Once Saved Always Saved!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linoge1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A question here, OSAS seems to me to be very presumptuous, if this is the case then isn’t OSAS a sin against the Holy Spirit? Which is defined as follows: SINS AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT Despair of salvation, presumption of God’s mercy, impugning the known truths of faith, envy at another’s spiritual good, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence? Those guilty of such sins stubbornly resist the influence of grace and, as long as they do so, cannot be forgiven.
 
Perhaps you could point all of us to verses that support your theory, but remember that although noone can separate us from God, we ourselves can certainly fall away from the Hand of God, as witnessed by the above mentioned passages along with many others.
Being cut off implies one does not bear fruit. If one does not bear fruit one is not saved. So being cut off implies that one was either a natural branch or grafted into the tree. The only mention of being grafted back in is a reference to the Jews who are natural branches; no such remark is made of the unnatural branches. Jesus said that every branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off. With that in mind, it is apparent that some branches that were grafted in will be cut off, which means that just because someone is grafted in it does not mean they are saved.

Consider the parable of the sower. In that parable three types of believers are illustrated, two types that bear no fruit and one type that do. If you apply that parable to the parable of the fig tree, all three types are grafted in when they receive the word with gladness and believe. Two of those three groups will be cut off, and it is to them that Paul preaches his warning.

But Jesus said, “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. ” (Jhn. 15:8-10) He went on to say, “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (v12)

If one fails to understand what it means to abide in love they will not grasp what it means to be saved.
 
Being cut off implies one does not bear fruit. If one does not bear fruit one is not saved. So being cut off implies that one was either a natural branch or grafted into the tree. The only mention of being grafted back in is a reference to the Jews who are natural branches; no such remark is made of the unnatural branches. Jesus said that every branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off. With that in mind, it is apparent that some branches that were grafted in will be cut off, which means that just because someone is grafted in it does not mean they are saved.
Brian:

Romans 11:22 states: “toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.” This means that one would have spent some time walking in the goodness of God before being cut off. Being grafted in refers right back to this passage.
Consider the parable of the sower. In that parable three types of believers are illustrated, two types that bear no fruit and one type that do. If you apply that parable to the parable of the fig tree, all three types are grafted in when they receive the word with gladness and believe. Two of those three groups will be cut off, and it is to them that Paul preaches his warning.

But Jesus said, “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. ” (Jhn. 15:8-10) He went on to say, “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (v12)

If one fails to understand what it means to abide in love they will not grasp what it means to be saved.
Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly, I’m afraid. Bearing fruit is an essential part of faith, as St. James so eloquently noted in the second chapter of his epistle. However, to say that one cannot lose salvation, based on your interpretation leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Consider St. Peter’s second epistle:

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

2 Peter 2:21-22

If they were once saved, how can the end be worse for them then the beginning?

Brian your interpretation would mean that when St. Paul speaks the following passage, he must have not excluded those who were previously saved:

*27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. *

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

After all, all who have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior are worthy of the Cup, right?

21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

St. Matthew 7:21
 
Hi all,

I’m not even sure that I’m a Protestant anymore (I am a former Catholic convert-- with not-so-great spiritual formation-- who became a Reformed Protestant; now, I might possibly be on my way back to the Church). Having said that, Catholics really should know that “OSAS” is actually a perversion of the historic Protestant Reformed teaching on eternal security. I’ll post here what I posted on Steve Ray’s blog about this issue (I’m not saying that I currently agree with these statements, but they do accurately reflect that “OSAS,” in its modern formulation, is not what Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, etc. believed):

"I am a former Catholic convert (from agnosticism). Do you know that the majority of the original Protestant Reformers (and those, like me, who follow in their footsteps today, such as Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists) did not hold to the articulation of “Once Saved, Always Saved” found here, but rather to the “Perserverance of the Saints,” which is a very different doctrine? It is true that genuine Christians will lead lives which are characterized by a hunger for holiness. If a person claims to be a Christian, trusting in Christ for his/her salvation, yet that person is not fighting sin and doing good works, he/she is quite likely not a genuine Christian. Scripture states clearly that only the person who endures to the end (in faith) will be saved.

