Eternal Security, or OSAS is misleading

[Mannyfit75]

Out of all the Protestant doctrines, I find Eternal Security, or Once Save Always Saved extremely misleading. I do believe this doctrine stem out of the doctrine of Faith Alone, one of the major pillars of Protestantism.

What I find misleading is that once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, no sin, past, present and future can separate you from God’s grace. You are saved even if you commit the most serious sin like murder or committing abortion.

I think this doctrine itself is extremely misleading souls. Some Protestant apologists suggest that if a Christian sins again, he wasn’t really saved in the first place. That explanation is very puzzling.

I do acknowledge that not all Protestants adhere to OSAS or eternal security. The Bible itself speaks that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation when they sin, and must repent to atone for their sins to God.

 

[JED8643]

You know your absolutely right. This is one of the most hard to understand protestant doctrines. Just the other day while watching John Hagee on the tele, I was quite shocked when he said OSAS was a false doctrine and it made God an “accomplice to evil”. He quoted from Hebrews to back up his point. I had thought he was a typical Baptist or non-denom fundamentalist so I had always assumed he preached OSAS.

Anyway, it just confused me even more because some of the other prominent TV and radio preachers support the OSAS idea. Guess that even leads to the bigger issue of sola scriptura. John Hagee can use verses in scripture to “prove” OSAS is false while others like Billy Graham and John MacArthur can use scripture to “prove” it’s correct.

This stuff is why I find myself so attracted to the CC. Continuity of doctrine dating back to the apostles.

 

[Athanasiy]

But the matter is that there are many out there, in the company of the chosen elite, whom You should ask the question :
- Saved from what ?

 

[Zenas]

But the matter is that there are many out there, in the company of the chosen elite, whom You should ask the question :

 - Saved from what ?

Saved from the fires of hell of course. What else do you think it could be?

 

[TheGoodLife]

If I understand the Catholic teaching correctly, then as long as we repent our sins right before we die, God forgives us and we don’t go to hell.

What if a person led a Christian life, but did something sinful (like had an abortion or drove drunk and killed innocent people) with no chance to repent because they died immediately after the fact?

Is something like this perhaps what the Protestant faith is talking about, that they don’t believe God would send someone to hell for eternity for one last-minute unrepented sin if they had otherwise lived a good Christian life?

 

[Athanasiy]

Saved from the fires of hell of course. What else do you think it could be?

I think the membership in Evangelical community doesn’t make one
in the more special or privileged position than Catholic.
Not all the Church members are with the same Evangelistic temperature , and also none of them is saved from sins , some of them even not saved from the deadly sins.
Most , are not saved from the ‘’ carefully hidden, proud, comfortable- -security- mentality ; that-
we are the special , we are the better ones, we are elite.
We have what you do not have.
We do what you do not do.

 

[Athanasiy]

Saved from the fires of hell of course. What else do you think it could be?

We have the testimony of Jesus that many can do even the miracles and wonders in Jesus name , but they are not saved.
We have the James epistle which in my opinion contradicts the Baptist doctrine. ( below there are more verses from the Scripture)

We can have the moral assurance of Salvation
We can trust in God’s mercy.
We must do our best in the God’s working field.
But the eternal security doctrine is not spiritually healthy in my opinion , because it is not properly balanced with the spirit of God’s word and with the reason.

We can not separate the faith from the deeds it is contrary to the word of God .

:Mt 25:31-46
Lk 18:18-25
Jn6:27-29
Gal 5:6
Eph 2;8-10
Phil 2m: 12-13
Phil 3:; 10-14
1 Thes 1:11
Heb 5: 9
James 1: 21-27
James 2: 14- 16

Please read also on account of the ‘‘eternal
security’’ these verses :

1Cor 9:27
Gal4:9
Gal5:1,4
Col 1:22-…
1Tim 1:19-20
1 Tim 4:1
1Tim 5:15
Heb 3: 12-14
Heb 6:4-6
Heb 10: 26,29,39
Heb 12: 14-15
2 Pet 2:15
2 Pet 2:20-21
Rev 2: 4-5

 

[runandsew]

If I understand the Catholic teaching correctly, then as long as we repent our sins right before we die, God forgives us and we don’t go to hell.

