Once saved, always saved ... How does it work?

[Fiat]

Martin Luther:

You stated:

I know that Catholics believe that you must act toward the will of God. However, if you believe that free-will is a natural attribute which makes us human it would be interesting to see what you would say in response to Romans 9:14 where the same objection is raised. That is, that the removal of free-will dehumanizes us and makes him unjust. Note how Paul responds:

I don’t really see how you are using Romans 9:14 to defeat the Catholic position that man has free will.

In the same vein, doesn’t St. Paul make it very clear that God wills that ALL men be saved in 1 Tim 2:4.

That being the case, why didn’t Martin Luther nix the notion of hell?

Fiat

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hey Philithy!

You haven’t given us one reason WHY god needs to demonstrate his power and righteous, nor his mercy and free love to a population of people he already has saved or condemned. This revelation will not affect them in any way, according to your theology. All you have done with this answer is run in a circle - you have not reached any endpoint. In addition, the verse you quoted is by no means a GENERAL application, it is a PARTICULAR application and does not, of necessity, apply to ALL of God’s people.

It sure does answer the question. It is right there in the text:

**

** Romans 9:14-15**

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

At first glance, this just sounds like a restatement of the problem until you read the context of the passage in Exodus:

**

** Exodus 33:19-20 **

**And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

Notice that the context of the passage in Exodus is about displaying the glory of God before Moses. What can we conclude from this? It is part of God’s very glory to do these very things, that is, to show his wrath against evil, and his merciful grace.

**

** Romans 3:23-25 **

**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–

Notice that here we have the punishment of sins in the context of atonement. Again, it is God’s nature to show is wrath against sin. That is what it means to be Yahweh! Hence, the answer to your question is right there in the text.

As far as your general verses particular application, that is hard to hold exegetically. Later Paul says:

**

Romans 11:7

** What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

According to this text, if you were not elect, you were hardened. This text is extremely important in the unity in Romans 9-11. It is also difficult to take this position exegetically because of the fact that not only is the entire context of Romans 9-11 against you, but also verses 23-24 of Romans 9:

**

Romans 9:23-24

** And *He did so *in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 *even *us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. **

Notice that this election is all over the globe from all people, both Jews and Gentiles. How then this can be a particular application, I don’t know.

Those are very nice thoughts, but isn’t it a truly selfish response for someone to love God because God, for some unknown reason, spared them the punishment that their peers, whom God willed to reject him, got? No compassion for the fallen? Just elation in my own undeserved status? That’s called being lucky - and luck does not foster a “most complete” love, nor does it foster “intense” worship. At least I don’t think so.

Phil, I don’t know who the elect are. No one does. Also, the reason is not unknown. It is for God’s ultimate plan and purpose. Hence, it is not “luck” because it is God who chooses for his own purpose. If anything realizing that the wicked are getting what they deserved should make me aware of the fact that I should be getting what they deserve. Then only reason I am not is because of the free grace of God.

I know that it does not foster intense worship in your heart, Phil, because, as I told CarolMarie, until you see yourself as clay in the hands of God being molded as he pleases, you will not realize and fear God for who he is. It fosters great worship on me when I think that were it not for the unconditional grace of God, I would be where they are. There is nothing to be selfish about because all of this is unconditional. I guess that is something you will never understand unless you see yourself in the manner Romans 9 describes, and have your heart changed by the Holy Spirit of God.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Fiat!

I don’t really see how you are using Romans 9:14 to defeat the Catholic position that man has free will.

Actually, I think that it is the entirety of Romans 9 that provides difficulty for the Catholic position. The person to whom I was responding to was making the accustation that we are not humans if we don’t have free-will, sorta making the God spoken of in Romans 9 into a cosmic Hitler. I was pointing out two things about these verses. The first is that the very objection he stated is right there in the text of Romans 9 in verse 14. Paul answers the objection right there by defending the justice of God by his name as I mentioned in my last post. However, the conclusion in verse 16 which denies that salvation is dependent upon human willing or running and the illustration from Pharoah being raised up for the purpose of being hardened to proclaim God’s power is responding with my position.

