Once saved, always saved--please help me understand this

[jpaul1953]

Chapters 17-18 of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith might shed some light on Perseverance of the Saints.

CHAPTER 17
Of the Perseverance of the Saints

1. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

*Dear Paul3144,

I respect the ‘Love that God has for us that cannot be revoked’ philosophy. It’s like having parents that will always love the child regardless of how they act. That is very kind and caring to a certain degree. Just to be clear, I don’t question the Faithful’s belief that once you are saved you are always saved, as in yourself and fellow believers that are faithful. I know most believe that if anyone sins horrificly they were never saved from the start. Catholics differ there, knowing that if we continually tempt ourselves we will fall. Hopefully, we will, as you stated, feel bad about it and get back on track.

Catholics do not believe this interpretation of Scripture as strongly as you since Satan, himself, was with God and is now forever doomed and hoping he will take a bunch with him. Satan once accepted God but no longer does and God threw him and his followers out. Yes, this has nothing to do with humans since Jesus’ death on the Cross offers us Salvation.

Your doctrine of OSAS ‘appears’ to be based solely on Faith, using several bible passages to validate this belief . One of the most important passages is John 3:16. The sinner’s prayer is an extension of this verse but it’s not in the bible like most Protestants believe everything must be, I personally believe the sinner’s prayer to be a very good thing.

Catholics do not understand how any Christian believes that one can sin big after coming to Christ without needing forgiveness. It can be read into the bible but the bible is clear that after one comes to Christ all one’s previous sins are forgiven, but responsibility to stay in the ‘Path of Christ’ is clear after one comes to Christ and I know you agree with this.

Most Protestants I speak to will say that St Paul repeatedly says that faith is all and works are to no consequence or avail. St Paul never says that. St Paul says ‘works of the Law’ are useless (the 618-commandments the Jews were obeying), not works of Love. Works of Love are a requirement of Jesus. What did Jesus say to those who said: " Jesus, you know me" and Jesus says: “I know you not. Where were you when I was hungry” and so on. I am sure you know the verses. All Jesus ever did was ‘good works’ All the Apostles ever did was good works as in the GOOD ‘Acts of the Apostles’ or works of the Apostles. You know we must help those in need and I know you do. Remember: "you will know my followers by their fruits’

When St Paul says: “It is written, no one is good, not one”, Protestants accept this as it’s a guarantee that we will sin and that sin is acceptable by our nature alone. This can’t be further from the truth. When it states ‘it is written’ it is referring to the OT Scriptures. In this case it is referring to Psalm 53 speaking only of the non-righteous who are fools, not the believers. St John and St Paul both state that Jesus is our expiator of sins, which signifies our necessity to ask for forgiveness to keep ourselves in a ‘State of Grace’, staying on the ‘Path of Christ’. We can all single-out verses in the bible to validate our beliefs, but overwhelmingly Jesus says if we love Him, we will keep God’s commandments.

In the Gospel of John at the last supper discourse, many non-Catholics say that Jesus says He loses none of his sheep, but that’s not what He says. What He says is my sheep hear (or know) my voice and they follow me. To be one of His sheep you must hear His voice and follow him. Why would it be so important to Heaven that Jesus locates the one lost sheep if the sheep wasn’t in fact lost like to prodigal son. Why would being lost even matter if the person is still saved, leave the sheep there. To be lost, one must first have been found.

One that erks me really bad is the way many Protestants view the verse " I am the way, the life, and the truth. No one gets to the Father except through me." If one knows not the son through no fault of their own, the majority of Protestants I know say those ones are all going to hell…no questions asked. That’s almost every human east and south of Europe. Please read Romans Chapter 2:12-16. mind you that the KJV has a different 2:16, but follow St Paul’s beliefs… To all of us Jesus is the final Judge and at that time He ‘decides’ who goes to the Father or who goes to hell. He decides, not us. By reading that verse the way many Protestants do, they only need to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven. To Hell with all the others. That make the believers quite a special bunch regardless of their sinful nature.

Sorry for rambling on so long. I do believe we see more things the same than different even though you don’t agree with many of our Catholic-only traditions and doctrines. I don’t agree to disagree, but I accept that we do disagree.

