Once saved always saved conversation

[John_the_Blind]

Sooooooo say I claim to be ‘saved’ by accepting Jesus into my life, and then later fall way and renounce my faith and join another faith diametrically opposed to Christianity, and work very, very hard to be a good member of that new faith. Let’s say I die while a member of that other faith. I’m still ‘saved’ ?

Where’s the incentive to ‘follow the rules’ of Christianity if you can do anything you like and it’s all good? Where’s the incentive to lead a good life and avoid sin?

Why should God bring you into his Grace if you’re not going to lift a finger to do his will or even acknowledge him? Are you THAT good a person on your own that you DESERVE and DEMAND salvation?

OSAS is an empty bill of goods to try and get you to sign on- if you want salvation you better be working for it each and every day.

If the bumper-sticker ‘John 3:16’ is all that’s needed, why the need for Jesus to offer his commandments? Why all the instructions if there’s no downside to ignoring them?

 

[CelticWarlord]

The OSAS idea is that once you have “accepted Christ as your personal Lord and Savior” you are saved. But they then say that this person was never truly saved. What hogwash!

I had this thrown in my face a few years ago after joining a Protestant discussion forum. At the time, rather than go in to a long and convoluted explanation of my spiritual leanings at the time I simply said I was a “former Christian who was still pro-Jesus in temperament”. One lady, a former Catholic I might add, got very sidetracked with this and became obsessed over trying to convince me that there is no such thing as a “former Christian”; that if I didn’t accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior now, then I never had to begin with. I decided to take up the challenge and ask her how she defined a Christian, which she did. Well, I said, I met all those requirements ten years ago but don’t now. She persisted until she finally ran out of gas.

 

[ziapueblo]

Christians don’t believe the Bible is the only source, only that it’s the most authoritative source to which other sources must defer.

What about when there was no New Testament Scripture? Let’s face it, by the time the whole of the NT was complete, we’re looking around the end of the first century. And for three more centuries different Christian communities were using different texts that are not found in Scripture. Some of the oldest manuscripts are not the NT Scriptures we know today (books that we do not have in our NT as well as books in our NT that are not included in these manuscripts). Without a “inspired” table of contents, how do you know what books belong in the NT? How do you know Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Saint Matthew? There is no where in the Gospel that says who wrote the book.

What then held the faith together? The Tradition of the Church, which still holds the faith together to this day, what was handed down, not only written but taught.

or from the ECFs or some other source?

Of course we one should go to the early Church Father’s, but I do not know many non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians who even know who they are.

ZP

 

[Hobgoblin]

That’s a great point. Everybody who was Catholic before the Reformation believed Catholic doctrines. Thanks for pointing that out.

A great point that I didn’t make.

Why so snarky? Have I done something to offend you ?

 

[De_Maria]

You have me at a disadvantage. I’m not Catholic and so showing the overwhelming Biblical evidence and ECF writing for the Biblical doctrine of eternal security would be considered “proselytizing” and I would be banned.

No. On this forum, you’re allowed to provide any evidence you feel supports your argument.

I’ll just say that if you believe God goes back on His promises and that Christ is incompetent to keep our salvation, then we worship two very different gods.

We believe that God keeps His promises and that Christ is eminently competent.

We simply don’t believe the Protestant interpretation of the Word of God.

Here’s the promise that God made:

Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This is reiterated by Jesus Christ:

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Do you have a different promise which you prefer to emphasize?

 

[ziapueblo]

Actually, the first New Testament books (James) is dated to about 45 AD.

And the last one, Revelation, between 75-100 AD

There’s no such thing as an inspired table of contents.

I know.

We believe Matthew wrote Matthew because his contemporaries believed he did and because there are numerous textual clues that would be consistent with other things we know about Mathew. But let’s say we don’t know who wrote Matthew. Does that make it any less inspired?

This is the Tradition of our Church.

What Church Fathers teach eternal security?

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Feel free to come over to CARM and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

Been on that site many, many many times. Why not discuss here. Many non-Catholic Christians along with Catholic Christians have great discussions on this forum (most of the time).

ZP

 

[fhansen]

That’s about the only comeback that can work, albeit clumsily, if one takes the OSAS position. The honest truth is that God, alone, knows with perfect certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not to begin with, who will persevere to the end and who will not.

