Once Saved Always Saved?

[TinaG]

This is of course what the Reformers and their followers MUST claim. but it can not be supported in any real way. The Reformers were too vain for that.

In contrast, I suppose, to those most humble men, the popes, what with papal tiaras and being carried around on thrones…

We all know that Lutheranism started with Luther because he was not shy about claiming his innovations and in the same breath declaring the Catholic hierarchy as ignoramouses. Same for Calvin, Zwigli, and Henry VIII.

Sorry. Luther went back to the Bible for the basis of his beliefs. Are you telling me that Leo X was such a great scholar and pious leader of the flock? That the papacy had not degenerated into veniality and rapacity?

The early church can easily be shown to believe in Transubstantion, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. It would be a great challenge for anyone to disprove the real prescence of Jesus in the eucharist, since its clearly documented in scripture and the early church Fathers.

There is no room for that on this thread. Regarding the Eucharist, I believe Jesus is truly present in it.

Think about what you are saying. You recognize that Traditions dictate how we understand scripture and that different traditions will understand the same scriptural verse to mean very different things. We had a very good example of this earlier in the thread, where the Catholics claimed that Matthew 7:21 demonstrated that OSAS was a fallacy and the Reformed claimed it supported OSAS… It is therefore obvious that Tradition is paramount in scriptural interpretation, not the actual scriptural text. And then we get rigth back into the credibility of the various traditions.

I did not say they DICTATE, did I? Perhaps they dictate YOUR understanding of Scripture. You are too quick to subsume the Scriptures in your traditions, as if they had no standing.

You claim that Augustine was consistent with the Reformers, while Augustine himself was clear that he was a Catholic and not just any Catholic, but one of the 33 doctors of the Church… Try winning that argument. Come to your senses. Protestant Tradition is obviously a human invention. We can even identify (as can you) who came up with each of these innovations. Want to discuss who came up with TULIP? or the 5 Solas? Or the idea that Kings should be the head of the national churches?

TULIP was formulated in rejection to Arminian doctrine as a short, neat encapsulation that is somewhat misleading.

Constantine was head of the church at Nicea, I seem to remember…

-Tina “Still Not a Theologian and Needing to Go Now” G

 

[Sig]

We’re not talking about justifying. we are talking about those predestined for Glory. That is a small subset of those that will ultimately go to heaven.

Only the elect go to heaven Paul.

The apostles says there are two types of vessels that God has made:

1. Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
2. Vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory. (Rom 9:22-23).

That’s it. There’s no third group.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

There are two ways of looking at the Early Church Fathers: 1- directly from their writings or 2- what others have told you about their writings.

Based on your statements, you have not read the Early Church Fathers for they supported the Catholic Church and St. Augustine was quite clear about Christ being present in the Eucharist. Here are some quotes with references:

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-“Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

I would recommend that you actually read The City of God and draw your own conclusions of this great saint. Here is a free on-line version: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.i.html

The bottom line is really quite straight forward, if you actually read the ECF, you will see that they were very supporting of the Catholic Church.

God bless

No, the reformers went back to the Church fathers, primarily Augustine, but many others, and looked and saw what they had written and what they believed. I reject the idea that the doctrines of the reformation are merely human theological innovation. I look at things such as the Marian cultus, the papacy and transubstantiation as human theological innovations not to be found in the early church. This has all be debated here before on numerous threads.

We do bring our theological preconditioning - traditions, if you will - to bear in looking at Scripture. Historical facts, and interpretations, can be of great use in understanding what is said in Scripture. But you cannot override what is in the Scriptures.

-Tina “I like: Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent” G

 

[Cat_Herder]

No. Man is not an automaton. That idea is a slur against reformed theology that slips so quickly from Catholic lips…God is sovereign over and under our free will. … But He is sovereign, and our free will does not thwart His purposes. He works in and around and under it.

But He never overrides it. God could override our wills, but He will not do so, because that is against His nature, which is Love (more specifically charity, which is perfect agape Love).