What if a person led a Christian life, but did something sinful (like had an abortion or drove drunk and killed innocent people) with no chance to repent because they died immediately after the fact?

Is something like this perhaps what the Protestant faith is talking about, that they don’t believe God would send someone to hell for eternity for one last-minute unrepentant sin if they had otherwise lived a good Christian life?

It seems to me that someone who would call Jesus ‘Lord’, prophesy, cast out demons and do might works (miracles) in his name could be considered a Christian, and yet it seems like even with that type of faith, they could still lose their salvation if they do not do the will of the Father.

Matthew 7:21:23
"Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.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 mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

And that not everyone will be going to heaven since the gate is narrow.

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

And finally, we all must be prepared because we never know when we will die, or the second coming will occur. (which ever comes first)

Matthew 24:44
Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Matthew 25:13
Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

Of course some of the Protestants will quote the passages which refer to God’s promise of salvation which He will not take away from us, but ignore the clear teachings that one can lose their salvation, if they die unrepentant, and say “see you can’t lose your salvation”
They live with an ‘either/or’ mentality.

One needs to harmonize those passages which say that we can’t be separated from the love of God with the ones that say you can walk away from your faith.

God’s promise is always there, Jesus died that we might be saved, and once we accept this gift, God will not take it away.
So if we fall into sin, but then confess and repent and turn back to God, well Jesus does not have to be re-crucified again, He died once and for all. In the Old Testament, they would have to re-sacrifice animals every time they sinned, but that is no longer the case, all we have to do now is confess our sins and repent, and we will be forgiven, receive this promise once again.

It is like when we sin, we reject this gift, we give it back to God and say “no thank you”.

 

[Teflon93]

When my wife and I attended the Pentecostal church, the pastor literally would contradict himself week after week on this point. “I don’t know why you people are so worried about your salvation; you’re saved!” one week and “I don’t know why you people think you’re saved—fear God!” the next.

A less fiery, more touchy-feely pastor once described divine judgment as a show trial with Satan as accuser and Christ as defense attorney and God in judgment. I haven’t seen anything resembling this in Scripture but found it a mockery of salvation. Why would God play games with eternal life?

Catholics readily acknowledge God’s mercy to be infinite and that we do not know who is saved or not until He says so. The variable in the salvation equation is not God’s mercy but our sinfulness. Sin is a turning away from God, the worship of things other than Him. Damnation to my mind is merely God acceding to the damned soul’s desire to turn away from God forever.

We were granted free will as a gift of God. We can choose God or sin. Christians sin, but repent and return to God. I certainly know people in my own life who have fairly wallowed in sin before choosing God. Their view of salvation was not that of someone always saved but rather that of someone in great peril jerked back from Hell. It is this notion of one needing to be broken and humiliated before truly appreciating salvation which I think the Pentecostals and like-minded Protestants emphasize.

 

[Zenas]

We have the testimony of Jesus that many can do even the miracles and wonders in Jesus name , but they are not saved.
We have the James epistle which in my opinion contradicts the Baptist doctrine. ( below there are more verses from the Scripture)

We can have the moral assurance of Salvation
We can trust in God’s mercy.
We must do our best in the God’s working field.
But the eternal security doctrine is not spiritually healthy in my opinion , because it is not properly balanced with the spirit of God’s word and with the reason.

We can not separate the faith from the deeds it is contrary to the word of God .

:Mt 25:31-46
Lk 18:18-25
Jn6:27-29
Gal 5:6
Eph 2;8-10
Phil 2m: 12-13
Phil 3:; 10-14
1 Thes 1:11
Heb 5: 9
James 1: 21-27
James 2: 14- 16

Please read also on account of the ‘‘eternal
security’’ these verses :

1Cor 9:27
Gal4:9
Gal5:1,4
Col 1:22-…
1Tim 1:19-20
1 Tim 4:1
1Tim 5:15
Heb 3: 12-14
Heb 6:4-6
Heb 10: 26,29,39
Heb 12: 14-15
2 Pet 2:15
2 Pet 2:20-21
Rev 2: 4-5

Athanasiy, I agree with everything you say here. I was only answering the rather obvious question you posted. Being “saved” is a term used throughout the N.T. Although OSAS proponents believe “saved” means the same thing as “eternally saved”, and I have never understood why, this concept is thoroughly debunked by the passages you have cited and many more as well.

