Is it sinful to assume that your salvation is “guaranteed”?

[rwoehmke]

sconea:

I thought the church teaches that this is the sin of “presumption”.

BINGO! I wondered how long it was going to tyake.

 

[chevalier]

I was going to mention presumption, but I see it’s already been done.

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friend

Sinful? It would be the greatest sin of pride anyone could display, that we would be our own god to ourselves and therefore be our own judge.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[qmvsimp]

I don’t see how anyone can sin by making a mistake. To sin requires knowing better.

Now, it might lead you to sin, but that’s a different question.

 

[springbreeze]

qmvsimp:

I don’t see how anyone can sin by making a mistake. To sin requires knowing better.

Now, it might lead you to sin, but that’s a different question.

Dear friend

Common sense tells us we are unable to be our own god in this way, we know we seek advice on many issues from other people, let alone seeking God, though many people forget to seek the wisdom of God first in prayer and automatically primarily turn to other people, who are flawed! (though God will use these flawed human beings as His instruments)

Each person who believes in God or ‘there is something’ knows that God is greater or that The ‘there is something’ is greater therefore we as lesser though formed in His Image cannot deem ourselves, as the lesser, as our own judge.

To suggest we are assured of heaven is to say we deem ourselves as perfect and if we dare to look closely at ourselves even those who have approached close to God can see in the ‘fine print’ still the imperfection of such human souls! If we do not see this, we do not possess the Virtue of Humility.

Every soul knows their own faults, whether they believe in God or not, those faults are illuminated as clear as day because we all know what is Truth and what is not, we just choose not to choose Truth and sin, whether we recognise that Truth as Christ Jesus or not.

There is no salvation but for the Love and sufferings of Christ Jesus, our faith, works, repentance, love and suffering with, in, by and through Christ Jesus (in short transformation in Christ Jesus) and the Love and Mercy of the Truine God.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Jimmy_B]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

*I don’t see how anyone can sin by making a mistake. To sin requires knowing better.

Now, it might lead you to sin, but that’s a different question*

**

James

---

Chapter 4****

---

**13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we shall go into such and such a town, spend a year there doing business, and make a profit”-- ******

**14 you have no idea what your life will be like tomorrow. You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears. ******

15 Instead you should say, "If the Lord wills it, we shall live to do this or that." ****

16 But now you are boasting in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. ****

17 So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin****

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

John****
Chapter 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

“Might be” does not imply uncertainty about the future - it is a construction reqired by the use of the subjunctive mood. The further question, one of theology - about the intended and the actual scope of the Redemption - is left in the air.​

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world willbe saved through him” would not be idiomatic English - “I send…so that he will” is poor English. “I send…and he will…” is better; but “I am sending…and he will…” is best.

Sometimes Greek syntactical constructions match those in English - sometimes, as with “Whom do men say that I man ?”, English usage is different from NT Greek. ##

18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned

, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19 And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.
21 But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.

Verse 21 describes the works of one who is elect - it is not against OSAS.​

Verse 20 describes either the non-elect, or the elect before his justification.

Verse 18 fits the non-elect - it favours Calvinism, but is compatible with Arminianism & Catholicism. ##

Matthew
Chapter 24
13 But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved

…continued]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

Most of this, possibly all, is not contrary to OSAS. Or could not be, without implying Pelagianism here and there. Hope is perfectly compatible with OSAS, because salvation can be assured, without being either possessed at all, or possessed fully. So one can perfectly well beliewve in OSAS, while hoping for the completion of a salvation already enjoyed in part.​

How do they persevere ? By *their *strength ? God forbid ! By His Glorious Strength, which keeps them from falling away, “for underneath are the everlasting arms” - they can be disobedient (and will be punished if they are); but they cannot fall away; any more than Christ can be uncrucified.

It is God Who causes us to persevere, and who is the unconquered Stability of His Saints; He is their Foundation & their Rock: and (quite apart from the Fatherly Love He bears to His elect), it is not self-evident that the Saints in Heaven cannot fall away, but that the members of Christ’s Body on earth can; for the God of the Saints in Heaven is the same as the God of the saints on earth: the ever-faithful God Who upholds those in Heaven, is the ever-faithful God Who elects those living on earth.

The decisive point AFAICS is that God is changeless as God - though He is not perceived as such by all different sets of creatures.

