Once Saved Always Saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shocktrooper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sig said:
I’ve never indicated your church is infallible, PR.
Click to expand...
This is true.

If you believe the Catholic Church, which discerned for you (as you acknowledge) the canon of Scripture, is fallible, where did they err in this regard? What book did they mess up on?

Perhaps you want to make a claim that the Church erred in including, say, Revelation in the bible and excluding, say, the Gospel of Thomas? Or if they erred in some way,** could you please advise what books you think were left out that need to be included as Sacred Scripture or what books ought to be omitted in your estimation?**
 
Sig said:
Do you agree with my statement?

If not, what’s your disagreement with it?
Click to expand...
Um…I think I told you that I didn’t understand it.

You said you think I am infallible? And then you said “Do you understand what I mean?”

Clearly, no.
 
PRmerger said:
So not by grace, then? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Which provides a nice segue to this:

Or, rather, Sig, do you understand, as the Catholics here have been saying, that there’s a whole bunch things that constitute our understanding of soteriology and to say, “Oh, so you believe works save you, then?” is to propose some sort of false dichotomy?

You don’t believe it’s* either* faith or grace. But both.

And for me to say, “So, you don’t believe in grace saving you since you just said here that faith saves you” is disingenuous, right?

Similarly, Catholics don’t believe it’s either works or <fill in the blank with the same old same old verses that I’ve been stating ad nauseum here, to include: repentance, declaring with our mouths, following the commandments, eating His flesh etc etc etc>

It’s all of the above. And more.
 
PRmerger said:
…Similarly, Catholics don’t believe it’s either works or <fill in the blank with the same old same old verses that I’ve been stating ad nauseum here, to include: repentance, declaring with our mouths, following the commandments, eating His flesh etc etc etc>.
Click to expand...
Even when evangelical protestants insist they have a “faith alone” kind of theology, when you press them on ***what that saving faith is *** - as I sometimes do - you will find that it usually involves regeneration, repentance, persevering to the end, praying, reading scripture, loving neighbor as one’s self, etc. And if these things are absent from a believer’s life, then it means that person is “not a true believer” (even if he or she said the sinner’s prayer x number of years ago).

In other words, they agree with Catholics that salvation is indeed faith plus works! But agreeing with Catholic dogma is too much to bear for most evangelical protestants who want to continue the vituperations from the 16th century, so there is an insistence on separation from Rome, and an emphasis on differences…
 
As usual, for some inexplicable reason, I get into these threads well after they’ve developed a life of their own. (Sigh.) It seems that the recent responses have drifted far afield from the original question which was “once saved, always saved?” I am a six year convert to Catholicism having come into the Church at Easter Vigil, 2005. For the first sixty years of my life on earth I was a firm believer in the “born again” concept of OSAS. However, after much thought and deliberation I have concluded that, indeed, one can lose one’s salvation. What if someone says the so-called “sinner’s prayer” and then some time later renounces their faith altogether, or changes their mind and declares themselves atheist. Worse yet, if anyone blasphemes the Holy Spirit, that is the one unpardonable, unforgivable sin. So, yes, I believe that it is possible to lose one’s salvation without a whole lot of effort. And that is why I continue to work on my salvation with “fear and trembling” knowing that I am an ongoing work in progress. That’s just one man’s opinion, thank you.
 
PRmerger said:
Which provides a nice segue to this:

Or, rather, Sig, do you understand, as the Catholics here have been saying, that there’s a whole bunch things that constitute our understanding of soteriology and to say, “Oh, so you believe works save you, then?” is to propose some sort of false dichotomy?
Click to expand...
Oh please. Works done in a state of grace merit eternal life, correct?
PRmerger said:
You don’t believe it’s* either* faith or grace. But both.
Click to expand...
Oh no, here comes the “either/or” “both/and” argument.

Look Paul says salvation is by grace through faith.
PRmerger said:
And for me to say, “So, you don’t believe in grace saving you since you just said here that faith saves you” is disingenuous, right?
Click to expand...
It’s false.
PRmerger said:
Similarly, Catholics don’t believe it’s either works or <fill in the blank with the same old same old verses that I’ve been stating ad nauseum here, to include: repentance, declaring with our mouths, following the commandments, eating His flesh etc etc etc>

It’s all of the above. And more.
Click to expand...
I know, grace and faith and works and belief in dogmas, concerning Mary and other things. I know.
 
stewstew03 said:
Even when evangelical protestants insist they have a “faith alone” kind of theology, when you press them on ***what that saving faith is *** - as I sometimes do - you will find that it usually involves regeneration, repentance, persevering to the end, praying, reading scripture, loving neighbor as one’s self, etc. And if these things are absent from a believer’s life, then it means that person is “not a true believer” (even if he or she said the sinner’s prayer x number of years ago).

