in a CONTRACT with God. I see that it is still being batted around and I think it derails the conversation because it just isn’t true.

Our relationship with God is a COVENANT. A covenant implies a familial relationship, not a business relationship. Its not the “New Contract” it is the “New Covenant”. It is how we are incorporated into the family of God. It is a relationship which requires that both enter into it in mutual self giving. It certainly isn’t a one way street. I can give you a gift but if you never open it you do not enjoy its benefits.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Xavierlives,

The guy with the one talent is intersting.

Ok, first a personal note. I find the Talents Parable to also be contrary to OSAS. And this is where I start any discussion when I am having such with a OSAS friend.

Here is how they generally reply to me: So long as I do not bury my Talent, I am fine. Burying the talent would be that rejection of Christ. So, in the Parable the master says, “You could have * at least* put your talent in the bank and gotten interest. But you rejected me. You buried me.”

This is honestly the beginning of a ‘shell game’ where a pea is placed under one of three walnut halves and then moved around. If you pick the one shell half that has the pea - you can say, you were ‘always saved’ - and if you pick one of the two halves that don’t have it, you can say, ‘you were never saved’. They were all given talents - they all chose how they were going to respond. We will not know until the Last Judgment how others responded - God, of course, knew from all eternity.

But, you know, there was this third story that you did not address - the Last Judgment where everyone will be separated like sheep from goats.

Here we have a group who, you would think, were decent folk - they just failed to see Christ in doing their daily actions. And, of course, you have the group that did see Christ. The rewards are eternity of being with God or separated from Him. It depends on God’s Grace and how we respond to His Grace through WORKS (acts of Chairty as mentioned in the Gospel).

So, the OSAS is really saying, the foolish servant is the unsaved person who has rejected Christ and buried him and not a follower.

We either respond to the Grace of God or we reject it. We have a real responsibility here - and OSAS just totally ignores this aspect of scriptural reality.

God bless

 

[Masters_Servant]

One is only able to persevere with God’s grace. This has ALWAYS been the Catholic position.
One does the will of God by keeping his commandments (John 14:15).
**God’s grace is *never ***forced – it is a GIFT, and a gift CAN be refused, otherwise it is NOT a gift, it’s a forced mandate.

It is more arrogant to think that you could never fall away from God, and that those who do were never part of him to begin with. People like you think that those who fall away were never true believers in the first place, but some sort of pretenders.
This goes against the very heart of the Scriptures:

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you to will be cut off.”

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.

These passages speak about those who believed and lived the truth and* fell away. Please show me where the Bible says that God gave his only begotten Son and whosoever believes in him will be forced *to do his will and have lost their free will.

Elvis, i don’t have much to say except to say that the passages you provided/cited prove the point I was making; these are people with a head knowledge, not the true heart knowledge, then walked away in unbelief. Many people get head knowledge, but never take the gift and eventually fade away.

This is similar to the parable of the soils. They all had a degree of head knowledge, but only one had the heart knowledge and this was the true believer and who was it that prepared the soil; God.

Jesus said something very interesting, that i believe is often overlooked in Matthews account and He states it in a rhetorical fashion. "*13 And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? *

The obvious implication is that if one can understand this particular parable, then the rest of the parables will also be understandable.

 

[Xavierlives]

Can you possibly explain what the “New Covenant” is?

Jeremiah had a great insight to it:

31 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

The New Covenant is a “one way” agreement between God and Man, with God being the “One Way” through Jesus. The Old Covenant, a “two-way” street, was a contract between God and Man, where God held His end, but man always fell short. This New Covenant is made by God alone and He cannot not fulfill His promise or agreement. Notice how Jeremiah describes how it is accomplished, He writes: “***I will ***put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and ***I will ***be their God, and they ***shall be ***my people:”

I will, I Will & I will, the “they shall be”.

You may say to yourself, this is speaking exclusively of Israel; Is Israel also part of the New Covenant? Yes

Hebrews 9:15
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were {committed} under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Well I agree in parts and disagree on parts.

In Hebrews 8 we see some terms of the new covenant:

1. Christ is the mediator
2. The covenant is better, based on better promises.
3. The first covenant was based on faults (The faults of the sinners), the second covenant is based on forgiveness.
4. The covenant is not based on a people (as a race) but a people (based on beliefs).
5. Israel, breached the first covenant, and God did not bless them.
6. The law will be in their hearts.
7. God will be their God.
8. They will be be God’s people.
9. They will not require teachers because the Holy Spirit will teach.
10. The entire world will have an opportunity to hear about God.

Now if we are saying this is based on performance, which parts does God do and which parts do the Christians do?

 

[Masters_Servant]

Case against OSAS:

Apostasy would be impossible if OSAS were true.

