Can't lose salvation - unless

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mijoy2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mijoy2

Guest
I am not certain I fully understand (from the protestant perspective) the concept of not losing one’s salvation if one professes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

What troubles me about it is that it seems the protestant believes that once he/she professes the above, that their sins past present and future are fully reconciled to God through the death of Jesus on the cross. I believe we are to take this doctrine without exception; else it would violate the doctrine of once saved always saved. It would appear this is precisely the point.

If I have this correct (looking for correction if I do not), that would include all sins regardless of gravity. Examples would include, sexual sin, violent assault, murder and more. However, one can easily find prominent protestant preachers seem to indicate that there is in fact an exception. And this exception would appear relatively minor in gravity to the sins previous stated.

This exception is the Catholic who, although professes to Love Jesus; professes that Jesus did in fact die for the Catholic’s sins and professes Jesus Christ as the Catholics personal Lord and Savior, is excluded from the once saved always doctrine, because the Catholic believe’s that he/she may lose his/her salvation if his/her sin is grave enough in matter.

This seems to violate the protestant own doctrine. The doctrine applies to all sins except the sin of just ‘thinking’ one might have sinned gravely enough to have lost their salvation (without further repenting).

Doesn’t this exclusion violate their very doctrine?
Again, I am looking for an answer to this conundrum from the protestant perspective. The question came to me as I watched some Catholic/Protestant debates on justification. Nobody asked this one question. Which seemed the logical question to ask.
 
I’ve thought 🤔, although never asked, this question myself.

Interested to see the responses.

God Bless
 
Interesting topic. I grew up in a baptist church that taught the doctrine of ‘eternal security’, that once you are ‘saved’ you are always saved. ‘Saved’ in this context means a person makes a public and emotional profession of faith and declaration of Jesus as one’s Lord and savior.

Now we get into the interesting question of what happens after that. Could someone just go to church, say the prayer once and go back and live their regular life? Baptists would say that a truly saved person will be transformed by the Holy Spirit and go on to live a good Christian life, if they fall away it means they weren’t really saved to begin with. So while continued faithfulness is not a formal requirement it would seem it is. It’s paradoxical isn’t it.
 
I haven’t read anywhere in Scripture that Jesus said I am dying for all your sins (past, present, and future) so you may go out and rape, murder and steal but its okay to do that because you are already saved!!!
 
Great question! I have always found this Fundamentalist notion of certainty of salvation befuddling. If I understand their perspective, it goes something like this:

#1: By the grace of God, sinners are saved through faith in Christ. Sinners not thusly saved are all going to hell. All of them. There is no other ticket through the Pearly Gates because there is no other means for forgiveness of sin―and unforgiven sin leads to eternal punishment.

#2: Faith in Christ, insofar as salvation is concerned, is a one-shot deal, not a lifelong process during which one works out one’s salvation with fear and trembling. You make a heart-felt decision to “accept” Christ as your Lord and Savior at a particular moment in time, and at all subsequent moments you are still saved. Once you have that Salvific Moment of Faith, salvation is guaranteed. Let me say this again, because it is absolutely the Fundamentalist mantra: salvation is GUARANTEED.

#3: You can, of course, still fall into sin after your Salvific Moment of Faith. But if you do, just repent, and you’ll be pardoned. (Come to think of it, don’t repent and you’ll still be pardoned, at least in respect of any punishment that entails loss of salvation; see Rule #2.)

#4: Even though forgiveness is freely available, your Salvific Moment of Faith is not a license to sin. But if salvation is all you care about, it may as well be, because it has the EXACT SAME EFFECT as a license (see Rule #3.) Your subsequent sins WILL NOT void your ticket.

#5: Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 to the Christian community in Corinth that sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, thievery, etc. will keep one from inheriting the kingdom doesn’t apply to born-again Christians. None of those things will keep Christians from their divine inheritance for the simple reason that NOTHING can ever do that after their Salvific Moment of Faith (see Rule #2).

#6: Jesus’ admonition in Matt. 24:13 that “he who endures to the end will be saved” was intended just for his disciples. As for the rest of us, upon being “born again” he who doesn’t endure to the end will also be saved. Luke 8:13 notwithstanding, Rom. 11:22 notwithstanding, 1 Thess. 3:5 notwithstanding, 1 Tim. 4:1 notwithstanding, 2 Pet. 2:20–21 notwithstanding, Heb. 10:26–29 notwithstanding, 2 John 1:8-9 notwithstanding, you need not be steadfast for a lifetime after your Salvific Moment of Faith. Once you’re “born again,” you can’t “die” again. John 3:3’s necessary precondition to seeing the kingdom of God is also a sufficient one.

This last tenet is, I think, the Fundamentalist mindset in a nutshell. They read John 1:12’s “as many as received him, to them he gave the power to become sons of God” as though it said “as many as received him, to them he made into automatic sons of God.”

My sense is that their error is conflating justification and sanctification. Do I have this right?
 