May God fruitfully bless you.

jpaul1953*

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I have gone over and over this subject with my protestant friends and family for yrs :shrug:and it just never made any sense to me at all. My husband a Southern Baptist is adamant about it. That all someone has to do is accecpt Christ as his Saviour and from that day on he is Heaven Bound!

When I question about if this person “backslides” (IE murders someone) and before he asks for forgivness he dies where does he go, Heaven or Hell… I am told that he still goes to Heaven all because he at one time accepted Christ… :nope:

:tsktsk:Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Well, it could be wishful thinking, but more likely it was just a matter of moving away from the teachings of the Church no matter what the cost.

There’s been a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith about OSAS. It should not be forgotten that this statement declares the Pope to be the Anti-Christ. It is interesting to find those two sentiments expressed in the same document.

And I don’t think any serious apologist sees OSAS as a “license to sin.” It does, however, clearly render sin as irrelevant to salvation through one simple (though no doubt important) declaration. Personally, I like to point that out when people accuse me, as a Catholic, of believing in “salvation by works.”

God’s hatred of sin is well documented in Church teaching and Holy Scripture. Yet OSAS would have one believe that something a person does makes that null and void. The notion that something humans do, or declare, can make sin irrelevant to God is another dog that just won’t hunt, along with the idea that God ignores the actual state of souls entering heaven.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5553372:

Hi whatevergirl,

Yes, the OSAS doctrine is basically saying that if you believe Christ as your Savior, then you will never see hell and it does indeed mean that if someone doesn’t believe in Christ, that is the only way someone MIGHT go to hell.

Consider, if you will, somebody that is an OSAS adherent and who continually manifests in his or her life these characteristics: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self–control. I hasten to add that I’ve never met any such person in any of the parts of Christendom into which I’ve ventured but I’d sure like to. However, if one assumes that this composite model of perfection actually exists in real life then it’s also reasonable to assume that nobody would have any reason to question that person’s belief in OSAS. Indeed, people might be more open to the idea that OSAS isn’t such a bad thing since it apparently produces such godliness. So, really, the objection to OSAS you’re adducing is to ask how people can believe in this doctrine when somebody who believes it comes along and commits a sin that seems to cry out to heaven for vengeance. Then when other OSAS adherents such as the sinner’s pastor insist upon holding to that same belief their stance is met with surprise as if they shouldn’t believe in it any more.

If a non–Catholic were to use this approach to question Catholic doctrine e.g. a corrupt pope proves that papal supremacy is a false doctrine – I think it likely that the non–Catholic could reasonably expect a certain amount of dissension from Catholics and would doubtless be briskly informed that his or her assertion was wayward and illogical.

The notion that the doctrine of OSAS, sometimes called the doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints, is a license to sin is an interpretation forced upon it by outsiders. The doctrine is probably difficult to appreciate from a Catholic point of view since Catholics believe that salvation is a process. But if one presupposes that salvation is an event rather than a process then perhaps the doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints makes more sense?

Cordially,
Mick

Mick,

Never could understand OSAS, but your explanation was good. Thanks.

You’re welcome. I appreciate your graciousness.

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Papal “supremacy” (by that I think you mean that the pope is the head of Christ’s church on earth), doesn’t depend on a pope’s perfection. That’s not part of the teaching.

Indeed. I adduced a skewed example so as to emphasize my point.

We know that nothing “unclean” can enter heaven, yet those who believe in OSAS say that someone who commits murder and doesn’t confess the sin will “go to” heaven.

I’m not sure that’s accurate.

We know that nothing “unclean” can enter heaven,

Revelation 21:27 does support your line of thinking. Let’s consider the full verse.

…but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

The first part of the verse supports your idea but the latter part contains a qualifier that suggests support for the doctrine of OSAS.

Some people who believe in OSAS (the pastor) are saying that once someone is saved, all future sins are “covered”, so that no matter what they do, no matter how evil, no matter that they aren’t repentant for it, they will “go to” heaven.

That sounds presumptuous and even blasphemous. Such a depiction of OSAS adherents gives them no credit whatsoever and I think fair–minded observers might agree with me that at least a little credit is due. Please allow me to portray the doctrine embracing a positive presupposition i.e. that an OSAS adherent is not a feeble–minded, selfish yo–yo with a complete disregard for kingdom values but is a sincere believer that possesses an inner determination to live a life pleasing to God as a result of, and commensurate with, his or her ongoing salvation experience.

