Once Saved Always Saved?

[stewstew03]

That’s not what the Holy Bible says.

John 5:24

Romans 10:13

Although I would recommend reading both books completely. ( don’t like picking out verses)

Calgar -
For context, wouldn’t someone need to read and understand other books as well? I’m thinking of the other Gospels, as well as Hebrews, Romans, James, and Timothy. Or can someone fully understand soteriology by just reading John and Romans?

 

[Calgar]

Calgar -
For context, wouldn’t someone need to read and understand other books as well? I’m thinking of the other Gospels, as well as Hebrews, Romans, James, and Timothy. Or can someone fully understand soteriology by just reading John and Romans?

Yes. I doubt it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If that’s the argument then I’ve misread this thread. I don’t know any Christians who believe that.

I certainly don’t. OSAS doesn’t mean you never sin again, or that you don’t need to repent. We are human after all (at leas I am).

Well, what does it mean?

Does “once saved always saved” mean that babies and young children who are saved suddenly lose their salvation when they hit the age of reason? If not, then why do they have to demonstrate faith to regain their salvation which they lost for no good reason other than hitting a certain age? And by the way, where does the Bible say that there is an age of reason and once you hit it, you better skedaddle to the altar call and say the sinner’s prayer or else?

It’s all very contradictory.

 

[Calgar]

Well, what does it mean?

(1) Does “once saved always saved” mean that babies and young children who are saved suddenly lose their salvation when they hit the age of reason? If not, (2) then why do they have to demonstrate faith to regain their salvation which they lost for no good reason other than hitting a certain age? (3) And by the way, where does the Bible say that there is an age of reason and once you hit it, you better skedaddle to the altar call and say the sinner’s prayer or else?

It’s all very contradictory.

I added some numbers to my quote of your post.

1. I’m not sure. What’s your definition of the age of reason?
2. I didn’t know they had to. Who are they demonstrating for?
3. I am not aware that it does.

As to what does OSAS mean? I don’t know. The only people I’ve ever heard use the term are catholics on this forum.

 

[bmonk]

. . . . As my Catholic father-in-law used to say when debating me, back when I was an evangelical Protestant, “You don’t know until you die, and the elevator either goes up or down.” Now the OSAS-ers are saying, “It doesn’t matter what you’ve done all your life; you don’t really know if you’re one of the elect until you die and the elevator either goes up or down.”

That said, we Catholics do need to pay attention to those passages in Scripture that talk about having assurance of salvation.

But we do have “assurance” of salvation–if we do as Jesus asks. Several times, such as the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus speaks of “doing the will of the Father.” Even more telling, to my mind, is Luke 13:23-24: when asked how many (or few) will be saved, Jesus does not answer that question–it’s not helpful for us to know. He answers instead what we can do to be assured of salvation: ““Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.”

I was taught that, as Catholics, we don’t have proof or certainty of salvation–but we can have a reasonable assurance of salvation, if we live in grace.

 

[fhansen]

I was taught that, as Catholics, we don’t have proof or certainty of salvation–but we can have a reasonable assurance of salvation, if we live in grace.

Yes, this is the Catholic position, we can even have a strong assurance, just not 100%. Trent called this the “vain confidence” of the Reformers.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I added some numbers to my quote of your post.

1. I’m not sure. What’s your definition of the age of reason?
2. I didn’t know they had to. Who are they demonstrating for?
3. I am not aware that it does.

As to what does OSAS mean? I don’t know. The only people I’ve ever heard use the term are catholics on this forum.

Well this is what your church says it means.
Baptist Faith and Message:

B. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.
…
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation

These two statements contradict each other unless babies and children are also subject to the requirement to “repent and believe in Christ” or else go to hell.

I’m asking you to resolve this, please.

 

[paul_c]

There are a number of assurance of salvation views that have been argued on Catholic Answers. The most predominant are these (at least in my experience):

1. The Calvinist view: God predestined people to either be saved or to be condemned at the beginning of creation so obviously nothing they do can effect this. In this case, faith and good works are natural for the saved and impossible for the reprobate. You can see where this view comes from: the desire to recognize God’s sovereignty, not a bad thought at first blush, but it does completely ignore the fact that God gave men free will when he created man in His own image and likeness. If, as the Catholic Church teaches, that man really has the ability to accept or reject God’s grace, then it is clear that eternal life can not be decided until man dies. So it really becomes an issue of recognizing or not recognizing man’s free will. The easiest proof point for Catholics in this regard is right at the beginning of the Bible (genesis 3) , where God clearly gives Adam and Eve the freedom to choose to eat the apple and die or to refrain and live in the garden.
2. The Lutheran view of Sola Fide extended by evangelical/ baptists groups to say that once you declare Jesus is Lord, eternal life with God in Heaven is assured. They will argue that Good works follow faith but that it is really only Faith that matters. This is basically a misunderstanding of Catholic sotierology, which teaches that you can enter the state of grace through faith alone with you are baptized. They equate entering the state of grace with a guaranteed of heaven because they don’t recognize the covenant
   aspects of baptism. You see, when you are forgiven your sins, given sanctifying grace and made a member of the church, you agree to do God’s will from then forward. if you fail to do this and sin, you fall from grace, having broken the covenant. Jesus told us in Matthew 7:21-23 that only those that do his will will enter heaven and he told us that to enter heaven, you needed to follow the commandments as well. In virtually every epistle, there are large sections teaching the faithful how to live as Christians. This is also the topic of the semon on the mount in Matthew and the sermon on the plain in Luke. There would be no need to go into all this, if you could enter heaven by simply believing that you would…

