Eternal Security

[Gill79]

In the name of Jesus,

Ken

there a verse somewhere, once saved always saved most protestants do say them without thinking. most christains born again would tend to say that and they dont ever agree with calvin thinking. it simple do not occur to them to think on it

there two kind of svalation relating saved or born again

one working savaltion
other u accept by mouth not by works to pay the salavtion of Christ

Main slavation accept by mouth. saved

salavtion corcening christians(hence what it called) STAY in the Accaptence Salavtion or risk lost the unearned grace so lost both aumtomically

judas was saved by unearn grace and in time* fall away.

man on cross dying on tree was saved by unearn grace but no works died within hours cos of main salavtion by mouth.

no matter the of time God do not begruge people on earth who just saved unknown could died within mins or hours because they already saved by utter in prayer to repent. that is alone concering saved not corcening time link to savaltion that u earn by works or risk fall away.

they above the exmpales of two kind of svalation bible talk about
with Judas and man on cross

Gillian*

 

[Tonks40]

God cannot lie! (Titus 1:2). As a matter of fact, the Bible is speaking of eternal security when It tells us that God cannot lie. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” (Titus 1:2). What a loving God! You can speak to people from many different religions and you’ll discover a pervading sense of fear and uncertainty. No wonder Jesus said:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” -Matthew 11:28

Fisher -

We appreciate your zeal for your love of Christ and your knowledge. But I note this verse and other things you’ve said on this thread.

Yes, faith in Christ will allow us rest. It is a comfort. No, God does not lie. Eternal life is truly a free gift from God. But note in Matthew that he said we have “hope” in the promise of eternal life. Not to try and simplify this too much, how come we have “hope” and not “assurance?” Wouldn’t that be that all-elusive “guarantee” that eternal assurance promises?

Pax, Pixie Dust and others have given you verses that seem to contradict your own verses to support ES. Why haven’t you addressed those? Your focus is very narrowly limited, and it hasn’t seem to do you any good here to support the ES notion. As you know, the Bible cannot contradict itself.

I was just hoping to see a little more with your argument.

 

[nonsumd]

The security lies with God, not us. So, the justified are justified are justified, whether they have doubts or not is irrelevant to the issue of security.

The issue of doubting ones final state in eternity is not unique to Reformed theology.

Listen to yourself: “Yes, I have doubts about my salvation, but I am secure about my salvation.”

Is there anything stopping you from saying further: “That soul does not even know Jesus at all, hasn’t even heard the name, but God has saved him”?

In any case, I thought the whole point about the OSAS/perseverance of the elect/eternal security teachings was to give a person absolute certainty about his ultimate fate.

I would say that doubt about one’s final state in eternity is unique to Reformed theology, because Reformed theology contends that salvation is predetermined and so the question becomes whether or not we are actually saved.

Catholic theology does not promise such assurance - salvation is an on-going process, we can doubt whether we are making progress on the path to salvation, but we cannot doubt whether or not we have reached the final destination since we know we have not reached it yet. We hope we will get there and pray for the grace that will get us there.

As others have said, Reformed theology excludes hope: God has already decided who is saved and who is not, so why bother to live a life of imitating Christ at all, why bother following Jesus’ command to pick up our cross and follow Him?

Reformed theology replaces hope with certainty, a certainty that cannot be maintained in the face of “signs” that one is not one of the elect after all or one maintained only by separating salvation from moral conduct.

The appeal of OSAS is obvious; it is far less challenging than Jesus’ actual teaching.

 

[nonsumd]

God cannot lie! (Titus 1:2). As a matter of fact, the Bible is speaking of eternal security when It tells us that God cannot lie. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” (Titus 1:2).

Say, I give you a ten-dollar bill saying, “Here, this is yours to keep!.”

You then go on to throw the bill away or even tear it up, does your doing that to the bill make me a liar when I said, “Here, this is yours to keep”?

If I give you a ten-dollar bill and machine gun, “Here this is yours to keep, and no one will have the power to take it away from you,” then you throw the bill away or tear it up, does that make me liar when I said, “No one will be able to take it away from you”?

What I believe God does do is say to us is something more along the lines of me saying to you, “Here is a ten-dollar bill to keep, even if you throw it away or tear it up, I will give you another ten-dollar bill if you ask.”

