How do Non-Catholics stay in a "state of a grace"

[JRRTFAN]

Hmm, I’d have to take issue with your characterization. I have no doubts that there are people who believe in OSAS, and I’m not making excuses for them. But all evangelicals are not OSAS. They may believe in the Security of the Believer, but the important thing to find out is if they believe in the “Conditional Security of the Believer,” which is an important distinction. Lots of evangelicals are Pentecostals now, and I know for a fact that we do not believe in once saved always saved. However, I realize that some Baptists and others do.

Another thing I think is a misunderstanding is the lack of penitential or confessional rite. You are correct, there is none in an evangelical church. But that does not mean we don’t believe in confession of sin. It is just personalized as opposed to institutionalized. We confess our sins and pray to God the Father in the name of his son Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit for forgiveness. And if we have something against a person we are taught to go to that person and makes things right.

Another thing, in a lot of churches there use to be a practice (not so common anymore) of public testimony and confession. Testimony was telling something good that God had done in your life or a struggle you were going through but have felt God’s presence strengthening you through it. Confession was obviously publicly confessing sin in your life. So confession in church is not entirely foreign to evangelical churches, but if it happens it is a lot more spontaneous and ad hoc than in the Catholic Church.

And for the record, I was never taught that I was forgiven of future sins at salvation. I was taught that I have to live a life of repentance and reliance on God’s grace everyday. I was taught that nothing can separate me from the love of God, but that is not the same as saying that if I refuse to live a life of consecration to God and his purposes that I will still be saved.

Then I shall interject this question: “Are you saved?” If so, the need for confession and repentence is dispatched. I heard it this morning, my son, an Evangelical, was filling in as pianist at a local (very small) Reformed Presbyterian communion ( I went to boost him up). The elder in charge profferred that all future sins were forgiven (although I will give them the due that they did have a confessional prayer which I have rarely found in the Evangelical community).

What you were taught, my friend, if you search, is quite deviant from the local mega church which is all OSAS…

 

[JRRTFAN]

You know, I’ve heard this criticism before, from Lutherans as well. There are other statements of confession in other Lutheran settings of our “mass” that do ring far more Lutheran. I would say, in its defense, that I think it is the intention to testify to the fallen state of humankind, rather than make a statement about our pre-fall nature.

Jon

It just seemes odd to me, essentially saying: “Hey, it’s my nature, you gave me my nature, it ain’t my fault.” but, you know what, it’s a confession and that is very far from OSAS Evangelicalism which I fear is very destructive to souls.

 

[Miriam1947]

Hey Itwin, I was thinking about what Blue said further. I believe first we must all be some-what on the same page here. Tragically the only way I see to do that is through this link.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iJZkmxOHWwAMhVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1cDJqb2prBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwOV8xNjM-/SIG=122eo6d1p/EXP=1315767001/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctifying_grace

Then of course the understanding that the CC teaching is De-Fide. BTW the CC does not believe man is born into Sanctifying Grace, we are born in Original Sin, Sanctifying Grace is through Baptism and the Sacrements of the Church.

“I was taught that nothing can separate me from the love of God, but that is not the same as saying that if I refuse to live a life of consecration to God and his purposes that I will still be saved. I was never taught that I was forgiven of future sins at salvation. I was taught that I have to live a life of repentance and reliance on God’s grace everyday”

Sounds very Catholic to me.

Peace

GaryTaylor, this is the message when I clicked on your link.

GONE

This link is not authorized by Yahoo!
If you would like to continue to this link’s intended destination at your own risk, click here.

 

[HonoraDominum]

As far as Once Saved Always Saved (“Sola Fide” - Faith alone), there’s a great Audio Sancto homily about the concept and a great bit of Catholic apologetics that shows that biblically speaking, there’s no way Sola Fide could be true. Father’s definition of OSAS is this: Once you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you cannot go to Hell - you are guaranteed entrance to Heaven.

Regarding the doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved

 

[ltwin]

Then I shall interject this question: “Are you saved?”

I am saved by grace through faith. I am being saved and progressively sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit and my continuing to yield to him. I continue to hope in the love, mercy, and assurance of God, that he will never let me be plucked out of his hands and will preserve me until the end.

Therefore, it is through the process of being conformed to His will that my salvation is sure. This is solely through faith, both in the receiving of salvation and in the keeping of salvation.