Why does Paul warn against apostasy?

Simple, to be exposed to so much truth without ever accepting Christ and worse, pretending to through words and actions, then walking away; there is no more sacrafice available. If OSAS is not true, then man has some capacity within himself to earn his way to Heaven and we can through our Bibles away beause God said it is the work of Christ, not man. It is arragance on man’s part to believe thereis something he can do that is righteous before God based on God’s holy and perfect standards, which no man can achieve; except Christ. This is why He is the Way, the Life and the Truth.

 

[Xavierlives]

If there was the possibility of a breach of contract, then it would have to be God who made the breach, since He is the “contract” or “New Covenant”. The reason why Salvation is entirely the work of God is because the entire New Covenant is the work of Jesus, who is God. Man plays no part in the terms of the contract except the will to either accept or reject the contract offer. Once it is truly accepted by the heart of man as determined by the “heart Reader”, then there is no possibility of a breach of contract.

This is why when God speakes about the “called” or the “elect”; it is already accomplished in His mind and therefore it shall come to pass in our world.

Anyone who claims they can reject the New Covenant or the “New Contract”; simply does not understand the nature of the contract or the nature of salvation.

Well, I think you are saying the ultimate “pay-out” of our new covenant is fellowship with God and if a person breaches that contract then they don’t receive the “pay-out?”

Because I don’t think you mean God is the breaching party. If I am wrong on this point, let me know so I can inquire further.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I have not read the entire thread and have not visited it in awhile. When I first visited the thread there was an idea being batted around that we are involved in a CONTRACT with God. I see that it is still being batted around and I think it derails the conversation because it just isn’t true.

Our relationship with God is a COVENANT. A covenant implies a familial relationship, not a business relationship. Its not the “New Contract” it is the “New Covenant”. It is how we are incorporated into the family of God. It is a relationship which requires that both enter into it in mutual self giving. It certainly isn’t a one way street. I can give you a gift but if you never open it you do not enjoy its benefits.

Covenant: A signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action

(Bible) an agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behaviour from them in return

It is very similar in nature to a contract; what make the New Covenant unique is that it is not an agreement between two parties, but an agreement by one party to fulfill promises and agreements based on one simple thing; accepting the free Gift. Once it is entered into by choice, then the person of Promise will fulfill it.

Phil 1:6
being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This is the one way promise in a nutshell.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Well I agree in parts and disagree on parts.

In Hebrews 8 we see some terms of the new covenant:

1. Christ is the mediator
2. The covenant is better, based on better promises.
3. The first covenant was based on faults (The faults of the sinners), the second covenant is based on forgiveness.
4. The covenant is not based on a people (as a race) but a people (based on beliefs).
5. Israel, breached the first covenant, and God did not bless them.
6. The law will be in their hearts.
7. God will be their God.
8. They will be be God’s people.
9. They will not require teachers because the Holy Spirit will teach.
10. The entire world will have an opportunity to hear about God.

Now if we are saying this is based on performance, which parts does God do and which parts do the Christians do?

Any performance on mans part is the result of the new creation in Christ and without that new creation in Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit, that performance would not be possible; IOW it is still the work and promise of God working in and through each believer.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Well, I think you are saying the ultimate “pay-out” of our new covenant is fellowship with God and if a person breaches that contract then they don’t receive the “pay-out?”

Because I don’t think you mean God is the breaching party. If I am wrong on this point, let me know so I can inquire further.

All I am saying is that the New Covenant is God toward man; whereas the Old Covenant was God fulfills His part and man is required to fulfil His part, which man was never able to do. The New Covenant is superior in all manner because it is all of God. Mans participation is the choice to enter into His covenant or not to. If a man chooses to, then god creates a new creation in Christ, which is why atrue Christian has a transformed life. So if OSAS is not true, then this is to say the New Covenant is a two-way agreement, like the Old Covenant and this is not the case. If it were, then like those that perished under the Old Covenant; likewise we would as well because we are not able to hold up our end.

Persons that believe that their “cooperation” with God has any merit toward salvation is denying the nature of the New Covenant and show themselves as not entering in to it.

 

[Xavierlives]

I have not read the entire thread and have not visited it in awhile. When I first visited the thread there was an idea being batted around that we are involved in a CONTRACT with God. I see that it is still being batted around and I think it derails the conversation because it just isn’t true.

Our relationship with God is a COVENANT. A covenant implies a familial relationship, not a business relationship. Its not the “New Contract” it is the “New Covenant”. It is how we are incorporated into the family of God. It is a relationship which requires that both enter into it in mutual self giving. It certainly isn’t a one way street. I can give you a gift but if you never open it you do not enjoy its benefits.