Objection: we are free to reject God, even if we have never lost His friendship since being justified.

But: we are free, because God is free; because, IOW, He secures the freedom of His creatures: were God not the constant upholder of all his creatures and of all their faculties at every moment, there would be no freedom - and no creatures.

There are two points to emphasise here -

Divine Causality as:

1. The guarantor of the reality of creaturely** freedom**
2. The guarantor of the security of creaturely election.

Catholics and Calvinists differ, not in upholding the totality of God’s creative activity as Cause of all created being and activity, but in what they emphasise. If something exists, and is not God, and has being - God causes it; not as one cause among many, but as the Source of all causality.

Certainly “the wicked hate the light” - what Calvinist would disagree ?

Certainly Christ will separate the sheep from the goats - he does not separate the sheep from the sheep; for all are His. Once He saved them on Calvary, their salvation was assured: it had only to be worked out, not because they could add anything to it, but because their obedience to His Will is pleasing to Him.

OSAS is not something cobbled out of a verse or two - it is doctrine which takes the words of Christ in John 10 seriously, and takes the faithfulness of God seriously - these are two things that Catholics seem never to address.

It isn’t a refutation of the weak points in an argument that upsets it, but a refutation of the strong points.

OSAS is not free-standing - it is part of a body of doctrine. Doctrines re-act upon each other, and re-inforce each other. (I’m assuming a Calvinist outlook in those who support OSAS.) ##

 

[Jimmy_B]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

John*
Chapter 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
*17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

---

Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer

“Might be” does not imply uncertainty about the future - it is a construction reqired by the use of the subjunctive mood. The further question, one of theology - about the intended and the actual scope of the Redemption - is left in the air.​

---

Gottle of Geer,
Can you please clarify your response to John 3:16? Your response here doesn’t make any sense? On one hand, you make a confusing argument regarding what you belief the term “might not parish” means to you and then finish with, “the actual scope of the Redemption - is left in the air”. What does “left in the air” mean?

Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer

“…they can be disobedient (and will be punished if they are); but they cannot fall away; any more than Christ can be uncrucified”.

Gottle of Geer,
You wrote “…they can be disobedient and will be punished if they are”. Who “will be punished? What do you think the punishment is? Does that mean you believe in purgatory? Or do you believe that God will punish sinners while they are still alive?

You also wrote “they cannot fall away; any more than Christ can be uncrucified”. Do you honestly believe that people with free-will “cannot fall away”? Does that mean that you believe in predestination and infallibility?

I’ve seen the words and phrases, “should be”, “might be”, and “hope” used many times in the Bible referring to salvation. I don’t remember ever reading that “Once Saved” a person is incapable of sinning. I also don’t remember ever reading the quote “Once Saved Always Saved” anywhere in the Bible, maybe you can direct me to that verse?

Gottle of Geer,

Can you please tell me what James 4:13-17 means to you?

 

[Todd_Easton]

For the vast majority of people, it is a presumption to assume that their salvation is guaranteed. However, there have been instances in the past where God has revealed to certain saintly individuals by special revelation that they were predestined to heaven but this has been very rare.

The Council of Trent, in its decree on Justification, said:
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.

 

[Tibbar]

It depends on what is really meant by the assertion.

If one means that trusting in the promises of God, the Father through the redemption and offer of salvation as a free gift that cannot be earned through Christ Jesus, the Son, then it is certainly not sinful. Jesus Christ is the seal and guarantee of salvation for all who hope in Him and place their trust in His finished work.

But if one means that they are free from all personal responsibility to be obedient to the demands of living the Christian life, that they can be utterly disobedient to God the Father through Christ Jesus, the Son, that they “assume” because they once prayed a “sinner’s prayer,” and/or received the sacraments, and/or never stole anything big or murdered anyone, that they will be going straight to heaven when they die is rather presumptive. Jesus Himself warns us that many will say to Him on that day, “Lord, Lord,” and he will say, “Depart from me, you evildoers.”

We must not presume arrogantly that we can continue to sin like the devil after having, by God’s grace and the power of God, the Holy Spirit, responded to God’s gracious and unmerited invitation, and having received Christ as our Savior and Lord. Yet, we must also recognize that God is faithful to His promises, and will not let any that are His fall from His “hands.” There is absolutely nothing we can do to earn salvation. It is a gift freely lavished upon us by our loving and generous God. We demonstrate how we have received this gift through the manner by which we live. It is this priceless gift, the gift of God in Christ Jesus, Our Lord, that inspires us to cooperate with God’s grace at work in our lives, and to allow God to work in and through us, His children.

