I could use some help/prayers

  • Thread starter Thread starter bradwill911
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bradwill911

Guest
Hello all,

I am currently playing a little theological ping pong via email with someone who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”. I know, I know, very original. As we have exchanged emails, I am providing the CCC and Scripture references to back up our position. In his last email to me, he basically says that he knows without a doubt that he is saved and that he’ll still be saved 60 years from now if he’s still alive. You and I both know that this assurance of salvation and “once saved, always saved” idea is poor theology. I’m wondering if anyone can give me any advice on how to proceed from here. I’m content just answering his questions and praying for him while allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest, but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
 
Without knowing the person but basing my answer on the type of “profile” that this person poses, it will probably do no good to point out to him that he is even more sure of his salvation than Paul.

In an ironic turn, you could also say to him that he doesn’t need to pray anymore for God’s mercy.

Personally, I’d be done with that kind fairly quick. Sometimes people just want you to respond so they can challenge themselves and see if they can come up with a creative way to disagree with what you said. Classic polemics. Sometimes, you might be better off preaching by example, or if you don’t know the person, then prayer and fasting. Maybe even ask Mary to watch over him. :eek: 👍
 
Hello all,

I am currently playing a little theological ping pong via email with someone who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”. I know, I know, very original. As we have exchanged emails, I am providing the CCC and Scripture references to back up our position. In his last email to me, he basically says that he knows without a doubt that he is saved and that he’ll still be saved 60 years from now if he’s still alive. You and I both know that this assurance of salvation and “once saved, always saved” idea is poor theology. I’m wondering if anyone can give me any advice on how to proceed from here. I’m content just answering his questions and praying for him while allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest, but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
Once somone has tasted the opium of “once saved always saved” and gets addicted on the idea that they have an irrevocable “salvation ticket” that lets them sin all they want and still get to heaven its just about impossible to appeal to reason. They just don’t have a linear thought process anymore and it moves out of apologetics and into the realm where you are better off calling in an exorcist. Almost not kidding here. I have never seen a more stubborn group of people jump through every imaginable scriptural hoop to avoid the most obvious scripture interpretation when confronted with the scriptural reality that its just not in scripture. In fact there are over 200 scripture verses that argue against OSAS and its one of the easiest doctrines to prove to a rational mind that its completely wrong. Yet they will find the 1 or 2 verses that seem like they might support it and reject all the contrarian cases. It usually comes down to them telling the Catholic something like “well, you clearly do not know how to divide God’s word properly to not see OSAS as plain as I can see that I am saved”. Almost all Protestant doctrines when pressed against Catholic teaching and scriptural evidence come down to them imagining that they have an exclusive relationship with the Holy Spirit that insures that they are infallable and everyone else is fallable.

Frankly, I am now using a Protestant’s attested denomination as a rough metric for IQ. It works well until they say “Christian” and leave you guessing as to which of the thousands of variations they subscribe to and when one tries to tie them down through a line of questions they invent stuff on the fly since many don’t really have a clue what they believe (especially in the area of predestiny). All they worry about is “being saved” and letting Jesus figure out how to force them to be good and cover over their sins and “impute” his merits.

I think all the intelligent ones that respond well to reason have mostly already jumped into the Catholic camp long ago. What is left is too eclectic to generalize an effective apologetic approach with and the return on time spent is very low to nil.

Prayer needs to be the primary weapon.

James
 
Hello all,

I am currently playing a little theological ping pong via email with someone who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”. I know, I know, very original. As we have exchanged emails, I am providing the CCC and Scripture references to back up our position. In his last email to me, he basically says that he knows without a doubt that he is saved and that he’ll still be saved 60 years from now if he’s still alive. You and I both know that this assurance of salvation and “once saved, always saved” idea is poor theology. I’m wondering if anyone can give me any advice on how to proceed from here. I’m content just answering his questions and praying for him while allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest, but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
Turn the tables on him: ask him if it’s possible for him to LOSE his salvation, he’ll say no.