However, Scripture also claims (of the converted person, the Christian) that “He (God) who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6, ESV) According to this verse, God began the good work in us through bringing us to conversion, and He will complete the good work in us that He began. He leaves no person who has been born again in such a state that the person can somehow become “un-born again.” This being said, God will complete His good work in us through our perseverance in the faith– which He Himself ensures.

Again, from Paul’s letter to the Philippians, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” (2:12-13) We persevere in the faith– all true Christians do. We do so though, because God works in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. This is the Reformed, Biblical doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (all Christians being called “saints” in the Bible, not just those who have been canonized).

Two last verses which show that for those who have been truly converted, they will persevere in the faith, and their salvation can also never be lost: “For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. For those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30, ESV) In the second verse here, anyone who is predestined and called is also justified and glorified. There is no category left for people who were predestined, called, and justified, but who later lost their salvation. If a person has been predestined, called, and justified by God, this verse states that he/she will be glorified. Again, this will not happen without the person’s perseverance in the faith to the end, but the perseverance is once which is empowered and ensured by God (Philippians 1:6. 2:12-13). This is what Protestant Reformed Christians believe. The “Once Saved, Always Saved” easy-believism without obedience to God is a relatively recent invention and is not faithful to the Protestant Reformation."
 
Hi all,

I’m not even sure that I’m a Protestant anymore (I am a former Catholic convert-- with not-so-great spiritual formation-- who became a Reformed Protestant; now, I might possibly be on my way back to the Church). Having said that, Catholics really should know that “OSAS” is actually a perversion of the historic Protestant Reformed teaching on eternal security. I’ll post here what I posted on Steve Ray’s blog about this issue (I’m not saying that I currently agree with these statements, but they do accurately reflect that “OSAS,” in its modern formulation, is not what Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, etc. believed):

"I am a former Catholic convert (from agnosticism). Do you know that the majority of the original Protestant Reformers (and those, like me, who follow in their footsteps today, such as Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists) did not hold to the articulation of “Once Saved, Always Saved” found here, but rather to the “Perserverance of the Saints,” which is a very different doctrine? It is true that genuine Christians will lead lives which are characterized by a hunger for holiness. If a person claims to be a Christian, trusting in Christ for his/her salvation, yet that person is not fighting sin and doing good works, he/she is quite likely not a genuine Christian. Scripture states clearly that only the person who endures to the end (in faith) will be saved.

However, Scripture also claims (of the converted person, the Christian) that “He (God) who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6, ESV) According to this verse, God began the good work in us through bringing us to conversion, and He will complete the good work in us that He began. He leaves no person who has been born again in such a state that the person can somehow become “un-born again.” This being said, God will complete His good work in us through our perseverance in the faith– which He Himself ensures.

Again, from Paul’s letter to the Philippians, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” (2:12-13) We persevere in the faith– all true Christians do. We do so though, because God works in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. This is the Reformed, Biblical doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (all Christians being called “saints” in the Bible, not just those who have been canonized).

Two last verses which show that for those who have been truly converted, they will persevere in the faith, and their salvation can also never be lost: “For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. For those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30, ESV) In the second verse here, anyone who is predestined and called is also justified and glorified. There is no category left for people who were predestined, called, and justified, but who later lost their salvation. If a person has been predestined, called, and justified by God, this verse states that he/she will be glorified. Again, this will not happen without the person’s perseverance in the faith to the end, but the perseverance is once which is empowered and ensured by God (Philippians 1:6. 2:12-13). This is what Protestant Reformed Christians believe. The “Once Saved, Always Saved” easy-believism without obedience to God is a relatively recent invention and is not faithful to the Protestant Reformation."
Well said!
 
