Once Saved, Always Saved

[elvisman]

Matthew tells us that Judas repented in himself (stung with remorse) and confessed to betraying innocent blood. And none of the accounts tell us that Peter prayed; they say only that he wept bitterly.

It is also verifiably false that Judas chose despair and thus could have repented. The Scripture states that prior to Judas’ remorse and confession he “saw that he was condemned.”

Whatever you add to this to form your opinion is not from apostolic sources.

When Judas betrayed Jesus he put himself in full agreement with all the things of which the Pharisees where accusing Jesus. This man who had tasted the goodness of the Lord and knew explicitly that Jesus was the Son of God and savior of mankind, deliberately aligned himself with those that called our Lord a blasphemer, liar, rebel, and sinner. It was not “simply a betrayal,” it was deliberate malicious insurrection of the highest order.

You downplay this to a level such that you accuse all believers who struggle with sin on a daily basis of essentially being like Judas. Fortunately you are wrong and it is not the case. See Romans 7.

Judas felt bad for what he did but that’s not enough. Simply feeling remorse for one’s sins is NOT the same as repentance. You need to understand the difference. Judas compounded his lack of repentance to God by killing himself - as if that was going to end his suffering. The same can be said of ANY sinner.

As for Peter - he prayed for forgiveness as is implied later. That is why Jesus have him a second chance when he asked him 3 times to feed his sheep in John 21. Had Peter simply dispaired as Judas did - he would not have been forgiven and asked to lead the flock.

**Unfortunately for you - you need to see everything explicitly laid out in Scripture to understand what should be painfully clear. This type of spiritual pride is precisely why you cannot grasp many things that are more explicitly taught in Scripture - like the fact that you can lose your salvation (**Rom. 11:22, ****Heb. 10:26-27, ****2 Pet. 2:20-22, **2 Pet. 3:17, ****Rev. 3:5, ****Rev. 22:19).
**

 

[Carlan]

*The only claim I made about eternal security is that I am saved. Catholics say I can’t know that. I said that I am held to Christ by love and will never leave Him. Catholics say I can’t know that and I might choose to walk away in the future. *

Let’s pretend we are not discussing salvation, instead we are discussing marriage and relationships. If I were to tell you in that context that I love my wife with all my heart, and that I would never leave her, what would you say? Would you tell me that I am foolish for believing such a thing? Or would you tell me that I have real commitment?

Brian you can claim that security, If you are sure about your present relationship with God, but what you can’t know positively is that you will never, sometime in the future before you leave this world,fall away and Not repent and seek forgiveness. Our hope is in Christ that we will persevere until the end in his life and love.

It is good that you are secure in the relationship you describe, but I think you would have many saying to you after reading your ideal, “Famous Last Words”. The last stats I read 50% of all marriages today end in divorce.
Can’t say I’m much impressed with your analogy as a whole.
Peace, Carlan
PS, I give this for you to ponder concerning your salvation…You have been saved and you are being saved and you hope to be saved, it is a life long process and not a OSAS done deal, Presumption is not a good thing.

 

[menofstjoseph]

If you want to understand salvation consider the parable of the sower. How many people in the various categories in the parable would consider themselves saved? I would imagine that many of them consider themselves saved, but in truth only the ones that bear fruit are saved, and not all of them bear the same amount of fruit. It is abundantly clear in Scripture that those who bear fruit will have no condemnation upon them.

Those who bear fruit in the Lord do not live in fear of losing their salvation, but rather rejoice in the love of God that was poured out into their hearts by the Holy Spirit that was given to them. Some might think this is absurd, but to us that are saved it is the power of God!

What about the parable of the Protocall Son? He was in his Father’s house. Disowned his father. Led a loose life, and then asked for forgiveness and came back to his father. So, he was saved (with his Father) then was if he had died, no longer in his house, he turned his back on his Father, and then, of his OWN FREE WILL, came back on his own.

He was in, then out, then back in. He wasn’t always in.

If he was “always saved” (and so was always ASSURED he was part of the household of the Father) why was the son act so relieved to be accepted back? Why was the Father joyous to accept him back? Why did the older brother make the comparative statement that he had always been faithful to the Father and always been a part of the household?

The answer is the Father was ALWAYS, ALWAYS ready to accept him back, but the son had to make a free wil choice to return. The Father cannot force the son to choose either path. The choice must be made. Its s choice we make daily.

But, every time we choose to leave, the Father will always choose to accept us back. But we have to make that decision every morning wahen our feet hit the floor.

It is not a one time thing.

