V
- Status
D
DVIN_CKS
Guest
Adam and Eve knew God, they saw God. The heard God instruct them not to disobey. Yet, look what happened to them?
They sinned - as do we - because we have what is called “free will”. God gives us this gift. So although we can have assurance of salvation through God’s grace, this is no guarantee that we will perservere in our faith journey. As long as free will exists, there will always be the chance that we will fall from God’s grace and therefore forfeit our eternal life in heaven. We are never immune from making bad choices.
Judas certainly knew Jesus personally. He, like Adam and Eve chose to sin and therefore suffered the consequences.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
It seems to me that taking Jesus Christ as one’s personal Savior is like accepting a Guarentee(sic). One can always decide to toss away the guarentee and the sales slip . Most guarentees cover only under certain conditions. In short one can void the guarentee by certain actions or misuse of the product. Fortunately in our Faith it is possible to do the required maintenance and re-instate the promise. Totally promising salvation no matter how one uses the product(life) would void free will and establish a condition of no responsibility for ones behavior. How can any thinking person delude themselves in this way? Through His freely given graces we establish an intimate relationship with Our God. He never stops loving, but we in our weakness continue to make and break that relationship throuighout our lives. If we die estranged from Him through our own fault and are un-repentant He freely gives us what we have chosen; a home in hell.
T
teresas1979
Guest
I have posted several times to refute OSAS and eternal security theories and will do so again now. This time, I take this information from another message board but the lady in question is Catholic and would not mind me reposting her thoughts here (I have been unable to contact her to ask permission but have been advised that as her thoughts were on a public forum there are of equal use to all):
What does accepting the gift entail? Just saying ‘thank you very much’ it’s mine?
Usually when I am given a gift by someone I love, I get some use out of it, not just throw it in the closet and forget about it. If I did that it would tell the person who gave it to me that they don’t mean diddly squat to me.
So, what does accepting a gift, mean? If I throw it in the closet and forget all about it, have I REALLY accepted it? Or, if I use it for a short little time, throw it in the closet, forget about the gift and the giver, have I accepted the gift? The word accept is a verb, isn’t it? Do not verbs denote action?
If I gave my sister a gift certificate for Christmas and she took it, and did not use it but chucked it in a drawer and forgot about it, has she accepted my gift?
This is the best version I have ever heard of how to prove that while grace IS INDEED a gift from God - you cannot just sit like a lemming and expect all the work done for you…
What does accepting the gift entail? Just saying ‘thank you very much’ it’s mine?
Usually when I am given a gift by someone I love, I get some use out of it, not just throw it in the closet and forget about it. If I did that it would tell the person who gave it to me that they don’t mean diddly squat to me.
So, what does accepting a gift, mean? If I throw it in the closet and forget all about it, have I REALLY accepted it? Or, if I use it for a short little time, throw it in the closet, forget about the gift and the giver, have I accepted the gift? The word accept is a verb, isn’t it? Do not verbs denote action?
If I gave my sister a gift certificate for Christmas and she took it, and did not use it but chucked it in a drawer and forgot about it, has she accepted my gift?
This is the best version I have ever heard of how to prove that while grace IS INDEED a gift from God - you cannot just sit like a lemming and expect all the work done for you…
A
Apolonio
Guest
Valtiel,
Let me respond to that.
First, we Catholics can believe that the elect will go to heaven definately. God predestined them. God is the cause for our salvation. Second, eternal security, as the person pointed out, is the doctrine which says that if a person truly believes in God, he is secure from that moment. But this is a failure to distinguish between predestination to grace and predestination to glory. A person who is predestined to glory is predestined to grace, but not all who are predestined to grace are predestined to glory. The person said:
“Any denial of eternal security is, in its essence, a belief that we must maintain our own salvation by our own good works. This is completely antithetical to salvation by grace.”