 

[VociMike]

One of the strangest dilemmas of OSAS has to do with the newborn. If a newborn dies, does it go to heaven or hell? Very few Christians are willing to assign a newborn to hell. So that means they consider every newborn to be saved. By OSAS, then, we’re all saved at the moment of birth.

But of course OSAS believers don’t believe that. So somehow all of these newborns become condemned to hell the moment they commit their very first tiny 7-year-old sin. One back-talk to their parents and BOOM!, condemned to hell for all eternity.

 

[Teflon93]

One of the strangest dilemmas of OSAS has to do with the newborn. If a newborn dies, does it go to heaven or hell? Very few Christians are willing to assign a newborn to hell. So that means they consider every newborn to be saved. By OSAS, then, we’re all saved at the moment of birth.

But of course OSAS believers don’t believe that. So somehow all of these newborns become condemned to hell the moment they commit their very first tiny 7-year-old sin. One back-talk to their parents and BOOM!, condemned to hell for all eternity.

In fairness though, we Catholics have struggled with this as well. What happens to those infants who die before baptism and thus in original sin?

Much of the hubbub about Limbo recently was that the media simply does not understand that such things are not the creation of the Catholic Church but of God—we simply try to understand them.

Thus the Church did not “abolish” Limbo. We continue to pray, reason, and reflect on the matter and as always acknowledge God’s wisdom and mercy.

I certainly hope that those babies who die before baptism are welcomed into heaven, but God’s will be done, not mine.

 

[frnate]

Out of all the Protestant doctrines, I find Eternal Security, or Once Save Always Saved extremely misleading. I do believe this doctrine stem out of the doctrine of Faith Alone, one of the major pillars of Protestantism. What I find misleading is that once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, no sin, past, present and future can separate you from God’s grace. You are saved even if you commit the most serious sin like murder or committing abortion. I think this doctrine itself is extremely misleading souls. Some Protestant apologists suggest that if a Christian sins again, he wasn’t really saved in the first place. That explanation is very puzzling. I do acknowledge that not all Protestants adhere to OSAS or eternal security. The Bible itself speaks that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation when they sin, and must repent to atone for their sins to God.

Having come out of the IFB Church (Independent, Fundamental, Baptist) I am quite familiar with this particular subject. I have seen hundreds of people “get saved” multiple times. Tried it myself. The fact is, the watered down Calvinists (most Baptists) are in reality de facto Armenians (most Pentecostals).

I’ve posted this before but I’ll include it here again:

What’s the difference between a Baptist and a Pentecostal?
The Pentecostal knows he’s saved but thinks he can lose it.
The Baptist knows he can’t lose it, he’s just never sure he got it.

That’s why they must assume that Simon Magus never was really a Christian. He just thought he “got saved.”

Peace,
+N

 

[allischalmers]

I think the membership in Evangelical community doesn’t make one
in the more special or privileged position than Catholic.
Not all the Church members are with the same Evangelistic temperature , and also none of them is saved from sins , some of them even not saved from the deadly sins.
Most , are not saved from the ‘’ carefully hidden, proud, comfortable- -security- mentality ; that-
we are the special , we are the better ones, we are elite.
We have what you do not have.
We do what you do not do.

One day a while ago I posted what the moderates said was an uncharitable post and was cencored me for it.
When someone because they are Catholic calls themselves better or elite over protestant, is that not also uncharitable or do the moderators on this forum have a double standard

 

[Athanasiy]

One day a while ago I posted what the moderates said was an uncharitable post and was cencored me for it.
When someone because they are Catholic calls themselves better or elite over protestant, is that not also uncharitable or do the moderators on this forum have a double standard

Excuse me please ,I think - the elite mentality is one of the feature of the Baptist Christians.