 

[menofstjoseph]

it doesn’t mean we do not repent. We work out our salvation.

Why repent if you are already saved?

Why keep paying the mortgage if the house is already paid for?

Why keep working if you know you can’t be fired?

Why stay on a diet if you know you can’t get fat?

Why buy flood insurance if you live in the desert?

Again, why repent of sins if you are 100% sure of being in heaven?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

What about the parable of the Protocall Son? He was in his Father’s house. Disowned his father. Led a loose life, and then asked for forgiveness and came back to his father. So, he was saved (with his Father) then was if he had died, no longer in his house, he turned his back on his Father, and then, of his OWN FREE WILL, came back on his own.

He was in, then out, then back in. He wasn’t always in.

If he was “always saved” (and so was always ASSURED he was part of the household of the Father) why was the son act so relieved to be accepted back? Why was the Father joyous to accept him back? Why did the older brother make the comparative statement that he had always been faithful to the Father and always been a part of the household?

The answer is the Father was ALWAYS, ALWAYS ready to accept him back, but the son had to make a free wil choice to return. The Father cannot force the son to choose either path. The choice must be made. Its s choice we make daily.

But, every time we choose to leave, the Father will always choose to accept us back. But we have to make that decision every morning wahen our feet hit the floor.

It is not a one time thing.

When the son became destitute and humbly returned to his father, his father remarked that he was alive again. What Jesus meant by that is that the son was returned to a better moral state. His previous life was one of discontent, bitterness and pride; his new life was one of humility, respect and subjection. His previous life was not really life, but a waiting-to-die sort of existence.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in no way relates to the parable.
The premise of the Catholic doctrine of salvation is that one can humbly come to Christ, become a child of God through repentance – Just like the son returned to his father – then with one mistake, be kicked out of God’s house until he or she repents. This process can repeat over and over again throughout a Catholic’s life and it is entirely unbiblical.

The parable was primarily meant for a Jewish audience. It is a parallel teaching to Paul’s parable of the olive tree (Rom. 11); only Paul relates the teaching to gentile believers. The son, like a branch of the cultivated olive tree, is of God’s household by birthright. But as Jesus taught in the parable of the vine and branches, the branches that abide by faith bear fruit, but the branches that bear no fruit are cut off and burned. It would be illogical assume that the dead branches could be unburned. It is similar with the olive tree and its branches, many of the natural branches, the Jews, were cut off because of disbelief. Paul said of these branches that if they repent and believe they would be grafted back in.

There is absolutely no support for Rome’s teaching that one can be grafted in, cut off and then grafted in again. When one believes and is joined to God’s family they will either bear fruit or they won’t bear fruit. If they bear fruit God will prune them so they will bear more fruit, but if they fail to bear fruit they will be cut off.

The parable of the prodigal son is an illustration of was necessary for the first fruits of God’s household, the Jews, to receive the inheritance of the promises of God. An inheritance they squandered through disbelief and pride, but might receive again through faith and humility.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Judas felt bad for what he did but that’s not enough. Simply feeling remorse for one’s sins is NOT the same as repentance. You need to understand the difference. Judas compounded his lack of repentance to God by killing himself - as if that was going to end his suffering. The same can be said of ANY sinner.

As for Peter - he prayed for forgiveness as is implied later. That is why Jesus have him a second chance when he asked him 3 times to feed his sheep in John 21. Had Peter simply dispaired as Judas did - he would not have been forgiven and asked to lead the flock.

Unfortunately for you - you need to see everything explicitly laid out in Scripture to understand what should be painfully clear. This type of spiritual pride is precisely why you cannot grasp many things that are more explicitly taught in Scripture - like the fact that you can lose your salvation (**Rom. 11:22, ****Heb. 10:26-27, ****2 Pet. 2:20-22, **2 Pet. 3:17, ****Rev. 3:5, ****Rev. 22:19).

They [Christians] pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. (Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 5) – Late first or early second century A.D.

 

[menofstjoseph]

The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in no way relates to the parable.

Wow. You really don’t get it. This IS the Catholic doctrine of salvation..

By the way, you said that the Father recognized the son as being alive “again”.

Can you define the word “again” as you used it?

Are you saying he was alive constantly and consistently? If so, why make the distinction?

Or he was alive, died, and was alive again?

 

[menofstjoseph]

Brian,
Maybe yoiu can help me out understanding something.

What is your belief about the damage, if any, that sin causes with our relationship with God?

Does the damage (if any) of sin completely stop after we find Jesus? So that no matter how heinous the sin it has no affect on our relationship with Him?