 

[stewstew03]

As to what does OSAS mean? I don’t know. The only people I’ve ever heard use the term are catholics on this forum.

Methinks you’re being rather coy, Calgar. It’s pretty clear that OSAS refers to the doctrine of eternal security of one’s salvation. That is, that true believers never lose their salvation.

I’ve always thought that the protestant evangelical’s statement regarding eternal security is a non sequitur:

All true believers who persevere to the end will go to Heaven.
I am a true believer who will persevere to the end.
Therefore, I will be in Heaven.

If a “true believer” is one who perseveres to the end, then of course, a justified/sanctified person who perseveres to the end will “always be saved.” But how does this inform believers?

About a month ago I listened to a Southern Baptist preacher describe the assurance of salvation. He started out - “you can be sure of your salvation!” And then he went on to describe regeneration, repentance, justification, and sanctification. Well, my response was, if you are absolutely certain that nothing in the future will prevent you from persevering to the end, and you are absolutely certain that you will continue to grow in moral and spiritual maturity, and you are absolutely certain that you will pass from this earth at a moment when you are not in a “back-slidden” state, then it seems you possess a unique spiritual gift and can indeed predict your own glorification.

However, I am skeptical of anyone that can predict his or her own divine glorification; therefore, I hope for salvation in the same way Paul hoped for his…

 

[DaveBj]

But we do have “assurance” of salvation–if we do as Jesus asks. Several times, such as the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus speaks of “doing the will of the Father.” Even more telling, to my mind, is Luke 13:23-24: when asked how many (or few) will be saved, Jesus does not answer that question–it’s not helpful for us to know. He answers instead what we can do to be assured of salvation: ““Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.”

I was taught that, as Catholics, we don’t have proof or certainty of salvation–but we can have a reasonable assurance of salvation, if we live in grace.

I agree with you, but the OSAS position is that the believer has absolute assurance of salvation whether or not he was doing the will of the Father at the time of his/her death. That position states that there is nothing, including the believe’s future sins, that can come between the believer and his/her salvation. I had an unspoken problem with that position when I moved in those circles, and I found the Catholic position to make a lot more sense.

 

[Calgar]

Well this is what your church says it means.

These two statements contradict each other unless babies and children are also subject to the requirement to “repent and believe in Christ” or else go to hell.

I’m asking you to resolve this, please.

I’ll try, but first I’d like you to link the site you got that from. It might be some baptist church, but I’m not sure it’s SBC.

 

[Calgar]

Methinks you’re being rather coy, Calgar.

Coy? You’ve followed me around to other posts dropping in your little jibes to try and get a rise out of me.

I’m just going to ignore you because I think your trying to be insulting.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’ll try, but first I’d like you to link the site you got that from. It might be some baptist church, but I’m not sure it’s SBC.

sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

 

[stewstew03]

Coy? You’ve followed me around to other posts dropping in your little jibes to try and get a rise out of me.

Hmmm… it’s a discussion forum.

I’m just going to ignore you because I think your trying to be insulting.

I re-read my post, and I didn’t pick up on anything insulting. However, if I have offended you, Calgar, I sincerely apologize - I can assure you that was not my intent.

 

[Lisa44]

Is this a plausible argument against those that believe in “once saved, always saved”…

Since those that usually believe in “OSAS” claim that one who was once saved was not really saved if that person leads a life of debauchery or evil; then does this position ultimately boil down to them not believing that God’s grace is sufficient and that God’s grace is not powerful enough to overcome the state of sin they were in when they were saved (but not really)?

As Catholics we believe that we are saved at baptism and then move in and out of God’s grace due to our freewill to reject Him by saying “yes” to sin. Thus we are saved, lost, saved and lost and hopefully conclude our lives in a state of grace and be saved. The “OSAS” crowd seems to believe that if you were really saved, then you are placed into the grace of God and unable to move outside of it.

It just seems to me that this would deny the power that God has over our sin, since they conclude that God’s Sacrament of Baptism is unable to move us back into His grace and “saving” us.

Any thoughts?

Pax Christi.

This is an interesting topic.