Ask him what if a person who is faithful NOW and believes EXACTLY as he does at this moment (you might have to assure him again and again that this is a hypothetical question), goes and robs a bank, murders someone, and denounces their faith? He’ll say that the person was never saved to begin with.

Ask him if, since that person believed exactly as he does NOW and it was possible that he was never saved to begin with and could fall in such a way, how HE knows that HE isn’t exactly such a person and isn’t really saved either?

No clue how he’lll play verbal hopscotch to get around that one. Then throw him a final loop: tell him you trust the bible when it says to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and that this idea of surety of salvation is unscriptural feel-good beans.
 
Hello all,

I am currently playing a little theological ping pong via email with someone who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon”. I know, I know, very original. As we have exchanged emails, I am providing the CCC and Scripture references to back up our position. In his last email to me, he basically says that he knows without a doubt that he is saved and that he’ll still be saved 60 years from now if he’s still alive. You and I both know that this assurance of salvation and “once saved, always saved” idea is poor theology. I’m wondering if anyone can give me any advice on how to proceed from here. I’m content just answering his questions and praying for him while allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest, but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
I’ve got lots of stuff that covers virtually every OSAS argument from A to Z. PM me with your email address and I’ll send you my files.
 
Once somone has tasted the opium of “once saved always saved” and gets addicted on the idea that they have an irrevocable “salvation ticket” that lets them sin all they want and still get to heaven its just about impossible to appeal to reason. They just don’t have a linear thought process anymore and it moves out of apologetics and into the realm where you are better off calling in an exorcist. Almost not kidding here. I have never seen a more stubborn group of people jump through every imaginable scriptural hoop to avoid the most obvious scripture interpretation when confronted with the scriptural reality that its just not in scripture. In fact there are over 200 scripture verses that argue against OSAS and its one of the easiest doctrines to prove to a rational mind that its completely wrong. Yet they will find the 1 or 2 verses that seem like they might support it and reject all the contrarian cases. It usually comes down to them telling the Catholic something like “well, you clearly do not know how to divide God’s word properly to not see OSAS as plain as I can see that I am saved”. Almost all Protestant doctrines when pressed against Catholic teaching and scriptural evidence come down to them imagining that they have an exclusive relationship with the Holy Spirit that insures that they are infallable and everyone else is fallable.

…
Prayer needs to be the primary weapon.

James
I think you’re being a bit harsh James.
I have a very good friend - one of the first ones I had where we were both very committed to Our Lord and shared spiritual excitement and Bible discoveries. I have always been a firmly believing Catholic (except for a brief period, early on, where I lost faith in Jesus) and she was an OSAS Baptist. (We have both since moved, thus less communication; and she now attends a Lutheran Church.)

I can assure you that the motivation you describe in the first paragraph was not the basis of her belief in OSAS. It was because she truly believed that was what Scripture taught. (Unfortunately, she would not discuss areas of doctrine where our faiths differed because she felt it might affect our friendship.) At one point, due to marital problems, she was preparing to seek divorce - she had even contacted a lawyer. With all the anguish involved, she was often seeking help and guidance in Scripture. And I remember when she told me that as she read Scripture, she suddenly realized that it really was important to God what we did. (This was a new concept to her! - even tho she had a degree in Biblical studies.) And that divorce was contrary to His will. So, she did not divorce her husband.
Even with all that, to my knowledge, she is still an OSAS (Lutheran).
And she is now, and was before, someone who loves God and tries to do His will.

I’m right with you tho when you say, “Prayer needs to be the primary weapon”; followed up by our example.

Nita
 
I think you’re being a bit harsh James.
I have a very good friend - one of the first ones I had where we were both very committed to Our Lord and shared spiritual excitement and Bible discoveries. I have always been a firmly believing Catholic (except for a brief period, early on, where I lost faith in Jesus) and she was an OSAS Baptist. (We have both since moved, thus less communication; and she now attends a Lutheran Church.)