@Mijoy2

Well you know sin has consequences ,if grievous as you mentioned ,cannot be saved because of their sins go to hell,or if not grievous sins,can you go to Heaven directly ? no but why? because in Revelation 14:5 and in their mouth no lie was found; they are blameless. Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
so do you say a lie? or are you blameless? (not a single sin) are you clean ? or dont you practice any kind of practice in thought words and actions,this may not seemed grievous but you cannot enter Heaven with these imperfections,So what is the Solutions Here the Catholic Church established by Jesus in Matt 16:16-18 has the Answer the un-purified or because of our laziness and tepidity of soul ,the blemishes has to be perfected or purified,made holy, as Jesus said to be perfect as Heavenly Father is Perfect or be Holy and Heavenly Father id s Holy,since heaven is holy. Matthew 5:25,26 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.Put in prison that is purgatory If you’re looking for scriptural evidence for purgatory, start in the Second Book of Maccabees (12:45), where Judas Maccabee orders prayers and sacrifices for fallen soldiers who committed idolatry shortly before their death.

“Their beseeching implies there is hope even beyond the grave for those who defiled themselves,” Martin said.

In the New Testament, St. Paul likewise hints at the cleansing fires of purgatory when he writes, “If any man’s work is burned up he will suffer loss though he himself will be saved” (1 Cor 3:12-15). He also seemingly prays for the soul of Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:18.

Moreover, according to Corzine, the existence of purgatory is the only way to make sense of scriptural assertions such as, “No unclean thing will enter [heaven]” (Rv 21:27), as well as commands like “Be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

“Logic demands purgatory,” Corzine said. “Without some process of purification after death, the population of heaven would be infinitesimally small, comprised of only the few who allow God to perfect them in this life.”Purgatory is like spiritual summer school.
How’s that?

To start with, just as sitting in a classroom during January is easier than sitting in a classroom during July, doing the suffering and sacrificing it takes to grow in holiness is easier on earth than it is in purgatory.

In part, that’s because “on earth we still have our physical bodies,” Father Longenecker said.
 
Last edited:
“Our task is to become conformed to Christ,” Father Longenecker told OSV. “That’s a task we’re supposed to do here, and it’s a task for which we’re supposed to use our bodies. It has a physical dimension to it.”Which is to say, with our bodies we can do good works that break us of attachments to sin and self. We can take a meal to the new mom across the street, buy a coffee for the homeless guy downtown, fast from chocolate for all of Lent, and go on pilgrimages to holy places. Without a body, all those corporal works of mercy — all those ways of loving and serving others, as well as atoning for sin — are impossible.

Even more fundamentally, purgatory is like summer school because, just like summer school, no one has to go there.

“Purgatory is not supposed to be the norm,” concluded Corzine. “God gives each and every one of us all the graces we need in this life to become saints. We can do all the work necessary to become holy here. We just need to make use of the graces he gives us now.”

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

Hearers and Doers
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”
 
Thanks you for the replies.

I guess, in a nut shell, what I am curious about is:

How does the protestant (some/many of them) justify that the catholic, who has indeed accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, is likely damned simply because he believes this salvation requires persistence. It seems ultra -legalistic. And “legalistic” is a term the Protestant proudly denies being. It seems an exception to their rule.
 
Protestant here. There are two main groups in Protestantism about if Salvation can be lost.

Reformed Tradition (Lutherans/Calvinists): Most believe salvation can never be lost, regardless of how you live. God “predestined” people to heaven or hell before they were born. Some will admit that you can be a serial murderer and still enter Heaven.

Arminian/Wesleyan Tradition (Pentecostals/Methodists/etc): Most believe salvation can be lost, but how it’s lost is the debate. So some main arguments are:

Serious sin committed once forfeits salvation
Habitual lifestyle of serious sin without repentance forfeits salvation
Only willfully rejecting Jesus & the Christian faith forfeits salvation

My pastor is Calvinist (I’m not) and there are so many different flavors of Calvinism, but if you press them hard enough they’ll admit that no matter what you do or how you live, you never lose your justification.
 
Last edited:
I believe MJoy2 is asking how a theological Calvinist (Reformed Protestant) can, at the same time, believe that you must believe the Jesus is Lord and Saviour, which demonstrates your predestination… and condemn a Catholic who believes just that, simply because the Catholic Church teaches that predestination is not a guarantee of so-called “eternal security”.

If we look at the differences in the theology between the Reformed and Catholic traditions, it partly is a disagreement about the nature of predestination. For the Church, God predestined those who are in Christ (a communal view). For the Reformed theology, it becomes personally predestined. There is no disagreement over the idea that those who are in Christ are predestined. The disagreement is based on the individualism typically associated with the Reformed theology… “your own personal Jesus”, as the old song goes.
 
Yes, Thank you Peter, that is pretty much the quandary I am proposing.

I have two proposals that may be answers to the question I asked in the original post. But was reluctant to state them. I was wondering if anyone else might address them. I’ll prose them here.

The first one seems critical and for that I apologize in advance. My intent here is not to be critical.

#1. The Protestant, is singling out the Catholic exception to their doctrine of OSAS simply because of the rift between the two sets of doctrines. In other words keep the rift alive. This of course, if it is in fact the only reason is not a good one.