Let’s consider the event of salvation. It will vary from person to person but the point is that it is believed to have been a real event. Authentic Evangelicals are able to exchange notes about how and when they were saved. This is really the most important point to digest since it involves not only a discussion about doctrine but also an experience of doctrine. The latter is, of course, much more vivid. All one has to do is allow that the event of salvation is real to the Evangelical who declares that the event changed his or her life. That ought not to be particularly difficult since it’s nigh on impossible to argue that somebody hasn’t had a spiritual or religious experience if they say that they have. Anyway, it’s a fairly familiar concept. There are plenty of events that can cause lives to change for the better – graduating, getting married, changing jobs, having children, getting promoted, relocating, winning the lottery – anyone who made a sustained effort could probably compile a surprisingly lengthy list.

However, all the instances on such a list would be seen as good because they connected with the pursuit of happiness and material well–being. But the event of salvation involves a life–change in the spiritual realm – it means that one’s spiritual outlook is completely changed. I would suggest that it can correctly be described as a deep and abiding desire to fulfill one’s destiny by loving the Lord our God with all one’s heart and with all one’s soul and with all one’s mind and with all one’s strength. If this is understood then confusion about the doctrine is perhaps more easily overcome. For the authentic Evangelical the event of his or her salvation is a very real thing. And when Evangelicals exchange notes it becomes evident to them that each person’s event is different. It may have come quickly, as in a sudden realization. Or it may have been a gradual thought sequence lasting months or even years. God works in whatever mysterious way He pleases. But for every Evangelical there will come a time when he or she can look back on the event of his or her salvation and know that it is finalized because the things of the world have become strangely dim and the things of God are vivid and attractive whereupon the belief that one is saved is embraced with one’s whole heart and with all one’s soul and with all one’s mind and with all one’s strength. The Evangelical would then conclude that he or she was truly a child of God and as is natural for a child would reach up. And God would respond by taking the child’s hand and the child would be assured – would know – that God would never let go.

The question the outsider would probably pose at this point would be to say, “That’s all very well but if you’re saved you don’t have to actually do anything, do you?”

Well, anybody who has been able to come alongside the mindset that I’ve been trying to convey will perhaps acknowledge that this comment now actually sounds like one that would be uttered by a very worldly, cold–hearted pragmatist. That’s certainly how it sounds to an Evangelical who is now focused upon what God’s will is for him or her. This would probably be the very last thought that would ever come to visit an Evangelical who is saved. That Evangelical now knows – just as intensely as he or she knows that he or she is saved – there is hard work ahead. This is the work of salvation – not for salvation, mind you. After the event of salvation it is the pleasant duty for each Evangelical to discover the works that God has prepared in advance for him or her to do. In doing this, that Evangelical’s life will continue to change and he or she will slowly reveal more of the fruit of Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self– control. There is no question of declining that duty. Like Luther, the Evangelical who is saved, “can do no other.”

So, finally, we come to the hypothetical question of what happens when a person who is saved and who is an adherent of OSAS commits an awful crime and sins greatly? Well, a person who is saved hates sin because God hates sin but whether we’re OSAS adherents or otherwise we’re all in the same position as Saint Paul who wrote the following in his letter to the Romans.

For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God – through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

There is now no condemnation of those who are in Christ Jesus – no condemnation for those who are saved.

Does this make sense?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

*I can’t thank you enough for all of your thoughtful replies. I plan to come back and continue the discussion, but a thread like this requires me to really think about what’s been posted here.

That said, to kalt–your recent reply about what the shooter’s pastor meant by OSAS, you could be right, but I’m thinking, that the man who committed the atrocities of last week, then turning the gun on himself, was so delusional (it seemed according to his online blog/diary) that he could have very well twisted the pastor’s words, OR the pastor never said anything of the kind. As an aside, the pastor told news reporters that he never said that. So…who knows. But, I take it to mean, in the sense that the killer understood it, that OSAS = Jesus died for our past, present and future sins (that is true) and thus, nothing is required of us to go to heaven. (partial truth) Faith without works is dead. Doesn’t mean we can earn our way into heaven, as Jesus’ death gives us the hope of eternal life. BUT…that does mean that if we love Christ and wish to follow Him, we must through faith and grace, not follow evil.

