Once saved always saved may be true for some?

[Hikers5]

Help me out with this train of thought please:

A non-Catholic Christian truly believes that they have been born again and they therefore cannot lose their salvation based on any sin they subsequently commit. They sincerely do not believe in a mortal or deadly sin. If they sin mortally in their lifetime, like for instance, they give in to passions and commit fornication or adultery, or they steal something etc. and then subsequently die, it could be argued that they did not have full knowledge of the gravity of sin (since they didn’t believe in the existence of it) and therefore would not suffer the effects that we Catholics would.

And, if you agree with the above statement, then couldn’t it be further argued that it might be better to let people (especially non-Catholic faithful Christians) live in their ignorance because they would have a better chance of making it to heaven since they wouldn’t have a full knowledge of the wrongdoing.

I am really getting all confused and can’t sort out the above train of thought. Help!

Hikers5

 

[Absalom]

I think you are right in that a person cannot commit mortal sin without full knowledge, however, I cannot agree w/the conclusion at which you arrive - if for no other reason than a person should be warned that seriously sinful actions will result in serious purification necessary after death (purgatory).

Christ told the apostles to go and preach the gospel to the world - the gospel means the gospel, not part of the gospel. I cannot agree that witholding part of the truth from someone can ever be a good thing.

 

[Genesis315]

Absalom!:

I think you are right in that a person cannot commit mortal sin without full knowledge, however, I cannot agree w/the conclusion at which you arrive - if for no other reason than a person should be warned that seriously sinful actions will result in serious purification necessary after death (purgatory).

Christ told the apostles to go and preach the gospel to the world - the gospel means the gospel, not part of the gospel. I cannot agree that witholding part of the truth from someone can ever be a good thing.

I agree. withholding the truth would be disobedience to Jesus. Likewise, God does not want people living in sin, even if it is not mortal. The Fundmanentalist should be warned of his action and informed about the need for confession. This would please God the most rather than letting the Fundamentalist live in sin. Plus fir the Fundamentalist’s own well being, it is better to know and live in the Truth than to live in falsehoods.

 

[gavin52]

If you see someone doing wrong you’re obligated to point it out and try to set them straight. It’s then up to them to deal with the Truth you had shown to them. It would be wrong to let a protestant remain in ignorance.

Gavin52

 

[Absalom]

Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t agree with the idea that a protestant who doesn’t believe in mortal sin is incapable of comitting such sin. What is necessary for a mortal sin?

1. Grave matter (murder, adultery, etc.)
2. Full knowledge (of the fact that the action is a sin, not that it is a “mortal” or “deadly” sin).
3. Full consent.

Therefore, if a protestant who loves Christ treats Him like a get-out-of-jail-free card and, say, purchases the services of a prostitute thinking, “well, I’m saved, anyway,” they still commit a mortal sin because they are deliberately doing something that is hurtful and offensive to God. Not to mention the fact that they are taking the supreme sacrifice that cost the Lord His life for granted (which seems to me to be a terrible sin - but one we’re probably all guilty of at some point or other). Also, when you get into this, you open up the whole can of worms of whether the attitude that “well, I’m saved anyway, so I can offend God all I want to” is or is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (I think it is), and then to the can of worms that that leads to . . .

 

[Lisa_N]

This issue was brought up on EWTN although I’m sorry I don’t recall exactly which program. Someone was asking about the “once saved always saved” theory that some evangelicals claim as a truism. The priest said you need to distinguish between redemption and salvation. Redemption is the event, salvation is a process. You constantly work on your salvation. It’s not “accepting Christ as your personal savior” and then doing whatever you want. I thought that was a good way to look at this term and wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this distinction.

Lisa N

 

[bkniceley]

Lisa N:

It’s not “accepting Christ as your personal savior” and then doing whatever you want.
Lisa N

Well think about it this way… if you accept christ as your personal savior because you know the truth and how christ died for you and have a relationship with him… you dont want to do whatever you want… u want to glorify christ and serve as a living sacrifice.

 

[Lisa_N]

bkniceley:

Well think about it this way… if you accept christ as your personal savior because you know the truth and how christ died for you and have a relationship with him… you dont want to do whatever you want… u want to glorify christ and serve as a living sacrifice.

Notice the quotes around the phrase “accepting Christ as your personal savior” That means you can SAY you have accepted Christ but if your actions deem otherwise, then it’s unlikely IMO that you are once saved always saved.

Lisa N

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Hikers5:

it could be argued that they did not have full knowledge of the gravity of sin (since they didn’t believe in the existence of it) and therefore would not suffer the effects that we Catholics would.

Even from a Protestant standpoint, when talking with your friend, this doesn’t really hold water. St Paul establishes, first of all, that God has made himself known to all, so that no one is with excuse (that is, ignorance is not accepted in God’s court; Rom. 1:20). Second, he purports that the law has been written on our hearts (Rom. 2:15). Once again, men are without excuse. To withhold the knowledge that a friend is in sin is an injustice. He must be made aware, that he may correct his error.

 

[scylla]

It seems that the only sin someone who believes in OSAS can commit that would lead them to their damnation would be to accept the Catholic Faith. Try asking anyone who believes in OSAS about that, it is pretty enlightening.

 

[bkniceley]

I believe in once saved always saved and i do not believe that the only sin that anyone can commit that would lead them to their damnation is accepting the catholic faith

 

[Absalom]

bkniceley:

I believe in once saved always saved and i do not believe that the only sin that anyone can commit that would lead them to their damnation is accepting the catholic faith

Awesome. You should try and have some influence on your comrades.

Although, now that I look at your response, it can be taken one of two ways. One: that you don’t believe that a person automatically endangers their salvation by accepting the Catholic faith, or Two: that you believe that there is more than one sin that a person can commit that would endanger his/her salvation, and accepting the Catholic faith is one of them.

So, which is it?

Cheers.

 

[jlw]

Lisa N:

This issue was brought up on EWTN although I’m sorry I don’t recall exactly which program. Someone was asking about the “once saved always saved” theory that some evangelicals claim as a truism. The priest said you need to distinguish between redemption and salvation. Redemption is the event, salvation is a process. You constantly work on your salvation. It’s not “accepting Christ as your personal savior” and then doing whatever you want. I thought that was a good way to look at this term and wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this distinction.

Lisa N

Nail…meet hammer.

If the OSAS idea holds water, why would Paul say “he’s working out his salvation with fear and trembling”???

 

[bkniceley]

Absalom!:

Awesome. You should try and have some influence on your comrades.

Although, now that I look at your response, it can be taken one of two ways. One: that you don’t believe that a person automatically endangers their salvation by accepting the Catholic faith, or Two: that you believe that there is more than one sin that a person can commit that would endanger his/her salvation, and accepting the Catholic faith is one of them.

So, which is it?

Cheers.

haha I do not believe that a person automatically endangers their salvation by accepting the Catholic faith. I dont think anyone at my church thinks that either. I mean there are some catholics in my youth group and i know they are my brothers and sisters in christ no matter if they have varying degrees of belief.

And jlw… do u know the verse that comes after “working out his salvation in fear and trembling”? It is “For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” So then any good work a believer does comes from God who works within the believer. And in Jeremiah it says “I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me.”
So it is the fear of God that God uses to work within the believer so that he never turns away from God. So if God is the one who works within you for your salvation, how can you ever lose your salvation then?

Consider the words of Jesus:
“I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

If once we recieved eternal life, we fall away then we would lose eternal life and that would make jesus a liar.