The difference between God and a human being is that in this life God will never tire of giving us another bill if we ask. He is very happy to give us another bill even if we are too paralyzed by shame (a function of pride) to ask for it.

Is that not the real point of the parable of the Prodigal Son?

 

[Fisher]

show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. II Timothy 2:15

Here are all the verses in the New Testament
that have the word ENDURE in the verse.

---

GOSPELS **TO the Jews, not TO us today!**Matthew 10:22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 24:13: But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 4:17: And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.

Mark 13:13: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

John 6:27: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

THESE ARE FROM PAUL - **THESE ARE TO US TODAY!**Romans 9:22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Well - that IS what He is doing today, eh!

I Corinthians 13:7: Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Yes - of course. Never give up!

II Thessalonians 1:4: So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
How do we endure? with patience and faith
What do we endure? persecutions and tribulations - and we have plenty of those, but certainly not like what is coming in the actual Tribulation.

II Timothy 2:3: Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
A soldier doesn’t roll over and die - and just sit around and endure life.
We are to endure hardness that comes with standing for rightly dividing and for the truth.

II Timothy 2:10: Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
A reference to the elect? the Jews, of course. Note the word ALSO. He is talking TO saved - the church of GOD - and wants the Jews to ALSO have what the Gentiles were given an opportunity - to be saved by faith!

II Timothy 3:11: Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
Yes, He still will. But He gave us the Book - that which is perfect, etc. He won’t just throw some magic portion into your physical life - and your children. YOU must be busy following Paul!

II Timothy 4:3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Well, that is sure true - and getting worse and worse as we get closer and closer to the tribulation!

II Timothy 4:5: But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
Again, that goes TO us today!

 

[Fisher]

**These are to folks in the Tribulation tomorrow, NOT to us today!**I bet you see some subjects in here that are still preached TO us today, eh! If these things are TO us today, then so is Hebrews 13 about pastoral authority and so is Hebrews 6 on losing one’s salvation

And according to James, if you don’t endure temptation, you could die!

Hebrews 6:15: And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

Hebrews 10:32: But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
That is about the Jews, not about us … so, who is he talking to? Us? Gentiles? Nope - Jews!

Hebrews 11:27: By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
Moses again - Jews!

Hebrews 12:2: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
A fact - a truth for all dispensations - well, New Testament, anyway!

Hebrews 12:3: For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Yes, of course - but we can’t lose our salvation - or even give it up. That teaching goes against Paul’s gospel!

Hebrews 12:7: If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
And if we don’t endure? See - that is for when the Lord will be chastening folks during the tribulation - His folks. Nowhere does Paul say God will chasten us other than through His word! The punisment for sin is built in to the sin that why we die. Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree
of the garden thou mayest freely eat:Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die. ** and death started**

Hebrews 12:20: (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
Jews again - in Exodus!

James 1:12: Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
And if you don’t’ endure temptation, you could die?
If you don’t love the Lord, you could die?
Now there is some material for pastors who want to control their people with guilt and fear!

James 5:11: Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
We can’t be happy until AFTER the Lord comes? Paul preaches all the time about our joy we can have TODAY!

I Peter 1:25: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Yes, this is a true statement for any dispensation, but which gospel is this referring to for preaching. See, there are still facts of truth in the whole Bible, but we have to be able to discern what is TO us for commandments, etc. and Hebrews to Jude is not to us today!

I Peter 2:19: For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
Sure - but just a fact for any time when we suffer for the Lord. This does not prove that Peter is TO us today!

 

[Tonks40]

Fisher -

Despite all the bible verses you’re slinging at us, you’re doing something amazing - you’re discounting human nature and presuming that man, through the promise Christ gave us, has no free will.

God gave us free will. He didn’t just give Jews free will - he gave it to all mankind. Why isolate Jews for not adhering to the Word of God and believing in the new covenant that Christ brought with his incarnation, death, and resurrection?

Basic and simple, and you’re missing the point totally!

 

[Fisher]

Fisher -

Despite all the bible verses you’re slinging at us, you’re doing something amazing - you’re discounting human nature and presuming that man, through the promise Christ gave us, has no free will.

God gave us free will. He didn’t just give Jews free will - he gave it to all mankind. Why isolate Jews for not adhering to the Word of God and believing in the new covenant that Christ brought with his incarnation, death, and resurrection?

Basic and simple, and you’re missing the point totally!

did you read both post?