Of course, this is not true. The Christian life is encountering God in Jesus Christ and continuing the Incarnation, walking to Calvary, so that we may rise again like He did. It is personal. When God gives us grace, we participate in His very life. We are not some kind of robots where God does not acknowledge our works. God is a Father and a good father always acknowledges what his children does. The Father’s Son, Jesus Christ died for our sins and when we become like Him, we please Him.
When the lawyer asked Jesus what he must do in order to possess eternal life, Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan. So good works does glorify the Father. We also read:
"An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
The rich young man knew that doing something inherits eternal life. Jesus told him to sell everything. Jesus says:
“Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.”
Notice how Jesus said that we must sacrifice things for the sake of the kingdom of God. The phrase “kingdom of God” is known to the Jews as when God will redeem the whole cosmos. So the context is definately soteriological. It is something where a person is simply “vindicated” by his works, but his possession of the kingdom of God is based on what he will do.
Also, your friend does not acknowledge the historical context of the Pauline letters. I would say more if I need to on that issue.
Finally, James 2 says that faith without works is dead. This means that, yes, a saving faith will produce works. But justification is also based on works (with grace of course) because it is an essential property of a saving faith.
Let me respond to that.
First, we Catholics can believe that the elect will go to heaven definately. God predestined them. God is the cause for our salvation. Second, eternal security, as the person pointed out, is the doctrine which says that if a person truly believes in God, he is secure from that moment. But this is a failure to distinguish between predestination to grace and predestination to glory. A person who is predestined to glory is predestined to grace, but not all who are predestined to grace are predestined to glory. The person said:
“Any denial of eternal security is, in its essence, a belief that we must maintain our own salvation by our own good works. This is completely antithetical to salvation by grace.”
Of course, this is not true. The Christian life is encountering God in Jesus Christ and continuing the Incarnation, walking to Calvary, so that we may rise again like He did. It is personal. When God gives us grace, we participate in His very life. We are not some kind of robots where God does not acknowledge our works. God is a Father and a good father always acknowledges what his children does. The Father’s Son, Jesus Christ died for our sins and when we become like Him, we please Him.
When the lawyer asked Jesus what he must do in order to possess eternal life, Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan. So good works does glorify the Father. We also read:
"An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
The rich young man knew that doing something inherits eternal life. Jesus told him to sell everything. Jesus says:
“Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.”
Notice how Jesus said that we must sacrifice things for the sake of the kingdom of God. The phrase “kingdom of God” is known to the Jews as when God will redeem the whole cosmos. So the context is definately soteriological. It is something where a person is simply “vindicated” by his works, but his possession of the kingdom of God is based on what he will do.
Also, your friend does not acknowledge the historical context of the Pauline letters. I would say more if I need to on that issue.
Finally, James 2 says that faith without works is dead. This means that, yes, a saving faith will produce works. But justification is also based on works (with grace of course) because it is an essential property of a saving faith.
J
John_Henry
Guest
I only scanned the original post, but what I read posited a false dichotomy between salvation by grace and good works. It is indeed God who maintains us in a state of grace, but he does it by enabling us, by his grace, to carry out the good works he has prepared for us beforehand (Eph. 2:10). It also seems that the person is arguing that God’s grace is always effective, and cannot be resisted, which it can be (Acts 7:51).
Also, that we are saved by grace, completely by Christ’s merits is a Catholic doctrine. It’s just that Christ’s merits aren’t applied to us in one lump sum, but applied to us when we enter the state of grace in baptism, and also as we cooperate with grace to do the works he has given us to do. Thus, we are saved by grace (alone), through faith, baptism, and works.
We are initially saved by faith alone (from Adam to Christ). But then we must “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” because God is at work in us (Phil. 2). That pretty much sums up the Catholic position.
Also, that we are saved by grace, completely by Christ’s merits is a Catholic doctrine. It’s just that Christ’s merits aren’t applied to us in one lump sum, but applied to us when we enter the state of grace in baptism, and also as we cooperate with grace to do the works he has given us to do. Thus, we are saved by grace (alone), through faith, baptism, and works.