"I am a former Catholic convert (from agnosticism). Do you know that the majority of the original Protestant Reformers (and those, like me, who follow in their footsteps today, such as Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists) did not hold to the articulation of “Once Saved, Always Saved” found here, but rather to the “Perserverance of the Saints,” which is a very different doctrine? It is true that genuine Christians will lead lives which are characterized by a hunger for holiness. If a person claims to be a Christian, trusting in Christ for his/her salvation, yet that person is not fighting sin and doing good works, he/she is quite likely not a genuine Christian. Scripture states clearly that only the person who endures to the end (in faith) will be saved.
The problem with “Perseverance of the Saints” is that it is also a presumptuous doctrine that claims something we cannot know - whether we indeed ARE one of those saints that God will “preserve” until the end…EVERY Reformer state they are one of these saints!!! Does anyone know of one who says they are not sure???

The idea here is quite similar to the OSAS doctrine in that IF someone were to fall away, they were NEVER were saved/a saint to begin with…:rolleyes:

Thus, one’s walk in Christ for years is suddenly declared null and void, never to have happened. It was all a lie!

The rug is pulled out and at the end of the day, offers NO security, even TODAY, of one’s salvation, since it may later be determined that you “never were saved/ a saint” to begin with…

All we can do is HOPE and have FAITH that we will remain in Christ, as “we work out our salvation in fear and trembling…”

You state it is very different, but the two are really quite similar…

Regards
 
Honestly, fdesales, in many ways, I agree with you! As I wrote above, I’m not sure that I’m a Prostestant anymore… and this is coming from a vantage point of being an involved member of a Reformed (Calvinist) church where, if many people knew that I were looking into Catholicism, I would be accused of “abandoning the Gospel!” :eek:

However, I have to go where my studies (and the Truth!) lead me, wherever that is… and I am realizing that, contrary to what I have been taught, going towards Catholicism is not “abandoning the Gospel.” How strange it is for so many Protestants to believe that the church basically went off the rails right around the time that the first apostles died (because it seems clear that the early Church Fathers believed and taught things that most Protestants today do not believe) and then only “recovered the Gospel” via an extremely scrupulous monk in the sixteenth century…
 
Honestly, fdesales, in many ways, I agree with you! As I wrote above, I’m not sure that I’m a Prostestant anymore… and this is coming from a vantage point of being an involved member of a Reformed (Calvinist) church where, if many people knew that I were looking into Catholicism, I would be accused of “abandoning the Gospel!” :eek:

However, I have to go where my studies (and the Truth!) lead me, wherever that is… and I am realizing that, contrary to what I have been taught, going towards Catholicism is not “abandoning the Gospel.” How strange it is for so many Protestants to believe that the church basically went off the rails right around the time that the first apostles died (because it seems clear that the early Church Fathers believed and taught things that most Protestants today do not believe) and then only “recovered the Gospel” via an extremely scrupulous monk in the sixteenth century…
I found myself in a similar position a few years back myself, although I did not come back from a reformed background. All I can say is keep your heart open to the truth and I believe God will lead you back to the Church. It wasn’t always easy for me but I’ve found the trip to be well worth it. I couldn’t be any happier being Catholic.

ChadS
 
Honestly, fdesales, in many ways, I agree with you! As I wrote above, I’m not sure that I’m a Prostestant anymore… and this is coming from a vantage point of being an involved member of a Reformed (Calvinist) church where, if many people knew that I were looking into Catholicism, I would be accused of “abandoning the Gospel!” :eek:

However, I have to go where my studies (and the Truth!) lead me, wherever that is… and I am realizing that, contrary to what I have been taught, going towards Catholicism is not “abandoning the Gospel.” How strange it is for so many Protestants to believe that the church basically went off the rails right around the time that the first apostles died (because it seems clear that the early Church Fathers believed and taught things that most Protestants today do not believe) and then only “recovered the Gospel” via an extremely scrupulous monk in the sixteenth century…
I think the key difference between Protestants and Catholics on this issue is not the faithfulness of God to fulfill His promises. We’re both fully confident that God will fulfill His promise to us. Where we have issue with Protestants is on the issue whether WE OURSELVES can make that promise null and void. Catholics (and some branches of Protestantism) say YES. Protestants of the Calvinist persuasion say NO.

When a Catholic points out that Romans 8: lists those things that CANNOT separate us from the love of Christ, a category of being saved from ourselves is NOT mentioned. Protestants play a sleight of hand with the words here and think ones choices cannot disqualify themselves.