Is any grievous sin proof that a person is not truly saved?

Is sin of zero consequence after we surrender our lives to Christ?

Does repentance have no purpose after we have begun our true personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

 

[veilofveronica]

Hi there,

Catholics believe that we are saved through Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross, once and for all. We also believe that through sinful actions, we become separated from God and need to repair our relationship with Him. This is Biblical, and several other members here have already given you good sources for that.

We also think that we need to actively live our faith every day. It’s one thing to be “saved” and to have God’s friendship, but we need to live as a Christian to truly be one through our actions. That’s what we mean by “through works”. It’s not that a series of certain actions will “get us into Heaven” (that’s a common mistake people think about the Church), it’s that we believe that we have to live an active Christian life to be truly saved. It’s one thing to believe in Jesus, but we have to really LIVE that belief. If someone said they believed in Jesus Christ, but lived a terrible lifestyle and never did anything about that belief, that doesn’t really make them a follower of Christ.

Catholics also believe that God will always take us back, no matter what we have done. When we have remorse for our sins, He welcomes us back with open arms and helps us to do better. We’re human, we stumble. God knows this. The sacraments are tangible ways to help us on our journey through the Church.

I hope this helped you. Best wishes on your faith journey!!

Yours in Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

The only claim I made about eternal security is that I am saved. Catholics say I can’t know that. I said that I am held to Christ by love and will never leave Him. Catholics say I can’t know that and I might choose to walk away in the future.

Do you think that you will never ever commit sin?

So suppose you die after committing sin, isn’t it that the wages of sin is death?

 

[benedictus2]

When the son became destitute and humbly returned to his father, his father remarked that he was alive again. What Jesus meant by that is that the son was returned to a better moral state. His previous life was one of discontent, bitterness and pride; his new life was one of humility, respect and subjection. His previous life was not really life, but a waiting-to-die sort of existence.

**The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in no way relates to the parable.
The premise of the Catholic doctrine of salvation is that one can humbly come to Christ, become a child of God through repentance – Just like the son returned to his father – then with one mistake, be kicked out of God’s house until he or she repents. **

Actually that is a misrepresentation of what the Church teaches.

God does not kick us out of the house because we made a mistake. We remove ourselves from the house when we made this mistake. And we are not talking here about a teeny, weeny mistake. We are talking defiant, willful, feet stomping, nostril blaring disobedience.

The prodigal son was not kicked out by the father because he demanded his inheritance. The prodigal son removed himself from the father’s house because of his selfishness. In demanding his inheritance, he was actually saying to his father I want you dead. Notice, even then the father did not say to his son “go to hell and be cursed for doing that”. He actually acquiesced to His son’s demand. It was the son who willfully and defiantly left despite this love of the father.

That is how it is when we sin. God let’s us. We have free will.

So yes, with one mortal sin, we are out of the house. But it is not the father’s doing, it is our own.

Our separation from God because of sin is not a punishment but rather the nature of sin itself. Sin is a separation from God.

No, Brian, you have a very simplistic view of salvation and profoundly flawed view of Catholic theology.

This process can repeat over and over again throughout a Catholic’s life and it is entirely unbiblical.

Actually, as some must have already shown you, it is entirely biblical.

It is because you have a faulty understanding of the relationship between sin and salvation that you came to that conclusion.

 

[OurLady01]

1st section deleted by OurLady01]

The only claim I made about eternal security is that I am saved. Catholics say I can’t know that.] I said that I am held to Christ by love and will never leave Him. Catholics say I can’t know that and I might choose to walk away in the future. ]

Comment by OurLady01

**Dear Brian - You have misunderstandings ] and **misinterpretations about what Catholics believe. This is CATHOLIC Christian teaching :

Multiple passages in sacred scripture emphasize the ongoing nature of our free choice to believers. They are present tense choices: believe Him, obey Him, know Him, do His will, fear Him, work His righteousness, etc. Why would the LORD have phrased these right heart attitude responses in the form of commands and exhortations, IF the believer does not have the freedom to choose or not to abide in them?

The sacred scriptures teach that several, present-tense nature of these commands and duties calls for continual obedience. This appears to be a strong contradiction to the possibility of unconditional] eternal security for someone , after having a once saved ] event through past tense faith.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life.

John 3:16 does not teach that whosoever believed - past tense] has eternal life. Salvation is not unconditionally promised to any group of people based upon a once upon a time ] relationship with Christ. The verse simply states whoever believes ] present tense ], has eternal life ] also present tense]. In this verse, believes ] signifies the person now and continues to do so. The present tense has ] means the believer has] eternal life NOW and continues to have it. Clearly, continuing to have eternal life is LINKED TO, or conditioned upon, the present-tense choice: Believes and continues to believe.