 

[De_Maria]

ziapueblo:

And the last one, Revelation, between 75-100 AD

Irrelevant.

I know.

Then your statement was illogical.

What Church Fathers teach eternal security?

Unfortunately, I can’t post that here, because, this being a forum to beat up on Christians, any Biblical or historical source used to explain Christian beliefs is considered “Proselytizing and promoting doctrines contrary to Catholicism” and we get banned.

On the contrary, we are happy to hear about the early Church Fathers. Your reluctance to post about them means that you recognize that the early Church Fathers were thoroughly Catholic.

Feel free to come over to CARM and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

I go there everyday. You didn’t seem too happy to discuss them with me or any other Catholic.

 

[De_Maria]

And I give eternal life to them and they will never perish and no one will snatch them from My hand.

John 10:28

We believe that. What we don’t believe is:

when they declare themselves saved, then I will give eternal life to them and they will never perish and no one will snatch them from My hand.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Benadam]

What Church Fathers teach eternal security?

I think there are only two eternal realities that have entered our world. Death and God Incarnate.

 

[Hobgoblin]

when they declare themselves saved , then I will give eternal life to them and they will never perish and no one will snatch them from My hand.

John 10 might be the strongest passage for OSAS. I’ve also heard it countered that no one can snatch you, but you can remove yourself. I’m not sure what the official Catholic explanation of this passage is. Maybe somebody can post it?

I tried and very much wanted to believe OSAS while I was in Protestant circles. It isn’t even coherent though. It’s clear we keep sinning even after coming to Christ. At what point is it too much? If you fall away they’ll say you were never saved in the first place. Unless you come back, then you were always saved and your coming back proves it. Unless you leave again… Supposedly, it gives great assurance to the believer, but the truth is it can give no assurance at all and can even foster a damnable sense of license to sin. Even before I returned to Catholicism I realized it was wrong. The problem is the Protestant concept of a point in time salvation event. Salvation isn’t a point in this life. It’s a process. You aren’t out of the woods until you’re in Heaven. If no performance is required and you can be saved against your will then free will is out the window. You’re into Calvinist territory where God is picking winners and all you can do is hope you’re picked.

It’s also interesting to note that OSAS isn’t universally accepted in Protestant churches. In fact, I think it has minority support overall. I found it most prevalent in Fundamentalist churches.

 

[englands123]

I can only say from my own experience…

Years ago I done something bad and broke the heart of a loved one. Some evil is good as it brings us back to God.

I returned as reborn Catholic and reformed.

But during them awful moments the Lord told me this and I have told all my close friends and family. Some think I’m mad!!

The voice said , I’ve been watching you and I was very close to closing the doors between you.and I. But now they are reopened / ajar. Stay on the right path and do not return to your old ways. When you reach 80 yrs old I will return to collect you. Until then be carful.

I am now afraid of God even though I changed my catholic faith completely around.

I’ve heard people say once your saved you are always saved. Perhaps if you are not a true sinner as I was you are saved.

But for me it’s not granted and I have never cheated on my mrs everagain. Out of fear.

 

[De_Maria]

Thanks be to God! No, you’re not mad.

Thanks for your witness!

 

[Hobgoblin]

Here’s a link with a history of this teaching including quotes from early church figures that clearly repudiate it:

The Early Church believed in Once Saved, Always… oh, Wait, No They Didn’t! – The Pint, The Pipe and The Cross

 

[lagerald24]

No one before John Calvin believed in the doctrine of ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’. Even Augustine of Hippo, whom many Protestants respect, did not hold to this doctrine that the Protestants came up with.

 

[Hobgoblin]

The funny part is Calvin might have based his theology on a misunderstanding of Augustine’s writings.

@Jrp72 OSAS is a tenet of Calvinism and can be refuted on that basis. There are plenty of Googleable links for refuting Calvinism. It can be boiled down to common sense though…which is what helped me ditch the belief. If Calvinism/OSAS is true then the universe is an absurdity where our choices make no difference at all. God has saved and damned who he chooses and no one ever had a chance otherwise. God becomes a monster who effectively creates people with the intention of damning them. And since those he “saved” couldn’t resist him, they’re little more than robots. Why even bother with this mess of a universe? Free will must exist or nothing makes sense.

 

[HollowMan]

Any moderators care to explain why this post was hidden?