Once Saved Always Saved Theory

[truthnlight]

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will inherit the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine HEART that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9). Salvation is of the heart, NOT the mouth. I’ve actually heard radio preachers teach that a person needs to audibly profess Christ in order to be saved. Would you show me that in the Bible? On the contrary, we read the opposite in Matthew 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto me, LORD, LORD, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” We are NOT saved by saying certain magic words or by performing certain religious duties. The Scriptures are clear—we are saved by doing God’s will. These people in Matthew chapter seven were sincere I believe, they were religious no doubt. Let’s hear their testimony in Matthew 7:22, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” They had done so many wonderful things “in Jesus name” but listen to what Jesus told them in Matthew 7:23, “And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Wow! These people had spent their lives prophesying “in Jesus name”, casting out devils “in Jesus name” and doing many wonderful works “in Jesus name.” Now their about to be cast into hell for their disobedience. They failed to do GOD’S WILL. People get the wrong impression that they can earn their way to heaven or merit salvation by their own works—this is a lie of the devil! There is NOTHING we can do to earn heaven, we ALL deserve to burn in hell.

 

[john_ennis]

A clear example, among many, that our salvation is not a done deal as far as our choices and behavior, is Paul’s concern about the young widows in 1 Timothy 5; 9-15.

He assumes that they might follow Satan or not, break their pledge to God or not, bring judgment on themselves or not, depending on whether they’re placed on the list of widows.

It’s called near occasion of sin. Their actions, and those of their community, affect their salvation. A saving faith which they cannot lose, or which some never had, is not assumed by Paul.

Peace.
John

 

[Antwill]

I had a discussion with my fundamentalist bro-in-law about this once. According to his “brand” of OSAS, if one is “born again” and accepts Christ, he will not commit serious sin and be saved. However, if one does commit serious sin after “accepting Christ” and dies in that state, he never “really” accepted Christ in the first place. Pretty circular argument, isn’t it?

There is another brand of OSAS that says if one is “saved” then it doesn’t matter if they sin or not. They can’t lose their salvation. I’ve heard of a man who committed adultery and left his wife for that woman. When she went to the pastor to try to get him to talk some sense to her husband, he basically stated there was really nothing that he could say to him because his salvation was assured regardless of his actions.

The first brand of OSAS doesn’t seem to offer much assurance and the second offers too much!

 

[Antwill]

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine HEART that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9). Salvation is of the heart, NOT the mouth. I’ve actually heard radio preachers teach that a person needs to audibly profess Christ in order to be saved. Would you show me that in the Bible? On the contrary, we read the opposite in Matthew 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto me, LORD, LORD, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” We are NOT saved by saying certain magic words or by performing certain religious duties. The Scriptures are clear—we are saved by doing God’s will. These people in Matthew chapter seven were sincere I believe, they were religious no doubt. Let’s hear their testimony in Matthew 7:22, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” They had done so many wonderful things “in Jesus name” but listen to what Jesus told them in Matthew 7:23, “And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Wow! These people had spent their lives prophesying “in Jesus name”, casting out devils “in Jesus name” and doing many wonderful works “in Jesus name.” Now their about to be cast into hell for their disobedience. They failed to do GOD’S WILL. People get the wrong impression that they can earn their way to heaven or merit salvation by their own works—this is a lie of the devil! There is NOTHING we can do to earn heaven, we ALL deserve to burn in hell.

I guess it’s a good thing that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that we can “work or way to Heaven” then, isn’t it.

 

[Ilroy]

Jesus will NEVER leave us!
True, but we can, and frequently DO leave Him. Some do permanently and willingly.

“. . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:20

This quote taken completely out of context makes your entire post invalid. If you can’t be honest with this one, how can we trust the rest of what you have to say?
Now, read this taken in context whilst He was talking to the Apostles, not to us all:

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And seeing them they adored: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

 

[JesseW]

It’s amazing to me that one person can read all those plucked bible quotes and believe they say something that they clearly do not.

OSAS is a convenient way of making salvation easy and to deny the truth of the church. And it’s completely false.