**John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but has eternal life. **

The 3:16 prophecy of eternal perishing for unbelievers is also their present-tense state. However, this does not mean once saved, always unsaved.] This present and future state of perishing is still reversible, IF an unsaved person would choose to believe. Similarly, the believer’s present and future state of eternal life is also potentially reversible. ** If a believer’s heart chooses to turn away without repentance he no longer believes,** he no longer has ] life now or in the age to come. This ex-believer will perish with all other unbelievers on the DAY of the LORD.

The LORD is not confined to time. He can speak of a person who believes NOW as having eternal life present tense for the person]. He can also speak of a person having eternal life in the future, provided they believe IN HIM UNTIL THE END. ]

** Mark 10:29-30 29** “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

The LORD speaks of those who presently have genuine faith as saved] or have been saved. He also teaches that this present state is the process of being saved ] Those who believe are taught they will be saved Matt 24:13,

Matthew 24:13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
**
and that the outcome of the process of their ** proven faith in Christ in the Son] is the salvation of their souls [1Peter 1:9 ]

**1 Peter 1:9 ** for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

There is a warning in principle for all believers in all ages in Jude 5: God can save people, and afterward destroy those who do not believe.

God bless you.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Dear Brian - You have misunderstandings ] and misinterpretations about what Catholics believe. This is CATHOLIC Christian teaching :

Multiple passages in sacred scripture emphasize the ongoing nature of our free choice to believers. They are present tense choices: believe Him, obey Him, know Him, do His will, fear Him, work His righteousness, etc. Why would the LORD have phrased these right heart attitude responses in the form of commands and exhortations, IF the believer does not have the freedom to choose or not to abide in them?

I never said Catholics don’t have free will. You do have a choice; have you made yours or are you indecisive?

The sacred scriptures teach that several, present-tense nature of these commands and duties calls for continual obedience. This appears to be a strong contradiction to the possibility of unconditional] eternal security for someone , after having a once saved ] event through past tense faith.

You are either referring to someone else or you are attempting to misrepresent me as so many others on this tread do. Why don’t you set aside the box you are trying to put me in and read what I have written…please?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life.

John 3:16 does not teach that whosoever believed - past tense] has eternal life. Salvation is not unconditionally promised to any group of people based upon a once upon a time ] relationship with Christ. The verse simply states whoever believes ] present tense ], has eternal life ] also present tense]. In this verse, believes ] signifies the person now and continues to do so. The present tense has ] means the believer has] eternal life NOW and continues to have it. Clearly, continuing to have eternal life is LINKED TO, or conditioned upon, the present-tense choice: Believes and continues to believe.

John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but has eternal life.

I agree completely. Again, I don’t know to whom you are referring. If a person stopped believing, of course they would not be saved. I think that is a given.

The 3:16 prophecy of eternal perishing for unbelievers is also their present-tense state. However, this does not mean once saved, always unsaved.] This present and future state of perishing is still reversible, IF an unsaved person would choose to believe. Similarly, the believer’s present and future state of eternal life is also potentially reversible. If a believer’s heart chooses to turn away without repentance he no longer believes, he no longer has ] life now or in the age to come. This ex-believer will perish with all other unbelievers on the DAY of the LORD.

Indeed.

The LORD is not confined to time. He can speak of a person who believes NOW as having eternal life present tense for the person]. He can also speak of a person having eternal life in the future, provided they believe IN HIM UNTIL THE END. ]

Mark 10:29-30 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

The LORD speaks of those who presently have genuine faith as saved] or have been saved. He also teaches that this present state is the process of being saved ] Those who believe are taught they will be saved Matt 24:13,

Matthew 24:13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

and that the outcome of the process of their proven faith in Christ in the Son] is the salvation of their souls [1Peter 1:9 ]

1 Peter 1:9 for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

There is a warning in principle for all believers in all ages in Jude 5: God can save people, and afterward destroy those who do not believe.

Let me ask you something. In the parable of the sower, Jesus illustrated all the various types of hearts that receive the Word. Which of the soil types describes your heart?

God bless you.

God bless you too.

 

[menofstjoseph]

I never said Catholics don’t have free will. You do have a choice; have you made yours or are you indecisive?

You are either referring to someone else or you are attempting to misrepresent me as so many others on this tread do. Why don’t you set aside the box you are trying to put me in and read what I have written…please?