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

Yes it’s sinful. Even St. Paul did NOT think that his salvation was guaranteed once and for all at the moment he first received Christ as his LORD and SAVIOR - for he wrote “I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1 Cor. 9:27)

Matthew also tells us: “he that shall perservere unto the end, shall be saved.” (Matt 10:22)
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=109

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[muledog]

I was taught that the unforgiveable “sins against the Holy Spirit” as discussed in Scripture by St. Paul refer to presumption and dispair.

Both sins remove the Holy Spirit from the salvation picture.

 

[m134e5]

JMJ

• Is it sinful to assume that your salvation is “guaranteed”?
• Does it show a lack of humility or respect for our Lord?
• **Does it amount to assuming God’s role in final judgment? **
• Isn’t it better to approach our salvation with humility, fear and trembling in the “hope” of our salvation and put our final judgment in God’s hands?

---

1.) Yes- this sin is called presumption, and it is a mortal sin.

2.) Yes

3.) Yes

4.) Yes (though you must be careful that your fear of the Lord turn into despair- which is the opposite of presumption)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Tibbar:

It depends on what is really meant by the assertion.

If one means that trusting in the promises of God, the Father through the redemption and offer of salvation as a free gift that cannot be earned through Christ Jesus, the Son, then it is certainly not sinful. Jesus Christ is the seal and guarantee of salvation for all who hope in Him and place their trust in His finished work.

But if one means that they are free from all personal responsibility to be obedient to the demands of living the Christian life, that they can be utterly disobedient to God the Father through Christ Jesus, the Son, that they “assume” because they once prayed a “sinner’s prayer,” and/or received the sacraments, and/or never stole anything big or murdered anyone, that they will be going straight to heaven when they die is rather presumptive. Jesus Himself warns us that many will say to Him on that day, “Lord, Lord,” and he will say, “Depart from me, you evildoers.”

We must not presume arrogantly that we can continue to sin like the devil after having, by God’s grace and the power of God, the Holy Spirit, responded to God’s gracious and unmerited invitation, and having received Christ as our Savior and Lord. Yet, we must also recognize that God is faithful to His promises, and will not let any that are His fall from His “hands.” There is absolutely nothing we can do to earn salvation. It is a gift freely lavished upon us by our loving and generous God. We demonstrate how we have received this gift through the manner by which we live. It is this priceless gift, the gift of God in Christ Jesus, Our Lord, that inspires us to cooperate with God’s grace at work in our lives, and to allow God to work in and through us, His children.

I think this is accurate. We’re not supposed to live in morbid fear of our salvation (thanks, Karl, for that pharase!), because we can trust Jesus to keep His Promises to those who are faithful to Him…but that’s the catch. We have to be faithful and obedient. We have to take up our cross and follow him, not rest on some sinner’s prayer recited in the distant past. We cannot know with absolute certainty because we cannot see the future. We may very well leave Him at some point.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jimmy B:

Gottle of Geer,

Can you please clarify your response to John 3:16? Your response here doesn’t make any sense? On one hand, you make a confusing argument regarding what you belief the term “might not parish” means to you and then finish with, "the actual scope of the Redemption - is left in the air". What does “left in the air” mean?

First - sorry for the delay.​

“is left in the air” simply means “is not adverted to, is left undiscussed” - it must be a way of speaking that isn’t become part of US English: IOW, it’s a Britannicism. Sorry

As to this - - -

## “Might be” does not imply uncertainty about the future - it is a construction reqired by the use of the subjunctive mood. The further question, one of theology - about the intended and the actual scope of the Redemption - is left in the air. ##

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world will be saved through him” would not be idiomatic English - “I send…so that he will” is poor English. “I send…and he will…” is better; but “I am sending…and he will…” is best.

Sometimes Greek syntactical constructions match those in English - sometimes, as with “Whom do men say that I man ?”, English usage is different from NT Greek. ##

• • • all that means, is that the Greek grammar does not work in quite the same way as English - it allow for shades of meaning and for constructions, that aren’t possible in English. For example, “Whom do men say that I am ?” (which the AV/KJV has in Matthew 16) is poor English because it is following a construction which is present in Greek, but not in English; which is why it is not present in modern versions of the passage.