I can assure you that the motivation you describe in the first paragraph was not the basis of her belief in OSAS. It was because she truly believed that was what Scripture taught. (Unfortunately, she would not discuss areas of doctrine where our faiths differed because she felt it might affect our friendship.) At one point, due to marital problems, she was preparing to seek divorce - she had even contacted a lawyer. With all the anguish involved, she was often seeking help and guidance in Scripture. And I remember when she told me that as she read Scripture, she suddenly realized that it really was important to God what we did. (This was a new concept to her! - even tho she had a degree in Biblical studies.) And that divorce was contrary to His will. So, she did not divorce her husband.
Even with all that, to my knowledge, she is still an OSAS (Lutheran).
And she is now, and was before, someone who loves God and tries to do His will.

I’m right with you tho when you say, “Prayer needs to be the primary weapon”; followed up by our example.

Nita
Too harsh?

Not by St. Paul’s standards.

Gelatians 1:9
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


And not by the same consistent Apostolic Catholic Church’s Standards either (which takes St. Paul at his word to propagate his same apostolic curse):
Council of Trent Anathemas which utterly annihilates OSAS:
The Council of Trent - The Sixth Session
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and ecumenical Council of Trent,
Pages 30-53.
Definition of Anathema:
a·nath·e·ma (-nth-m)
n. pl. a·nath·e·mas
  1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication
.
2. A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch’s anathemas in some unknown tongue” Nathaniel Hawthorne.
3. One that is cursed or damned.
4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned:
[Late Latin anathema,** doomed offering, accursed thing, from Greek, from anatithenai, anathe-, to dedicate : ana-, ana- + tithenai, to put; see dh- in Indo-European roots.]
On Justification

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him;let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

We have a moral obligation to be frank with our neighbors who are facing almost certain damnation if they die impenitent in grave sin while holding to the false hope of OSAS.

James
 
Too harsh?

Not by St. Paul’s standards.

Gelatians 1:9
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


And not by the same consistent Apostolic Catholic Church’s Standards either (which takes St. Paul at his word to propagate his same apostolic curse):
St. Paul is talking to people who received “Catholic” teaching. He’s telling them not to listen to teaching(gospel) contrary to what they received.

If you’re a cradle Catholic as I am, we received the Catholic teaching/interpretation. Most OSAS Christians haven’t - they received Protestant teaching and they also read Paul’s words that tell them not to accept “contrary” teaching. Unfortuntely, we do not have any letters by St. Paul that tell us how he spoke to those who had never received proper instruction to begin with.

Regarding anyone’s “almost certain damnation” - we don’t have a clue, and God doesn’t want us to make such judgements.
We have a moral obligation to be frank with our neighbors who are facing almost certain damnation if they die impenitent in grave sin while holding to the false hope of OSAS.
We have a moral obligation to love them. My friend did not and would not have gotten into such discussions. Maybe you would have done it anyway. Each person is different. I can’t know for sure what would have happened had I gone ahead and done so, but I believe she would have gotten angry and our friendship would have come to a halt. Things I have since said and done, which have made an impression on her (I know because she has told me), would never have taken place.

Nita
 
St. Paul is talking to people who received “Catholic” teaching. He’s telling them not to listen to teaching(gospel) contrary to what they received.

…

Regarding anyone’s “almost certain damnation” - we don’t have a clue, and God doesn’t want us to make such judgements.

We have a moral obligation to love them.
…

Nita
Yes, we have a moral obligation to love & pray for our enemies. But anyone who teaches a different gospel than what the apostles actually taught is God’s enemy & also an enemy of The Church.Yes God loves his enemies. So while He constantly calls His enemies into the truth God also always respects their free-choice to reject Him & His teachings (with inevitable consequences). These He permits to seperate themselves far from Him both here & in the afterlife. But of course in the afterlife God denies his enemies His grace and they spend their eternity in hell.

