A
Athanasiy
Guest
:grouphug: :hug3:
- Status
:grouphug: :hug3:
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
loss of salvation, hmm, if its ok with you why dont I just say what I understand. Its entirely possible coming from no particular church background Ive got a mixed view, I will be honest about that and am open to discussion.
thus why Im hereloss of salvation is my problem not Gods, I move He doesnt. He accepts you once, He doesnt have to accept you each week or continually thats illogical. So I guess once saved sorta applies but the rest of it is just not right. If I am saved but run around and kill or lie cheat steal then Im missing the second part which is the lovely works, faith without works. I would be living a lie or in sin and sin separates me from God.
And would need to correct that in order to stand in union with God. Confession is always a good idea followed by genuine repentance and attempt to correct the situation. Otherwise your still standing in sin and separating yourself again.
So hows that?, be kind
btw I have always liked this quote
Although your soul it cant be bought
Your mind can wander.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
phithy
as above
ps what you say doesnt sound very good if thats the deal
as above
ps what you say doesnt sound very good if thats the deal
V
VociMike
Guest
Shucks, you sound like a Catholic!loss of salvation, hmm, if its ok with you why dont I just say what I understand. Its entirely possible coming from no particular church background Ive got a mixed view, I will be honest about that and am open to discussion.
loss of salvation is my problem not Gods, I move He doesnt. He accepts you once, He doesnt have to accept you each week or continually thats illogical. So I guess once saved sorta applies but the rest of it is just not right. If I am saved but run around and kill or lie cheat steal then Im missing the second part which is the lovely works, faith without works. I would be living a lie or in sin and sin separates me from God.
And would need to correct that in order to stand in union with God. Confession is always a good idea followed by genuine repentance and attempt to correct the situation. Otherwise your still standing in sin and separating yourself again.
So hows that?, be kind
Seriously, I don’t see anything here in contradiction to the Catholic faith. It’s the Evangelicals & Fundamentalists who will probably jump on your response. But don’t worry, we’ll help you out if they do.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
hmm thanks I was wonderingShucks, you sound like a Catholic!
Seriously, I don’t see anything here in contradiction to the Catholic faith. It’s the Evangelicals & Fundamentalists who will probably jump on your response. But don’t worry, we’ll help you out if they do.
about that.anyway all thoughts welcome. but if I dont respond I will, just that its the long weekend and wont be back til monday nite. but please now Im really interested. Didnt realise how much of a mutt I am. I will blame Lewis
V
VociMike
Guest
That explains it. Lewis was just about the most Catholic Protestant who ever lived.hmm thanks I was wondering
anyway all thoughts welcome. but if I dont respond I will, just that its the long weekend and wont be back til monday nite. but please now Im really interested. Didnt realise how much of a mutt I am. I will blame Lewis
BTW, his “Surprised by Joy” helped bring me back into the Church.
I
Ilroy
Guest
Exactly what i was thinking…Kitty Chan, were you looking in the Catechism whilst typing your post?Shucks, you sound like a Catholic!
Seriously, I don’t see anything here in contradiction to the Catholic faith. It’s the Evangelicals & Fundamentalists who will probably jump on your response. But don’t worry, we’ll help you out if they do.
Z
Zenas
Guest
Actually the OSAS crowd will not acknowledge any sin that would result in loss of salvation. Here is the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention, copied from the Baptist Faith and Message (2000):
“All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”
V
VociMike
Guest
True, but most of them would say that certain sins (not all sins, but certain “egregious” ones) are proof that the person was never saved to begin with. Which goes against their notion that all sins are equally offensive to God…
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Just to spice up the pot. . .Here’s a webpage of a Protestant tract which refutes Eternal Security. It’s an interesting read!
biblical-theology.com/security/ues.htm
biblical-theology.com/security/ues.htm
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
*Any *doctrine can be misleading, if:
- it is detached from its connections with other doctrines
- people don’t try to find out what those connections are
The misleading is often not in the doctrine at all, but in those who don’t hold the doctrine. It doesn’t follow that because a Muslim, say, may think the Incarnation misleading, that it is. Catholics may think eternal security is misleading - maybe they should read what Calvin has to say about it.
