I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[ANWK]

Hi Ozzie,

I don’t think that you actually answered my question. I asked that if a man consciously decides to choose against God after he is saved, whether he will still be saved. Not whether God can take back His gift of salvation. God cannot un-choose to not have Jesus die for us.

I think we can both agree that God does not take back His gift of salvation, but I am sure that it doesn’t then necessarily mean that we do not have the means to refuse it.

You may gift something to me, does that therefore mean that I cannot refuse it. And after accepting the gift, even if you do not change your mind and take it back, can I not choose to forsake it? If I can’t, then your gift is a gift no longer, it is a command, a rule, a regulation which I must follow.

My question is very simple, there is no need to complicate it or to try to understand it in any other way then the way it is phrased. I will try to make it more concise here.

Can a man of his own free will decide, say 10 years from today, that he wants to renegade on his decision to acknowledge Jesus as His personal saviour?

As in can he said outright that,“I don’t believe that Jesus died for me, I don’t believe Jesus is my personal Lord and saviour, the decision that I made earlier for Jesus was wrong and I don’t believe in Him from this day on.” and really mean every single word he said.

Can he or can he not make such a decision? Its a simple question which just requires a simple “yes” or “no”.

Nothing theological here, no rocket science involved, just a plain “yes” or “no”.

Regards
ADRIAN

 

[Des]

I was actually talking to a protestant at work today, well he calls himself a non denominational christian, anyways he apparently believes in once saved always saved also. And of course, he pointed to the usual scriptual verses. Anyways, he just hates to think of the Catholic way because he doesn’t think God would allow his children to go to hell. He thinks it’s absurd to think of a guy who lived a good Catholic life for most of his life can go to hell just because he screws up and doesn’t get a chance to repent. And then i asked the question about if this guy killed some guy would he still be saved. He said no because he was never saved to begin with. Any ways at the end, he finally admitted he wasn’t sure if he was right or not. I think not all protestants are as stubborn as the ones here.

Mabe one day by the Grace of God they will finally get it.

 

[Cubby]

exrc wrote:

"At that time many will fall away and will betray one another "(Mat. 24:10)

These are sad times indeed!

exrc

exrc=ex Roman Catholic, right?

Think about what you just said, and what you’ve done to your Catholic family that you betrayed and fell away from!

The biggest thing that drew me to the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the Church’s work in the world. Take a look at the hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, missionaries, - I cannot believe that you called the Church that Christ founded a “whore” - did you ever apologize for that?

It’s interesting that even in your user name for this forum (exrc) you still identify yourself with Roman Catholics. Why did you really leave the church? Were you hurt in some way? How did Satan trick you? Why not come home this Advent season? Celebrate Christianity with us. Celebrate the feast of St. Nicholas on December 6th, midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and give honor to Mary on January 1st! How can you leave the fullness of the faith? What happened exrc?

Peace & Enjoy your Turkey!

Cubby

 

[Ozzie]

Des:

Any ways at the end, he finally admitted he wasn’t sure if he was right or not. I think not all protestants are as stubborn as the ones here.

Not all “Protestants” are as Biblically/theologically grounded as we. You’ll notice neither “exrc” nor I have ever given you answers based on our own opinions or hypothetical situations. They’re always based on the written Word of God. I am amazed how all of you RCs on this thread rejoice when some so-called former “Protestant” converts to RC’ism and testifies he no longer believes he can have assurance of salvation. This you rejoice in…just amazing!!!

Mabe one day by the Grace of God they will finally get it.

Maybe one day you’ll finally understand divine GRACE and what Christ actually accomplished on your behalf 2000 years ago, and the eternal significance of the empty tomb (Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

 

[Ozzie]

ANWK:

Hi Ozzie,

I don’t think that you actually answered my question. I asked that if a man consciously decides to choose against God after he is saved, whether he will still be saved.

I did answer your question, just not the way you liked. Once a person is saved, he’s saved, period. You can’t ask, “after he is saved,” and then, “whether he will still be saved.” If a man is saved, he is saved.

Not whether God can take back His gift of salvation. God cannot un-choose to not have Jesus die for us.

BINGO! Now contemplate that truth for a few days. The GIFT of salvation is based on Christ’s historical work on the cross, not on anything we do or do not do.

I think we can both agree that God does not take back His gift of salvation, but I am sure that it doesn’t then necessarily mean that we do not have the means to refuse it.

Yes, if you agree that God does not take back His gift of salvation, then we do both agree. But the proposition of the Gospel message is not to accept or refuse the Gift, but to believe or refuse to *believe *in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. When a man truly believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, BY GRACE he is saved (a completed fact) through that faith, it is a GIFT of God, period (Eph. 2:8). That GIFT is bestowed at the time of personal belief. And you agreed with me that God does not take back the gift.