 

[Calvinator]

Listen to yourself: “Yes, I have doubts about my salvation, but I am secure about my salvation.”

Is there anything stopping you from saying further: “That soul does not even know Jesus at all, hasn’t even heard the name, but God has saved him”?.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

First, I didn’t type anything similar to “Yes, I have doubts about my salvation, but I am secure about my salvation.” Our emotional state towards our final destination has nothing to do with whether or not God keeps us securely in His grace.

Second, the catholic church does seem to teach as you say “That soul does not even know Jesus at all, hasn’t even heard the name, but God has saved him”, not reformed theology.

In any case, I thought the whole point about the OSAS/perseverance of the elect/eternal security teachings was to give a person absolute certainty about his ultimate fate.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. We teach the preservation of the saints because we believe that is what God teaches us through the scriptures. We also believe that a person can come to a knowledge of whether he is one of the elect but I don’t know of anyone that believes this is some sort of infallible knowledge. Obviously a person could be mistaken.

I would say that doubt about one’s final state in eternity is unique to Reformed theology, because Reformed theology contends that salvation is predetermined and so the question becomes whether or not we are actually saved.

Catholic theology does not promise such assurance - salvation is an on-going process, we can doubt whether we are making progress on the path to salvation, but we cannot doubt whether or not we have reached the final destination since we know we have not reached it yet. We hope we will get there and pray for the grace that will get us there…

You don’t think that there are any catholics out there who despair of their salvation from time to time?

While you are right that a catholic can’t doubt whether or not they have reached the final destination, they can in fact doubt as to whether or not they will persevere to the end or have confessed their sins fully, or fret over any number of other things that your theology teaches would keep them out of heaven.

As others have said, Reformed theology excludes hope: God has already decided who is saved and who is not, so why bother to live a life of imitating Christ at all, why bother following Jesus’ command to pick up our cross and follow Him?

Reformed theology replaces hope with certainty, a certainty that cannot be maintained in the face of “signs” that one is not one of the elect after all or one maintained only by separating salvation from moral conduct.

The appeal of OSAS is obvious; it is far less challenging than Jesus’ actual teaching.

Well, since Jesus commanded us to live a certain way I suppose His command is good enough for me, how about you?

How exactly do you define “hope”?

The appeal of the preservation of the saints is obvious, it is less challenging. I would rather trust Jesus and take Him at His word than falsely believe I have to add my own works to the equation.

 

[flameburns623]

My experience in dealing with this subject on this forum and others in the past is that most of the critics of ‘eternal security’ don’t care to understand the doctrine before they try to critique it. I have linked to any number of resources in the past, have listed any number of books to read. Most of the common questions which come up on forums like these have very ready responses which the use of a Google or similar search engine would quickly uncover. I strongly encourage those who would criticise the doctrine to first undertake a fair-manded analysis of the doctrine. You may not change your mind about the concept but your critique will be more meanigful for being fair -minded.

The idea that ‘eternal security’ teaches that one can ‘sin with impunity’ after one is saved, is an example of a failure to understand what OSAS theology really teaches–the point of OSAS is that while a saved person may occasionally sin in some measure, they will NOT sin with impunity, willfully, as a consistent lifestyle. God’s grace will ultimately draw them back to repentance and obedience. If this does NOT happen, it is evidence (not proof, since so much of God’s salvific work is unseen to human eyes) that the person in question is not saved now nor ever was saved.

See also the following:

geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/armin.html

bible.org/page.php?page_id=3168

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5130

God bless!

 

[Fisher]

My experience in dealing with this subject on this forum and others in the past is that most of the critics of ‘eternal security’ don’t care to understand the doctrine before they try to critique it. I have linked to any number of resources in the past, have listed any number of books to read. Most of the common questions which come up on forums like these have very ready responses which the use of a Google or similar search engine would quickly uncover. I strongly encourage those who would criticise the doctrine to first undertake a fair-manded analysis of the doctrine. You may not change your mind about the concept but your critique will be more meanigful for being fair -minded.

The idea that ‘eternal security’ teaches that one can ‘sin with impunity’ after one is saved, is an example of a failure to understand what OSAS theology really teaches–the point of OSAS is that while a saved person may occasionally sin in some measure, they will NOT sin with impunity, willfully, as a consistent lifestyle. God’s grace will ultimately draw them back to repentance and obedience. If this does NOT happen, it is evidence (not proof, since so much of God’s salvific work is unseen to human eyes) that the person in question is not saved now nor ever was saved.