The interesting thing is many Baptist radio hosts speak of OSAS, and they have said point blank, it means that nothing can keep us from heaven, once we accept Christ as our Savior. So, my question to that is…is not accepting Christ as one’s personal Savior, the only thing that can banish a person to hell? (according to the OSAS doctrine) (this would be a moot point for people who have never been taught the teachings of Christ)*

 

[ufamtobie]

Judas the betrayer, he believed in Jesus Christ, he witnessed our Lords Miracles and for a short time Judas was saved however when he betrayed Our Lord, and we know that scripture tells us that Judas was lost/ in hell he lost his salvation for doing so. OSAS is shot out the window.

This about Judas should tell all who believe in OSAS that their thinking is wrong and Will find them self like Judas in hell. This is what the Devil wants them to believe and many do.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Zooey]

I went to a Baptist Church once where someone wanted to pray for their family because a nephew was being taken off life-support the next day. All the prayers were for the family members in their grief which is fine but afterward I asked why we hadn’t prayed for the boy himself, for his soul, and was met with a strange look - ‘because we don’t know if he’s a Christian’ was the reply - in my mind, all the more reason to pray for him!!

:sad_yes::sad_yes:

 

[SSTeacher]

Judas the betrayer, he believed in Jesus Christ, he witnessed our Lords Miracles and for a short time Judas was saved however when he betrayed Our Lord, and we know that scripture tells us that Judas was lost/ in hell he lost his salvation for doing so. OSAS is shot out the window.

I don’t think OSAS adherents would necessarily accept that notion.

This about Judas should tell all who believe in OSAS that their thinking is wrong and Will find them self like Judas in hell. This is what the Devil wants them to believe and many do.

Ufam Tobie

A wild and gratuitous assertion as to the certainty of eternal damnation for people who believe differently from you isn’t particularly motivating or encouraging. Might I respectfully suggest that you adopt the tone and terminology of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Many thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

I have gone over and over this subject with my protestant friends and family for yrs :shrug:and it just never made any sense to me at all. My husband a Southern Baptist is adamant about it. That all someone has to do is accept Christ as his Savior and from that day on he is Heaven Bound!

Can I ask a question please? Has your husband ever described to you exactly how he understands the process of accepting Christ as Savior? If you were to ask your husband what exactly is involved for the person who desires to do this, how would he explain it?

When I question about if this person “backslides” (IE murders someone) and before he asks for forgiveness he dies where does he go, Heaven or Hell… I am told that he still goes to Heaven all because he at one time accepted Christ… :nope:

Interesting. Would the doctrine be more understandable to you if the backsliding involved a sin that is more commonly seen throughout Christendom and even more commonly overlooked, say, gossiping?

:tsktsk:Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

It certainly does sound like wishful thinking based upon the way you’ve projected it.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The reference to “backsliding” touches upon the beliefs concerning the nature of sin and grace that accompany the belief in OSAS.

With respect to sin, the concept of venial and mortal sin - sin (for non-Catholic readers) which, respectively, damages or destroys the eternal life of the soul - is either unknown to, or vigourously opposed by, the espousers of OSAS. If eternal life- salvation - is guaranteed by some act, and the act is performed, then sin essentially becomes a non-issue in eternal matters.

And the concept of sanctifying grace, which gives eternal life to the soul, is also rejected by OSAS adherents, as indeed it must be to hold that position. I have always found it interesting that, although the claim is made that salvation is assured, there is no assurance of receiving grace among OSAS adherents. Yes, it is claimed to abound (which it does) and be freely given (which it is), but there’s no apparent way of obtaining it. It just sort of happens somehow, it seems. So the claim of certainty of the presence salvation is accompanied by a lack of certainty in obtaining grace.

So those who claim OSAS make, at the same time, claims that deny of differ from the teachings of the Church in many different (though clearly not unrelated) areas. Catholics should be aware of this when they are pressed about OSAS by its adherents. The pressing invariably is restricted and focused to the question, “Are you certain you are saved, yes or no?” But the question carries with it many assumptions in other areas. These assumptions must not be left unexplored in answering this (improperly formed) question.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[authenticity]

Let’s say this man was a Catholic. Instead of killing himself, he ends up being arrested. While in jail awaiting trial he gives a confession for his sins and the priest absolves him.