We are initially saved by faith alone (from Adam to Christ). But then we must “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” because God is at work in us (Phil. 2). That pretty much sums up the Catholic position.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
What you have presented is not a “new” flavor of OSAS, it is the hoary Calvinist flavor of OSAS.
Basically, the heresy of OSAS comes in two flavors, the antinomian flavor and the Calvinist flavor.
The antinomian flavor of the OSAS heresy asserts that once a man is “saved” that there is no sin that he could commit that would cause him to lose his salvation. Southern Baptists are noted for embracing this pernicious variation of OSAS. I have had Southern Baptists tell me point blank that a “saved” man could die unrepentant for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, unrepentant for child molesting, unrepentant for murder and rape, unrepentant for worshipping Satan, etc., etc, - and still enter heaven. NO sin means NO sin, period, end of discussion. It is an absurd belief that is obviously contradicted by scriptures, but millions accept this heresy as the foundation of their faith.
The Calvinist variation of the heresy of OSAS is equally pernicious, but it is based on a different foundation than antinomianism. Calvinist OSAS is based on the false doctrine of “irresistible grace”. If a Calvinist will even admit the existence of free will, it will be seen as an evil that must be overcome by irresistible grace. According to Calvinism, irresistible grace destroys the free will of a sinful man and turns the sinful man into a holy meat robot that is incapable of choosing evil.
The way to dismantle Calvinist OSAS is to show the inanity of asserting that “true Christians” are incapable of committing sin.
Valtiel said:
So what’s the proper interpretation of this verse? I’m a Catholic, baptized, in a state of grace, recive the holy Eucharist, even made a conscious profession of faith in Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
I still sin. Even mortally sometimes.
What’s this verse’s proper meaning?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
John is telling Christians that they have a call to perfection. “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48). A Christian must believe that perfection is possible, and that the grace that God gives to the Christian is sufficient to live a life free of mortal sin. “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor. 12:9)"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
John 14:15
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.
John 3:36
… this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. … If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
1John 5:11-18
He who does not love abides in death. Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1John 3:14-15
P
Pax
Guest
Please keep in mind that this isn’t the only thing written by John. The apostle also tells us " MY LITTLE children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."[1 John 2:1-2] John then goes on to say, " And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;"[1 John: 3-4]
So we have an advocate and can confess our sins (there are numerous verses to support confession) and be forgiven. We are, however, supposed to avoid sin and there are serious consequences if we do not. I can provide scripture to support this latter point if needed. It is important to piece all of the apostololic teachings together in order to appreciate their meaning. The Church has done a holy and miraculous job in providing us with the fullness of truth.
B
BibleReader
Guest
That’s not a new argument. That’s the old argument.
“Believing” is not fundamentally different – not fundamentally different – than DOING. They are really the same thing. Both are different forms of acts of the will.
That is the POINT – the very POINT – of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
In the Parable, there are three people being looked at – (1) a believing priest who had “faith alone” (he believed, but did not engaged in the work); (2) a believing Levite (he believed, but did not engage in the work); and (3) a non-believing Samaritan (who by definition didn’t “believe,” but DID engage in the work).
Question: Who would Christ have declared the “believer”? Who would Christ have declare “saved,” in that hypothetical?
The one who professes? Or the doer?
Faith is a work. Works are faith in motion.
“Faith alone without works” is an empty rallying cry for the Reformation.
“Believing” is not fundamentally different – not fundamentally different – than DOING. They are really the same thing. Both are different forms of acts of the will.
That is the POINT – the very POINT – of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
In the Parable, there are three people being looked at – (1) a believing priest who had “faith alone” (he believed, but did not engaged in the work); (2) a believing Levite (he believed, but did not engage in the work); and (3) a non-believing Samaritan (who by definition didn’t “believe,” but DID engage in the work).