The relevant point is that “might” in modern English implies the possibility “might not” - as you notice in your post. However, “might” also occurs in constructions using the subjunctive - and in modern English the subjunctive has been very largely lost; but it is found in NT Greek. The difference in meaning is that between:

• I save (in the indicative)

&

• I might save
• I should save
• I would save
• I may save

• (in the subjunctive).

Things are complicated in English by the use of “could”, “should”, “might”, & “may” - to a great extent they are now used for each other. A similar simplification took place in Greek.

The problem is, that “I could go to Washington tomorrow” does not mean quite the same as “I should go to Washington tomorrow” - “could” implies ability, “should” implies duty or obligation, without touching upon ability at all; “I might go to Washington tomorrow”, can be read impliying that one might not - it can also be was implying nothing.

Matters are further complicated by the connection in meaning between “could” & “can”.

When languages with different shades of meaning which are conveyed in different ways are translated the one from the other, problems arise - and the problems are especially acute when the translated texts are texts about ideas and doctrines; theological doctrines especially - a sentence can change meaning subtly but significantly, according as it is punctuated; the difference between the Arians & their opponents hinged on the presence or absence of a single letter. So meaning matters - which means that precise distinctions in grammar and syntax can be very important.

So “might” was dictated by the requirements of English grammar; for “…that the world will be…” is bad English; “might be”, is correct English The use of the word doesn’t reflect uncertainty - it’s used because it is good English to use it. English usage, not the theology of salvation, is the reason for its use.

Hope that helps ##

Gottle of Geer,
You wrote “…they can be disobedient and will be punished if they are”. Who "will be punished?

If you see my context, it should be clear that I was referring to the elect ​

What do you think the punishment is?

[continued…]

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Mother Angelica told the story of a monk who was dying and really happy and self-assured and his superior asked him are you not a little afraid to go before the Lord brother,and he said no.Then the superior said are you sure you are not presuming your judgement and he said yes,I am going to be with the Lord and I am sure of it.Perplexed the superior said why are you so sureand he told him,not one time in my life have I judged anyone and Jesus said if you do not judge you will not be judged.In the case of this brother I do not think it was sinful.What do you guys think?

 

[Kristina_P]

Many people who believe in a guarantee of salvation are only believing in something that they think God has promised. For them, it would seem like a rejection of God’s faithfulness to deny that He has guaranteed their salvation. If someone has been misled in this way, I think it’s possible for such a belief to be really pious and accompanied by humility, gratefulness, and obedience.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued…]

I have no idea - people seem to think that Calvinists think that the elect are not punished for their sins. They are; God has no favourites. But they remain elected to salvation; “elected” does not imply “unpunished”; the result instead is that the sins of the elect cannot overcome the electing purpose of God. The difference is between the elect and the non-elect, who may well be indistinguishable to man’s eyes: God elects whom He wills, and rejects whom He wills. This is a mystery too profound for us to plumb; because God does it, it is a holy & good work. The distinction is in the secret purpose of God; not in how men may appear to other men. God punishes his sons for their disobedience, severely at times - but He does not disinherit them; a disobedient son is still a son, because he is adopted in Christ & for His Glory: so -​

• “Judgement begins at the household of God”;
• “We are chastened with the world, that we may not be condemned with the world”;
• “Those whom I love, I rebuke and chasten”;

• one could go on. Christians do not evade punishment for sins by being Christian. If anything, their Father is severer with them than with others because He loves them more than others; so He scourges sons, when He does not scourge bastards; bastards are not sons, they are not “fellow-heirs with Christ” - his adopted sons, whom He punishes for their wrong-doing, are “fellow-heirs with Christ”; so He takes pains with them that He does not take with others. And this is because He loves them. For the gory details, see Hebrews 12 ##

Does that mean you believe in purgatory? Or do you believe that God will punish sinners while they are still alive?

To the first: certainly I do, being Catholic ​

To the second: I thought we took for granted that they did, just as Calvinists do ##

You also wrote "they cannot fall away; any more than Christ can be uncrucified

". Do you honestly believe that people with free-will “cannot fall away”? Does that mean that you believe in predestination and infallibility?