The Protestants I am a part of (for I can only speak of my own experience) believe that the Bible is inerrant. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

We read verses like the ones listed above by truthandlight, and we conclude that there has to be harmony with those verses that suggest otherwise. We then look for ways to find harmony between them and develop doctrine in that way.

To effectively argue this doctrine against Protestants that believe OSAS, one would need to show how these verses do not say what is being claimed, why (translational error, etc.), and back it up with Scripture that counters that position in a way that brings all relevant Scriptures into harmony. To try other approaches really isn’t that effective.

Protestants are suspicious of the Catholic hierarchy. We need to be shown that this suspicion isn’t merited and that your positions come from sound Scriptural interpretation. That it is the position of the Church isn’t enough for us. We want to know why.

 

[St_Violet]

I had a discussion with my fundamentalist bro-in-law about this once. According to his “brand” of OSAS, if one is “born again” and accepts Christ, he will not commit serious sin and be saved. However, if one does commit serious sin after “accepting Christ” and dies in that state, he never “really” accepted Christ in the first place. Pretty circular argument, isn’t it?

There is another brand of OSAS that says if one is “saved” then it doesn’t matter if they sin or not. They can’t lose their salvation. I’ve heard of a man who committed adultery and left his wife for that woman. When she went to the pastor to try to get him to talk some sense to her husband, he basically stated there was really nothing that he could say to him because his salvation was assured regardless of his actions.

The first brand of OSAS doesn’t seem to offer much assurance and the second offers too much!

that is just horrible, I supose those who believe in OSAS come to believe sin is no longer an temptation for them.

 

[JesseW]

Circular arguments tend to be the standard when you are dealing with infinite concepts with a finite mind. Is God sovereign or does man have free will? Can one lose his salvation or was he ever saved to begin with? The Trinity.

As I’ve said before- true Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside them, changing them, guiding them, making them more like Christ. I cannot continue long in rebellion- God’s Spirit makes me miserable until I turn back to Him. Those that can just walk away- quite honestly, baffle me. That’s why extreme examples are difficult to comprehend- just like people dying that have never heard the Gospel, these we leave in God’s capable hands.

that is just horrible, I supose those who believe in OSAS come to believe sin is no longer an temptation for them.

One of my favorite apologists once said that if you can immediately dismiss a major world religion or make its followers look utterly ridiculous, you don’t truly understand it. Catholics know how ridiculous people look that label them as works-oriented idolators. Please don’t fight back with the same tools.

You know what they say, those that throw mud get some on themselves and end up losing ground.

The doctrine needs debate, but attaching judgements on the relationship of its adherers to God is unfair.

 

[anthony022071]

The Once Saved Always Saved theory reminds me of those free offers that advertisers use which turn out not to be free,and which lead to debt. No monthly payments,no fees,no charges! No works!

 

[John_Lawrence]

I do not like the tone of this thread. It started out with someone asking PROTESTANTS a question, and quickly turned into Catholics (harshly) criticizing Protestant beliefs. You should all keep in mind that “Protestant” is a very broad term and not every protestant shares the same beliefs of the next. I especially dislike people putting titles such as “minister” or “pastor” in quotes as if to mock them, and implying that ALL protestant seminaries are simply just"bible colleges" as if linking all of them to fundementalist private schools. There are many widley recognized and respected protestant seminaries, that are held in much regard by the Catholic world as well.

 

[Syele]

I do not like the tone of this thread. It started out with someone asking PROTESTANTS a question, and quickly turned into Catholics (harshly) criticizing Protestant beliefs. You should all keep in mind that “Protestant” is a very broad term and not every protestant shares the same beliefs of the next. I especially dislike people putting titles such as “minister” or “pastor” in quotes as if to mock them, and implying that ALL protestant seminaries are simply just"bible colleges" as if linking all of them to fundementalist private schools. There are many widley recognized and respected protestant seminaries, that are held in much regard by the Catholic world as well.

