Evidence for Once Saved Always Saved?

[aidanbradypop]

I still recommend reading Boettner’s book, but if you want to look at a brief treatment, with plenty of scriptural references, the link below takes you to an article that seems pretty good.

graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/perseverence-of-saints/an-examination-of-the-five-points-of-calvinism-part-v-perseverance-of-the-saints-by-brian-schwertley/

I will check it out…Lutherans and Anglicans do not believe in OSAS. Are you ok with that? Do you hold to the belief of OSAS?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Jr…I was about to read it…I clicked the link and then saw Reformed and Calvinism and clicked the “X” lol. Sorry I do not believe in Calvinism. I believe it to be gravely false. Any non Calvinism or Reformed sites you can point me towards? Thank and if you are of the Reformed Theology that’s fine but I just do not agree with it.

 

[SteveVH]

This verse is a big controversy because the actual translation says “should not perish” rather than “shall not perish”. The form of “should not” is implying that we shouldn’t perish but there is a possibility.

OSAS believers tend to forget about the verse after it.

The word MIGHT and MAY are so important in Bible verses because they change the whole meaning of the phrase. With the MIGHT and MAY, the writers are saying that there is a chance to go to heaven but a similar chance of going to hell also.

Good points.

 

[SteveVH]

Jr…I was about to read it…I clicked the link and then saw Reformed and Calvinism and clicked the “X” lol. Sorry I do not believe in Calvinism. I believe it to be gravely false. Any non Calvinism or Reformed sites you can point me towards? Thank and if you are of the Reformed Theology that’s fine but I just do not agree with it.

You don’t want to read Lorraine Boettner, trust me. He is one of the most prevelant anti-Catholics out there. He is also dishonest in his research and his writing.

 

[aidanbradypop]

You don’t want to read Lorraine Boettner, trust me. He is one of the most prevelant anti-Catholics out there. He is also dishonest in his research and his writing.

I try to stay away from a person’s personal theology and tend to view what a certain faith teaches.

The New Calvinist group are now speaking out against “saying a prayer and being saved.” I was surprised to hear that.

 

[jrtrent]

Jr…I was about to read it…I clicked the link and then saw Reformed and Calvinism and clicked the “X” lol. Sorry I do not believe in Calvinism. I believe it to be gravely false. Any non Calvinism or Reformed sites you can point me towards? Thank and if you are of the Reformed Theology that’s fine but I just do not agree with it.

Well, since perseverance of the saints is a Calvinist idea, it’s pretty hard to point you to the scriptural support for it without directing you to Reformed and Calvinistic sites.

And no, I’m not currently Reformed in my theology. In an earlier post I mentioned that it was not being able to subscribe to the doctrines of grace that kept me from being able to join a Reformed Baptist congregation I had been attending for over a decade (though I continue to have good friends from that church and socialize with them regularly).

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well, since perseverance of the saints is a Calvinist idea, it’s pretty hard to point you to the scriptural support for it without directing you to Reformed and Calvinistic sites.

And no, I’m not currently Reformed in my theology. In an earlier post I mentioned that it was not being able to subscribe to the doctrines of grace that kept me from being able to join a Reformed Baptist congregation I had been attending for over a decade (though I continue to have good friends from that church and socialize with them regularly).

You said something about attending an Anglican church and I know some Reformed Anglicans as well so just checking.

 

[zz912]

I’ve gotten into discussions with OSAS people and from what I gather, they view people who stray as never have been truly saved to begin with. It’s an interesting concept and I can see the logic in that when God decides to do something, “he does it.” So God could decide to save someone pertinently.

How coincidental that today’s readings contained this verse:

*2 Cor 6:1 Working together, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For he says:

“In an acceptable time* I heard you,
and on the day of salvation I helped you.”

Behold, now is a very acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.*

How would one receive the grace of God in vain if OSAS were true? If OSAS were true, then if you received God’s grace, then you are saved, and there is no possibility to receive it in vain.

 

[benjohnson]

That Lutherans don’t even adhere to the central tenet of their founder is not all that surprising.

Be careful when you use polemics, it’s best to be correct. You’re possibly confusing Calvin and Luther.

Luther held that salivation is received by God’s grace though faith, and that a saved person can reject or ‘fall away’ from it.

From Luther:

*It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them. This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, for St. John says, ‘No one born of God commits sin’ (Smalcald Articles III.3.43-45).
*

Here you can see the Lutheran continual need for daily repentance.

 

[benjohnson]

How would one receive the grace of God in vain if OSAS were true? If OSAS were true, then if you received God’s grace, then you are saved, and there is no possibility to receive it in vain.

Great points. I’m not defending OSAS, but I do see to try to understand them so as to pry them away from this false notion that could lead to great sin and suffering.

 

[jrtrent]

You don’t want to read Lorraine Boettner, trust me. He is one of the most prevelant anti-Catholics out there. He is also dishonest in his research and his writing.

I understand there have been criticisms of Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism (though the only complaints I’ve seen are from Catholics, such as in my copy of The Essential Catholic Survivor Guide), but I’ve seen no such reservations about The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Here are a couple of review blurbs from another website:

“His first book was based on his Master’s thesis, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. It has been in continual publication since 1932. Sooner or later every budding Calvinist gets around to reading this excellent volume. It is large but not ponderous, for Boettner writes in a remarkably lucid manner. It covers each of the ‘five points,’ objections, a brief history of Calvinism, and related issues like the free offer, assurance and practicalities” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 168).