I’m guessing here, knowing very little about this subject, but are we really: saved and lost and saved and lost? That doesn’t make much sense does it? Because the word “saved” means that we are not lost. So how can we be saved and lost?

Logically it would make more sense to say that either someone is saved or they are not saved. Since that is what “saved” means. You can’t be a little bit saved.

 

[Boulder257]

If that’s the argument then I’ve misread this thread. I don’t know any Christians who believe that.

I certainly don’t. OSAS doesn’t mean you never sin again, or that you don’t need to repent. We are human after all (at leas I am).

Therein lies the entire point where OSAS breaks down. Can’t have it both was. Can’t say “I am always saved, but I might sin and need to repent.” What if I am “saved”, sin, and don’t repent? I have LOST my salvation. You also can’t argue that I was never saved to begin with because then nobody would actually be saved.

 

[paul_c]

This is an interesting topic.

I’m guessing here, knowing very little about this subject, but are we really: saved and lost and saved and lost? That doesn’t make much sense does it? Because the word “saved” means that we are not lost. So how can we be saved and lost?

Logically it would make more sense to say that either someone is saved or they are not saved. Since that is what “saved” means. You can’t be a little bit saved.

let me give you an analogy:

You find yourself in the middle of a great river in danger of drowning. A man in a boat has a single lifesaver and through it to you. You grab on and he pulls you on to the boat. You are saved.

But a little while later, you get the idea that swimming in the river might be fun and you jump back into the river and again, find yourself in the danger of drowning. This time, having used up the one lifesave, the man reaches out to you with a pole and you grab on and are pulled back to safety on the boat.

a little while later, you are sitting a little close to the edge of the boat and you fall into the river again. and so does your friend. the man reaches out with the pole. You grab on and are pulled to safety but your friend refuses and is drowned.

Finally, the boat pulls into shore and you disembark, finally you are out of danger.

So in this analogy. The boat is the church. The river is sin. The man is Jesus. The lifesaver is baptism. The pole is confession. The land is heaven.

you see, you are saved from sin by baptism but only if you grab on to it. You are pulled into the relative security of the church but if you return to sin, you will either need to be saved again through confession (and only if you choose to do it) or you will drown in your sin and perish. You are only truly saved when you reach the shore (heaven).

 

[shocktrooper]

This is an interesting topic.

I’m guessing here, knowing very little about this subject, but are we really: saved and lost and saved and lost? That doesn’t make much sense does it? Because the word “saved” means that we are not lost. So how can we be saved and lost?

Logically it would make more sense to say that either someone is saved or they are not saved. Since that is what “saved” means. You can’t be a little bit saved.

You can be both saved and lost (not saved), just not at the same time.

Pax Christi.

 

[shocktrooper]

let me give you an analogy:

You find yourself in the middle of a great river in danger of drowning. A man in a boat has a single lifesaver and through it to you. You grab on and he pulls you on to the boat. You are saved.

But a little while later, you get the idea that swimming in the river might be fun and you jump back into the river and again, find yourself in the danger of drowning. This time, having used up the one lifesave, the man reaches out to you with a pole and you grab on and are pulled back to safety on the boat.

a little while later, you are sitting a little close to the edge of the boat and you fall into the river again. and so does your friend. the man reaches out with the pole. You grab on and are pulled to safety but your friend refuses and is drowned.

Finally, the boat pulls into shore and you disembark, finally you are out of danger.

So in this analogy. The boat is the church. The river is sin. The man is Jesus. The lifesaver is baptism. The pole is confession. The land is heaven.

you see, you are saved from sin by baptism but only if you grab on to it. You are pulled into the relative security of the church but if you return to sin, you will either need to be saved again through confession (and only if you choose to do it) or you will drown in your sin and perish. You are only truly saved when you reach the shore (heaven).

Very nice!

 

[Boulder257]

let me give you an analogy:

You find yourself in the middle of a great river in danger of drowning. A man in a boat has a single lifesaver and through it to you. You grab on and he pulls you on to the boat. You are saved.

But a little while later, you get the idea that swimming in the river might be fun and you jump back into the river and again, find yourself in the danger of drowning. This time, having used up the one lifesave, the man reaches out to you with a pole and you grab on and are pulled back to safety on the boat.

a little while later, you are sitting a little close to the edge of the boat and you fall into the river again. and so does your friend. the man reaches out with the pole. You grab on and are pulled to safety but your friend refuses and is drowned.

Finally, the boat pulls into shore and you disembark, finally you are out of danger.

So in this analogy. The boat is the church. The river is sin. The man is Jesus. The lifesaver is baptism. The pole is confession. The land is heaven.

you see, you are saved from sin by baptism but only if you grab on to it. You are pulled into the relative security of the church but if you return to sin, you will either need to be saved again through confession (and only if you choose to do it) or you will drown in your sin and perish. You are only truly saved when you reach the shore (heaven).