In the same vein, doesn’t St. Paul make it very clear that God wills that ALL men be saved in 1 Tim 2:4.

That being the case, why didn’t Martin Luther nix the notion of hell?

Well, first of all, we have got to be careful when we are handling scripture. The phrase “all men” has many usages in the NT. In Acts 22:15, Jesus tells the disciples they would be a witness to “all men” of what they saw and heard. Obviously, there were some men in kingdoms of Africa that died before they were a witness to them. Also, what about the men who lived before them? How could they be a witness to them? In 2 Corinthians 3:2 he tells the Corinthian church that they are known by “all men.” Again, how could a pagan in northern England at the time have known of the Corinthian church? How could someone who existed before the Corinthian church know of the Corinthian Church? In Philippians 4:5 we are told to let our gentle spirit be known to “all men.” Does that mean I have to get in a plane and go to every person on the entire planet and show them my gentle spirit, and then build a time machine and go to every person who has ever lived and will live and show my gentle spirit to them? 1 Thessalonians 2:15 and Titus 2:11 are other places where it would be difficult to take this phrase to mean “all mankind.”

Hence, what is the context of this passage in 1 Timothy? Notice, Paul defines his terms in verses 1 and 2:

**

1 Timothy 2:1-2

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties *and *prayers, petitions *and *thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. **

Now, first of all it is obvious from this text that God does not want us to take a list of everyone in the world and start with the A section and take time praying for each and every person. There is a much easier solution. The enboldened phrase has a nice parallel in the Greek language. It looks like so:

1b. huper pantōn anthrōpōn
1c. huper basileōn kai pantōn tōn en huperochē(i) ontōn

Note the parallels not only both phrases containing the same preposition [huper], but also the rhythem with all of the “ōn” endings. Hence, the parallel here is between the “all men” in 1b and the “Kings and rulers in authority” of 2a. Now this definition by Paul is given it’s reason in the rest of the verse “to live a quiet life.” Hence, Paul is here telling them to pray, not just for the people who are friendly to them, but also for their kings who are trying to kill them. Hence, the meaning of “all men” is “all classes of men” which would be similar to the meanings found in Philippians 4:5 and 2 Corinthians 3:2. That is then the meaning of “who wants all men to be saved” in verse 4.

The most powerful argument against taking this text in the way you have stated is in verse 5:

---

1 Timothy 2:4-5

** who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, **

Of course, if you take verse 4 to mean “all mankind,” then you are left with the idea in verse 5 that Christ mediates for all of humankind. Hebrews 7:25 very clearly says that Christ saves all he mediates for, hence, he would save every individual, and the text then teaches universalism. That is also why you can’t take verse 6 in this way either.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[carol_marie]

Hi Martin Luther,

Oh brother… my head is starting to spin. You show us your verses, we show you ours - both to prove our points. When we’re finished here we can call up the Jehovah’s Witnesses because they have a slew of verses to support their beliefs. When we’re done with them, lets go visit the Penticostals because they have some swinging worship services and if all that speaking in tongues & being slain in the spirit creeps you out, don’t worry… they have verses to back it up. After that we could take in a Klan meeting. What? You’re not racist? Well me either, in fact I can’t stand that sort of thing, but you have to give them credit because they’ve got verses to support their views. Get my point? That’s why SOLA SCRIPTURA doesn’t work. The Bible is way too complicated and we could debate our points all day long but that just leads to confusion which God would NOT have wanted. Which is exactly why he established a CHURCH. Jesus told Peter feed my sheep. He didn’t hand him a box of Bibles & say pass these out and have everyone decide for themselves what it all means. :nope:

 

[ReadURBible]

Isn’t the bible the Word of God?

Please everyone read your bible

Read different bible versions if you get done with the first one.

God will reveal his word to you in the bible

It’s not that hard.

Peace
John 14:7 If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him."

