My personal experience with once saved always saved

[ltwin]

Wasn’t it a chief tenant of Arminian theology that the perseverance of the saints, as taught by the Dutch Calvinist theologians, was in error? i.e., the Remonstration.

The fifth article of the Remonstrance said exactly that. Arminians don’t deny perseverance of the saints. We do believe grace is sufficient, but we don’t believe in irresistible grace.

 

[MacQ]

This, this, this, this! There is a lot of shallow theology being presented as the evangelical norm on this thread.

I don’t think any evangelical on this thread would deny that there are people who believe OSAS. However, I think we sometimes get frustrated when this is presented as the norm or default evangelicalism. It is truly an aberration and radical misunderstanding of evangelicalism.

We Catholics can definitely relate to that!!!

 

[ltwin]

We Catholics can definitely relate to that!!!

I suppose every religious person has moments when their religion is completely misunderstood by others. It’s funny reading this thread and being told that Pentecostals seem to believe in OSAS because growing up my Pentecostal church rejected that idea completely. OSAS was just another reason why we thought the Baptists were wrong and going to hell . . . (That last part was a joke, sort of )

 

[MacQ]

I suppose every religious person has moments when their religion is completely misunderstood by others. It’s funny reading this thread and being told that Pentecostals seem to believe in OSAS because growing up my Pentecostal church rejected that idea completely. OSAS was just another reason why we thought the Baptists were wrong and going to hell . . . (That last part was a joke, sort of )

…well, I am very careful not to name a particular sect or tradition when referring to the OSAS, as I am well aware that there are MANY differences among the various denominations. And, many of the fairly radical OSAS notions I have encountered decline to say what their denomination is, for some reason.
Perhaps we’ll all understand one another better one day.
Meanwhile, I reckon all I can do is try to be respectful.

 

[ltwin]

…well, I am very careful not to name a particular sect or tradition when referring to the OSAS, as I am well aware that there are MANY differences among the various denominations. And, many of the fairly radical OSAS notions I have encountered decline to say what their denomination is, for some reason.
Perhaps we’ll all understand one another better one day.
Meanwhile, I reckon all I can do is try to be respectful.

Yes, I don’t think it’s limited to one denomination. As I’ve said before, I think what is often meant by OSAS is really just shallow theology that tends towards antinomianism.

However, from personal experience and from what I’ve read, it seems that some traditions are more associated with OSAS than others, namely Baptists.

On the other hand, I thought it was pretty widely known that Pentecostals, Wesleyans and other similar evangelicals did not teach OSAS. From what I’ve read on Catholic Answers Forum, it seems that many Catholics are under the impression that all evangelicals teach OSAS.

And I don’t want to come off as saying that all Baptists teach OSAS. I know of Baptists with very nuanced understandings of theology who would most likely think the popularized version (where all you do is say a sinners prayer and that’s it) of OSAS is crude and embarrassing.

I think in many cases, evangelicals fail to properly articulate their doctrine of eternal security and this can contribute to pretty grave and troubling misunderstandings. In other cases, they actually do believe what they are saying, which is even more troubling.

 

[Indifferently]

You certainly can have zero assurance that you are elect.

The gate is narrow and few find it.

I have assurance. I hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and I follow him (no matter how ineptly).

Roman Catholics have no assurance of their salvation and seem quite happy about that. But if they think their good deeds and the quality of their penitential faith is going to merit heaven, they are sorely mistaken. God requires a perfect standard and nothing less.

A good job, then, that we get in by grace through faith on account of the work of Christ alone. The gospel is an objective set of works that Christ has done, imputed to helpless sinners. It’s the RCC which teaches that my justification is the slow transformation of me by the Holy Spirit through the sacraments.

 

[Indifferently]

That s really truly awful. It wars with the whole concept
of who God is and what God does.
If you want to be all SS about it how about
Genesis?
“And He saw that all He created was very good.”

God only creates that which is good. How can He
possibly create something worthy of damnation which
is really all strong predestination teaching is saying.
That for whatever bizarre pathological reason God
creates that which is evil and requires Hell.
Really?

You have forgotten to include the Fall. Man is anything but “good” once sin enters into the world. He is still created in the image of God, but his every inclination is to evil and wickedness (Rom. 3).

 

[marywarfield]

You have forgotten to include the Fall. Man is anything but “good” once sin enters into the world. He is still created in the image of God, but his every inclination is to evil and wickedness (Rom. 3).

That’s why we have Jesus. But are you still saying
that some arbitrarily will not be saved by Him?

 

[josh987654321]

Though I’m not a Calvinist myself, I went to a large Presbyterian church in Philadelphia for a year, and I’ve had very close Presbyterian friends and Baptist friends who believed in the Perseverance of the Saints–“Once a son or daughter of God, always a son or daughter of God”. We’ve discussed this numerous times. My church specifically states it does not teach that people, once having followed Christ cannot turn away, but, again, we’re allowed to discuss the idea.