See also the following:

geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/armin.html

bible.org/page.php?page_id=3168

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5130

God bless!

Calvin was a heretic who taught that God predestines men to salvation. Calvin taught “selective salvation” (or “unconditional election”) where God selects who will be saved and who will not. Calvin also taught “irresistible grace” where God forces a person to be saved. If God predestinates men to salvation, then why should we go soulwinning? Why did Paul go door-to-door in Acts 20:20? Why did Jesus give the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20? Do you see how men twist the Bible to justify there own ways.

The T.U.L.I.P. man made

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fisher and Gottle of Geer,

How do you reconcile “whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” in a Pauline epistle with “not everyone who calls to me and says ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven”?

Where in Matthew 7 or in any part of the Gospel or the NT is there a promise of salvation to miracle-workers as such ? For Christ not to know those who are not His, is not the same as for Him to unsay His promises in that famous chapter John 6 “He who comes to Me, I will in no wise cast out”. Where do we read of the sons of Sceva of Acts 19, that they had come to Him ? We don’t - we do read that they tried, with great unsuccess, to expel demons “in [His] Name”. But when was miracle working proof positive of faith in Christ as Saviour & Lord ? The Saints in Heaven are not there because of their miracles or prophecies - they are in Christ because they had faith, hope & love in Him. Merely to say “Lord, Lord”, is nothing without faith. And faith, saving faith, comes from God’s foreknowledge of those who are His own & His provision for them. Not from us. Miracles are no proof of holiness - not by themselves; they need Christ the Saviour for their cause, if they are to be that, or Christian at all. This is all common ground among Christians, Catholics or not.​

We do have eternal security in God’s promises: He will not take back the gift that He has given us. But that does not mean it is impossible for us to give up

or lose through neglect that which God has freely given us.## That would completely destroy the work of Christ as relevant to those in Christ who ceased to be in Him - for it would mean that after all He has done, He cannot save. If our sinfulness can prevail to that extent, then sin has conquered Christ, we are not saved, & God’s promises, like the countless proofs of their solidity, are worthless. I would rather believe in no God, than in a saving God who cannot save, a faithful God Who is faithless, & a Redeemer Who cannot redeem. This is a matter of life & death, nothing less. If He cannot save us from our sinfulness, then He is no Saviour.

I know He is a Saviour, so the fact that I can’t give a justification of every last detail of what that involves is beside the point - faith in Christ is a way of life, not (thank God) a theology exam. I need to know God, more than to know about Him. What matters is less my ignorance of the detail of His works, than that He does them - if He does not do them, then all theology & philosophy is a waste of time.

St. Paul had an intellect to outshine any of us - but he looked to Christ Crucified, & preached Christ Crucified; not theology. God saves by the reproach of the Cross, not by dialectic (as St. Ambrose points out). We are to believe Him & His Word - understanding comes later.

It’s not a question of God’s love being “conditional,” but rather of salvation being what it is, something that cannot be said to be complete until a soul has through God’s grace persevered through life’s challenges and temptations. How can “being saved” (in a definitive, irreversible sense) coexist with continuing to sin?

I don’t know, & I don’t know any one who does. All I need to do, is to trust God & to take Him at His Word. Everything else is contained in that. So please, don’t think I’m advocating what is (so horribly) called “easy-believism”. I’m not. One takes Him at His word, because that is all one has room to do, if so be one responds in faith. We can no longer come to Him if we have come to Him - for that implies a need to come. If we have come, then our coming is at an end, because there is no need of any further coming by us; though others may very well need to come. It is in this sense that we have no room to do anything else than to trust God & to take Him at His Word.​

…continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**…continued & ended]

1.** I think your first sentence gets things back to front. Salvation is like the Mass: it’s a unique event. Or better, the Mass has its character of being unique & unrepeatable because that is what salvation is. It seems different to us, because we are in & from space & time, “of the earth, earthy”. But “the Last Adam is from Heaven” - as is the salvation He brings. So a heavenly work is done on earth, eternity takes place in time, & an eternal salvation from God is enacted on behalf of earthy, sinful men. It is already complete - it’s been complete for nearly 2000 years. It seems not to be, because we have to come into a real (that is, a more than purely mental) relation with it - we have to appropriate it. Or rather, the Saviour must appropriate us, must make us His proprium, His own. Unless or until that happens, it is nothing to us. And we become His own by being justified freely by His grace. Then, & not before, we have an interest in Him - that is, He is of concern to us. It is this appropriation of the sinner by Christ the Righteous, through the gift of saving faith, that is the beginning of our life in Christ. And it is founded on the Father’s electing & predestinating purpose, Who chooses Christ’s own “from before the foundation of the world”, so that they, who are nothing whatever, may in due time become His to Whom by right they belong. God, not man, is the author of election, & without election salvation is out of the question.

