Once Saved Always Saved

[Randy_Carson]

:banghead:

This is about the best example of “circular reasoning” I know of.

You better believe if that person has accepted Christ as his savior, believes that He suffered, died, and rose again for him, repents of his sins, and “fulfills” the requirements of salvation as known to him (please pardon the phrase - I mean like being baptised, etc) then Christ will be faithful to His promises of forgiving him his sins and opening up heaven for him. How could one possibly believe anything else, even for a moment?

God is so merciful and Jesus just longs to pour out His infinite mercy on all of us, how can one think that He withholds His mercy because somebody didn’t just quite believe enough? What does that mean anyway? Faith is not quantified. It is offered and then accepted or rejected.

I was being facetious.

Unfortunately, we hear this argument all too frequently from the Evangelicals who try to explain how folks who obviously believed at one point fall away.

Their only response: they weren’t really saved.

 

[Randy_Carson]

osirsas ???

Once Saved, If Reeeeally Saved, Always Saved.

That one took me a moment to decode!

 

[Randy_Carson]

One of the arguments that Evangelicals use to support their doctrine of OSAS is:

1. You can’t do anything to merit your salvation “for by grace you have been saved.”

Thus

1. You can’t do anything to demerit your salvation.

If you can’t do anything to lose your salvation, then how does a child go from “heaven-bound” or “saved” before the age of reason, to hell bound sinner after the age of reason but before accepting Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior?

 

[bksumm]

Just to be clear…I don’t believe in OSAS. The rejection of that doctrine is one of the main reasons I became Catholic.

However, in my previous post, I wanted to bring up one of the theological arguments that Evangelicals tend to make in support of this doctrine. John Martinoni does a good job of explaining the Evangelical premise behind OSAS in his recent newsletter.

From Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #116

“This doctrine of OSAS is a corollary to the doctrine of Sola Fide that I talked about in the last chapter. The reasoning behind the doctrine is that since we are saved by faith and faith alone, and since, according to the doctrine of Sola Fide, works play no role whatsoever in gaining our salvation, then works can play no role whatsoever in losing our salvation. In other words, once you are “saved”, there isn’t anything that you can do or not do to lose your salvation, and that includes sinning.”

Also, I recently heard this same line of reasoning in support of OSAS on a Memphis area Christian radio show. Same exact deal!

I hope this might generate some discussion. As for me I plan to follow the words of St Paul in Philippians 2: 12

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”

 

[one2serve]

Hi everyone. How does one refute the doctrine of once saved always saved?

Here is a good start,

1Co 9:27 But I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest proclaiming to others I myself might be rejected.

If Paul couldn’t lose his Salvation, what was it he was affraid of being rejected from?
I would say Salvation.

 

[ricko]

Holly, this is what you need.

Once Saved Always Saved

The doctrine of “once saved, always saved” (OSAS), also known as the doctrine of “eternal security,” as it has been presented to me time and time again, is essentially this: once a person accepts Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior, once they pray the “sinner’s prayer,” once they confess with their lips that Jesus is Lord and believe on Jesus in their hearts – once a person does that, then that person is “saved.” That person has a one way ticket to Heaven and there is absolutely nothing that can derail that train. In other words, Heaven is guaranteed. One has, as they put it, “absolute assurance” that they will go to Heaven.

This doctrine of OSAS is a corollary to the doctrine of Sola Fide that I talked about in the last chap ter. The reasoning behind the doctrine is that since we are saved by faith and faith alone, and since, according to the doctrine of Sola Fide, works play no role whatsoever in gaining our salvation, then works can play no role whatsoever in losing our salvation. In other words, once you are “saved”, there isn’t anything that you can do or not do to lose your salvation, and that includes sinning.

According to Protestant theology, once we have accepted Jesus Christ into our heart as our personal Lord and Savior, then God, like a judge in the courtroom, declares us innocent – we are “hid” with Christ in God, as it says in Colossians 3:3. Since you are “hid” with Christ, the judge, God the Father, doesn’t see you and your sins, He sees only Christ, the innocent victim who has paid the price for all men’s sins. Seeing only Jesus, He renders a verdict of innocent. This innocent verdict is then applied to all who are “hid” in Christ Jesus, all the believers. And, once the verdict has been rendered, once you have been declared “innocent,” there is nothing that can happen that will ever cause God to reverse His judgment. After all, you are “hid” with Christ. You will often hear Rom 8:1–2 quoted by OSAS adherents, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.” “See,” folks will say, “once we are in Christ we cannot be condemned.”