Sin is disobedience, and disobedience is the opposite of faith. Thus:

Why such precautions and concern? These repeated warnings are meaningful
only when it is recognized that the loss of faith means the eternal loss of the soul. For
while it is true that the believer’s salvation is not earned by his righteous deeds nor his
salvation maintained by them, it is equally true that as the believer obtains his salvation
by faith, so he can lose it by unbelief

Sin and unbelief are closely related. Sin jeopardizes faith, and loss of faith means
loss of standing. Hebrews 3:12-14 bears this out. The writer warned the brethren against
unbelief which will lead to a departure from the living God. He mentioned the
deceitfulness of sin as the cause of unbelief and reminded them that we are partakers of
Christ only if we hold the beginning of our confidence unto the end.

Standing in Christ is by faith. Remove faith, and there is no longer any standing.
This is why Scripture admonishes the believer to “take heed . . . lest there be in any of
you an evil heart of unbelief” (Hebrews 3:12).

("The Security of the Believer," Assemblies of God position statement)

If so, the need for confession and repentence is dispatched.

Read the quote above.

I heard it this morning . . .

What you were taught, my friend, if you search, is quite deviant from the local mega church which is all OSAS…

As a lifelong evangelical, I resent Catholics telling me I am unaware of what my faith tradition believes in. OSAS is by no means a majority of evangelicals. In fact, it is not even the dominant soteriology in the mega churches. There are many mega churches which believe in the possibility of “losing salvation.” If you search, you will find the term “backsliding” is fairly common among evangelical circles. This term refers to the loss of faith and thus salvation.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I am saved by grace through faith. I am being saved and progressively sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit and my continuing to yield to him. I continue to hope in the love, mercy, and assurance of God, that he will never let me be plucked out of his hands and will preserve me until the end.

Therefore, it is through the process of being conformed to His will that my salvation is sure. This is solely through faith, both in the receiving of salvation and in the keeping of salvation.

Sin is disobedience, and disobedience is the opposite of faith. Thus:

Read the quote above.

As a lifelong evangelical, I resent Catholics telling me I am unaware of what my faith tradition believes in. OSAS is by no means a majority of evangelicals. In fact, it is not even the dominant soteriology in the mega churches. There are many mega churches which believe in the possibility of “losing salvation.” If you search, you will find the term “backsliding” is fairly common among evangelical circles. This term refers to the loss of faith and thus salvation.

I’m sorry to say something you resent. But I don’t think you are aware of what Baptists and non-denominational Evangelicals hold.

 

[ltwin]

I’m sorry to say something you resent. But I don’t think you are aware of what Baptists and non-denominational Evangelicals hold.

No, I think the problem is that you think you have evangelicals all figured out, but the truth is more complicated than you seem to want to make it out to be. From the* Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism*:

Eternal Security The issue of “eternal security” has been hotly debated among evangelicals for centuries . . . : Can a Christian (by evangelical definition, someone who has been *BORN AGAIN) ever lose *SALVATION? The answer depends, more than anything else, on the theology that informs an evangelical’s faith. People in the Reformed tradition, following the lead of John Calvin, would insist that God’s grace is irresistible and not dependent upon individual merit. People with Arminian sympathies, who emphasize the individual’s role in choosing salvation (to use *BILLY GRAHAM’S language, “to make a decision for Christ”), would tend to worry more about the certainty of one’s eternal destination. That is, if an individual can determine his own fate by choosing to be *SAVED, presumably he could reverse that choice, either consciously or by exhibiting an indifference toward godly living.

Evangelicalism is neither inherently or predominantly either one. There are a variety of views about this. Even in denominations that have a prevailing view, like the Southern Baptist Convention, it is possible to find churches and individuals who disagree with that prevailing view.

 

[ltwin]

I’m sorry to say something you resent. But I don’t think you are aware of what Baptists and non-denominational Evangelicals hold.