Election & predestination do not destroy human responsibility in those who belong to Christ - they are part of its foundation. God is not man - the two are utterly different; which is why God’s activity does not hinder ours; they are not related in a way that makes that possible.

2. As to that second question, about co-existence - I don’t see the problem. The Christian is a sinner, because he is not fully regenerated - he is being sanctified, but is not yet fully so. That does not in the least mean that God’s grasp on him is any the weaker - on the contrary, if God did not grasp him, his sanctification & regeneration would be aborted. So the difficulty is a reason to believe in ES.

Paul’s “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” – that does not sound like OSAS to me.

It does to me - because ES is not the same as “slumming it”. I don’t know why people think it is. People who don’t agree with ES never refer to the passages in the NT about “good works prepared for [Christians] to do” - I can’t imagine why - do you know ? Certainly we should tremble at our own weakness & frailty - but that is no reason not to trust absolutely in God’s almighty power to preserve us, & St. Paul nowhere suggests that it is. He does OTOH write Romans 8, which expresses ES - “Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” is ES in a nutshell; just as he had written Romans 7. The anguish he expresses in Romans 7 does not cancel, but emphasises, the triumphant words in the last 10 or so verses of Romans 8.​

 

[Fisher]

Mal3;6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My experience in dealing with this subject on this forum and others in the past is that most of the critics of ‘eternal security’ don’t care to understand the doctrine before they try to critique it. I have linked to any number of resources in the past, have listed any number of books to read. Most of the common questions which come up on forums like these have very ready responses which the use of a Google or similar search engine would quickly uncover. I strongly encourage those who would criticise the doctrine to first undertake a fair-manded analysis of the doctrine. You may not change your mind about the concept but your critique will be more meanigful for being fair -minded.

The idea that ‘eternal security’ teaches that one can ‘sin with impunity’ after one is saved, is an example of a failure to understand what OSAS theology really teaches–the point of OSAS is that while a saved person may occasionally sin in some measure, they will NOT sin with impunity, willfully, as a consistent lifestyle. God’s grace will ultimately draw them back to repentance and obedience. If this does NOT happen, it is evidence (not proof, since so much of God’s salvific work is unseen to human eyes) that the person in question is not saved now nor ever was saved.

See also the following:

geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/armin.html

bible.org/page.php?page_id=3168

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5130

God bless!

It does seem to be very widely misunderstood, sad to say ​

One book that puts the whole subject of ES in sharp focus, & does so exceedingly well, is “Heaven on Earth”, by Thomas Brooks. He leaves nothing standing of the idea that one can sin one’s graces away, or use grace as an excuse to sin. (Ralph Venning’s book “The Sinfulness of Sin” is outstanding ) The idea that one is entitled to sin receives no support from these Puritans, or from any others I’ve so far read; so the less said of this distortion, the better.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Where in Matthew 7 or in any part of the Gospel or the NT is there a promise of salvation to miracle-workers as such ? For Christ not to know those who are not His, is not the same as for Him to unsay His promises in that famous chapter John 6 “He who comes to Me, I will in no wise cast out”. Where do we read of the sons of Sceva of Acts 19, that they had come to Him ? We don’t - we do read that they tried, with great unsuccess, to expel demons “in [His] Name”. But when was miracle working proof positive of faith in Christ as Saviour & Lord ? The Saints in Heaven are not there because of their miracles or prophecies - they are in Christ because they had faith, hope & love in Him. Merely to say “Lord, Lord”, is nothing without faith. And faith, saving faith, comes from God’s foreknowledge of those who are His own & His provision for them. Not from us. Miracles are no proof of holiness - not by themselves; they need Christ the Saviour for their cause, if they are to be that, or Christian at all. This is all common ground among Christians, Catholics or not.​