#2. I have heard this reasoning on the radio “Bible Answer Man” broadcast. This is not a direct answer to my exact question. It is more an answer to the question on the protestant believer who chooses to live a very sinful life. Think some truly awful deed or deeds or some such thing. The Host always seemed a bit reluctant to answer these types of questions from the callers. The answer would be that the individual was never really saved in the first place. The Protestant in question was not genuine. He/she was not honest about his/her profession from the start.

(By the way, I think the Bible Answer Man no longer holds true to that way of thinking having had converted to Orthodoxy)

If we can equate the Catholic as equal to the perpetrator of the horrible deed(s), then we have an answer (albeit a poor one). Never saved from the get-go because of the caveat put on the profession of the catholics’ faith. The profession of faith doesn’t allow for Christ’s completeness (if you will) on the cross. And this view is seen as wicked. Again, though, this seems like a poor exception, if in fact it is a view being held by some.

Any other concepts?
 
In regards to #1 - Keeping the divide alive. This is very likely the case. If you don’t believe in a particular theological viewpoint, you are not “saved”. The problem with that approach is that it does not due justice to the various theological traditions that remain within the bounds of orthodoxy - it sets the boundaries narrowly, so that small disagreements become major problems.

#2 - To me, as a Roman Catholic, it’s best to let the protestants work OSAS out among themselves. Since Catholic teachings are closer to the Arminian tradition, but not exactly the same, they are condemned as in #1.

The other thing that comes to mind is the way we view salvation. As other posters have pointed out, being saved isn’t just a “come to Jesus moment”; for Catholics at least. It is a process, that if we are found in Christ at the end of our pilgrimage, we have the promise of inheriting the Kingdom.
 
But many Athiests who do not hold to any belief still do not go out to “rape, murder and steal”? Maybe we must be glad for some divine workings and “goodness” around us.

I remember a Catholic posing the very same question to an Athiest on CAF before… his response was " well if that is your view I am very glad you are a believer".

Rape, murder and steal doesn’t come naturally to many non-believers. Why should it be an argument against believers. Unless you were exaggerating?
 
Last edited:
I pose this question (and others like it) because it almost seems that with a truly open mind, some of these issues really have the potential to be worked out. If we could remove egos and look at the apparent flaws with some ways of thinking, a resolution might be had.

As stated earlier, I have seen debates on the justification topic (youtube and others). And I have heard Catholics condemned for other reasons by OSAS followers (which seems in violation to OSAS). Yet I don’t hear the person on the Catholic side ask the question, “in your opinion am I saved and if not why not”. I’d just like to see the protestant perspective debaters’ answer to this question. I’d be intrigued. But it is not asked - probably due to politeness.
 
Yes, just trying to make a point. Not at all meant literally. I should learn to better articulate.
 
WesArm said:
Reformed Tradition (Lutherans/Calvinists): Most believe salvation can never be lost, regardless of how you live. God “predestined” people to heaven or hell before they were born. Some will admit that you can be a serial murderer and still enter Heaven.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
Lutherans certainly believe salvation can be lost. It’s one of the main things that separates Lutherans from Calvinists, no matter how much Calvinists would like to claim Luther as their own. This is due to the difference in understanding free will and predestination, which I’ve posted elsewhere:

Lutherans profess single-predestination. So when God predestines some to salvation, this does not mean that God predestines others to damnation. Lutherans believe that Christ’s saving work on the Cross was for the entire world -everyone, not just the elect- but human beings have free will to “opt out.” In other words, those who receive salvation receive it wholly from God alone; those who receive damnation bring it wholly upon themselves alone.

Reformed/Calvinist folks generally hold to double predestination. This means they believe God predestines some to salvation, and predestines others to damnation. The Reformed Jesus’s death only covered believers, and humans don’t really have free will. In other words, the Reformed God isn’t particularly kind.
 
Last edited:
Oh you were replying to Thistle, I need to get used to this new format.
 
The core doctrine here, in various forms, is penal substitution

It’s not biblical.

Jesus’s atonement eliminated culpability for sin if you have faith alone.

But if you have real faith, good works will automatically flow

It’s full of errors and inconsistencies
 
Mijoy2 said:
I am not certain I fully understand (from the protestant perspective) the concept of not losing one’s salvation if one professes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Click to expand...
Thing to keep in mind is there is no “Protestant perspective.” The word “Protestant” is made-up and effectively means “any western church that isn’t Roman Catholic.”
There is the Lutheran perspective.
There are Calvinist perspectives.
There is the Arminian perspective.
There is… etc., etc.

None of these are related, so none can be expected to answer for the others.

For some of these groups, your questions poke serious holes in their logic. But to others, like Lutherans for example, the question would be a moot point. Lutherans do not profess Once-Saved-Always-Saved. Instead, they understand Grace to be received in the Sacraments (which God does for us), not in some silly human-made proclamation at one point in time.

I think if you really want to understand, you’re going to need to look at each school of thought separately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top