No, I think the problem is that you think you have evangelicals all figured out, but the truth is more complicated than you seem to want to make it out to be. From the* Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism*:

Eternal Security The issue of “eternal security” has been hotly debated among evangelicals for centuries . . . : Can a Christian (by evangelical definition, someone who has been *BORN AGAIN) ever lose *SALVATION? The answer depends, more than anything else, on the theology that informs an evangelical’s faith. People in the Reformed tradition, following the lead of John Calvin, would insist that God’s grace is irresistible and not dependent upon individual merit. People with Arminian sympathies, who emphasize the individual’s role in choosing salvation (to use *BILLY GRAHAM’S language, “to make a decision for Christ”), would tend to worry more about the certainty of one’s eternal destination. That is, if an individual can determine his own fate by choosing to be *SAVED, presumably he could reverse that choice, either consciously or by exhibiting an indifference toward godly living.

Evangelicalism is neither inherently or predominantly either one. There are a variety of views about this. Even in denominations that have a prevailing view, like the Southern Baptist Convention, it is possible to find churches and individuals who disagree with that prevailing view.

 

[Kouyate42]

In my old Baptist church, we often did confessions.

 

[JonNC]

It just seemes odd to me, essentially saying: “Hey, it’s my nature, you gave me my nature, it ain’t my fault.” but, you know what, it’s a confession and that is very far from OSAS Evangelicalism which I fear is very destructive to souls.

Perhaps it might have helped your perception had I mentioned that, prior to the confession, the pastor starts with this:

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

This statement, ISTM, ought to dissuade your concerns regarding the matter you speak of, that being putting the blame, as it were, on God and the nature He gave us.

The congregation follows with:

“But if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

The emphasis here is, of course, a recognition of who is responsible for our sins. Not God, but we ourselves.

Does that put a clearer light on the intent?

Jon

 

[jgs777]

Friends in Christ,

One thing I have told my protestant friends regarding confession is this- I am Catholic and I go to confession as often I can, and everynight before I go to bed I beg the Lord to have mercy on me and to forgive all of the sins I have committed and I list them. So there is no way we Catholics can be wrong, we ask forgiveness personally and we go to confession.

The reason we go to Confession in the first place is because Our Blessed Lord said to the Apostles, the sins you forgive are forgivin them and the sins you hold bound are held bound.

May God Bless and guide on the path to him!

 

[Holly3278]

Not all Protestants believe in once saved, always saved which is also known as eternal security. I am glad that not all of them do. Once saved always saved is a false doctrine and I fear that it has lead many people straight to the pits of Hell. Here is a good article refuting the once saved always saved doctrine by the way:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp

 

[JonNC]

Friends in Christ,

One thing I have told my protestant friends regarding confession is this- I am Catholic and I go to confession as often I can, and everynight before I go to bed I beg the Lord to have mercy on me and to forgive all of the sins I have committed and I list them. So there is no way we Catholics can be wrong, we ask forgiveness personally and we go to confession.

The reason we go to Confession in the first place is because Our Blessed Lord said to the Apostles, the sins you forgive are forgivin them and the sins you hold bound are held bound.

May God Bless and guide on the path to him!

Welcome to CAF, jgs. This is precisely the Lutheran view, as well.

Jon

 

[JRRTFAN]

No, I think the problem is that you think you have evangelicals all figured out, but the truth is more complicated than you seem to want to make it out to be. From the* Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism*:

Evangelicalism is neither inherently or predominantly either one. There are a variety of views about this. Even in denominations that have a prevailing view, like the Southern Baptist Convention, it is possible to find churches and individuals who disagree with that prevailing view.

Don’t you have to ask yourself, “Which one is right?” and what happens to all the folks who are wrong? It’s not a game.

 

[ltwin]

Don’t you have to ask yourself, “Which one is right?” and what happens to all the folks who are wrong? It’s not a game.

Well, its not like you are going to have some people in a local church teaching OSAS and other people teaching conditional security. A local church will either be one or the other. A local church cannot advocate both. People who believe in the conditional security of the believer cannot condone OSAS. Likewise, those who believe in OSAS cannot logically tolerate the conditional security position, for to do that would be to admit that their whole soteriology is off base. The reason both positions can be found within a denomination like the Southern Baptist Convention is that Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local congregation. Of course, OSAS appears to be popular within the SBC, but it isn’t universal. For an example of a Southern Baptist who dissents from OSAS, see “Once saved, always saved?”.

I grew up in a church that taught the conditional security of the believer so its all I’ve ever known. The key is considering “the whole council of God” as they say. There are Scriptures which do assure us of our security in Christ, but they have to be read alongside those Scriptures which clearly reveal that there is no such thing as “once saved always saved.”