So, my experience seeing this belief in other people’s lives is that it’s strengthened their faith and drawn them into deeper holiness of life and devotion. I think some people are greatly helped by believing God has them so securely in his hand. They believe that they are so unconditionally loved that they are always a beloved child of God and a forever member of His family, and it actually gives them confidence to repent, return, and finish the race in the assurance that their own wayward tendencies (of which they are well aware) will not win the day.

The people I personally know deeply who believe this are sensitive and thoughtful, psychologically aware, well acquainted with their own weakness and failings, and do well with this stronger assurance from God. I suspect they are the sensitive souls who would be tormented and despairing in scrupulosity if they were Catholic.

I find this interesting, as I reject ‘Once saved always saved’ yet I would say I experience what you have said here and not because of ‘Once saved always saved’ but rather from the unfathomable Divine Mercy of God, (St Faustina )

Diary of St Faustina -

"Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy. Oh, how much I am hurt by a soul’s distrust! Such a soul professes that I am Holy and Just, but does not believe that I am Mercy and does not trust in My Goodness. Even the devils glorify My Justice but do not believe in My Goodness" (Diary, 300).

"My mercy is greater than your sins and those of the entire world. Who can measure the extent of my goodness? For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart. Your misery has disappeared in the depths of My mercy" (Diary, 1485).

"Oh, if sinners knew My mercy, they would not perish in such great numbers. Tell sinful souls not to be afraid to approach Me; speak to them of My great mercy" (Diary, 1396).

When it comes to why I reject ‘Once saved always saved’ I believe this passage Matthew 18:21-35 is very good -
An Official Who Refused To Forgive:

Matthew 18:21-35

21 Peter came up to the Lord and asked, “How many times should I forgive someone who does something wrong to me? Is seven times enough?”

22 Jesus answered:

Not just seven times, but seventy-seven times! 23 This story will show you what the kingdom of heaven is like:

One day a king decided to call in his officials and ask them to give an account of what they owed him. 24 As he was doing this, one official was brought in who owed him fifty million silver coins. 25 But he didn’t have any money to pay what he owed. The king ordered him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all he owned, in order to pay the debt.

26 The official got down on his knees and began begging, “Have pity on me, and I will pay you every cent I owe!” 27 The king felt sorry for him and let him go free. He even told the official that he did not have to pay back the money.

28 As the official was leaving, he happened to meet another official, who owed him a hundred silver coins. So he grabbed the man by the throat. He started choking him and said, “Pay me what you owe!”

29 The man got down on his knees and began begging, “Have pity on me, and I will pay you back.” 30 But the first official refused to have pity. Instead, he went and had the other official put in jail until he could pay what he owed.

31 When some other officials found out what had happened, they felt sorry for the man who had been put in jail. Then they told the king what had happened. 32 The king called the first official back in and said, “You’re an evil man! When you begged for mercy, I said you did not have to pay back a cent. 33 Don’t you think you should show pity to someone else, as I did to you?” 34 The king was so angry that he ordered the official to be tortured until he could pay back everything he owed. 35 That is how my Father in heaven will treat you, if you don’t forgive each of my followers with all your heart.

In the same way, once saved always saved I believe is like saying, once the debt is forgiven it’s always forgiven, however in this passage, we see how by the officals refusal to show that same mercy, his debt was reinstated. I believe it works the same way when Catholics say we are saved by Faith and Works.

Also, if your interested AbideWithMe, Scott Hahn’s conversion story is really good, it’s Scott Hahn’s conversion story that converted my Father to Catholicism, as Scott Hahn used to be an evangelical protestant, his conversion story here - youtube.com/watch?v=FrQN8LHYg5g

It’s the absolute truth to the real presense of the Holy Eucharist that converts so many to catholicism I believe, If you ever get a chance AbideWithMe, I would like to encourage you to vists a local Catholic Church and just sit before the tabernacle and allow His real presense in the Holy Eucharist to warm your heart. Jesus waits for us night and day at the tabernacle, He will not reproach us for our crimes, He will not throw our sins in our face, what He will do is to wash us with the blood of his wounds.

God Bless

Hope I have helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Indifferently]

That’s why we have Jesus. But are you still saying
that some arbitrarily will not be saved by Him?

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
(Rom. 9:22-24)

According to this text, the suggestion is that God creates some people as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, in order to actually both show forth his power and also magnify his great glory in the mercy he shows to those on whom he does not execute his wrath (which he would be entitled to do, but he instead graciously chose to lay the iniquities of his “vessels of mercy” on Jesus instead).

 

[PRmerger]

You have forgotten to include the Fall. Man is anything but “good” once sin enters into the world. He is still created in the image of God, but his every inclination is to evil and wickedness (Rom. 3).

Catholicism sees humanity as good but flawed.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I think it s much much more prevalent than you think.

I agree. From my personal experience sexual sins are the most obvious, ie. people who think that their current “love” (adultery or fornication) won’t matter because they are “saved”.

They all believe in biblical marriage, until it comes to an exception for their own circumstances (or their friends, relatives, parishioners, etc…).