“Of all the works on Calvinism with which we are familiar, this in our opinion is the best overall popular treatment of the subject. It is clear in style and logically arranged…We strongly recommend this work; it is one of those rare books written in a style that is readable and profitable for the beginner as well as for the more advanced student (David N. Steel and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, pp. 62-63).

 

[SteveVH]

I understand there have been criticisms of Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism (though the only complaints I’ve seen are from Catholics

Do you find this strange? It is a book written about Catholicism that contains just about every myth and lie ever told, and presented as if they were true.

“His first book was based on his Master’s thesis, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. It has been in continual publication since 1932. Sooner or later every budding Calvinist gets around to reading this excellent volume. It is large but not ponderous, for Boettner writes in a remarkably lucid manner. It covers each of the ‘five points,’ objections, a brief history of Calvinism, and related issues like the free offer, assurance and practicalities” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 168).

“Of all the works on Calvinism with which we are familiar, this in our opinion is the best overall popular treatment of the subject. It is clear in style and logically arranged…We strongly recommend this work; it is one of those rare books written in a style that is readable and profitable for the beginner as well as for the more advanced student (David N. Steel and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, pp. 62-63).

The fact that these folks think Boettner is the “cat’s meow” in no way lends credibility to his work. He was dishonest in “Roman Catholicim” so why should we expect him to be any different in his other writings?

 

[BTNYC]

Be careful when you use polemics, it’s best to be correct. You’re possibly confusing Calvin and Luther.

Luther held that salivation is received by God’s grace though faith, and that a saved person can reject or ‘fall away’ from it.

From Luther:

*It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them. This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, for St. John says, ‘No one born of God commits sin’ (Smalcald Articles III.3.43-45).
*

Here you can see the Lutheran continual need for daily repentance.

I have no doubt that Luther (and Calvin, and Zwingli, etc) can be quoted to refute some of their own errors. The fact is that Luther defended his doctrine received “from the holy ghost while on the privy in the tower” by repeatedly encouraging his followers to “sin on and sin boldly,” saying that a thousand murders and adulteries would not cost a man his salvation. His outrageous words merely carry this false doctrine to its logical end, no matter how selective he was about it in practice.

Fodder for another thread, but the man gave every indication that he was demonically possessed. That he contradicted himself from one day to the next is not at all surprising.

 

[benjohnson]

His outrageous words merely carry this false doctrine to its logical end, no matter how selective he was about it in practice.

I reject your continued application of a doctrine upon us, a doctrine that we have never supported and have continuously decried. In addition, I do not hold your truculence against my Catholic friends.

 

[BTNYC]

I reject your continued application of a doctrine upon us, a doctrine that we have never supported and have continuously decried. In addition, I do not hold your truculence against my Catholic friends.

Protestantism is such a morass of ever-changing doctrinal confusion that I do not claim to know with any certainty what any of its sects currently teaches. You claim that Lutheranism does not currently teach “Once Saved, Always Saved” and I accept your word on that.

However, I have read enough of your founder’s writings to know that he himself espoused a view of salvation (at least some of the time) very much (and violently so) like “Once Saved, Always Saved.”

I reject your implication that I am “truculent” toward Protestants in general (or Lutherans in particular). My “truculence” (such as it is) is against the evil of heresy and the arch-heretics (like Luther and Calvin) who deceive souls through the heresies they engender. My quarrel is not with any particular adherent of those heresies, whom I assume in good faith to be ignorant of the gravity of their particular sect’s errors.

I am glad that you hold no ill will for your Catholic friends. I hold none for my Protestant friends. Your founder, however, said that “a Papist and an *** are one and the same thing” and called the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon.

And well he should have. The Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church founded by Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. If the Church is not what She claims to be, She is not merely "wrong,’ but monstrously wicked. She leaves no room for a “middle ground” opinion of Her. In that regard, far from being offended by his calumnies, I respect Luther for his consistency.

 

[captainmike]

Former Baptist, and then Episcopalian, here.

I have a hard time not believing in OSAS. What I mean is, I have a hard time imagining sinning and not then repenting.

 

[jrtrent]

I reject your implication that I am “truculent” toward Protestants in general (or Lutherans in particular). My “truculence” (such as it is) is against the evil of heresy and the arch-heretics (like Luther and Calvin) who deceive souls through the heresies they engender. . .

I am glad that you hold no ill will for your Catholic friends. I hold none for my Protestant friends. Your founder, however, said that “a Papist and an *** are one and the same thing” and called the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. . . far from being offended by his calumnies, I respect Luther for his consistency.

I’m happy you respect Luther, but do you realize that such terms as he used are forbidden here at this forum? Posting guidelines include that, “Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not,” and that examples of such disrespect specifically include “the pope is the anti-Christ” and “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” and “Muslims are terrorists.” I’m not a Lutheran, but I believe your posts have been demeaning of his person and also misrepresented what he and the church that bears his name have taught.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m happy you respect Luther, but do you realize that such terms as he used are forbidden here at this forum? Posting guidelines include that, “Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not,” and that examples of such disrespect specifically include “the pope is the anti-Christ” and “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” and “Muslims are terrorists.” I’m not a Lutheran, but I believe your posts have been demeaning of his person and also misrepresented what he and the church that bears his name have taught.

I think the prohibition is against the poster making such statements toward another poster’s faith tradition, not against citing quotations of a prominent religious leader.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[aidanbradypop]

Former Baptist, and then Episcopalian, here.

I have a hard time not believing in OSAS. What I mean is, I have a hard time imagining sinning and not then repenting.

Very good point captainmike…A friend of mine was born Catholic but not raised in the Church, converted to Lutheran and then now is Evangelical Baptist. She had no clue that one should repent of sins. She thought that since she was OSAS what was the point.