Question: Who would Christ have declared the “believer”? Who would Christ have declare “saved,” in that hypothetical?
The one who professes? Or the doer?
Faith is a work. Works are faith in motion.
“Faith alone without works” is an empty rallying cry for the Reformation.
C
Contarini
Guest
If the person who made this argument is Reformed, then it is harder to debunk. But if they believe that the initial act of faith is in our power, then ask them why it’s not also in our power to stop trusting in Christ. Of course, that will not address the deeper issues of whether leading a godly life is necessary for final salvation (or the absurd claim that teaching the necessity of leading a godly life somehow detracts from Christ’s atoning work). But it should debunk the idea that sola fide necessarily goes along with eternal security. After all, Luther himself didn’t believe in eternal security.
In Christ,
Edwin
In Christ,
Edwin
T
Terry_Collins
Guest
There are three elements of faith. When God tells us something we believe. When God promises us something, we trust in that promise. When God tells us to do something we obey.
Luther and those who preach an eternal salvation leave out the third one, that we are called to obey. In fact we recieve grace for the obedience of faith (literally the obedience of what faith is) Rom 1:5.
Therefore this sanctifying grace we recieve enables us to be obedient to faith. What happens if we are not obedient in our life but rather live a sinful life and go on about our business ‘knowing we are saved’. Rom 2:8 tells us that sin is disobedience and if we die in this state we will be damned.
Luther thought we could ‘commit fornication and murder’ a thousand times a day and not lose our salvation. This kind of thinking is dangerous for any Christian.
Luther and those who preach an eternal salvation leave out the third one, that we are called to obey. In fact we recieve grace for the obedience of faith (literally the obedience of what faith is) Rom 1:5.
Therefore this sanctifying grace we recieve enables us to be obedient to faith. What happens if we are not obedient in our life but rather live a sinful life and go on about our business ‘knowing we are saved’. Rom 2:8 tells us that sin is disobedience and if we die in this state we will be damned.
Luther thought we could ‘commit fornication and murder’ a thousand times a day and not lose our salvation. This kind of thinking is dangerous for any Christian.
D
Darrel
Guest
This is totaly wrong,
Everyone who is saved sins if that were not the case then the protestants would have no need to teach on repentance. I have gone for long periods in my protestant past doing fine then again I was back sliden quite a few times. So long as we have flesh we will sin. Gods mercy is what we need not a security blanket. Not all protestants share this view on eternal security as far as I know.
-D
M
mtr01
Guest
Matt 16_18: This innocent verse (bolded) is, I think one of the most important in all of John’s Gospel (at least for disproving faith alone). It demonstrates that for John, true faith was work, and true work was faith. Specifically, John tells us exactly what the opposite of belief (faith) is. It is not disbelief, but rather disobedience. In other words, when John says that those who believe in Jesus may attain eternal life, we know he means those who obey Jesus’s commands. And of course, this fits in with Paul’s emphasis on the obedience of the faith.
D
deb1
Guest
This doctrine actually caused me a lot of mental anguish as a former Baptist. Our pastor had taught that we are always saved but that if a person commits a sin or falls away from their beliefs then that person was not really saved to begin with. Well, I might not be running out commiting murder or even acting on my impulses, I am still a pretty sinful person. Everyone is. We can’t help it. The Protestant version-at least what I was taught-left me empty and with a lot of self doubt. To be honest there are a whole lot of sins that I *want *to commit. I don’t but the desire is still there. I tortured myself with the following question. Am I really saved? Did I need to get resaved? No one else in my church seemed to have such questions but no one else was asking any questions, unless it was to clarify something the pastor said.
D
Darrel
Guest
I remember these feelings and questions all too well. The protestant teachings on this cause so many people to fall away from God. God did not send his son into the world so we could be terrorized by doubts from men. The CC has it right, anything else is a half measure.
-D
- Status