Can’t God save murderers ? You’re overlooking the place of repentance, conversion, regeneration - eternal security, when explained in full, does not.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.
- As a result, you’re leaving out essential elements from the doctrine.
- The result of that: the doctrine looks immoral, therefore, misleading
- therefore, it becomes incomprehensible -
- as would the Sacrament of Penance: if one explained it without mentioning what the Church means by “contrition”, and without emphasising the necessity of contrition.
- **1.**The ability & willingness & sufficiency & faithfulness of Christ as Saviour
- 2. the waywardness even of the regenerate Christian.
Catholics emphasise 2, a lot - but not 1.
- the problem of great sin after conversion (as accounted for in OSAS-believing Churches)
with - the understanding of the effects of excommunication (as accounted for in the CC)
- For, just as there are Christians who consider union with Christ to be impossible to lose entirely -
- the CC regards membership of the Church as not being entirely able to be lost entirely either.
In addition, the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church applies to the Church in general what ES applies to individual Christians: in Catholic doctrine, OSAS is true for the Church, but not for Catholics in the Church
There are several obstacles to understanding here - the doctrine of salvation is a very thorny issue between Catholics & Protestants.
To make matters worse, what Christians believe about salvation, reflects differences in belief about God, & the wills of God & men. A difference in the Protestant & Catholic understandings of the Church, is in perspective: we tend to begin from the Church, & think of the individual in relation to it; whereas, Protestantism starts at the individual, & goes on to the Church. This has major implications for the doctrines built on this difference.It’s easier to identify the problems, than to give adequate answers - partly because the NT (like the Bible as a whole) is not a Systematic Theology: so that the connections between its teachings can be made in more than one way; which necessarily affects the conclusions drawn from it; which leads to misunderstandings.
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.
It would help if one knew their theology.
Some Protestants believe in the possibility of sinless perfection in this life - so the idea mentioned, may reflect their theology of sanctification. Calvinism has always been anti-perfectionist - that is, it does not believe in the possibility of sinless perfection in this life: partly because belief in it has often been expressed in very immoral behaviour. This is connected to the relation between:- the doctrine of sinless perfection
& - antinomianism (which Calvinism has always rejected)
So how does one account for John 10, & the many other passages which emphasise the security of the believer ? Critics of the doctrine seem never to attend to anything but the difficulties - which is one-sided. Those passages are as much part of God’s Revelation in Christ, as those which we tend to emphasise. Neither is the whole truth.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
OSAS or Eternal Security is not taught by the Catholic Church. According to your post, it does. Correct me if I am wrong.*Any *doctrine can be misleading, if:
Can’t God save murderers ? You’re overlooking the place of repentance, conversion, regeneration - eternal security, when explained in full, does not.
- it is detached from its connections with other doctrines
- people don’t try to find out what those connections are
The misleading is often not in the doctrine at all, but in those who don’t hold the doctrine. It doesn’t follow that because a Muslim, say, may think the Incarnation misleading, that it is. Catholics may think eternal security is misleading - maybe they should read what Calvin has to say about it.
- As a result, you’re leaving out essential elements from the doctrine.
- The result of that: the doctrine looks immoral, therefore, misleading
- therefore, it becomes incomprehensible -
If murder after conversion is the problem - there are (at least) two things here, only one of which seems to be mentioned by Catholics:
- as would the Sacrament of Penance: if one explained it without mentioning what the Church means by “contrition”, and without emphasising the necessity of contrition.
It may help to compare:
- **1.**The ability & willingness & sufficiency & faithfulness of Christ as Saviour
- 2. the waywardness even of the regenerate Christian.
Catholics emphasise 2, a lot - but not 1.
So elements of doctrine in Catholicism are comparable to Eternal Security - if we take account of them, we are going some way to understanding the non-Catholic doctrine.