P.S. You didn’t answer any of my questions.

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie Wrote:

I am amazed how all of you RCs on this thread rejoice when some so-called former “Protestant” converts to RC’ism and testifies he no longer believes he can have assurance of salvation. This you rejoice in…just amazing!!!

Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the Catholics on this board, but myself and those who I know rejoice when a soul comes to the fullness of the faith in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, not because he no longer believes he can have assurance of salvation - but becuase the heretic doctrine of OSAS and many, many, others are tossed aside and that person is beginning a faith journey with the body of Christ and experiencing the Blessed Eucharist. We rejoice when a non-baptized protestant is baptized and when a baptized protestant is confirmed! We rejoice, because the angels in heaven rejoice.

I’m amused that you think the heretic doctrine of OSAS is the only one we constantly stand firm against as we fight the good fight!

Cubby

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Brother Ozzie, Are back sliders saved if they stay in that state? If so, Why do we continue to pray for them? God Bless.

 

[Catherine_S]

exrc:
"At that time many will fall away and will betray one another "(Mat. 24:10)

These are sad times indeed!

exrc
** Very Sad Indeed !**

---

** Christ prayed " that they may all be one ; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,** that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me." John 20:21

The divisions are a Scandal capital S

Protestant pastors from the time of Luther and Calvin have realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to interpret Scripture, they must prohibit the exercise of this right to others, lest their group be torn apart by strife. It is the failure to prohibit the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over twenty thousand Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press World Christian Encyclopedia.
**
*If you check you will find this number to be much higher now. *

---

---

Thank God for those returning home to the Catholic Church !
***You are welcome ex-rc. and you too ozzie ***

---

Shalom

---

 

[Philthy]

“For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved”

Romans 10:9-10

[QUOTEPhilthy]
Do you see where you wrote " you will be saved"? You don’t believe that Phil. You believe that “you might be saved”. Jesus wrote those words through Paul. If you don’t believe them then you don’t believe in the same Jesus. This is just one of many verses that we wouldn’t agree on, pertaining to this important doctrine. This is essentially the problem that Paul was having with the galatians. They sought to be keep justified by the law not grace, as all RC’s do.

Sorry Phil, I can’t agree with you as long as you hold those views.

Your friend, Dan!

I hear what your saying Dan, but aren’t you the one now being the “legalist” as Ozzie would say? Haven’t you substituted in your own understanding as well? When Paul says “you will be saved” haven’t you inserted “you are saved” instead? And the further problem introduced by you is that you are insertiing a conditional that Paul didn’t: Namely that the nature of the salvation must be fully understood by the believer. Paul doesn’t require that at all. He simply says that if you confess Jesus is Lord and believe He was raised from the dead that you will be saved. Nothing more and nothing less. No comment on when or how that salvation will be accomplished. No insistence on perfect understanding. You have inserted your own requirement and attempted to burden me with it rather than keeping the focus on Jesus and my belief in Him as the Son of God and the resurrection as my Salvation.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by Catherine S.
**The reason for 20 - 30,000 different Protest-ant groups !! At this point in the trend " Once saved always saved". **
God Bless!!!
Shalom

exrc:

Where do you get this number from?

Do you ask, Dan, because you doubt it or are you just trying to call her bluff or what? Seems childish to me rather than genuine interest. Rather than making you justify your question, I’ll simply give you a source:

The 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxford University Press counts 33,830 denominations within Christianity.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

It was in response to him asking if I really thought Christians did not need to confess sins. So I responded, “absolutely.”

Actually, the question was does anyone need to confess sins ever for forgiveness ? Or do you both believe that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, since it “is finished” has already liberated all from sin, whether believer or unbeliever?

Lets try and keep it simple. Choose below:

A) All humans have been forgiven all past and future sins because of the crucifixion.

B) The forgiveness of sins occurs at the time one becomes a Christian, and they never need to be confessed again for forgiveness.

Not a trick - just need some clarity.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

Not all “Protestants” are as Biblically/theologically grounded as we. You’ll notice neither “exrc” nor I have ever given you answers based on our own opinions or hypothetical situations.

I ,for one, disagree with you here OZZIE. Everything you have given is your opinion of what Scripture says. If you don’t see that, you’re in denial. And you are not alone. Everyone else, myself included, is also giving their opinion, from Scripture, as well. You know full well how many “biblical” theologies form learned theologians are out there. The only question is if all those theologies are “biblical” then is any one of them the TRUTH? Please, don’t take us for complete morons.