A person from the outside of the Church would look at this and say, “So does that mean a person can do whatever they want? All they have to do is confess to a priest?”

If that man believed that, it would be an abuse of doctrine and would not be a good confession. While I disagree with Protestant theology, I do not think that OSAS is a free pass to commit sin. I do think it is easier to abuse such a doctrine because there is no one (such as a priest) that stands as an authority outside of a person’s own thinking. Also the person is relieved of all personal responsibility for what they do. Many Catholics have done the same thing though.

Ultimately we are judged by what is in our hearts. I think that many people who commit heinous acts do not want to do so. My wife is a teacher in special ed. She’s noticed that kids with serious behavior problems often get mad when they go on vacation. Why? Because they know that they can’t control themselves and require an outside system so that they can function, so their hearts can be revealed.

 

[SSTeacher]

Let’s say this man was a Catholic. Instead of killing himself, he ends up being arrested. While in jail awaiting trial he gives a confession for his sins and the priest absolves him.

A person from the outside of the Church would look at this and say, “So does that mean a person can do whatever they want? All they have to do is confess to a priest?”

If that man believed that, it would be an abuse of doctrine and would not be a good confession. While I disagree with Protestant theology, I do not think that OSAS is a free pass to commit sin. I do think it is easier to abuse such a doctrine because there is no one (such as a priest) that stands as an authority outside of a person’s own thinking. Also the person is relieved of all personal responsibility for what they do. Many Catholics have done the same thing though.

Ultimately we are judged by what is in our hearts. I think that many people who commit heinous acts do not want to do so. My wife is a teacher in special ed. She’s noticed that kids with serious behavior problems often get mad when they go on vacation. Why? Because they know that they can’t control themselves and require an outside system so that they can function, so their hearts can be revealed.

Thoughtfully and pleasantly articulated. Many thanks.

Peace,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

Let’s say this man was a Catholic. Instead of killing himself, he ends up being arrested. While in jail awaiting trial he gives a confession for his sins and the priest absolves him.

A person from the outside of the Church would look at this and say, “So does that mean a person can do whatever they want? All they have to do is confess to a priest?”

If that man believed that, it would be an abuse of doctrine and would not be a good confession. While I disagree with Protestant theology, I do not think that OSAS is a free pass to commit sin. I do think it is easier to abuse such a doctrine because there is no one (such as a priest) that stands as an authority outside of a person’s own thinking. Also the person is relieved of all personal responsibility for what they do. Many Catholics have done the same thing though.

Ultimately we are judged by what is in our hearts. I think that many people who commit heinous acts do not want to do so. My wife is a teacher in special ed. She’s noticed that kids with serious behavior problems often get mad when they go on vacation. Why? Because they know that they can’t control themselves and require an outside system so that they can function, so their hearts can be revealed.

*Excellent post!

I have thought of this also…I don’t believe it gives people a free pass…and the shooter in question here, he was a person who was completely lost in his own warped reality, of self loathing, and isolation, much of his own choosing. However, if he was living this way for a long time, which he was it seemed, then it would stand to reason he repelled women and didn’t realize it, on some level, as to why. That being said, God is all merciful, and I believe that our mental states are taken into account when we are judged. I don’t liken him to a Ted Bundy, who seemed more calculated (clearly insane on another level) and commited his crimes almost for fun. However, before he was executed, if in his mind he asked for forgiveness, would he see heaven? Remember the thief on the cross, it doesn’t get more last minute than that scenario! lol And Jesus turned to him and said…basically…you are forgiven and will come with me to Paradise. It is a most memorable moment during Jesus’ Passion, and when it comes to OSAS, how could we think that would be the case? The thief NEEDED TO ASK for forgiveness, needed to accept Christ. Then, he was forgiven. OSAS “implies” that we can sin, without offering up a contrite admission of sins, and asking for forgiveness.

Interesting, nonetheless, no? *

 

[SSTeacher]

OSAS “implies” that we can sin, without offering up a contrite admission of sins, and asking for forgiveness.