We see the English use of “covenant” used in many parts of the Bible, but here are the Latin basics of the usage:

The first covenant with the Israelites is found in Exodus 19:5 is pactum and it means bargain, agreement; manner.

The new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 is fœdus and it means treaty, league, formal agreement (between states), alliance; peace, amity; contract, compact; promise, undertaking; marriage bond;

The new contract in Hebrews 8:6 (which references Jeremiah) is testamentum and it means will, testament; covenant;

So I think “contract” is a fair use.

 

[Newbie2]

Simple, to be exposed to so much truth without ever accepting Christ and worse, pretending to through words and actions, then walking away; there is no more sacrafice available. If OSAS is not true, then man has some capacity within himself to earn his way to Heaven and we can through our Bibles away beause God said it is the work of Christ, not man…

I’m not talking about “pretending”, and neither is Paul. Denying and losing the faith is denying and losing the faith; you cannot deny and lose something you never had. OSAS has nothing to do with earning or not earning; the objectional part to OSAS is that, well “once saved” one is always saved, i.e. can never lose their faith. This is a myth.

Again I ask, why would Paul warn against losing one’s faith i.e. apostasy if it were not possible?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, i don’t have much to say except to say that the passages you provided/cited prove the point I was making; these are people with a head knowledge, not the true heart knowledge, then walked away in unbelief. Many people get head knowledge, but never take the gift and eventually fade away.

This is similar to the parable of the soils. They all had a degree of head knowledge, but only one had the heart knowledge and this was the true believer and who was it that prepared the soil; God.

Jesus said something very interesting, that i believe is often overlooked in Matthews account and He states it in a rhetorical fashion. "*13 And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? *

The obvious implication is that if one can understand this particular parable, then the rest of the parables will also be understandable.

Nice try - but it doesn’t wash.

This is why I said that it is arrogant to bellieve that you can say whether or not somebody had a said faith rather than a real faith. RE-READ the verses I provided.

**2 Peter 2:20-22 speaks of having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and again becoming again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. **
This is about people who escaped (were "saved" as you might say) and later rejected God.

---

Romans 11:22 speaks to endurance in faith - otherwise you will be cut off. You can’t be “cut off” from God if you didn’t belong to him in the FIRST place.

**I’ve known people who had real faith and were some of the best witnesses I’ve ever known, yet, when tragedy struck, they dispaired and turned away from the truth. ****They had a real faith and lived it, but because they also had a free will - they ultimately rejected God’s grace.

**God’s love for us is that great - that he allows US to make the choice of whether or not to remain in him, instead of coercing us to stay. If he did that - it would make him a spiritual rapist who forces his love on us, instead of a loving God who freely gives us his grace.

**Look - **IF you deny free will - just say so and much of this debate will be over.

 

[PRmerger]

We see the English use of “covenant” used in many parts of the Bible, but here are the Latin basics of the usage:

The first covenant with the Israelites is found in Exodus 19:5 is pactum and it means bargain, agreement; manner.

The new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 is fœdus and it means treaty, league, formal agreement (between states), alliance; peace, amity; contract, compact; promise, undertaking; marriage bond;

The new contract in Hebrews 8:6 (which references Jeremiah) is testamentum and it means will, testament; covenant;

So I think “contract” is a fair use.

Certainly, you can look at it as a “contract”, in the same way you can look at marriage as a contract.

However, I prefer to teach my children that marriage is more than a legal contract binding 2 people together for life. Contracts exchange property. Christ’s New Covenant with us is an exchange of persons. .

Similarly, the CC sees the New Covenant as the divine marriage. It is an exchange of persons–the most intimate exhange of persons that can exist, consummated in the One Flesh Union–the Eucharist.

 

[Xavierlives]

Certainly, you can look at it as a “contract”, in the same way you can look at marriage as a contract.

However, I prefer to teach my children that marriage is more than a legal contract binding 2 people together for life. Contracts exchange property. Christ’s New Covenant with us is an exchange of persons. .

Similarly, the CC sees the New Covenant as the divine marriage. It is an exchange of persons–the most intimate exhange of persons that can exist, consummated in the One Flesh Union–the Eucharist.

Well… many marriage contracts involved the exchange of a person. Love in marriage was not always a consideration. It is funny how we have come full circle to expect love in our marriages and love within the relationship we have with Christ (well some).

 

[PRmerger]

Well… many marriage contracts involved the exchange of a person. Love in marriage was not always a consideration. It is funny how we have come full circle to expect love in our marriages and love within the relationship we have with Christ (well some).

Christ established the New Covenant–the Divine Marriage Proposal–with his people. Marriage is an icon of this New Covenant.

The fact that “love in marriage was not always a consideration” is irrelevant. Christianity sustains and upholds the teaching that marriage is a covenant in which the two shall become one.