They’re always based on the written Word of God.

Of course, but if he writen word of God told us all, you wouldn’t write anything but the word of God and we would understand you. But that isn’t what happens. YOu write the word of God and then go on to explain it with different words precisely because the Word requires interpretation. Tell me I’m wrong.

I am amazed how all of you RCs on this thread rejoice when some so-called former “Protestant” converts to RC’ism

One thing is abundandly clear to me: Catholics who convert to Protestantism were never mature Catholics and were often completely ignorant of their alledged faith. And when they convert to Protestantism they discover “something” in place of the “nothing” they had and conclude that the RC Church was nothing - they never recognize their own failings. Protestant converts to Catholicism are among the MOST educated and faithful and when they convert to Catholicism they find the fullness of TRUTH that their solid roots had led them to know should be there.
Please don’t misconstrue this to mean that Protestant churches have “nothing” to offer - I don’t believe that in the slightest. I’m simply making an observation of the type of people leaving RC, and the type of people leaving Protestantism.

.are largely and testifies he no longer believes he can have assurance of salvation. This you rejoice in…just amazing!!!Maybe one day you’ll finally understand divine GRACE and what Christ actually accomplished on your behalf 2000 years ago, and the eternal significance of the empty tomb (Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

I hope we all do.

 

[Philthy]

exrc:
What is confessing Phil? The greek tells us that it is saying the same thing. In this case it is saying the same thing as God, or acknowledging what we have done wrong.

I agree with all this - I didn’t mean to dwell on acknowledge vs. confess. The point I meant to emphasize was the “IF”. Ozzie left it out. To me, the IF implies that IF we confess our sins they are forgiven. Which is an absolute contradiction to the concept that they have ALREADY been forgiven. How could God forgive what had already been forgiven(since this statement was made after the crucifixion)?
The simplest understanding of that verse is exactly what it says:
If I confess my sins God will forgive them. And, to me, that means all my sins have not yet been forgiven. This seems simple enough. Now I will go on to say here that I don’t feel that this interpretation detracts one iota from Christ’s sacrifice - I know you feel differently. With respect to this latter concept, I think the “words get in the way”.

Do we need to find some special place to do this, or some special way. I say no. As long as we determine in our heart that we should not partake of such things then we will be delivered from them.

The special place is in our heart - I never confess without being there. I agree on most all of what you’r saying. It does bother me when we discuss FORGIVENESS that we keep sliding into atonement, justification, “deliver”, etc. It gets confusing.

Resist the devil and he will flee.

You are confusing atonement with repentance.We can repent from sins which have already been atoned for, but not as a contingency for our salvation.
Actually, I’m still just trying to focus on FORGIVENESS as I stated above. I understand atonement and repentance and forgiveness well enough. They are all separate. It is important to realize forgiveness does not eliminate atonement. I know neither of us believes it does. The only hair splitting is over the application of Christs sacrifice to our needs. You consider it a past event, I view it as an eternal event.

We as children need to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, for the purpose of being useful to our Father.

God doesn’t “need” us. The purpose of being conformed to Christ is “so that our joy is complete”. He loves us and knows that in conforming ourselves to Christ we will experience all we were meant to and that is full communion with Him eternally.

Not to keep ourselves worthy of salvation! Do you see the difference? We will never be worthy of salvation! Thats what grace is all about.

I would articulate this slightly differently. You are correct that God’s Grace is what removes us from the hopeless state of damnation. But I feel God’s Word tells me that I must strive to remain in His Grace - I should not rest, and I should not lead others to think that they should rest. Rather, we should “rouse one another to love and good works…and this all the more as …the day is drawing near.” This isn’t about fear, it’s about perspective. I know I could never be “good enough” that’s what Grace is for. I also know I should be the best that I can be - and I am not.

Your friend Dan!

 

[exrc]

Philthy:
Phil, first of all I beg you to learn how to make posts. It is very difficult to answer you otherwise.Thanks buddy!

Originally Posted by exrc
**

What is confessing Phil? The greek tells us that it is saying the same thing. In this case it is saying the same thing as God, or acknowledging what we have done wrong

Phil says:I agree with all this - I didn’t mean to dwell on acknowledge vs. confess…

Acknowledging equals confessing , OK? You are getting yourself all confused again.

Forgiveness and atonement are two different things. You can forgive someone without making them atone (pay)for what they did wrong, this is grace, do you see that?

Have you ever done this? I have.

In the verse " the wages of sin is death" we see that there is a debt to be paid. This debt (your sin) must be atoned or paid. This is what Christ did for you Phil, he paid your sin debt in full, or atoned for you by dying on the cross in your stead, 2000 yrs ago.