That’s the doctrine in a nutshell. Before giving the arguments against this doctrine, I want to point out that not all Protestants believe in this doctrine, and there may be slight variations in the doctrine, depending on who you’re talking to. But, again, the explanation above is how it has generally been presented to me.

So, how does one go about arguing against this doctrine of once saved, always saved? Well, you can use a whole bunch of Scripture, and you can use a little bit of logic, as well. I’ll start with the little bit of logic and then move into the whole bunch of Scripture.

 

[ricko]

When confronted with someone who believes in OSAS, the first question you need to ask is this: “If a baby dies, does it go to Heaven or Hell?” The majority of Protestants that I’ve come across who believe in OSAS, also believe that children who die before they are old enough to commit a sin, are saved – they go to Heaven. Even though the baby hasn’t been able to make a confession of faith, that baby still goes to Heaven. This belief, however, leads to a logical contradiction.

Consider that if a baby dies, and it goes to Heaven, then that means the baby was, in essence, “saved” while it was still alive. However, if that child does not die, if the baby grows up and starts committing sins, yet never makes a personal commitment to Christ, never accepts Jesus into his heart as his personal Lord and Savior, then what happens? Is he still saved? The Protestant answer is: “No.” Which means that there was a point somewhere in that child’s life where it went from being saved, to being unsaved.

But this is a big problem if OSAS is true. This doctrine teaches that a person cannot go from the state of being saved to the state of being unsaved. Which means, if the baby was saved, then he can never be unsaved, even if he grows up to be an unbelieving moral reprobate. Yet, no believer in OSAS would agree that an unbelieving moral reprobate is sa ved. So for those folks who believe in OSAS, yet also believe that babies that die go to Heaven, there is a logical contradiction in their beliefs.

There are only two ways around this problem: 1) To say that once saved always saved is true only after you have professed a belief in Jesus Christ, or 2) To say that babies who die before they are able to make a profession of faith automatically go to Hell.

The first line of reasoning is simply a position that one would back into out of necessity so as to avoid the contradiction in logic that has been exposed in their beliefs. “Uhmm, oh yeah, I forgot to mention that once saved always saved doesn’t kick in until after you make a profession of faith in Christ.” Oh, really? And where does it say that in the Bible? And how does that make any sense whatsoever? Is being saved as a baby somehow different than being saved as an adult? What a ridiculous notion. Either you’re saved or you’re not. And if you are saved, and once saved always saved is true, then if you’re saved as a baby you have to be saved as an adult – whether you ever profess faith in Christ or not. After all, you cannot lose your salvation.

Now, I doubt you will ever hear this particular response. Instead, you will either get blank stares or there will be an attempt to hurriedly change the topic. But, you very well might hear that second line of reasoning, which is to say that babies who die before they are able to make a profession of faith in Christ go straight to Hell. It is logically consistent with a belief in once saved always saved; however, it makes God seem a very unreasonable God indeed. God tells us that He wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4), yet He gives babies who die absolutely no chance to be saved? Wh at kind of God is that?

We see, then, that the doctrine of once saved always saved has a serious problem when one starts applying a little bit of logic to it. Now, let’s move on to the whole bunch of Scripture I mentioned above.

I’m going to start first in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 33:13, “Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die.”

What’s going on here? God says to a righteous man that he, the righteous man, shall surely live. Since this is a “righteous” man, that means he is a “saved” man, in Protestant terminology. So, since he is saved, and since God has told him that he shall surely live, he has eternal security, right? Once saved always saved, right? But wh at happens if the righteous (saved) man presumes that his salvation is guaranteed (i.e., believes in once saved always saved), and starts committing sins? Is he still saved? The doctrine of once saved always saved says, “Yes!” The Bible says, “No!” Scripture tells us the righteous man who turns away from God through his sins shall die in his iniquities. He loses his salvation. He is righteous no more.

How can that be if once I’m saved, that’s it? “Well,” some might say, “that’s the Old Testament. We don’t go by the Old Testament any more so you can’t use that verse to argue against eternal security.” Really? Was salvation different in the Old Testament than in the New? Didn’t the Old Testament saints have to have faith in order to be saved? Doesn’t faith save you in the Old Testament as well as in the New? 0;

I don’t know how many times I’ve had Protestants point out to me, when trying to tell me the “real” meaning of James 2:14–26, that Scripture says, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” (Rom 4:3; Gen 15:6). And after they point out that verse they say, “See, Abraham was made righteous (saved) by faith alone.” Well, if someone was supposedly “righteous” through faith alone in the Old Testament, just as they are supposedly righteous by faith alone in the New Testament, then would not once saved always saved apply in the Old Testament just as it supposedly does in the New Testament? Of course it would. But, if once saved always saved was operative in the Old Testament, then how could God say what He said in Ezekiel 33:13? How could someone be righteous (saved) at one point, yet they then sin and lose their righteousness? How could God say t hat it was possible for a saved person to end up dying in their iniquity?