“Yes” to all three - because human free will is not contradicted by assurance of salvation. Any more than the reality of the free will of God contradicts the reality of ours: both of them are facts - that we don’t understand how this can be, without a contradiction, does not mean it is not so. How can those whom Christ has in His hands fall away ? He is able to work in them, so as both to guarantee their freedom, and so as to maintain the direction of their will in its pointing back to Him; His activity in them, is the magnetism in the iron of which the compass-needle is made which leads it to point to Him, the Magnetic North, and the attractiveness to which that needle points. Compass-needles function as the good compass-needles they are, by pointing to magnetic North; and man created in the image of God and restored in Christ by the grace of Christ, tends of his very nature to Christ. Christ is Who man is created for - it would be unnatural for him to tend elsewhere; because that which resembles Christ, and has been created for the glory of Christ, and is attracted by Christ, toward Christ, is behaving as the grace-filled man it has become, by being free only in Christ. There is freedom nowhere else - not real freedom. The elect are under no compulsion but that of the Love of Christ “poured into [their] hearts through the Holy Spirit” - through Whose ministry “[they] are transformed from one degree of glory into another”. As if the action of God were not enough, St. Paul asks (Romans 8.31-39) “What shall separate us from the love of Christ?” He lists a lot of things, and concludes that nothing will - that “we are more than conquerors through Him Who Loved us”. The essential point about OSAS, ISTM, is that it is not founded in the weak & wavering will of man - but on the utterly solid & faithful & gracious working of God.

I definitely believe in predestination - it’s in Romans 8.29-30. There are several interpretations of it allowed in the Church; that of St.Thomas is closest to Calvin’s - they differ most noticeably in their understanding of reprobation. A more general difference between Calvinist & Catholic thought on predestination, is that Catholic theologians distinguish between predestination “to grace” & “to glory”, which Calvinists don’t. How far the Catholic distinction is real, and how far purely conceptual, I don’t know. ##

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

There are ISTM two main problems with Calvinist predestination:

Calvin’s notion of reprobation owes more to logic than to the Bible

It seems to imply that God does not sincerely desire the salvation of all mankind; and so, to imply that God, not man, is the true cause of man’s damnation. Which if true, is hard to reconcile with Catholic doctrine. One can’t really touch on one issue in Calvinism without touching on many more - TULIP is a logical body of doctrinal assertions; & P (Perseverance of the Saints) is AKA OSAS. Certain doctrinal positions can’t be held by Catholics - whether the positions that are condemned are what Calvin and others held, is another matter. “Second looks” & reconsiderations of this sort are not unusual in ecumenical discussion.

One of the things that needs to be sorted out is

• what we mean by free will
• what Calvinists mean by it
• what we think they mean by it
• what they think we mean by it

• for IMO there is a great deal of mutual misunderstanding here

I’ve seen the words and phrases, “should be”, "might be

", and “hope” used many times in the Bible referring to salvation. I don’t remember ever reading that “Once Saved” a person is incapable of sinning. I also don’t remember ever reading the quote “Once Saved Always Saved” anywhere in the Bible, maybe you can direct me to that verse?

As you’re doubtless well aware, neither does the word “Trinity” - and as people so frequently point out, the absence of the word from the Bible is not the same as the absence of the thing There are several places one can look at for the notion of OSAS - what needs to be underlined, is that OSAS does not in the slightest imply freedom from sin; some may connect the two ideas in that way, but the connection is not a necessary one.​

OSAS Calvinists need hope as much as we do - for OSAS does not presuppose, either logically or necessarily, that hope is needless. ##

Gottle of Geer,

Can you please tell me what James 4:13-17 means to you?

This ? -​

“Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get gain”; whereas you do not know about tomorrow. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” -

God’s Providence is universal & particular & the passage does not deny that. Still less does it deny OSAS; which is a specific operation of Providence on behalf of those whom He has chosen, in Christ, to be His own. All of that is in the NT. The certainty of OSAS is not in us - it is in God. Left to ourselves, we slip & slide and fall all over the place, like children learning to skate, and practising to do so. OSAS is not based on human boasting - what a ridiculous idea - & it can’t be; since it comes wholly from God’s grace and not all from man.

We don’t have to understand how God keeps us - but we do have to believe that He does. For that is one of the things He requires of us. What sort of children are we, if we disbelieve Him ? If we can believe that He protects us day by day, why is OSAS incredible ?

Sorry this was so long ##