We don’t have a clue about those that are excommunicated from the Church and cursed for teaching a false gospel?

I differ with you. The Church does not issue idle anathemas. Let’s not forget that The Church has the authority to loose and bind - and this includes binding heretics to anathemas while they remain seperate from and in opposition to the apostolic gospel teaching and The Church and its authority. We have been pandering to the Protestants too long and must come to the realization that our anathemas are very real and very grave. One can not escape the weight of an anathema by simply believing it is without force. It has real spiritual binding authority that God will respect.

The Catholic Church has cursed (anathematized) anyone who says and teaches the Protestant doctrines. A person teaches by example as much as by public declaration. Therefor all Protestants who publicly declare a different gospel are by the very definition of anathema (in the sense Paul spoke it) apostolically excommunicated from The Church and cut off from the sacraments. God will not permit any relationship with Himself that attempts to deliberately go around and circumvent The Church anymore so than Jesus would accept praise from those who also are indifferent to, hate or disrespect His bride (the Catholic Church).

Anathemas are part and parcel of the loosing and binding authority and these carry real spiritual weight no different in force and authority to what Jesus did when he cursed the fig tree for yielding no fruit and not serving Him. Protestantism withers. The Church can not have a double standard here. The chastisement of an anathema is meant to be very sobering and grave to wake up people to the fact that they are excommunicated and in grave spiritual danger. If such anathematized die in separation from The Body of Christ, The Church, they most certainly are in grave danger of going to hell. To think differently is to not believe in the loosing and binding authority or to not believe in the sternness of the anathemas. There is no room for equivocation - none. Pandering to the possibility that one can simultaneously proclaim “Jesus is Lord” while at the same time consciously rejecting The Catholic Church’s teachings and The Lord’s commandments is mocking Jesus’ Church as well as Jesus and is most definately grave matter.

If its not clear what an anathema is simply look at the following verses:
  • 1 Cor. 12:3, “Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed” (anathema); and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.”
  • 1 Cor. 16:22, “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha.”
  • Rom. 9:3, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed (anathema), separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”
  • Gal. 1:8-9, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema). 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (anathema).”
We can see that the Bible uses the term to mean separated from Christ. If someone is separated from Christ, he is lost. But for the sake of these people let’s be as generous as we can be. Is the bible use of the term anathema the same thing as is meant in Roman Catholic theology? Maybe not since a Catholic anathema is not a pronouncement of damnation (separation from Christ) but a declaration that an individual is excluded from the fellowship of the Roman Catholic church which includes denial of Communion and the Catholic sacraments. But an anathema also used to have a real spiritual curse aspect to it where evil and misfortune was invited on those to compel them to desist from their errors.

But for this dialog let’s be as lenient as possible. Let’s assume that when official Roman Catholic documents pronounce anathema it means that the person is just “not in right standing with The Church”, and is not to be admitted to the sacraments and is thus cut off from all sacramental grace. For a Catholic this is also a defacto automatic excommunication and at the very least a very strong condemnation of the person’s actions and/or beliefs as being against the Catholic Church. But I present that the authority of The Church is universal and anathemas must also apply equally to all those who are outside of The Catholic Church as well. Why would The Church condemn only the errors of its own members but not also the errors of those who are also not members of The Church? The reach of The Church’s authority do not end at the front door of The Church where Martin Luther nailed his infamous 95 thesis. If it did The Church would not be able to heal pray in public much less exorcise demons from hell or evangelize to pagans or even those living in opposition to The Church in deficient faiths.