The Anabaptists blamed its ancestors , that they do not keep the right Evangelical teaching and are formalists, and they did not restored the primitive Christianity in full.
Couldn’t the Baptists think that later , the Pentecostal will call the Baptists as a formalists , and through some time the Pentecostals were called the formalists by the Charismatics , so its goes on and on, its ends is not yet , and never will be.
I believe that the conception of the Christian Church can not exist without the historical roots.
Sorry if I insulted You.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Out of all the Protestant doctrines, I find Eternal Security, or Once Save Always Saved extremely misleading. I do believe this doctrine stem out of the doctrine of Faith Alone, one of the major pillars of Protestantism.

What I find misleading is that once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, no sin, past, present and future can separate you from God’s grace. You are saved even if you commit the most serious sin like murder or committing abortion.

I think this doctrine itself is extremely misleading souls. Some Protestant apologists suggest that if a Christian sins again, he wasn’t really saved in the first place. That explanation is very puzzling.

I do acknowledge that not all Protestants adhere to OSAS or eternal security. The Bible itself speaks that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation when they sin, and must repent to atone for their sins to God.

Manny this keeps coming up, I have never heard it and Ive not heard it from my relatives, friends, family that I could commit murder and be saved.

WHAT church is teaching this?? I cannot figure it out, unless its a US deal. do you or anyone know. ??

 

[Philthy]

One day a while ago I posted what the moderates said was an uncharitable post and was cencored me for it.
When someone because they are Catholic calls themselves better or elite over protestant, is that not also uncharitable or do the moderators on this forum have a double standard

Well IF someone were to do that I would call it uncharitable, but the reality is that the post you quoted was in reference to Evangelicals believing that they are better. As usual, you are confused…
Perhaps you were simply hoping to get the former Baptist censored because the fact that they converted to Catholicism strikes a nerve in you?!? :yup:

 

[VociMike]

Manny this keeps coming up, I have never heard it and Ive not heard it from my relatives, friends, family that I could commit murder and be saved.

Now you’ve got me curious. What does your “circle” teach regarding loss of salvation? Apparently from what you wrote above, murder would result in loss of salvation, correct? What other sins would result in loss of salvation?

 

[Philthy]

Manny this keeps coming up, I have never heard it and Ive not heard it from my relatives, friends, family that I could commit murder and be saved.

WHAT church is teaching this?? I cannot figure it out, unless its a US deal. do you or anyone know. ??

Oh its never so overt as to come right out and say that. What they would say instead is that if you are saved then you *wouldnt *do such a thing. Subtle difference. Then they can comfortably judge themselves as saved -as well as others - and pretend that nothing could jeopardize their paradise. It is not dealt with UNTIL that assessment (so and so is saved) is contradicted by events, say, like what happened to Ted Haggerty(sp). I mean do you think he would have been included in the “he’s saved” crowd who professes Christ as Lord? You betcha. But once that assessment is contradicted by the REALITY OF SIN, then guess what the claim will be? Will it be the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he simply FELL from God’s grace through deadly sin? NOPE! The claim, of course -since OSAS must be maintained - is that HE WAS NEVER SAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. How convenient, and how truly useless. What good is it to “know” that you are saved yet the possibility remains that if you fall big time the “knowledge” becomes false? It is truly silly.
Catholics take a much more reasonable and fully Scriptural approach IMHO. One must PERSEVERE in the faith until they are judged by God who will render to each according to what they did - eternal life to those who did good, condemnation to those who did evil. There is no boasting before that day.

 

[allischalmers]

Well IF someone were to do that I would call it uncharitable, but the reality is that the post you quoted was in reference to Evangelicals believing that they are better. As usual, you are confused…
Perhaps you were simply hoping to get the former Baptist censored because the fact that they converted to Catholicism strikes a nerve in you?!? :yup:

well , everyone has a right to be wrong, even Athanaisy