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 4:8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 13:4-7[/BIBLEDRB]

God created us to be good. Free will was part of man’s makeup from the beginning–unless you are prepared to argue that the fall of man into sin was the doing of God. No, what happened in Eden was the free choice of Adam and Eve, which God permitted to bring about a better good. God is not into cosmic sadism, which as I shouldn’t have to tell you, is the polar opposite of Love. Yes, sin wounded man’s free will, but not to the point where man is unable to respond to God’s grace.

Again, God could override our wills. But not only is that against His nature, but it would also be an admission on God’s part that what He made was imperfect. And this is why Calvary was necessary. God established a Law of sacrifice, and had He revoked the Law rather than fulfilled it by a perfect sacrifice, He would again be admitting error in what He had made. And that’s also why we can tell that Islam is not the true religion. Islam teaches a God Who can change, Who can promulgate the Tanakh and Gospels and then supposedly revoke them in favor of the Qur’an. But a God Who is perfect cannot change. If God were to change man’s original “programming,” so to speak, in order to override our wills, then God is correcting a fault with something that He had already made to be good. And that would make God an author of imperfection.

It is no coincidence that both Calvinism and Islam share the view of predestination. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

In Islam the subject of predestination … is thus stated by Al-Berkevi. “It is necessary to confess that good and evil take place by the predestination and predetermination of God, that all that has been and all that will be was decreed in eternity and written on the preserved table; that the faith of the believer, the piety of the pious, and their good actions are foreseen, willed, predestinated, decreed by the writing on the preserved table produced and approved by God: that the unbelief of the unbeliever, the impiety of the impious, and bad actions come to pass with the foreknowledge, will, predestination, and decree of God, but not with His satisfaction and approval. … The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is that “from all eternity God chose or elected some men—certain definite persons of the human race—to everlasting life; that He decreed or determined certainly and infallibly, and not conditionally and mutably, to bring those persons to salvation by a Redeemer; that in making this selection of some men, and in decreeing to save ] He was not influenced or determined by anything existing in them or foreseen in them—such as faith or good works—by which they were distinguished from other men”, or by anything out of Himself, or by any reason known to us or comprehensible by us; and that this eternal purpose or decree He certainly and infallibly executes, in regard to each and every one included under it; while all the rest of men not thus elected He decreed to pass by,—to leave in their natural state of sin and misery, and finally to punish eternally for their sin.”

The view that God chooses some for damnation was never a part of Christianity until Calvin came along. It is well known that during the European wars of religion, the “Christian” Calvinist states allied with the Islamic Ottoman Empire against the Catholic (and many Lutheran) countries of the time. It is also well known that there is no such thing as an original thought. Calvin clearly got his heresy from Islam.

Continued in Part 2

 

[Cat_Herder]

Continued from Part 1

God does foreordain some to be saved. Others are not foreordained to be saved. … and Paul suggests God creates some to be damned, for the sake of His own glory.

As I have so often pointed out in this thread, this is the core problem. Catholicism is called that precisely because Jesus Christ is universal; He died for all sinners in all times and at all places, and it is His will for everyone to be saved.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

That, by the way, was written by the same Paul you cite as teaching Calvinism!

To hold, as you do, that Jesus did not die for some people means that God made those people irreparably defective, imperfect, evil, whatever you like to call it. God is perfect. Why would He then be the author of defects, imperfections, and evils? He would only allow these evils if He could bring forth something good from them. What about a person going to hell is “good”? What does Love have to do with damnation? God Himself said:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 15:3-7[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 15:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 17:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 15:11-32[/BIBLEDRB]
… so how on Earth can anyone claim that Jesus taught Calvinism?

If the Calvinists here aren’t willing to admit that God loves His children too much to will their damnation (but rather that damnation results from man’s refusal to accept grace), then there’s no point in having a conversation–the Calvinists aren’t reading their Bibles.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 13:1[/BIBLEDRB]

God is Love. If you want to keep clashing your empty gongs and cymbals about the sovereignty and power of God over and against us, then be my guest. But I can only sit here aghast at how much you misunderstand Jesus and wish that you actually knew Him.