No, it doesn’t. People who presuppose that it’s a wayward doctrine infer that notion. They then simply report the conclusion that they’d already reached and include the term “OSAS” somewhere in the sentence.

Sadly,
Mick
:sad_bye:

 

[whatevergirl]

No, it doesn’t. People who presuppose that it’s a wayward doctrine infer that notion. They then simply report the conclusion that they’d already reached and include the term “OSAS” somewhere in the sentence.

Sadly,
Mick
:sad_bye:

I see that, yes you’re right. The killer in this scenario I started the thread out with obviously had that wrong. Then what does ‘once saved always saved’ completely mean?

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5563514:

No, it doesn’t. People who presuppose that it’s a wayward doctrine infer

• that notion. They then simply report the conclusion that they’d already reached and include the term “OSAS” somewhere in the sentence.

Sadly,
Mick
:sad_bye:I see that, yes you’re right. The killer in this scenario I started the thread out with obviously had that wrong. Then what does ‘once saved always saved’ completely mean?

Did the detailed analysis I adduced in Post #24 make any sense to you? I felt it might have gone some way toward ironing out the distortions in the minds of those who approach with preconceived ideas but nobody has yet made any sensible comment about it. Feel free to be the first to do so. If you think it’s illogical, unclear, unhelpful or inaccurate, please tell me.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

Judas the betrayer, he believed in Jesus Christ, he witnessed our Lords Miracles and for a short time Judas was saved however when he betrayed Our Lord, and we know that scripture tells us that Judas was lost/ in hell he lost his salvation for doing so. OSAS is shot out the window.

This about Judas should tell all who believe in OSAS that their thinking is wrong and Will find them self like Judas in hell. This is what the Devil wants them to believe and many do.

Ufam Tobie

This is an older thread from CAF on Judas–I didn’t think that there was any firm Scripture on if Judas is in hell. The Church doesn’t declare it…and Judas seemed remorseful…here’s the thread for review:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=157632

 

[whatevergirl]

Did the detailed analysis I adduced in Post #24 make any sense to you? I felt it might have gone some way toward ironing out the distortions in the minds of those who approach with preconceived ideas but nobody has yet made any sensible comment about it. Feel free to be the first to do so. If you think it’s illogical, unclear, unhelpful or inaccurate, please tell me.

Cordially,
Mick

*Forgive me, I read it, and have been meaning to reply…will do so soon. Thank you, SS. *

 

[authenticity]

Did the detailed analysis I adduced in Post #24 make any sense to you? I felt it might have gone some way toward ironing out the distortions in the minds of those who approach with preconceived ideas but nobody has yet made any sensible comment about it. Feel free to be the first to do so. If you think it’s illogical, unclear, unhelpful or inaccurate, please tell me.

Cordially,
Mick

Feel free to correct me where you think I go wrong here…

I would say the difference is more in doctrine. Catholics and Protestants mean two different things when they say “Christ died for my sins”. To a Catholic, it means that the merit of Christ’s obedience to the Father is applied to my soul per the Sacraments. To a Protestant, it means that Christ stood in for my just punishment as a sinner.

Maybe the “S” in OSAS should stand for “sinner”, because that is what the real question is… I think that the way an Evangelical and Catholic deal with sin is very different. To me, a sin is something I chose to do (well, let’s say a mortal sin for simplicity’s sake) or instead I could choose to do the Will of the Father per my faith in Christ. To an Evangelical, sin is something I always do. If I don’t sin, it’s because God worked through me based on my faith in Christ. I can ask God to take away my propensity to sin, but if he doesn’t, there is nothing I can do about it-- salvation experience or not.

I don’t know if that is a real response to your well-written post, but I hope you can shed some light on this.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5563830:

Did the detailed analysis I adduced in Post #24 make any sense to you? I felt it might have gone some way toward ironing out the distortions in the minds of those who approach with preconceived ideas but nobody has yet made any sensible comment about it. Feel free to be the first to do so. If you think it’s illogical, unclear, unhelpful or inaccurate, please tell me.

Cordially,
Mick

*Forgive me, I read it, and have been meaning to reply…will do so soon. Thank you, SS.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to look here also.

Appreciatively,
Mick