Just like the fact that there are fathers that don’t act really “fatherly” does not vitiate the supreme fatherhood of God.

Abusus non tollit usum

[SIGN1]Abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use[/SIGN1]

 

[Xavierlives]

Christ established the New Covenant–the Divine Marriage Proposal–with his people. Marriage is an icon of this New Covenant.

The fact that “love in marriage was not always a consideration” is irrelevant. Christianity sustains and upholds the teaching that marriage is a covenant in which the two shall become one.

Just like the fact that there are fathers that don’t act really “fatherly” does not vitiate the supreme fatherhood of God.

Abusus non tollit usum

[SIGN1]Abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use[/SIGN1]

I’m not making an argument about love and marriage, just making an observation.

I think marriage is a wonderful comparison with Jesus’s relationship with us. But when we look to that comparison, we see a couple of interesting notations (which again, go back to OSAS).

If a two people are married and one is unfaithful, is is the faithful one holding all of the rights (according to Jewish law). It was never required to divorce the unfaithful, but an option. If we are unfaithful to God, he has the option to “divorce us.”

But if two people are married and never unfaithful, there is no ground for divorce. They might never spend time together. They might never be around each other. They are still married and have no grounds for divorce.

 

[PRmerger]

If a two people are married and one is unfaithful, is is the faithful one holding all of the rights (according to Jewish law). It was never required to divorce the unfaithful, but an option. If we are unfaithful to God, he has the option to “divorce us.”

But if two people are married and never unfaithful, there is no ground for divorce. They might never spend time together. They might never be around each other. They are still married and have no grounds for divorce.

Yes! If 2 people are married and never unfaithful, there is no grounds for divorce.

Now, look at the human condition and you will see that sin abounds in our lives. We, clearly, are unfaithful and have divorced ourselves from our Beloved.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I’m not talking about “pretending”, and neither is Paul. Denying and losing the faith is denying and losing the faith; you cannot deny and lose something you never had. OSAS has nothing to do with earning or not earning; the objectional part to OSAS is that, well “once saved” one is always saved, i.e. can never lose their faith. This is a myth.

Again I ask, why would Paul warn against losing one’s faith i.e. apostasy if it were not possible?

First, where specifically does Paul warn about losing Christian faith; he does warn against having knowledge of the truth and walking away.

Heb 10:18
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer {any} offering for sin.

Heb 10:26
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Secondly,

Show me a single person in Scripture that had saving faith and lost it and furthermore show one example of a person with saving faith, lost it, then regained it. There is good reason why this does not exist except in the mind of men.

 

[PRmerger]

Show me a single person in Scripture that had saving faith and lost it and furthermore show one example of a person with saving faith, lost it, then regained it. There is good reason why this does not exist except in the mind of men.

What is “saving faith”? That’s not a Catholic term, so if you could define it I’d be obliged.

In fact, is “saving faith” used in Scripture? If so, could you cite chapter and verse, please.

 

[Masters_Servant]

**Nice **try - but it doesn’t wash.

This is why I said that it is arrogant to bellieve that you can say whether or not somebody had a said faith rather than a real faith. RE-READ the verses I provided.

**2 Peter 2:20-22 **speaks of having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and again becoming again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
This is about people who escaped (were "saved" as you might say) and later rejected God.

---

Romans 11:22 speaks to endurance in faith - otherwise you will be cut off. You can’t be “cut off” from God if you didn’t belong to him in the FIRST place.

I’ve known people who had real faith and were some of the best witnesses I’ve ever known, yet, when tragedy struck, they dispaired and turned away from the truth. **They had a *real ***faith and lived it, but because they also had a free will - they ultimately rejected God’s grace.

**God’s love for us is *that ***great - that he allows US to make the choice of whether or not to remain in him, instead of coercing us to stay. If he did that - it would make him a spiritual rapist who forces his love on us, instead of a loving God who freely gives us his grace.

**Look - **IF you deny free will - just say so and much of this debate will be over.

Elvis, you should go and read 2Peter in its context so you can discern the meaning of the passage, which you are not at this point.

You say you know some that had “true saving faith”; that is the work of God, so you put yourself in His throne. If they had true faith; then they could not walk away 1 John 5.

The people who escaped the defilement of the world are like the peole of the 3rd parable, but since their faith was not true; the world eventually choked them out. This is why that parable is so important to understand in all its fullness.

Consider the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, some wanted to help the Lord by pulling out the tares, but the Lord said no, let them grow together and in the end the angels we do the separating. Why? because man cannot discern between the two and furthermore we do not know if the HS will enter into the tare and it then becomes wheat. What should be noted about that parable is there was never any concern about pulling a wheat from its place because once a wheat always a wheat. (OSAS)