See also: Wilted TULIP: No Love for Calvinism (original version)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

I think you have misunderstood part of what Paul C was telling you.

If you are looking for praise for those who launched the Protestant Revolt - maybe you are on the wrong site… There was no slur against ‘reformed theology’ - just a pointing out of the numerous errors. And, OSAS ranks high in that list

You are correct, if you want to criticize the personal lives of some (or all) of the Popes if that makes you feel better. Some really did live a public scandal in certain areas of their lives - no doubt about it. But, you know, what is so remarkable is despite public sin - not one of them ever taught doctrinal error. For example:

1.) Christ taught that we must eat His Flesh - and that is taught to this very day
2.) Christ taught that we must be baptized - and that is taught to this very day
3.) Christ taught us that we must carry our cross daily - and that is taught to this very day
4.) Christ founded His Church on Peter - and that is taught to this very day
5.) Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sin - and that is taught to this very day

And, the list goes on. Contrast this with the 40,000+ Protestant denominations that continually change doctrine, claim that Scripture Alone is the rule and OSAS is their hope. And none of them can agree on anything.

May I suggest you stop looking for slights and just stick with the facts.

God bless

No. Man is not an automaton. That idea is a slur against reformed theology that slips so quickly from Catholic lips…God is sovereign over and under our free will. We have free will, yes, but fallen man is so bent toward evil he can and will never choose good. It is only by God’s active grace that man has any capacity to choose freely. God is not a “tyrannical computer programmer” - how absurd, and how you dare accuse me of believing - or wanting to believe - such a thing! But He is sovereign, and our free will does not thwart His purposes. He works in and around and under it.

God does foreordain some to be saved. Others are not foreordained to be saved. We call the former the predestined, and the latter the reprobate; the former are blest, the latter damned. Surely you have read Romans 9:18-33: God hardens and has mercy according to His own will, and Paul suggests God creates some to be damned, for the sake of His own glory. Predestination is not limited to foreknowledge but extends to conscious choice.

-Tina “That’s Enough for Now” G

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

How does God desire that all be saved if He has predestined (some, a few, many, most, all…?) to be damned?

God bless

God desires all to be saved.
Only the elect are saved (chosen, by definition).

-Tina “Was he ever saved to begin with?” G

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pitcharan,



With that as the goal, you will be busy on this thread!

God bless

I would rather carefully and clearly expose all those who try to falsify catholic teaching

 

[paul_c]

In contrast, I suppose, to those most humble men, the popes, what with papal tiaras and being carried around on thrones…

Don’t deflect. The point was that teh Reformers readily admitted their innnovations. This is undeniable.

Sorry. Luther went back to the Bible for the basis of his beliefs.

Luther changed the bible to suit his own purposes. He added the word “Alone” to corinthians in his translations to support his innovation of Sola Fide… He eliminated 7 Old Testament books from his bible that didn’t suit his theology and he would have done the same to the Epistle of James , which he called the Epistle of Straw, if he didn’t get so much resistance.

Are you telling me that Leo X was such a great scholar and pious leader of the flock? That the papacy had not degenerated into veniality and rapacity?

Leo X was pious but flawed. He however, did not alter Catholic Doctrine, which is preserved by the Holy Spirit. The church remains solid and teaches no error, despite the sins of its leaders, who are afterall, human.

There is no room for that on this thread. Regarding the Eucharist, I believe Jesus is truly present in it.

I’m sure we have more in common, like this, than we have in opposition. Its good to remember that.

I did not say they DICTATE, did I? Perhaps they dictate YOUR understanding of Scripture. You are too quick to subsume the Scriptures in your traditions, as if they had no standing.