James
 
In his last email to me, he basically says that he knows without a doubt that he is saved and that he’ll still be saved 60 years from now if he’s still alive. You and I both know that this assurance of salvation and “once saved, always saved” idea is poor theology.
Do I take it that he means one is saved by faith, not faith and good works.
If so,
Some Scripture supporting that good works as well as faith is required for our salvation :

"Take the case, my brothers of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them these bare necessities of llife, then what good is that?: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead.
This is the way to talk to people of that kind:'You say you have faith and I have good deeds; I will prove to you that I have faith by showing you my good deeds–now you prove to me that you have faith without any good deeds to show.

You believe in one God–that is creditable enough, but the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear. Do realise, you senseless man, that faith without works is useless. You surely know that Abraham our Father was justified by his deed, because he offered Isaac on the altar? There you see it; faith and good deeds were working together; his faith became perfect by what he did. This is what scripture really means when it says: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was counted as making him justified; and that is why he was called the friend of God. You see now that it is by doing something good, and not only by believing, that a man is justified." [James 2: 14-24]

“It is not those who call me ‘Lord, Lord’ who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of my father in heaven.” [Matthew 7:21]
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I command? I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts on them.
That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it because it had been well built. But the one who listens and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was completely destroyed.” [Luke 6:45-49]
“Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.” [Galations 6:7-9]
 
You could ask him where “once saved, always saved” is found in Scripture. Based on his belief in Sola Sciptura, it has to be there. Ask him where?
 
Yes, we have a moral obligation to love & pray for our enemies. But anyone who teaches a different gospel than what the apostles actually taught is God’s enemy & also an enemy of The Church.Yes God loves his enemies. So while He constantly calls His enemies into the truth God also always respects their free-choice to reject Him & His teachings (with inevitable consequences). These He permits to seperate themselves far from Him both here & in the afterlife. But of course in the afterlife God denies his enemies His grace and they spend their eternity in hell.

We don’t have a clue about those that are excommunicated from the Church and cursed for teaching a false gospel?

I differ with you. The Church does not issue idle anathemas. Let’s not forget that The Church has the authority to loose and bind - and this includes binding heretics to anathemas while they remain seperate from and in opposition to the apostolic gospel teaching and The Church and its authority…

James
I have been bothered by the grave implications anathemas seem to have on Protestants and went back and re-studied this whole topic area fairly thoroughly.

What I have discovered is that the meaning of the term anathema has shifted over the many centuries and even while there was a cannon law penalty associated with the term in the time of Trent The Church revised its Cannon Law in 1983 and removed the penalty from one who falls under an anathema. Further, one is not “anathematized” automatically. It is a law that requires a formal judicial determination. One must be anathemetized by name after being found guilty of the conduct that is subject to anathema. By striking the penalty The Church has essentially made the words “let him be anathema” become a “defining phrase” for dogmatic teaching which is infallable. This makes a particular teaching a grave matter but unless one knows it is grave matter and then goes on to consciously reject it in that knowledge it is not a consentual mortal sin. The Church does not damn anyone to hell but most certainly in the early church it did formally remove offenders from the protection of the church (denial of sacraments through minor or formal excommunication) so that they would be subject to the effects of sin (Satan) with the hope that through the withering and tormenting effects of sin such would eventually repent of their heresies or sins and seek forgivness and reinstatement with The Church.

In summary:
  1. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one in 1983 when it amended its cannon law.
  2. With the removal of cannon penalty the phrase anathema sit (“let him be anathema”) when applied to doctrinal texts (not disciplinary texts) has come to be one of the legal phrases that the Church uses to issue doctrinal definitions.
  3. Under current canon law these declarations using the anathema phrase are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323). It is not clear to me tough how a person baptised as non-Catholic can also be considered to be an informal member of the Catholic Church and still not be legally simultaneously excommunicated for heresy by adapting anathemized beliefs?? I might want to take this up with a cannon law expert.
More here: Anathema (By Jimmy Akin)

And here: Anathama

James
 
I am inclined to believe that although OSAS can be an eternally dangerous position, those who profess it openly are not the folks who also believe they get a “free pass” to live as sinful a life as they please. It’s the folks that don’t profess it, yet hear the message, that I worry about.