John Lawrence,
Try not to be upset. This is the tone to be expected if you hang out at CAF. It wasn’t like this when I first joined but it is now. it used to be that people would ask protestants questions and try to understand what the protestants said. Now the way it is, is that they ask protestants questions and often the Catholics answer for us and ignore anything we actually say. Don’t be disheartened, here are still many Catholics here who are not like this and some very interesting things can be discussed. Another thread here recently pointed out you have to be a bit thick-Skinned to hang out here and ironically enough it included lots of group hugs and such. LOL

 

[Syele]

I had a discussion with my fundamentalist bro-in-law about this once. According to his “brand” of OSAS, if one is “born again” and accepts Christ, he will not commit serious sin and be saved. However, if one does commit serious sin after “accepting Christ” and dies in that state, he never “really” accepted Christ in the first place. Pretty circular argument, isn’t it?

There is another brand of OSAS that says if one is “saved” then it doesn’t matter if they sin or not. They can’t lose their salvation. I’ve heard of a man who committed adultery and left his wife for that woman. When she went to the pastor to try to get him to talk some sense to her husband, he basically stated there was really nothing that he could say to him because his salvation was assured regardless of his actions.

The first brand of OSAS doesn’t seem to offer much assurance and the second offers too much!

I think the reason there are so many types of OSAS is that many churches don’t teach TULIP or it’s opposite. Instead they teach the concepts in a disjointed way. So then you find people sitting and Pondering OSAS and trying to figure it out.

 

[Brenda4God]

I guess if God knows everything, he knows who is going to be saved and who is not. So when you think about it like that, someone was always saved, I guess. But I’m not sure what good that does us down here. God doesn’t share that with us.

 

[John_Lawrence]

IF God knows who is saved and who is not from the get-go (as only He can and would, being that He is God), it would lead one to question the purpose of people existing who are “not saved” regardless of what they do or do not do. It would be ridiculous, and how could God be ridiculous? Brenda you were implying pre-destination, which is frought with paradoxes (man-made, avoidable paradoxes, not simply things that only God can understand).

On a personal note I believe every single human being is capable of “salvation” and not necesarily by only one way. Whatever road you take to God, there’s still God. We’re not mindless robots; we have free will and an evolved mind.

 

[christcnection1]

IF God knows who is saved and who is not from the get-go (as only He can and would, being that He is God), it would lead one to question the purpose of people existing who are “not saved” regardless of what they do or do not do. It would be ridiculous, and how could God be ridiculous? Brenda you were implying pre-destination, which is frought with paradoxes (man-made, avoidable paradoxes, not simply things that only God can understand).

On a personal note I believe every single human being is capable of “salvation” and not necesarily by only one way. Whatever road you take to God, there’s still God. We’re not mindless robots; we have free will and an evolved mind.

I absolutely agree that we are not mindless robots. Unfortunately, many of our Non-Catholic brothers and sisters seem to think there is no free will for the elect.

You might find this link interesting. Yes, Catholics believe in predestination, just not in the way many think.

Have a good one. God bless…

bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

 

[John_Lawrence]

I absolutely agree that we are not mindless robots. Unfortunately, many of our Non-Catholic brothers and sisters seem to think there is no free will for the elect.

You might find this link interesting. Yes, Catholics believe in predestination, just not in the way many think.

Have a good one. God bless…

bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

Not every non-Catholic is guilty of what you are accusing. I apreciate your support on my opinion however I am not oblivious to your own small bias in your response. Lutherans have no concept of “elect” (the vast majority at least… I can’t speak for the MissourSynod however…). Neither do Anglicans/Episcipalians… etc.

Also the phrase “many of our non-Catholic brothers” falls under a certain technique in rhetoric called “political framing” where somethign that is really quite benign is stated in such a way as to make the opposite seem negative. You were in effect stating that most non-Catholics hold an innacurate view. That really is not quantifiable, but common sense lends one to disagree with such a statement. To make the technique of political framing more clear, take for example the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” (both terms I disdain). They are framed as such: people who supportlegalized abortion make it seem like those opposed are opposed to women having choices in life (thus, they are PRO CHOICE) while those who oppose legalized abortion make it seem like those who do support it areNOT pro-life (silly and most people see through thatm however many people only see “black and white” and really will think this…)

sorry I rambled…

 

[Antwill]

Not every non-Catholic is guilty of what you are accusing. I apreciate your support on my opinion however I am not oblivious to your own small bias in your response. Lutherans have no concept of “elect” (the vast majority at least… I can’t speak for the MissourSynod however…). Neither do Anglicans/Episcipalians… etc.