That would completely destroy the work of Christ as relevant to those in Christ who ceased to be in Him - for it would mean that after all He has done, He cannot save. If our sinfulness can prevail to that extent, then sin has conquered Christ, we are not saved, & God’s promises, like the countless proofs of their solidity, are worthless. I would rather believe in no God, than in a saving God who cannot save, a faithful God Who is faithless, & a Redeemer Who cannot redeem. This is a matter of life & death, nothing less. If He cannot save us from our sinfulness, then He is no Saviour.​

I know He is a Saviour, so the fact that I can’t give a justification of every last detail of what that involves is beside the point - faith in Christ is a way of life, not (thank God) a theology exam. I need to know God, more than to know about Him. What matters is less my ignorance of the detail of His works, than that He does them - if He does not do them, then all theology & philosophy is a waste of time.

St. Paul had an intellect to outshine any of us - but he looked to Christ Crucified, & preached Christ Crucified; not theology. God saves by the reproach of the Cross, not by dialectic (as St. Ambrose points out). We are to believe Him & His Word - understanding comes later.

I don’t know, & I don’t know any one who does. All I need to do, is to trust God & to take Him at His Word. Everything else is contained in that. So please, don’t think I’m advocating what is (so horribly) called “easy-believism”. I’m not. One takes Him at His word, because that is all one has room to do, if it be that one responds in faith. We can no longer come to Him if we have come to Him - for that implies a need to come. If we have come, then our coming is at an end, because there is no need of any further coming by us; though others may very well need to come. It is in this sense that we have no room to do anything else than to trust God & to take Him at His Word.​

…continued…]

 

[nonsumd]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

First, I didn’t type anything similar to “Yes, I have doubts about my salvation, but I am secure about my salvation.” Our emotional state towards our final destination has nothing to do with whether or not God keeps us securely in His grace.

It seems strange to me that that, according to you, the phrase “eternal security” applies not to how we feel about our prospects for salvation but rather to how God feels about them.

Second, the catholic church does seem to teach as you say “That soul does not even know Jesus at all, hasn’t even heard the name, but God has saved him”, not reformed theology.

Indeed, the Church does teach that those who no through fault of their own do nto know the Gospel and yet try to do God’s will as they understand can still be saved. What I was getting at was that it seems to me that your theology excludes any role for human beings responding to God’s grace so completely that it would seem possible that God could choose to save a person who had never heard the name of Jesus (and for that matter never tried to follow God’s will as they understand it).

We also believe that a person can come to a knowledge of whether he is one of the elect but I don’t know of anyone that believes this is some sort of infallible knowledge. Obviously a person could be mistaken.

So a person who lives a godly life could nonetheless be mistaken about his election?

You don’t think that there are any catholics out there who despair of their salvation from time to time?

While you are right that a catholic can’t doubt whether or not they have reached the final destination, they can in fact doubt as to whether or not they will persevere to the end or have confessed their sins fully, or fret over any number of other things that your theology teaches would keep them out of heaven.

You were only discussing “doubt as to one’s final destination,” not doubt more generally. I said that a Catholic would not have such a doubt, whereas a Reformed could not avoid it. I did not say that a Catholic would not have doubts about being ultimately able to reach the final destination – he would not presume that he was guaranteed to reach it, so he would not by definition be in doubt as to whether he personally had actually been guaranteed that.

Well, since Jesus commanded us to live a certain way I suppose His command is good enough for me, how about you?

Indeed, we should live a godly life because Jesus commanded us to do so, but Jesus also clearly links following His commandments to gaining salvation. If you disagree with that, you have not read the Gospels.

How exactly do you define “hope”?

For me “hope” is akin to “faith” and “trust”: I hope I will reach salvation. I place my hope in God’s grace to get me there. I fight against succumbing to despair, no matter how low I sink.

The appeal of the preservation of the saints is obvious, it is less challenging. I would rather trust Jesus and take Him at His word than falsely believe I have to add my own works to the equation.

You would rather believe something that is easier to accept and you pick the verses that you can take to support what you would prefer to believe – you are not following what Jesus taught in its entirety for, as has been pointed out, many of his sayings teach the opposite of OSAS.