 

[carol_marie]

I read my Bible all the time but I am much like the Ethiopian who was reading the book of Isaiah when Philip ran up to him and said, "Do you understand what you are reading? And he replied, “How can I unless someone explains it to me?” So Philip sat with him, explained the verse and told him the good news about Jesus. Philip did NOT say, “Keep reading & praying… God will show you.” For HUNDREDS of years there weren’t any Bibles and even when there were, people couldn’t read. Do you really think the Bible alone is the method God would’ve used to convey the very important message about His Son?? For hundreds and hundreds of years the majority of the world would’ve been left in the dark.

How thankful I am that God established a Church instead.

 

[ncgolf]

Martin Luther:

Hello ncgolf! This is all insupport of 9:16 which completely rules out human will or effort in the matter of salvation.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

Sorry if I ramble and sometimes give confusing text but I will try again. I do not see what you see in Romans 9. I see God’s wrath of the hardend heart given after death, not before. Before death we are still moldable, even for the most wretched, still free to be open to God’s grace or not. It is only after death and its consequential judgement is the justice of God delivered. Since we can no longer repent or use our free will for what God desires we do we then incur our punishment or reward. After death we are no longer bound by time so whatever the state we leave earthly life is where we shall remain … at that moment do each of us know where we will spend eternity.

Although God knew that Pharoah would never turn to God … He was given plenty of chances. We can only blame ourselves for rejecting God, not God for rejecting us. To me that is why divine justice is so merciful … at death one can see all God gave and how we rejected it … not because He created us that way but because we chose the path to either heavenly riches or hellish despair.

I do not believe that God creates his creatures already pre-destined, chosen, elected whatever the verb to spend eternity away from Him. He is most merciful and gives all graces needed to spend eternity with Him but sorrowfully many reject it … but no one is condemned until death.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello CarolMarie!

It is really hard to know how to respond to your text since I think this is a misrepresentation of what has been going on. We have been discussing a particular passage: Romans 9. I have not left the text since we got on this topic except for a text in Romans 11 to discuss the unity between Romans 9-11, and Romans 3 to demonstrate that the reason God desires to show wrath is because of his nature in harmony with 9:15. That is it. All of the rest of the texts I have discussed are in Romans 9 or quoted by Romans 9. I think the only other text that Roman Catholics have brought up is 1 Timothy 2:4, and I responded to it fully. However, we have tried to stay in Romans 9, and try to see if it will fit with Roman Catholic theology. Hence, it is not a case of me bringing up my verses and you bringing up your verses.

Second, apparently, just because you can do an interpretation of scripture that means that your interpretation is valid. Some of those interpretations wouldn’t last five minutes under exegetical scrutiny. The reality is that when you take an extrabiblical authority what ends up happening is that you cannot do exegesis. The reason is because you cannot see anything contrary to the ultimate authority you have adopted. Because I am a protestant and believe that I am responsible to God for what I believe, I am capible of doing exegesis because I do not have an extrascriptural authority to uphold.

There is also another problem. Why the Roman Catholic Church? Notice, all of the groups you listed, The Watchtower, the Pentacostal Church, and the KKK all deny sola scriptura. Why not accept on of those groups’ ultimate authority? Why not say that they are the ultimate authority we are supposed to follow? They all say they they are. Does the fact that they all claim to have ultimate authority mean that the principle of scripture plus and infallible interpreter doesn’t work? All groups that have scripture plus an infallible interpreter have different views. What you have given is an infinitely regressive argument. If we need an extrascriptural interpreter to tell us which interpretation of the scriptures we are to have, then we need another extrascriptural authority to tell us which extrascriptural authority we have to tell us which interpretation of the scriptures we are to have. Then we need another extrascriptural authority to tell us which extrascriptural authority we need to tell us which extrascriptural authority we need to tell us which interpretation of the scriptures we are to have. Then we need an extrascriptural authority to tell us which extrascriptural authority we need to tell us which extrascriptural authority we need to tell us which extra authority we need to tell us which interpretation of the scriptures we are to have. You see, it is infinitely regressive. You will always need another interpreter so that you do not have to decide which interpreter you need to tell you which interpretation of scripture you are to have. The reality is that you had to make a fallible decision to put your trust in the Roman Catholic Church.