Also the phrase “many of our non-Catholic brothers” falls under a certain technique in rhetoric called “political framing” where somethign that is really quite benign is stated in such a way as to make the opposite seem negative. You were in effect stating that most non-Catholics hold an innacurate view. That really is not quantifiable, but common sense lends one to disagree with such a statement. To make the technique of political framing more clear, take for example the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” (both terms I disdain). They are framed as such: people who supportlegalized abortion make it seem like those opposed are opposed to women having choices in life (thus, they are PRO CHOICE) while those who oppose legalized abortion make it seem like those who do support it areNOT pro-life (silly and most people see through thatm however many people only see “black and white” and really will think this…)

sorry I rambled…

Wow! No offense, but if you are going to continue reading these forums, you better relax a little. You’re going to have a heart attack!

 

[O.S.Luke]

I do not like the tone of this thread. It started out with someone asking PROTESTANTS a question, and quickly turned into Catholics (harshly) criticizing Protestant beliefs. You should all keep in mind that “Protestant” is a very broad term and not every protestant shares the same beliefs of the next. I especially dislike people putting titles such as “minister” or “pastor” in quotes as if to mock them, and implying that ALL protestant seminaries are simply just"bible colleges" as if linking all of them to fundementalist private schools. There are many widley recognized and respected protestant seminaries, that are held in much regard by the Catholic world as well.

John, get used to it. Certainly not all Catholic posters respond this way, but some do.

You’ll also find that the Strawman liveth here; some will have always made up their mind and “bait” with a question. Regardless of what you post or find, they will only hear what they “expect.”

I have bachelor and master of divinity degrees from institutions where many Catholics graduated from, and underwent as much training as parish priests go through. Makes little difference to those who have their mind made up, John. But thanks for knowing the difference.

Don’t always bite. And welcome to CAF.

 

[thomasf]

Protestants are suspicious of the Catholic hierarchy. We need to be shown that this suspicion isn’t merited and that your positions come from sound Scriptural interpretation. That it is the position of the Church isn’t enough for us. We want to know why.

And catholics are suspicious of protestants that read the bible and translate it one of a million different ways, without a knowledge of history, original intent of the writers, original culture, original language before translation, etc etc. Protestants have no authority, no history, only a sense of thinking they can take whatever meaning from scriptures that suits whatever theory of the day.

The catholic church doesn’t have a ‘heirarchy’, it has an established apostolic succession, from Jesus to Peter and the Apostles, directly to today. We have history, authority, knowledge of the culture, 2000 years of studying the scriptures and passing down the knowledge from day 1 to day 2000, and a complete, full understanding of the scriptures in both written and oral form.

What you should be asking yourself is what is your religion based on. Where are your foundations? Does your religion come from the first christians themselves? Did the apostles practice your form of religion? Did they promote your beliefs and theories?

Or is it just a convenient group of theories that one of 30,000+ brands of protestant preachers put together to make sense of a religion they really don’t understand?

 

[JesseW]

And catholics are suspicious of protestants that read the bible and translate it one of a million different ways, without a knowledge of history, original intent of the writers, original culture, original language before translation, etc etc. Protestants have no authority, no history, only a sense of thinking they can take whatever meaning from scriptures that suits whatever theory of the day.

Well, I’m pretty sure at the end of my journey for truth, if I do become Catholic, this will probably not be one of the things that helped me along.

Stressing someone’s ignorance is not the best way to win them over. Tip- it is a core need of everyone to feel validated, even if they are wrong. I learned this the hard way while working with mormons. If you understand what led us to our conclusions, then you are in a stronger position to counter them with truth. If you don’t have the energy to do that, perhaps it’s best not to respond (unless you just want to argue- which can be fun sometimes, too).