As to what happens to those who believe in OSAS it would depend on that person’s response to Christ. Did they take OSAS to its logical conclusion (living a life of unrepentant sinfulness and arrogance toward God)? Or, despite their warped theological ideas, did they continually repent of sin and place their faith and trust in God, dedicating themselves to striving for a life of dedication and purity to the best of their ability?

 

[JRRTFAN]

Well, its not like you are going to have some people in a local church teaching OSAS and other people teaching conditional security. A local church will either be one or the other. A local church cannot advocate both. People who believe in the conditional security of the believer cannot condone OSAS. Likewise, those who believe in OSAS cannot logically tolerate the conditional security position, for to do that would be to admit that their whole soteriology is off base. The reason both positions can be found within a denomination like the Southern Baptist Convention is that Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local congregation. Of course, OSAS appears to be popular within the SBC, but it isn’t universal. For an example of a Southern Baptist who dissents from OSAS, see “Once saved, always saved?”.

I grew up in a church that taught the conditional security of the believer so its all I’ve ever known. The key is considering “the whole council of God” as they say. There are Scriptures which do assure us of our security in Christ, but they have to be read alongside those Scriptures which clearly reveal that there is no such thing as “once saved always saved.”

As to what happens to those who believe in OSAS it would depend on that person’s response to Christ. Did they take OSAS to its logical conclusion (living a life of unrepentant sinfulness and arrogance toward God)? Or, despite their warped theological ideas, did they continually repent of sin and place their faith and trust in God, dedicating themselves to striving for a life of dedication and purity to the best of their ability?

How do you characterize (from the Pentecostal standpoint) the communions that ascribe to OSAS? Would you ascribe validity to them and simply say they are somewhat flawed or would you say they are teaching heresy? They believe that the Scripture supports their position as you do. Who is the final arbiter?

 

[MontChevalier]

If you’re “once saved, always saved” it doesn’t really matter, does it?

The problem with that is that it’s liable to abuse, so atrocities are therefore shrugged off by people.

 

[ltwin]

How do you characterize (from the Pentecostal standpoint) the communions that ascribe to OSAS? Would you ascribe validity to them and simply say they are somewhat flawed or would you say they are teaching heresy? They believe that the Scripture supports their position as you do. Who is the final arbiter?

In evangelical thought, the unchanging standard of faith and life is the Bible. OSAS can only defend its position by ignoring passages of scripture.

Pentecostals condemn OSAS because it teaches a warped view of the nature of God, grace, and sin. Sin separates us from God, no matter when we welcome it into our lives. Because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, we must continually rely on the grace of God made available by the atonement of His Son. OSAS cheapens that grace and the sacrifice that made it possible. It also eliminates the need to be transformed, renewed, and become a new creation. If all that is needed is a onetime confession of faith, the Christian has no need to seek for more of God in his life. Without a desire for more intimacy and knowledge of God, sanctification becomes impossible, and without holiness no man can see God. This separation of the Christian life from a life of holiness causes the church to fall into scandal and ridicule.

 

[JRRTFAN]

In evangelical thought, the unchanging standard of faith and life is the Bible. OSAS can only defend its position by ignoring passages of scripture.

Pentecostals condemn OSAS because it teaches a warped view of the nature of God, grace, and sin. Sin separates us from God, no matter when we welcome it into our lives. Because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, we must continually rely on the grace of God made available by the atonement of His Son. OSAS cheapens that grace and the sacrifice that made it possible. It also eliminates the need to be transformed, renewed, and become a new creation. If all that is needed is a onetime confession of faith, the Christian has no need to seek for more of God in his life. Without a desire for more intimacy and knowledge of God, sanctification becomes impossible, and without holiness no man can see God. This separation of the Christian life from a life of holiness causes the church to fall into scandal and ridicule.

One can only agree. My problem, philosophically, is the number of souls OSAS has condemned to a situation of unrepentant death and that is pretty scary for its purveyors.

 

[ltwin]

One can only agree. My problem, philosophically, is the number of souls OSAS has condemned to a situation of unrepentant death and that is pretty scary for its purveyors.

Agreed. Those that preach OSAS have a lot to answer for. I wouldn’t want to be them.