I totally disagree that the Bible is too complicated. The reason there are so many interpretations is because people don’t follow Sola Scriptura, not because they do. Eventually, the facts will be laid out, and one side will not be able to take the exegetical scrutiny, and it will show. However, if you have to substantiate an extrabiblical authority, you can totally misuse any text you want because you are in the service of that extrabiblical authority, and it’s teachings.

You also seem to have the idea that it is just me and the Bible out in the woods somewhere. No, we are able to hold Bible studies, and have pastors preach and teach. If there is a particular passage we have difficulty with, there is nothing wrong with asking someone. However, they are still to be corrected by the ultimate authority of scripture. This is how someone who couldn’t read could have the words read to them, and how they could have gotten a copy if they did not have it. As far as not having a Bible, the church had a Bible from the moment the Holy Spirit inspired the last New Testament book to be written. Hence, to say, “they didn’t have a Bible” is just simply false. Also, the reason Jesus did not hand out Bibles to Peter is because the New Testament hadn’t been written yet!

Thanks for your replies Carol Marie. I really appriciate your comments.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[ncgolf]

Martin Luther:

Hello CarolMarie!
There is also another problem. Why the Roman Catholic Church? Notice, all of the groups you listed, The Watchtower, the Pentacostal Church, and the KKK all deny sola scriptura. Why not accept on of those groups’ ultimate authority? Why not say that they are the ultimate authority we are supposed to follow?

Each of those groups listed has elements of truth inside them … but not the total truth. While I will not go into detail they either misrepresent the truth or eliminate some of it totally. An example is the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. None of those groups believe it even though it is true, their not believing does not make the Catholic postion untrue, but it does leave them lacking. If you follow any of those groups you get only a very small piece of what Christ left us.

There is only one reason why anyone should follow the Catholic Church and that reason is because it is true. The basis of the Catholic Church can be found in the Bible … I cannot find the basis for any of the groups you listed their though.

 

[carol_marie]

Martin Luther:

Hello CarolMarie!

As far as not having a Bible, the church had a Bible from the moment the Holy Spirit inspired the last New Testament book to be written. Hence, to say, “they didn’t have a Bible” is just simply false. Also, the reason Jesus did not hand out Bibles to Peter is because the New Testament hadn’t been written yet!

Hi Martin Luther,
Yes the Church had the Bible - that’s my point. The average guy didn’t understand the nuances of the wrtittings let alone the foregin language it was written in so he had to depend on the Church Jesus Christ Established to teach him. How do I know the Catholic Church is the one to be trust? Because it was the original Church - it was THE Christian Church for 1500 years and the only way it could’ve withstood the Devil is if God has his hand on it the whole time. (The gates of hell with not prevail…) And of course the NT wasn’t written when Jesus told Peter to feed my sheep but don’t you think that JESUS, who fed the 5,000 and raised Lazarus from the dead could’ve totally produced a box of NIV’s if He wanted to?

OK, so it’s clear to all that my apologetic skills need some work… I’m going to leave this thread with it’s original question… Once Saved Always Saved… how does it work? And wish you God’s Peace Martin Luther.

 

[krism]