This is because the “professors” actually are quite deep in their faith (deep enough to confidently express it to others), and are so fully in awe of God and his power to forgive even their future sins (which we know is untrue), that they actually DO commit their lives to Christ, do their very best to live up to their faith, and even repent of these “already forgiven” sins as they inevitably come into their lives (they often repent through personal prayer or public confessions in their church, or both). This is the very reason why the “how do you know you won’t fall away in the future” argument holds no ground with them, because they are so often very committed in their faith.

So as for your “friend”, I wouldn’t worry too much about his personal lifestyle and view of sin. On the other hand, I do worry about what message OSAS sends to the lukewarm in the evangelical crowd, especially the youth who come reluctantly into these communities, hear this message in it’s simplistic format (i.e. with no expansion into the importance of aligning one’s will and committing fully to God). This plants a terrible seed in the soul of the unprepared and weakly formed individuals. For that reason alone, I do believe we must whole-heartedly fend off this OSAS nonsense…through prayer, fasting, and charitable apologetics. It’s tough because we can’t reach the souls whose fate is most in jeopardy because of this false teaching - they’re not the ones in our faces. It’s the committed-to-Christ professors of the false teaching that we get to confront, so we have two obstacles…get through to them, and get through to them enough that they quit teaching that nonsense from their pulpits.

God Bless
 
Because OSAS is a common viewpoint of Protestants, it gets lots of air here.

But in my experience, there are two very different ways that Protestants look at OSAS.

Most see it as a statement of predestination. If you are predestined to be saved (one of the elect), you WILL be saved. To them, the big issue is to figure out if you are one of the elect.

And here is the rub. The weakest group of OSAS’ people believe that if you simply announce your Faith in the Saving Power of Jesus, then you must be one of the elect.
I say weak, because the theology is so weak here that it is easy to contradict with simple logic. This group will always agree that they would still be saved, even if they apostacized or commited grave sins like murder, because they have been told that only the elect could acknowledge Christ as savior and the elect are by definition saved. At this point, you can point out two facts that are hard for them to refute. The first is that even the demons in scripture, as they were being exorcised by Jesus, acknowledged him as the son of God, yet we know they aren’t part of the elect. The second, is that if someone does commit murder or blasphemy, then they are not innocent, yet they would have God declare them innocent. This does not make sense for a Just God to lie and say something is true when it really isn’t. Very often, they will deny this makes sense, but later when they think about it, it leaves questions in their minds and they will come around, usually becoming a part to the second group.

The second group will recognize that a Just God will not declare a guilty party innocent. Their answer for the situation of someone who says they are saved but then commits grave sin is that this is just evidence that the person was never really part of the elect, and only pretended to be saved. This immediately opens them up to the argument that this means you can never tell someone is part of the Elect until they die, because until that point, they could commit a grave sin (or repent and be “born again”) that would signal a change in their salvation status. They may come back with the elect are still the elect, we just can’t tell who they are. We at that point agree with them. We then make the point that the elect will do the good works throughout their life that will demonstrate their faith (like James 2: 24 describes). As the added kicker, we then explain that the Catholic Church teaches that and more. We also teach that if we sin, there is a way to be forgiven and brought back into the state of Grace, (the sacrament of reconciliation.

So step 1 is to find out how they understand that they are one of the elect. Then you need to take the paths described above as appropriate
 
OSAS and most Protestant error extends from the demonic lie of “sola fide” - by faith alone.

Peel away OSAS and at its core is sola fide - a doctrine that attempts to remove personal responsibility from every aspect of salvation and tends to encourage abandonment to one’s fate. It is a fatalistic theology that came from a man (Luther) who had no habitual grace and lacked the personal ability to rein in his vices and could not live with his conscience. He could not imagine himself as “not of the elect” so he gamed the system and reduced the entire bible down to one salvation slogan “by faith alone” - a quick mental health pill easy for scrupulously minded people to swallow - a quick fix that let one have their cake (salvation) and eat it too (on earth in vice).