I think the reason for this is that Catholic theology makes room for fluid movement especially in areas like mans free will; even though wounded through original sin. The very hard edged (I call it base two reasoning of Calvin - either ON or OFF) leaves no room for this flexibility of movement. This inflexibility leads to their doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints or Once Saved Always Saved – Base Two Reasoning. The only problem is that this doctrine can seem correct with* some of the scriptures* – but if falls short when* all of the scriptures* are taken into account. Calvin’s doctrine makes the human experience of man look like both God and man are totally rigid and inflexible beings. Only the elect are given the chance of salvation and all given the chance are given a grace that cannot be refused and that grace always leads one to the final goal of salvation. Those not elected are not given the chance of salvation because they are not given the grace that cannot be refused so that grace cannot not move them toward heaven; but rather without that grace all are destined to hell – because, of course, God is just, and to allow some men to eternal condemnation is just because this was their lot in the first place, even though the elect are, through no valid real choice of their own given eternal life with God. And of course at this point the Calvinist wags his predestined finger at us and says “who are you to judge the judgment of God”. The fact that we are not so wounded by original sin as to still be able to sense “justice” being created in God’s image cannot be countenanced. We, to the Calvinist, are such damaged goods, that we cannot even sense justice. If our human experience has no sense, through analogy, of God’s supreme justice man has zero ability to even know there is a choice that needs chosen. True religion MUST make sense to how God created us to perceive the world. The justice that religion proposes must be a justice that man can truly perceive as justice or else his religious and spiritual life will be not lived in truth but in great confusion. So, when Calvinism proposes something that offends a persons basic sense of justice it’s the religion that’s suspect and NOT the man that is made for God being created in His very image.

MonFrere
 
And of course at this point the Calvinist wags his predestined finger at us and says “who are you to judge the judgment of God”. The fact that we are not so wounded by original sin as to still be able to sense “justice” being created in God’s image cannot be countenanced. We, to the Calvinist, are such damaged goods, that we cannot even sense justice. If our human experience has no sense, through analogy, of God’s supreme justice man has zero ability to even know there is a choice that needs chosen. True religion MUST make sense to how God created us to perceive the world. The justice that religion proposes must be a justice that man can truly perceive as justice or else his religious and spiritual life will be not lived in truth but in great confusion. So, when Calvinism proposes something that offends a persons basic sense of justice it’s the religion that’s suspect and NOT the man that is made for God being created in His very image.

MonFrere
I agree with so much of what you wrote, but I am struggling with the above excerpt. Does our sense of human justice, expressed in outrage over a particular fact or event, necessarily mean that that event is wrong?

Just for the sake of discussion, what if God has chosen some people for eternal life with Himself, and He has left others to go on in their sin-- which is what they already want anyway? Would God be wrong to do so? Thomas Aquinas was obviously not a “Calvinist” (he lived before Calvin!), but he definitely believed that certain people were predestined and elected by God to salvation, while others were not. His views on this subject are not infalliby defined as dogma by the Catholic Church, but they are allowable for Catholics to believe. Personally, I think that Aquinas makes very good points. You can read about his views here: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
 
Just for the sake of discussion, what if God has chosen some people for eternal life with Himself, and He has left others to go on in their sin-- which is what they already want anyway? Would God be wrong to do so?
My understanding on this point is this. Our choice (or non-choice) is OUR CHOICE. It is OUR CHOICE to the point WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for it. Every human being is given sufficient grace throughout his lifetime to make the proper choice.

This position therefore makes each human being responsible for his eternity.

IF man was put in a position where HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for his eternity - our human nature would RIGHTLY be offended. This offends our innate sense of justice. But, if the grace given to that person was equal to another person (all things being equal) then there is a sense of justice both for the person who choose God and for the person who didn’t. But for God to withhold grace from a person where he could not possibly make a choice toward Him - that offends the our human nature’s innate sense of justice.

MonFrere
 
My understanding of Calvinist doctrine is that it believes that mankind is totally depraved. We can do no good.

If this is the case, why did “God so love the world that he gave his only-begotton Son…”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top