When we do the works of faith, we do not add our own works, we add the Lord’s works, we pick up the cross He asks us to pick up if we are to follow Him. All these things – faith as mental assent and the works that make faith living and not dead – are the working of God’s grace in us and nothing for us to boast of – He must increase, we must decrease.

 

[nonsumd]

The idea that ‘eternal security’ teaches that one can ‘sin with impunity’ after one is saved, is an example of a failure to understand what OSAS theology really teaches–the point of OSAS is that while a saved person may occasionally sin in some measure, they will NOT sin with impunity, willfully, as a consistent lifestyle. God’s grace will ultimately draw them back to repentance and obedience. If this does NOT happen, it is evidence (not proof, since so much of God’s salvific work is unseen to human eyes) that the person in question is not saved now nor ever was saved.

Thank you for the clarification.

However, though I have never imagined that OSAS theology could explicitly teach such a thing as “someone saved can sin with impunity,” I cannot help seeing that OSAS theology makes sin committed before “being saved” less grave than sin committed after “being saved.”

I have heard from OSAS-adherents that sin after “being saved” does not jeopardize one’s salvation, but rather only reduces the blessings they will enjoy in heaven.

OSAS seems to create unnecessary complications that Catholic theology does not. We convert, we fall back into sin, we repent – salvation is a process, repentance and conversion is something we with God’s grace do in every moment.

OSAS encourages us to think that if we are continually falling into sin then we must not be saved and have no hope of ever being saved. It could well lead us to blind ourselves to the grace of repentance and conversion that God is always offering us.

 

[nonsumd]

Where in Matthew 7 or in any part of the Gospel or the NT is there a promise of salvation to miracle-workers as such ?..​

You seem to be going out of your way to evade the implications of “Not everyone who calls to me saying ‘Lord! Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

Read in conjuction with other passages (such as James’ ‘faith without works is dead’), the purport is clear. One can say that one believes in Jesus but that means nothing if one does not live out that faith by a life of imitating Jesus (a.k.a. doing good works).

In Matthew 7, Jesus goes on to say he will not recognize those who claim they cast out demons in his name – perhaps they took pride in their miracle-working and thus in effect cast out demons in their own name rather in Jesus.’ Pride is an ever-present danger, especially for those who have been the most blessed.

I would rather believe in no God, than in a saving God who cannot save, a faithful God Who is faithless, & a Redeemer Who cannot redeem. This is a matter of life & death, nothing less. If He cannot save us from our sinfulness, then He is no Saviour.

That’s the problem: it seems to be about what you would rather believe than about what the Gospels actually teach. You would rather not believe in a God who respects the gift of free will He has given to us.

 

[nonsumd]

…continued & ended]

1. I think your first sentence gets things back to front. Salvation is like the Mass: it’s a unique event… Certainly we should tremble at our own weakness & frailty - but that is no reason not to trust absolutely in God’s almighty power to preserve us, & St. Paul nowhere suggests that it is. He does OTOH write Romans 8, which expresses ES - “Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” is ES in a nutshell; just as he had written Romans 7. The anguish he expresses in Romans 7 does not cancel, but emphasises, the triumphant words in the last 10 or so verses of Romans 8.

OK, here’s one verse: “God wills that all be saved.” If that is so, how is it that some are not saved? It must be because human will plays a part in salvation.

Nothing indeed can separate us from God – except our own will. If we continue to sin (and we will sin till the day we die), we cannot say that we have been saved once and for all – but we can say that we still have the possibility of being saved, God’s promises are still open to us.

“Salvation is like the Mass. It’s unique and unrepeatable.” This analogy does not work for me. The Mass is the bloodless re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Besides being an event in historical time, the Crucifixion is indeed also an event outside time – that is why we can say that at the Eucharist we are at the foot of the Cross no less than the Blessed Mother, the Beloved Disciple, and Mary Magdalene. The Sacrifice of Calvary and the Eucharist are outside of time inasmuch as they express God’s salvific will from before time.

I am not sure what all this has to do with the nature of the salvation of the individual soul. The NT portrays the salvation of the individual soul as a process that can be aborted – by the willfulness of the individual soul.

God indeed will all be saved, but not all of us cooperate with that will. This is a way of understanding salvation that does not presume to know as fixed that which God has told us is not fixed.

What is the point of preaching Jesus’ saving power when those who are saved are saved whether they hear God’s word or not? What is the point if not to turn others to the path of God who might otherwise not have turned to it?