**The ultimately problem here is that “faith” it what? There is nothing inherently wrong with “by faith in Jesus” since that implies a faith in His promises - BOTH rewards and punishments! **. The problem is in the “alone” aspect where one is alone from the authority of The Church and one is alone to one’s own conscience and one is alone to one’s own presumptions to God’s Mercy and one is alone to one’s assurances that God MUST forgive us when we ask Him. Essentially “sola fide” becomes a magic formula were one can command God to obey them and He MUST forgive us and He MUST save us from ourselves and our sins.

So lacking a context of what Jesus actually taught or who Jesus really was the inclination of subscribers to sola fide is that Jesus MUST save them in spite of anything they might do or desire to do. It’s all about a Jesus is my buddy and sugar-n-spice kind of relationship that ignores the fact that we are baptised into Christ’s sufferings too. Sola Fide thus encourages laxiety and anything but a personal relationship with Jesus. It just makes Him into a door man to heaven who MUST let us in if we say the magic words when we get there “I believe” so open the gate.

Sola-Fide is a bottom up solution to a fear of damnation that turns heaven into a cracker-jack prize. The problem is this junk food comes from the very pits of hell itself and is one of Satan’s most successfully constructed traps.

Can anyone imagine the glee of Satan delivering a person to heaven’s door wrapped in the swaddling clothes of grave sin and oozing with spiritual leprosy, knocking at the door then retiring afar to watch God’s expression when he finds the orphan left to his care or judgement?

The accompanying note reads:
Most “Holy” God, I found another lost illegitimate at my gate today but too confused to know where he belongs. He clearly has my features - a grave sinner in every way and wearing the traditional soiled rags that bear no likeness to their original baptismal splendor. Yet when I went to embrace the little liar and fool he cried unceasingly saying “he had absolute faith in Jesus and God was His father”. Frankly, its an embarrassment to me that he doesn’t recognize me as his real father. So I thought I’d let you judge if he looks anything like you or not and let you sort it all out and break it to him. As always I trust your decisions in these matters. If you agree that he is a liar and a sinner par-excellence after my own image please send him back in the usual manner…
Signed,
You-Know-Who


James
 
I am going to make this short,

I am sick and tried of people saying that those people that believe OSAS think it gives them a license to sin. That is not true at all. In fact it is a lie, pure and simple. It contradicts every thing that the Bible teaches and everything that the Christain life is about.
 
I am going to make this short,

I am sick and tried of people saying that those people that believe OSAS think it gives them a license to sin. That is not true at all. In fact it is a lie, pure and simple. It contradicts every thing that the Bible teaches and everything that the Christain life is about.
You would have to agree, though, that OSAS would fit neatly under the heading of contradicting everything the Bible teaches and everything that the Christian life is about wouldn’t you?
 
You would have to agree, though, that OSAS would fit neatly under the heading of contradicting everything the Bible teaches and everything that the Christian life is about wouldn’t you?
No! I would not agree. To say that the God who has the power to saved me does not have the power to keep me saved is to deny God’s power

Also after sixty year of studing the Bible I have found nothing in the Bible that contradicts OSAS
 
Also after sixty year of studing the Bible I have found nothing in the Bible that contradicts OSAS
Have you been studying just the cover or have you bothered opening the book up?

I’m only kidding.

I think the Scriptures are overwhelmingly against OSAS.
 
No! I would not agree. To say that the God who has the power to saved me does not have the power to keep me saved is to deny God’s power

Also after sixty year of studing the Bible I have found nothing in the Bible that contradicts OSAS
No one is saying that God does not have the power to save you. No one is saying that God does not have the power to keep you saved as you put it. What the Catholic Church teaches is that by use of free will a person can throw their salvation away.

Salvation can be lost and that’s biblical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top