God’s justice is perfect, no sin is overlooked, all must be atoned for.

Can you atone for your own sin? Sure , but you must spend eternity in hell to accomplish that. Because you are guilty of it.

Jesus was able to make atonement for you because he was sinless, or not guilty. A guilty man can only pay for his own sin. Jesus took all sin to hell, but since he himself knew no sin, he was able to be resurrected unto life and enter heaven to be your advocate. This is your assurance of salvation.

When we say that we can lose our salvation, we essentially deny the sufficiency of Jesus’ atonement for our sins at the cross.

We have two options at this point.

1. If we say that salvation can be lost, then we must have a new means of making atonement for our sins, other than Jesus’ sacrifice 2000 yrs ago.

2)Admit that we cannot lose it.

The question now becomes how do we appropriate this atonement?

Confess or admit or acknowledge these things to be true, that we are helpless to do anything but trust Christ for complete atonement! We must say it with our mouths and believe it in our hearts. Your work is to believe in the one whom he has sent!

My heart rejoices in this, In love Dan!

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

Phil, first of all I beg you to learn how to make posts. It is very difficult to answer you otherwise.Thanks buddy!
Acknowledging equals confessing , OK? You are getting yourself all confused again.

No - I agree that confessing and acknowledging are the same. You’ve completely ingored the topic - IF we acknowledge then he forgives"

Forgiveness and atonement are two different things. You can forgive someone without making them atone (pay)for what they did wrong, this is grace, do you see that?

I know what Grace is

Have you ever done this? I have.

Probably - too tired to think.

In the verse " the wages of sin is death" we see that there is a debt to be paid. This debt (your sin) must be atoned or paid. This is what Christ did for you Phil, he paid your sin debt in full, or atoned for you by dying on the cross in your stead, 2000 yrs ago.

I agree.

God’s justice is perfect, no sin is overlooked, all must be atoned for.

I agree.

Can you atone for your own sin? Sure , but you must spend eternity in hell to accomplish that. Because you are guilty of it.

I agree - I can’t atone for my own sin.

Jesus was able to make atonement for you because he was sinless, or not guilty. A guilty man can only pay for his own sin. Jesus took all sin to hell, but since he himself knew no sin, he was able to be resurrected unto life and enter heaven to be your advocate. This is your assurance of salvation.

Again we’ve shifted from forgiveness to salvation. As it now stands you have every human saved - believers and unbelievers alike.

When we say that we can lose our salvation, we essentially deny the sufficiency of Jesus’ atonement for our sins at the cross.

Totally false. You have covered sufficiency but ignored efficiency.

We have two options at this point.

1. If we say that salvation can be lost, then we must have a new means of making atonement for our sins, other than Jesus’ sacrifice 2000 yrs ago.

False. We could say that his atonement is the gift that keeps on giving if we take advantage of it.

2)Admit that we cannot lose it.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed. I like how you were clear and to the point though!

The question now becomes how do we appropriate this atonement?

Confess or admit or acknowledge these things to be true, that we are helpless to do anything but trust Christ for complete atonement! We must say it with our mouths and believe it in our hearts. Your work is to believe in the one whom he has sent!

I trust completely that it is in His hands.

My heart rejoices in this, In love Dan!

Thanks for the nice complement you gave to MariaG and me on another post. I hope you have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Phil

 

[Catherine_S]

Philthy:

Romans 10:9-10
I hear what your saying Dan, but aren’t you the one now being the “legalist” as Ozzie would say? Haven’t you substituted in your own understanding as well? When Paul says “you will be saved” haven’t you inserted “you are saved” instead? And the further problem introduced by you is that you are insertiing a conditional that Paul didn’t: Namely that the nature of the salvation must be fully understood by the believer. Paul doesn’t require that at all. He simply says that if you confess Jesus is Lord and believe He was raised from the dead that you will be saved. Nothing more and nothing less. No comment on when or how that salvation will be accomplished. No insistence on perfect understanding. You have inserted your own requirement and attempted to burden me with it rather than keeping the focus on Jesus and my belief in Him as the Son of God and the resurrection as my Salvation.

Phil

The Bible is a funny thing. When talking with Bible Christians, all the stuff between those black leather covers is simply reference material. The real Bible is the one that exists only in their minds. You see, we are debating not what Scripture says but their conception of what Scripture says.

The division of the chapters into numbered verses occurred a few years after the death of Martin Luther. This, combined with Luther’s concept of “private interpretation,” gave the newly formed religious groups and so-called “reformers” a new tool. Since that time every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Sue, and Mary have felt they had license to extract verses from God’s Holy Word and put their own spin on them.