- the problem of great sin after conversion (as accounted for in OSAS-believing Churches)
with- the understanding of the effects of excommunication (as accounted for in the CC)
- For, just as there are Christians who consider union with Christ to be impossible to lose entirely -
- the CC regards membership of the Church as not being entirely able to be lost entirely either.
In addition, the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church applies to the Church in general what ES applies to individual Christians: in Catholic doctrine, OSAS is true for the Church, but not for Catholics in the Church
There are several obstacles to understanding here - the doctrine of salvation is a very thorny issue between Catholics & Protestants.
It’s easier to identify the problems, than to give adequate answers - partly because the NT (like the Bible as a whole) is not a Systematic Theology: so that the connections between its teachings can be made in more than one way; which necessarily affects the conclusions drawn from it; which leads to misunderstandings. ## It would help if one knew their theology.
Some Protestants believe in the possibility of sinless perfection in this life - so the idea mentioned, may reflect their theology of sanctification. Calvinism has always been anti-perfectionist - that is, it does not believe in the possibility of sinless perfection in this life: partly because belief in it has often been expressed in very immoral behaviour. This is connected to the relation between:
- the doctrine of sinless perfection
&- antinomianism (which Calvinism has always rejected)
So how does one account for John 10, & the many other passages which emphasise the security of the believer ? Critics of the doctrine seem never to attend to anything but the difficulties - which is one-sided. Those passages are as much part of God’s Revelation in Christ, as those which we tend to emphasise. Neither is the whole truth.
I know in Catholic teachings in justification and grace is that you are saved by baptism, and if you commit mortal sin, you will lose grace, and will have to confess and repent your sins in order to received the sanctifying grace from God. God who works through the sacraments of His Church.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Exactly what i was thinking…Kitty Chan, were you looking in the Catechism whilst typing your post?
nah, other than quotes here never read it.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Havent read suprised but was listening to book one on Mere on the way home from cabin today.That explains it. Lewis was just about the most Catholic Protestant who ever lived.
BTW, his “Surprised by Joy” helped bring me back into the Church.
Now not related to that recent reading going back quite a while it was my sis-in-love who explained the Christ isnt going to save you over and over, which seemed logical. But at that time I argued immediately in my head thats good, but it aint that easy theres more to it. Shelved it and waited.
Then I heard
Although your soul it cant be bought
Your mind can wander
and that pulled it off the shelf, then I imagine Lewis’s thoughts were remembered, and instantly it was logical and the whole thing tied together. (thanks Bono) So theres my “mysterious” path.
I was getting frusterated at this OSAS deal everyones always on about so I* thank you *all for or indulging my understanding defination. Now Im clearer about why the whole OSAS bugs me when it come up. Perhaps I could be a closet catholic
I dont know, waiting on some more logic. 
Gottle and Manny keep going Im listening, I find it interesting there doenst seem to be cut and dry statements in this stuff, or there is and thats what your guys are discussing.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Hi, ok attended Nazarene and Baptist, do like Baptist to be honest. Thank you I was trying to find something on that.
This last part in green, this seems to be the “problem” area.
I would have to say that certainly we could be kept by the power of God, but if we wander off, its still our choice, given to us by Him to make. (our minds wander)
(And that same scene is acted out daily, people hate being given something for nothing, and even get mad at the giver, and will be so pig headed as to run off and refuse to even acknowledge the giver, even though they know hes there.)
Is this what Baptists understand? or is it something different?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Kitty Chan:
I’ll try. OSAS is only one of the many issues I have problems with the doctrines of Protestantism. I do know not all Protestants profess to believed it. OSAS is just one of those doctrines that is “pick and chose” Biblical verses to support it, while ignoring other Biblical passages in the Bible that refutes it.Gottle and Manny keep going Im listening, I find it interesting there doenst seem to be cut and dry statements in this stuff, or there is and thats what your guys are discussing.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Hey Manny, pray all is well
If you have a sec can you go back to pg 2 and read what Ive put, (actually started out asking you) and see if perhaps on this issue Im a closet Catholic of sorts. I dont know its interesting me, and like you said above just now I do agree with that. Just looking for feedback on it, Im loving the discussion tone here. I guess what Im after is; what say you, about what I said??