Scripture is a subset of Catholic Tradition and must be understood in that context. In fact, it was out of Catholic tradition that the scripture you know was created. When you interpret it using another tradition, you are simply using the wrong key to unlock its treasures. and you end up in error…

You claim that Augustine was consistent with the Reformers, while Augustine himself was clear that he was a Catholic and not just any Catholic, but one of the 33 doctors of the Church… Try winning that argument. Come to your senses. Protestant Tradition is obviously a human invention. We can even identify (as can you) who came up with each of these innovations. Want to discuss who came up with TULIP? or the 5 Solas? Or the idea that Kings should be the head of the national churches?

it is more than somewhat misleading. It leads directly to a number of errors that can adversely effect one’s ultimate salvation.

Constantine was head of the church at Nicea, I seem to remember…

-Tina “Still Not a Theologian and Needing to Go Now” G

You would remember in error then. Constantine was the emperor of Rome, not the leader of the church. He was also an Arian. When he called the council of Nicea together, the Church Fathers denounced Arianism, much to Constantine’s chagrin. Pope Sylvester sent a legate to the council and had final approval.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Hi, Cat Herder,

I think what we are seeing is the ire of someone who has had the same treatment given to them - exhibiting the gall of claiming that they have not done this and are looking at how to avoid honest dialogue. As I see it, this has more to do with secondary gains then really seeking out Catholic Answers in a Forum atmosphere.

20-pages of unanswered questions… I wonder if some kind of mention is appropriate to Guinness’ Book of Records guinnessworldrecords.com/ … ?

Don’t lose heart. First of all OSAS is a doomed and fatally flawed human tradition and will only lead men away from Christ. Paul and PR have done an excellent job of pointing this out and his only response is the failed, “Prove to me” or “Where in Scripture…” or others such evasive techniques. This is nothing less then prolonged floundering. The flopping around we see is just the realization that there are no ‘yes men’ to this OSAS heresy - and the arguments can not swim in the dry land of honest analysis.

God bless

As you can see I’ve certainly not lost heart.

However, I simply don’t have the time to chase Sig and Lisa (and now Tina) around. Which is why I’ve put forth this 2 part post that cuts to the heart of the matter.

What is really at stake here is whether God is Love. Calvinists, like Muslims, say He is not. Unless the Calvinists want to revise their view of God’s fundamental nature, this thread is going to go on per saecula saeculorum and there isn’t any point in playing chase.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pitcharan,

it is a constant source of amazement to me on how poorly our Catholic doctrine is described, misquoted and … dare I say… “That idea is a slur against Catholic theology that slips so quickly from Protestant lips…” (I just turned a quote around…). There is a lot of error parading around claiming to be Catholic teachings - but, what we have is the Protestant version of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Maybe this reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church will be helpful:

II. CHRIST’S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD’S PLAN OF SALVATION

“Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God”

599 Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404

Here is the link: scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm

God bless

REPEATING POST #731

FYI, as a Roman Catholic, I am required to believe, the CCC and NOT any other heresy however cleverly it is made to appear like catholic teaching. I know that God pre-destines a few and I also know that He excludes none. You and Tina are trying to twist the truth by saying that Salvation is limited to the pre-destined few and others are hell bound. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

By the way, Sig! why are deliberately changing track? You had persistently demanded proof of ‘salvation being lost after it was given’ and post #718 was addressed to you. You conveniently evade it and divert focus now.

 

[Sig]

By the way, Sig! why are deliberately changing track? You had persistently demanded proof of ‘salvation being lost after it was given’ and post #718 was addressed to you. You conveniently evade it and divert focus now.

I didn’t know you had posted that until you pointed it out.

I like your style. You post a bunch of verses, and then point to them, and then you say, “See, that proves a saved person can lose salvation.” No explanation, no nothing, but the assertion, “I say those verses prove a saved person can lose their salvation.”

Here is my response to you in kind:

Those verses don’t prove that a saved person can lose salvation.No explanation, no nothing, just an assertion.

Case closed.