 

[SyroMalankara]

My problem with the entire premise of OSAS is that there is no clear refutation even within the same denominational confession, each OSAS church or even each individual within can choose and justify using the Bible alone.

When Fr. Feeney misunderstood “Outside the Church there is no Salvation!” as meaning “if you are not in the visible Catholic Church you are going to hell”, the Church corrected him severely and made it well known that this is not the orthodox Biblical/Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, the OSAS extremist view can’t be expunged within the general protestant system. Just as “Indifferently” presented his evangelical Anglican view (very Syndey Anglican-Calvinist actually), it contradicts the general Church of England/Oxford view within his same denomination.

(as an aside, I’ve heard it stated that the Church of England was a “via Media” between Rome and Lutheran-Protestantism by clerics within that Church; but in fact, historically, theologically, liturgically, and doctrinally, it is clearly a compromise between early Lutheranism and early Calvinism.)

 

[marywarfield]

My problem with the entire premise of OSAS is that there is no clear refutation even within the same denominational confession, each OSAS church or even each individual within can choose and justify using the Bible alone.

When Fr. Feeney misunderstood “Outside the Church there is no Salvation!” as meaning “if you are not in the visible Catholic Church you are going to hell”, the Church corrected him severely and made it well known that this is not the orthodox Biblical/Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, the OSAS extremist view can’t be expunged within the general protestant system. Just as “Indifferently” presented his evangelical Anglican view (very Syndey Anglican-Calvinist actually), it contradicts the general Church of England/Oxford view within his same denomination.

(as an aside, I’ve heard it stated that the Church of England was a “via Media” between Rome and Lutheran-Protestantism by clerics within that Church; but in fact, historically, theologically, liturgically, and doctrinally, it is clearly a compromise between early Lutheranism and early Calvinism.)

Very good post.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have assurance. I hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and I follow him (no matter how ineptly).

And yet the Calvinism you subscribe declares that the “hearing” is simply self delusion. You can never know if you are elect or not. The fact that you follow him is inconsequential as you’ve clearly stated over and over.

Roman Catholics have no assurance of their salvation and seem quite happy about that. But if they think their good deeds and the quality of their penitential faith is going to merit heaven, they are sorely mistaken. God requires a perfect standard and nothing less.

A good job, then, that we get in by grace through faith on account of the work of Christ alone. The gospel is an objective set of works that Christ has done, imputed to helpless sinners. It’s the RCC which teaches that my justification is the slow transformation of me by the Holy Spirit through the sacraments.

No I suppose we don’t have assurance. Instead we have hope and faith in God’s faithfulness. That if we turn from a life of sin to a life of following Christ and if we believe and confess Christ God will do what he said and give us everlasting life.

 

[Indifferently]

My problem with the entire premise of OSAS is that there is no clear refutation even within the same denominational confession, each OSAS church or even each individual within can choose and justify using the Bible alone.

When Fr. Feeney misunderstood “Outside the Church there is no Salvation!” as meaning “if you are not in the visible Catholic Church you are going to hell”, the Church corrected him severely and made it well known that this is not the orthodox Biblical/Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, the OSAS extremist view can’t be expunged within the general protestant system. Just as “Indifferently” presented his evangelical Anglican view (very Syndey Anglican-Calvinist actually), it contradicts the general Church of England/Oxford view within his same denomination.

(as an aside, I’ve heard it stated that the Church of England was a “via Media” between Rome and Lutheran-Protestantism by clerics within that Church; but in fact, historically, theologically, liturgically, and doctrinally, it is clearly a compromise between early Lutheranism and early Calvinism.)

I’m an opponent of Sydney Anglicanism, for the most part. Some good sermons but they’ve thrown out all the Anglican distinctives.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I have assurance. I hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and I follow him (no matter how ineptly).

So does your assurance lie in your works (following Him) and how much you believe you are justified?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m an opponent of Sydney Anglicanism, for the most part. Some good sermons but they’ve thrown out all the Anglican distinctives.

Is there any official stance within Anglicanism on the Sydney practice being the preferred model, or to the contrary a model to be suppressed; or is it simply personal preference?

 

[Indifferently]

Is there any official stance within Anglicanism on the Sydney practice being the preferred model, or to the contrary a model to be suppressed; or is it simply personal preference?

It just so happens to be a model of evangelical theology merged with the modern relaxed semi/nonliturgical stuff. They always refer to their services as “meetings”, don’t like calling their clergy “priests” and generally neglect communion.

A lot of conservative evangelicals in England have gone the same way. I don’t like it - seems like a consumer-driven model.

 

[pablope]

I have assurance. I hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and I follow him (no matter how ineptly).

So…do you then think you will not be judged anymore after death and at the Second Coming’s general judgement?

Roman Catholics have no assurance of their salvation and seem quite happy about that. But if they think their good deeds and the quality of their penitential faith is going to merit heaven, they are sorely mistaken. God requires a perfect standard and nothing less.