You all are really helping me sort my thoughts in this matter btw, thanks
V
VociMike
Guest
It’s a fascinating read. I recommend it to anybody.
Does she think that Christ isn’t going to forgive you over and over? That Christ isn’t going to welcome you back over and over?
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
yea I bought it on cd too, in hopes of almost commiting it to memory.
sometimes I have a swizz cheeze memory so want to fill in the holes The sis sorry explained that badly, Christ will forgive and welcome you back. She was getting more about the “official” act on our part of “getting saved” actually deciding to choose Christ as Lord. That you decide once. Not each day or flip flop.
But you decide, but then you have to hold onto the decision, and not walk away. Does that make sense? please tell me if 1 thats right and 2 Im explaining it right. Im really wanting to get this sorted out like I said. No opinons, Im wide open on the topic.
(if ya will this is a peek into my tiny mind deciding something, I tend to wrestle them down, and if I cant back to the shelf, but Im getting enough feedback I think to end the shelf life on oaas.)
J
JesseW
Guest
In my mind, I separate primary doctrines and secondary doctrines. I believe OSAS is secondary. Whether you believe it or not does not impact salvation as long as the primary doctrines that both Catholics and Protestants (in my limited understanding) hold dear to- accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, trusting in Him to be our High Priest so that we can become adopted children of God.
What troubles me is the apparent belief that some sins aren’t covered by the blood of Christ. This puts limitations on His ultimate sacrifice on the cross. I believe that the Bible is clear of God’s perception of sin. Murder is a dangerous thing to claim as unforgivable. Christ revealed what the Pharisees didn’t realize. Sin is a matter of the heart (Matt 5:21+, 1 John 3:15, etc.). Such a doctrine opens up a Pandora’s Box.
Jesus said that “any sin and basphemy shall be forgiven people, but the basphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven” (Matt 12:31). 1 John 1:7 says “if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
One last thing, please remember to consider the differences among denominations when you debate Protestant doctrine. Right or wrong, there are divisions. Have you heard the old quote, “I don’t like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”
The original design of denominationalism was inclusive in nature and intent. This concept recognized that no one sect could claim the authority of Christ for itself alone (heresy to Catholics and something I am currently looking into, explaining my presence on this forum!). It implies that the Christian group called or denominated by a particular name was but one member of a larger grou- the church- to which all denominations belong. The denominational theory of the church, then insists that the true church cannot be identified with any single ecclesiastical structure. No denomination claims to represent the whole church of Christ (those that do are flirting with cultism). Each simply constitutes a different form- in worship and organization- of the larger life of the church.
Most Protestants are denying their own history if they reject the fundamental beliefs behind the formation of denominationalism:
(1) Considering a man’s inability to always see the truth clearly, differences in opinion about the outward form of the church are inevitable.
(2) Even though these differences do not involve fundamentals of the faith, they are not matters of indifference. Every Christian is obligated to practice what he believes the Bible teaches.
(3) Since no church has the final and full grasp of divine truth, the true Church of Christ can never be fully represented by any single ecclesiastical structure.
(4) The mere fact of separation does not in itself constitute schism. It is possible to be divided at many points and still be united in Christ. Denominations commonly come together for special services. We share resources and help one another out. Our Baptist Church in my town is offering its building to a Pentecostal congregation that had to move out of their facility.
The denominational theory of the church looked for Christian unity in experiencing a life saving faith in Christ while allowing diversity in the outward expressions of that personal faith.
You can argue with this if you want, it is a Catholic forum after all. But I know this is shocking and heretical to you. I myself am reexamining it. It just helps to understand the camp in which you are engaging. Hopefully it will be used for the purpose intended, to give you insight behind our many conflicting doctrines and secondary beliefs.
- Status