I agree completely. Again, I don’t know to whom you are referring. If a person stopped believing, of course they would not be saved. I think that is a given.

Indeed.

Let me ask you something. In the parable of the sower, Jesus illustrated all the various types of hearts that receive the Word. Which of the soil types describes your heart?

God bless you too.

Brian,
What role are you in the parable of the protocol son? Between the son and the older brother one has a perspective of the relationship with the father that seems fragile, uncertain, and humble. The other seems to be self righteous, indignant, and judgmental.

As far as parable of the sower, over time fertile ground can become barren.

 

[fbl9]

Brian,
What role are you in the parable of the prodigal son? Between the son and the older brother one has a perspective of the relationship with the father that seems fragile, uncertain, and humble. The other seems to be self righteous, indignant, and judgmental.

As far as parable of the sower, over time fertile ground can become barren.

Interesting question waiting for the answer.

Hard packed ground can become loose again after tilling, weed choked ground can be made clean, shallow soil just needs a light tilling. I pray at times the Lord would till the hardness of my heart so the seeds He plants may flourish.

 

[elvisman]

They [Christians] pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. (Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 5) – Late first or early second century A.D.

Please tell me what this has to do with what I wrote.

If you’re saying what is written here supports OSAS, I can only say 2 things:
1. I have not read the entire Epistle, so I don’t know if you’re taking what he said out of context.

2. This writer is not inspired, so even if he DID support OSAS - he’s not under the protection of infallibility.

Finally - your entire point if moot anyway. Nobody is saying that we’re NOT citizens of heaven - when we’re in a state of grace. We are merely stating that you can LOSE your citizenship if you fall into grave sin:

Revelation 3:5
**He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. **

---

Can’t blot out what was never there , Brian . . .

 

[fbl9]

Finally - your entire point if moot anyway. Nobody is saying that we’re NOT citizens of heaven - when we’re in a state of grace. We are merely stating that you can LOSE your citizanship if you fall into grave sin.

Since all sin is equal in thier theology any sin is a grave sin.
So osas beleivers you sin once no matter what you weren’t sincere in the first place. best get yourselves rebaptised.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian,
What role are you in the parable of the protocol son? Between the son and the older brother one has a perspective of the relationship with the father that seems fragile, uncertain, and humble. The other seems to be self righteous, indignant, and judgmental.

As far as parable of the sower, over time fertile ground can become barren.

“And it came to pass that, as he reclined at tables in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and reclined at table with Jesus and his disciples, and the Pharisees seeing it said to his disciples: Why does your teacher eat with the publicans and sinners? But hearing it he said: Those who are in health have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” means. For I came not to call righteous men, but sinners.” (Mat. 9:10-13)

The older brother represents the Pharisees and Scribes who protested the Good News of Christ. By their own account they were righteous. Jesus, knowing their hearts, portrayed them just as they saw themselves. Such is the case with the older brother.

The prodigal son represents all God’s children who are gone astray that repent and return to Him.

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa. 53:6)

The father represents our Father in heaven. Notice, the father himself forgave and welcomed His son back into his family. The son confessed his sins to his father and repented of his ways. The father asked no penance of his son, only love. And there the story ends. We are left to believe that the son stayed in his father’s house because the story portrayed true repentance and a sure change of heart.

But if, as you doctrine suggests, the son were to repeat his offense against his father and return to the depths of his misery, then once again repent and be welcomed again by his father, the son would make the father a fool.

“For if, after escaping from the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in these and overcome, their last state becomes worse than the first.” (2Pet. 2:20)

But if the son remains in his father’s house, like the parable suggests, he may do wrong on occasion and draw reprimand and correction from his father.

“For whom the Lord loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.” (Pro. 3:12)

“My little children, these things write I to you that you sin not. And if any one sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (1John 2:1)

To answer your question; I am indeed represented by the prodigal son. So now to you: which of the soil types in the parable of the sower represents your heart?

 

[fbl9]

.

“For if, after escaping from the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in these and overcome, their last state becomes worse than the first.” (2Pet. 2:20)

 

[Brian_Culliton]

“For if, after escaping from the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in these and overcome, their last state becomes worse than the first.” (2Pet. 2:20)

are you suggesting that they lose thier salvation??

Their first state was separation from God with the chance to hear and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved. Their last state is separation from God having already forsaken the salvation He offers. Christ is not sacrificed again for them and the father will not kill the fatted calf and celebrate with a feast a second time, or third, or fourth, and so on.