S
Sig
Guest
No, I don’t.
- Status
S
Sig
Guest
Where sin abounds grace abounds much more, right (Rom 5:20)?
If I had a dime for everytime I’ve heard someone say that, both ex-Catholic, and ex-Prot, I’d be rich. Everyone has experiences, and everyone makes choices. Theological truth is determined by neither.I cut my teeth on OSAS, born and raised Southern Baptist, and believed that come-lately doctrine for too many years. I know now that it was invented in the 16th century. Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it. Deo gratias!
I came to view it as man’s way of imagining that he controls God. According to OSAS, once a person accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, God suspends His commandments and MUST allow him into heaven, whether he does the will of His Father or not (Mt 7:21), and no matter the sins he may commit thereafter. Luther wrote - “It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” Calvin’s accomplices dubbed his concept Perseverance of the Saints.
Protestant denominations fight among themselves over this doctrine, slinging Bible verses at each other. One example is the book, *The Believers Conditional Security - A study on perseverance and falling away *by Daniel D. Corner, a Protestant minister, published by Evangelical Outreach. It’s 800 pages of why OSAS is wrong.
Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
S
Sig
Guest
They’re not. I’ve never said they were, but only that they state that one can know one is saved.
How about Jn 6:47: Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in me has everlasting life (cf Jn 6:35-37).
So are you, and every Catholic his own authority, authorized by himself, unless of course you became Catholic in a vacuum. Did you?
S
Sig
Guest
A number of church Fathers added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 long before Luther did. Historical fact.
S
Sig
Guest
No, I still don’t know what you’re saying. It has nothing to do with Christ that I can see.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Don’t know why this is a hard concept. One can know that they are saved. One can also reject God later, and lose the knowledge of salvation, just like a healthy person can lose the knowledge that they are healthy by getting sick. I’m simply pointing out that the verse doesn’t say what you assume it does - that the knowledge is an absolute that is forever and cannot change.
S
Sig
Guest
S
Sig
Guest
I reject what you’re asserting. That’s all. You’ve given me no reason to accept your assertion.
F
Fragile
Guest
11 pages on OSAS, go figure! 
“Move in and out of God’s grace?”
That’s a bit, weird…
“Move in and out of God’s grace?”
That’s a bit, weird…
S
Sig
Guest
What? How do you conclude that a question about sin = doubting the existence of sin?
F
Farsight001
Guest
That’s not really a response. All I did was explain the meaning of the sentence based on the meaning of the word “know”. If you disagree, don’t just say you disagree. Explain what you think is wrong with my explanation. Saying basically “no, you’re wrong” is the response of someone who has no real response.
S
Sig
Guest
The just shall live by faith…[no qualifier, IOW, by faith and nothing else, or by faith alone] (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 3:28; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38).
S
Sig
Guest
Yes it is.
Once more, I don’t see where you’ve explained anything. You’ve made an assertion. That’s all.
You say one can sin and lose salvation. Prove it.
S
Sig
Guest
The link stands.
Now if you’d like to offer some proof other than, “because I say so,” go ahead.
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, of course, the just must live by faith.The just shall live by faith…[no qualifier, IOW, by faith and nothing else, or by faith alone] (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 3:28; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38).
Now, if the writer(s) also did include a qualifier, as James did, then they’d have been as clear as James was that faith alone was insufficient. Good thing James cleared that up in any case.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
IF a saving faith includes those works by nature, then it in fact mandates good works. Which is requisite of free will.
You see, the major hurdle that the conversation is struggling with the lack of understanding of free will in its essence. Free will, in application to humanity, is choosing God, or not choosing God. Strictly speaking, “sin” is not an entity in itself. There is not a dichotomy per se between sin and grace. There is grace, and not grace. It’s just simply easier to say “sin” than “not grace”. If this was not the case then sin would have had to existed as a primal power, such as God, before eternity. We know this not to be the case. Thus, free will is movement of to or from God, using the opportunities that he provides us. The assumption that you are making is that free will dictates:
- A lack of “bondage” to sin or grace (the way you understand this to being) an thus grace becomes a play-thing of the will.
– This is called presumption of grace. It is refuted by Galatians 6:7 in the regards that one is assuming God is a fool for giving him free will AND the opportunity to constantly choose him, or not. This becomes a case-by-case dealing under God’s knowledge of each person’s intent, rather than a blanket doctrine (as I see that you see it).
– Again, assuming a false dichotomy between “sin” and “grace” as a state of being rather than an active choice defined by said works and faith. Don’t let this get to hair splitting between a state of mortal sin/grace though. Presence of mortal sin on one’s conscience is not dependent on the sin itself, but the lack of grace that it prescribes. Thus, it differentiates from committing the actual sin itself.
b) God’s will mandates the will of the creature, such that the will of the creature is conformed to the will of the creator under consent.
-The extent to which “consent” dictates, however, is still not decided. To consent the will of the creator, it would seem that the creature would have to be actively engaged in it by active consent.
-However, this refutes the idea that you believe that works are part of salvation as faith in action. If works are merely a product of regeneration, then it wouldn’t be active consent, would it? Regeneration would then imply a lack of free will, and thus a lack of ability to actively consent God. Which makes my head spin.
S
Sig
Guest
There is no qualifier. The just shall live by faith [alone].Well, of course, the just must live by faith.
- Status