I think it’s all a choice. Our choice. God is not willing that any should perish. That’s in the Bible, though right now the specific reference eludes me. His choice is that all would be with him in heaven. That’s his will, as evidenced in Romans 8:5 : “God proves his love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Note it doesn’t say “Christ died for some of us.” To me predestination isn’t like falling down the stairs and saying, “God knew it was going to happen. Thank God that’s over.” I think it’s more that God knows each of us so intimately that, given the choice to accept or reject salvation he knows what we’ll choose. Just like if I offer my son an apple or some chocolate for a snack I know which he will choose. He likes them both, but chocolate will win evey time. Therefore salvation is a result of our choice. Where OSAS breaks down is when someone has chosen salvation, then commits some grevious sin. Then the rationalization is, “Well, they weren’t really saved.” Whether or not we are saved, in a state of grace, or whatever words you want to use is a daily choice we all make. If you are married, whether you are aware of it or not, you make a daily choice to stay married. Then you act according to that choice by either treating your spouse with dignity and respect or not. You could say that those actions are your marital works. The same is true of the Christian life. If you choose, today, to live this day for Christ, embracing his cross, your actions today will reflect that choice. You will be charitable, etc. These would be the fruits or works of your salvation. If you choose not to live for Christ today, your actions will also reflect that choice and you will be sefl-centered, etc. It’s a day by day, minute by minute choice we make until the day we die.

 

[carol_marie]

Krism,

 

[Fiat]

krism:

I think it’s all a choice. Our choice. God is not willing that any should perish. That’s in the Bible, though right now the specific reference eludes me. His choice is that all would be with him in heaven. That’s his will, as evidenced in Romans 8:5 : “God proves his love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Note it doesn’t say “Christ died for some of us.” To me predestination isn’t like falling down the stairs and saying, “God knew it was going to happen. Thank God that’s over.” I think it’s more that God knows each of us so intimately that, given the choice to accept or reject salvation he knows what we’ll choose. Just like if I offer my son an apple or some chocolate for a snack I know which he will choose. He likes them both, but chocolate will win evey time. Therefore salvation is a result of our choice. Where OSAS breaks down is when someone has chosen salvation, then commits some grevious sin. Then the rationalization is, “Well, they weren’t really saved.” Whether or not we are saved, in a state of grace, or whatever words you want to use is a daily choice we all make. If you are married, whether you are aware of it or not, you make a daily choice to stay married. Then you act according to that choice by either treating your spouse with dignity and respect or not. You could say that those actions are your marital works. The same is true of the Christian life. If you choose, today, to live this day for Christ, embracing his cross, your actions today will reflect that choice. You will be charitable, etc. These would be the fruits or works of your salvation. If you choose not to live for Christ today, your actions will also reflect that choice and you will be sefl-centered, etc. It’s a day by day, minute by minute choice we make until the day we die.

Krism:
Well said! One of the problems I see in the OSAS position is that it is a denial of free will. It seems that the OSAS people believe that when a person says a “sinner’s prayer,” or “accepts Jesus as His personal savior,” then somehow a spell is cast upon God, so that He absolutely must save us in spite of our intentions.

I remain baffled by people’s explanation as to why we as humans don’t have free will. Frankly, MartinLuther, I didn’t at all understand your explication of the Timothy passage which I pointed outl, and I’m a lawyer…I’m accustomed to obfuscated language!

I like the passage from Deut 30, 15-20 in which God clearly states that He has set two ways before us: life and death; blessing and curse. God then offers us the choice: “Choose life.”

Fiat

 

[carol_marie]

As someone who once believed in OSAS, let me say that it offers no real security. As soon as someone slipped into a life of sin again, everyone was quick to say, “Oh they were never saved to begin with. They obviously didn’t MEAN it when they prayed for Jesus to come into their hearts.” So I’d always be worried… did I mean it? I tried to mean it. I think I meant it. I hope I was sincere. I better pray the sinners prayer AGAIN, just in case I didn’t MEAN it the last time! Sometimes I’d feel very close to God & KNOW that I was saved, other times I’d feel more distant and wonder… maybe I wasn’t one of the ones He chose?? Maybe I’ve been kidding myself? Talk about stressful… now, being Catholic it’s so different. I look at Jesus on the cross and I see what He’s done for me. I want to life my life in obedience to Him and I know so long as I’m trying my best, and asking for forgiveness when I fail, I’m more secure than I’ve ever been. It’s no longer an emotional thing, and even when I don’t “feel” it - it doesn’t change the truth… that I am a child of God and Jesus died for me.