In other words, they agree with Catholics that salvation is indeed faith plus works! But agreeing with Catholic dogma is too much to bear for most evangelical protestants who want to continue the vituperations from the 16th century, so there is an insistence on separation from Rome, and an emphasis on differences…
Click to expand...
Grace alone, faith alone.

Lots of works are involved, but as per Paul, works don’t save you.
 
usemelord said:
As usual, for some inexplicable reason, I get into these threads well after they’ve developed a life of their own. (Sigh.) It seems that the recent responses have drifted far afield from the original question which was “once saved, always saved?” I am a six year convert to Catholicism having come into the Church at Easter Vigil, 2005. For the first sixty years of my life on earth I was a firm believer in the “born again” concept of OSAS. However, after much thought and deliberation I have concluded that, indeed, one can lose one’s salvation. What if someone says the so-called “sinner’s prayer” and then some time later renounces their faith altogether, or changes their mind and declares themselves atheist. Worse yet, if anyone blasphemes the Holy Spirit, that is the one unpardonable, unforgivable sin. So, yes, I believe that it is possible to lose one’s salvation without a whole lot of effort. And that is why I continue to work on my salvation with “fear and trembling” knowing that I am an ongoing work in progress. That’s just one man’s opinion, thank you.
Click to expand...
Luke 8:11-15:

*“Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.

Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.

But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.*

It would seem 75% of all who profess to believe have not been converted.
 
Sig said:
Grace alone, faith alone.

Lots of works are involved, but as per Paul, works don’t save you.
Click to expand...
So hypothetically, works aren’t necessary to be infused with grace by faith since they are merely a product of the grace that faith infuses?
 
Sig said:
That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is faith, accompanied by works, is an indication of a saving faith.

I’m not separating anything. Saving faith produces good works. They are the fruits of the faith.
Click to expand...
But to use a term like “saving faith” is to put a qualification on the concept of faith. If we add to faith whatever else we think needs to accompany it to merit salvation, then it’s no longer faith alone. To say that faith must include works in order for it to be a faith that saves is to recognize that there’s a faith that doesn’t save, one without works like even demons possess which means merely believing is simply not enough.
Sig said:
I’ve never said works are wrong, and neither has Luther that I’m aware of, but both myself and Luther have stated what Paul says regarding salvation: it is by grace, through faith, not out of us, and not of works.
Click to expand...
I was making a different point there-maybe a bit off topic. It occurred to me that one objection to the tenet that works contribute to justification is the notion that all human works are faulty, not motivated by the right reasons, based on human “righteousness”, trying to earn salvation. But, like you maybe alluded to, Luther recognized that God gives us good works to do once we’re justified. The difference In Catholic thought is simply that those works increase our justice, make us more actually, ontologically just, which amounts to sanctification in the Lutheran way of looking at it, but we believe that authentic justice, as opposed to imputed justice, is required for heaven because only then is sin excluded-and sinners don’t enter heaven according to scripture. So we believe that God always wanted man just, of course, and that’s His purpose now in salvation-He won’t settle for anything less* for* us. I’m sure you must’ve experienced receiving this grace-of recieving works to do if you’ve walked with God for much time. What would happen if you didn’t let your light shine? Or keep oil in your lamp? Or invest the talents given you? These concepts all involve grace given, grace received, and grace possibly rejected. Sometimes I think people just want to shun moral responsibility-no obligation on their part to God-which is basically the original sin of Adam & Eve.
Sig said:
That’s a weak and inconsistent assertion: If only you understood scripture, you’d understand my point…🙂
Click to expand...
You maintained that scripture would contradict itself if James said that works save us. I pointed out that James did, indeed, say that, and yet there’s no contradiction.
Sig said:
Even you.
Click to expand...
No, I believe only a* Church*, which is historically connected to the beginning of Christianity can have any claim to being authorized and led by the Spirit, rather than any of the myriad of late-comers, all with their widely varying beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top