P.S., if you go through the passage you cited, and give a full explanation of why those verses teach that a saved person can lose their salvation, I’ll respond to your explanation and tell you why you’re wrong.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cat Herder,

Thanks for the posts

Yes, I have a bit of time I can devote here … so, I will do what I can. Feel free to come back when you have more time and share your insights.

God bless

As you can see I’ve certainly not lost heart.

However, I simply don’t have the time to chase Sig and Lisa (and now Tina) around. Which is why I’ve put forth this 2 part post that cuts to the heart of the matter.

What is really at stake here is whether God is Love. Calvinists, like Muslims, say He is not. Unless the Calvinists want to revise their view of God’s fundamental nature, this thread is going to go on per saecula saeculorum and there isn’t any point in playing chase.

 

[Sig]

As you can see I’ve certainly not lost heart.

However, I simply don’t have the time to chase Sig and Lisa (and now Tina) around.

Well I for one want to thank you for coming back to this thread, and letting us know that. Thank you for your generosity.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pitcharan,

Now… just hold on a minute…

By the way, Sig! why are deliberately changing track? You had persistently demanded proof of ‘salvation being lost after it was given’ and post #718 was addressed to you. You conveniently evade it and divert focus now.

Everyone Catholic has commented on this evasion, topic change, non-responsiveness … and he just continues. You come in - and make the same post - and expect an answer! Just who do you think you are?!! Look, he will take this post - and do one of two things, ignore it or evade it. He really likes to evade - and his most common approach is to accuse the person asking the questin of doing the same thing - and how grieved he is that this is going on! Of course, he could fool me and actually answer your question … but, I seriously doubt it - mainly because he can’t but, figures we won’t notice this major limitation. So, let’s see what happens.

Good luck and God bless

 

[TinaG]

Funny, I feel like my beliefs are being misunderstood and misrepresented, and you are unwilling to listen, and I hear the Catholics saying the same thing. I think we are just going in circles (sorry, PR, not your spirals) and not coming to any agreement. And there is a lot of agreement, actually, on a lot of things. But…

That slander against Calvinism as equal to Islam just about takes the cake, though. How would you feel about a thread like “When did the Catholic Church become the Whore of Babylon”?

Really, people. Really.

-Tina “I, too, have had enough of this thread” G

 

[Sig]

Hi, Pitcharan,

Now… just hold on a minute…

Everyone Catholic has commented on this evasion, topic change, non-responsiveness … and he just continues. You come in - and make the same post - and expect an answer! Just who do you think you are?!! Look, he will take this post - and do one of two things, ignore it or evade it. He really likes to evade - and his most common approach is to accuse the person asking the questin of doing the same thing - and how grieved he is that this is going on! Of course, he could fool me and actually answer your question … but, I seriously doubt it - mainly because he can’t but, figures we won’t notice this major limitation. So, let’s see what happens.

Good luck and God bless

LOL.

 

[Cat_Herder]

That slander against Calvinism as equal to Islam just about takes the cake, though.

I am not Britannica or Wikipedia.

 

[Pitcharan]

I didn’t know you had posted that until you pointed it out.

I like your style. You post a bunch of verses, and then point to them, and then you say, “See, that proves a saved person can lose salvation.” No explanation, no nothing, but the assertion, “I say those verses prove a saved person can lose their salvation.”

Here is my response to you in kind:

Those verses don’t prove that a saved person can lose salvation.No explanation, no nothing, just an assertion.

Case closed.

Wonkiest way to respond

P.S., if you go through the passage you cited, and give a full explanation of why those verses teaches that a saved person can lose their salvation, I’ll respond to your explanation and tell you why you’re wrong.

You are pre-conceived with meaningless stuff and offer to argue for argument’s sake.

 

[PRmerger]

That;s not what he is saying. Sure, God predestines a select number of very special humans to eternal life. But he predestines no one to Hell. That is the error of Calvinism.

Indeed.

A god who creates an eternal human soul with the pre-determined will that this soul, created in his image and is therefore full of DIGNITY, would spend an eternity in horrific torture

is a paradigm created in the depths of hell.