 

[ricko]

Yet, that is exactly what God says. We have the righteous (the saved). The righteous believes he cannot lose his salvation (he believes in once saved always saved). The righteous commits iniquity. The righteous loses his salvation. Once saved always saved? I don’t think so.

Let’s move now to the New Testament. There are so many verses in the New Testament that so completely, clearly, and directly obliterate the teaching of OSAS, that it can be difficult to know where to start. So I’ll start with the verses I mentioned above that Protestants will use to argue for OSAS.

Rom 8:1–2, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin an d death.” As a Catholic, I agree 100% with this verse. For those who are in Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation. But, I don’t see anything in this passage that tells me I can’t fall away from Christ Jesus. That I can’t, at some point in the future, reject Christ Jesus. It’s not there. “But, wait a minute”, someone might say, “it says I am set free from the ‘law of sin and death’”. That’s right, but again, it doesn’t say that I have lost my free will to at any time in the future choose to go back to the law of sin and death if I desire.

Paul tells us in Romans, chapter 6, verses 15–16, “What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means. Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”

Paul tells the Romans that they are no longer under the old law, but under the law of grace. So, according to Protestant doctrine, he is talking to the saved, to those who are “hid” in Christ, those for whom there is now “no condemnation.” And what does Paul say to the saved? Does he say that since they are under grace that no sin will ever be held against them? Not quite. He tells them that if they sin, that if they yield themselves to sin, that they will become slaves of sin which will lead to death. Spiritual death.

Again, Catholics agree that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, as long as they stay there But that’s the problem: staying in Christ Jesus; avoiding sin. When you sin, you separate yourself from Christ. When we sin, we are no longer “in Christ Jesus”.

The big probl em for folks who believe in the doctrine of OSAS, is the problem of sin. They don’t know what to do with it. To get around the problem of sin, I’ve had people tell me either one of two things is true: 1) That once you’re saved sin no longer has any consequences for you; at least, no consequences in terms of your salvation; or 2) That once you’re saved you will not sin any more. And, if you do sin, it is a sign that you were not really saved in the first place.

Both of these arguments, however, fly in the face of Scripture. Let’s look at the second argument first. Is it true that once you’re saved, you no longer sin or that if you do sin it means you really weren’t saved in the first place? Rom 7:15, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” Was Paul saved according to Protestant st andards? Of course he was. Yet, here is Paul, one very saved individual, telling us very plainly that he still sins. Does that mean Paul really wasn’t saved after all? No self–respecting believer in once saved always saved would say such a thing. Which means it is contrary to Scripture to say that once a person is saved they can no longer sin. It also contrary to Scripture to say that if a person who has made an act of faith in Christ does sin, it is a sign that they really were not saved in the first place. Paul’s comments in Romans 7 prove that, but you can also read his other letters where he constantly warns the Christians he is writing to avoid sin. If a Christian cannot sin, then why did Paul warn them so often to avoid sin?

Hebrews 12:26–27, “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.” I thought we couldn’t sin deliberately after we’ve received the knowledge of the truth?

Verse 29, “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?” The writer of Hebrews is talking about someone who has been sanctified, made holy, by the blood of the covenant. This cannot describe someone who has not accepted Christ, so he must be talking about those who are saved. Those who are “really” saved. But, how can he be talking about someone who has been saved when he’s referring to people who have “spurned” the Son of God and who have “profaned” the blood of the covenant and have “outraged” the Spirit of grace? A saved person cannot d o those things, can they? They can if you believe what you read in the Bible. And, after they have done these things, does it say they are still saved? No. It says they will receive “punishment” and a “fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire.” Once saved always saved? I don’t think so.

 

[dcana]

I was being facetious.

Unfortunately, we hear this argument all too frequently from the Evangelicals who try to explain how folks who obviously believed at one point fall away.

Their only response: they weren’t really saved.

Yes, of course, that is the point I was trying to make. Of course, it is always “somebody else” who falls away and therefore was never “really saved” to begin with. The believer himself could never be one who falls away. It is only natural to believe this. Who among us says, “yep, I know I’m one of the reprobate and am going straight to hell when I die!?” Nobody, that’s who. It’s really quite arrogant. It is not a question of not trusting Jesus enough. He is faithful and even if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, always and forever. It is a question trusting in ourselves too much. What they don’t realize or don’t care to ponder if they do, is that the “other person” feels he is “once saved always saved” equally as much as the hypothetical person in question.