Bible Christians tend to be anti-intellectual.** Not that they are unintelligent or that there are not some fine scholars in their ranks,** but, for the most part, scholarship is looked down on.They seem to feel that if you have too much formal training you will lose your faith in the Bible.
**
Sola scriptura is logically impractical because each of the almost thirty thousand Protestant denominations go to their sole authority (the Bible) and come up with almost thirty thousand interpretations. Who’s to decide? Who’s to say who is right or wrong?** In short, how are we to know the truth?

**And the cat keeps chasing its tail…going no where…**motivation is everything…Bible Christains want to “get you Saved…”…making it impossible to share with them because of where they are coming from…there is always a lot of projection going on as well !!!

Shalom

 

[chb03c]

I don’t think Phil is saying salvation can be lost. What he is trying to say is if someone says that they believe that Jesus is there savior and then later on in life they say he is not. Then that means they never really acknowledged Jesus as there savoir in there hearts as they should. Therefore there salvation was never there to begin with because they were still able to reject Jesus as there personal savior. As Jesus teaches us ‘if anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever wishes to lose his life for my sake will save it.’(Luke 9:23-25) These people who ‘reject’ Christ never we able to ‘deny themselves and take up there cross daily and follow’ Jesus. Therefore they were never able to ‘come after’ Jesus to begin with. Recall the story of the Rich Official (Luke 18:18-23) this man was able to keep the commandments however but was unable to ‘deny and follow Jesus.’ Note he recognized Jesus as his savior by coming to him for salvation, but was unable to follow him because he didn’t want to give up what he had. Take a look at the apostles they were able to deny themselves and follow Jesus unlike the rich man. The rich man must have never accepted Jesus in his heart however did except him by his words.

 

[MariaG]

exrc and Ozzie,

Could either/ both of you define the word assurance? Does assurance mean Confidence?

Thank you,

Maria

 

[MariaG]

posted by exrc post #981

Maria, are you born again? If so when did that happen?

Yes, I am born again. In your understanding of born again, I was born again in a Nazarene Church in September of 1991. In the definition of the Catholic Church, I was born again through baptism sometime in the year of 1965, and had a born again experience as an adult in 1991. Either way, born again and still praising the Lord.

Is a venial sin willful disobedience?

Not an expert, but I would think willful disobedience is a mortal sin. Just my opinion. Not sure where to look up something like that. Personally, I just go with my heart and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for looking.

Still looking.

If you take a look at EFC writings, and you’re honest you will find a wide variety of beliefs on this subject. Not a lot of agreement.

There are a wide variety of beliefs, but there eventually was a “recognized” truth of teaching.

But if you are honest about Protestants, there is a wide variety of beliefs in their teachings. My source? Personal from three different churches. Three views of Justification, Sanctification, tongues, and Baptism to name a few.

For your sake, so you get it from the horses mouth. I also find them interesting to read.

Well to be honest, my walk to the Catholic Church was through the Bible alone. When reading the Catechism to find an explanation of their beliefs, I rejected any source that wasn’t Biblical. I am probably one of the most Bible thumping Catholic Christian Jesus Freaks you’ll ever come across.

While now in the Catholic Church as an adult (parents stopped going when 4, that was pretty much it), I have started to explore the ECF, but frankly, I still prefer the Bible alone approach. In fact, I frequently risk the wrath of my Catholic brethren when I say things like, “it comes from the Bible”. I have yet to find a Catholic belief that is not in some way in the Bible. Sacred Tradition helps to interpret the Bible, but it is all there.

Physical death, not spiritual death.

I disagree, but thanks for answering.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

In 2 Peter 2:20-22 we read, “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.”

These people only had “knowledge” of the Lord, they didn’t actually BELIEVE in Him unto salvation. There’s a lot of people like that, even today. Especially amongst the churched and religious legalists. Some of your own priests have demonstrated this behavior. If their last state is worse than the first, then obviously they never did enter into salvation. But Peter describes them as dogs who, by nature, turn back to eat their own vomit, and never possessing a new nature in Christ, like sows turn back to wallowing in the mire. It’s one thing to simply have a “knowledge” of Christ, but completely another thing to have believed in Him, been born again, regenerated by the H.S. The redeemed in Christ are never referred as having the nature of dogs and pigs. But Peter points out early in his Epistle that true believers are partakers of the divine nature: “…seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”

As I said before, all Scripture is written for you, Pax, but not all Scripture is written about you. You seem to always relate to the Scriptures that describe unbelievers, why is this?