Once Saved Always Saved?

[Sig]

Your questions mostly consisted of “dig through my twenty pages of dodginess and give me post numbers.”

No thank you; I have much better things to do.

Farewell.

Of course, and still no answers either to my answers, or my questions.

 

[paul_c]

Your questions mostly consisted of “dig through my twenty pages of dodginess and give me post numbers.”

No thank you; I have much better things to do.

Farewell.

He’s answering me and even if he is not ready to change his mind about OSAS, there are probably dozens of others who have benefited from the exchange, myself included. If you don’t want to participate, that’s fine. Just remember, we need people like Sig to engage us because that opens up learning for a whole group of people that want to learn but won’t put themselves out front like he does.

 

[Sig]

What you have just proferred in red is exactly the Church’s definition of infallibility!

So you may call it what you like, but you actually do believe in the concept of infallibility, as the Church defines it.

LOL.

Gee, from my assertion that I believe the writings of scripture are infallible, you have concluded that I believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Brilliant!

But men are not infallible.

 

[stewstew03]

And…?

You’re frightened by that? You don’t like that? What? Is there a point you’d like to make?

If I were frightened, and therefore lacked faith, how would the Reformed position offer me any comfort? To the reformers, I would be dead in my trespasses and sins…I cannot choose to trust God because I am in bondage to sin. If God predestined me to persevere to the end, I certainly would not fall away, but as I have fallen away because of my fear and doubt (hypothetically speaking) I would clearly be a reprobate. Or if not a reprobate, then one of the elect; in which case,** it still does nothing to comfort me because I wouldn’t know whether or not I was in fact one of the elect**!

Putting the Reformed position aside,** I am completely comfortable with putting my salvation in God’s hands**. I realize that He has given me a gift, and not an eternally binding contract (see, e.g., the Rule Against Perpetuity). On the other hand, by claiming it’s impossible to lose your salvation, you appear to be holding God to the terms put forth in the Westminster Confession; that is, he MUST save you! The loss of your salvation is IMPOSSIBLE - even for God! (It says so right here in the bible!)

Overall, the point is to reveal the hypocrisy of your position. On the one hand, you rely upon the “it’s-up-to-God’s-grace” soteriology when you want to avoid a question; but on the other hand you are perfectly willing to put forward that the elect, who incidentally are unaware of their predestined status, can have complete confidence of their salvation. And “if God has a right to do whatever He pleases, and to grace whoever He pleases, including bringing into His kingdom whomever He desires to bring into His kingdom, and at the time of His own choosing, and under the conditions of His own choosing” (Ps 115:3), then how can it be ***impossible ***for someone to lose their salvation? From my understanding, “with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26). Now, what was that tongue-in-cheek remark you made about Catholics not believing that “all” means “all”…?

 

[PRmerger]

But men are not infallible.

Then you’ll have to offer where St. Matthew erred. Chapter and verse, please.

Otherwise, by definition, reason and logic, you believe that Matthew was infallible, (as you and the Church define it.)

And then you can go to Luke. What did he write in the area of faith and morals that was in error? Chapter and verse, please.

And please note that both Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, David, Moses etc etc etc were sinners, and were not impeccable. But, of course, that does not prohibit them from being infallible (as you and the Church define it.)

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I love this exchange. It works on several levels…I submit that the Catholic Tradition is the original and therefore True tradition going back to the Apostles. You can not argue with this, because it is indeed a fact.

It is the fundamental teaching and practices of the Catholic Church. Everything from how we pray and celebrate mass to how we understand scripture. It begins with the creeds and works out from there. If you are really interested in understanding Catholic Tradition, read the Catholic Catechism: scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Those that are never baptized are never saved (except in rare instances).

Its a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church and its fully attested to in scripture. Everyone in the new testament is baptized from Jesus to Paul to the first converts at pentacost. I showed you John 3 . See 1Peter 3: 21:: This prefigures baptism, which saves you now. " . You yourself, found Mark 16, He who believes AND is baptized will be saved… (of course you tried to deny the central tenet). Look, you don’t have to believe this, but I’m pointing out to you that Baptism is the covenential sacrament of the new testament. To deny this is to completely misunderstand scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Jesus makes this clear in his discussions with Nicodemus in John 3: No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.

We are called to be baptized, just as the Jews were called to be circumcized. In the old testament, a physical mark was left on the body as a sign of the covenant. In the new testament, you are born again in baptism and it leaves a spiritual mark on your soul. If you truly believe, why would you refuse to be baptized as Jesus asked? What was his great commission in Matthew 28: 18-20? It was: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…
Furthermore, in Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2, he says that we are “saved by grace, through faith, it is not from ourselves, it is not of works…” in short, there is no mention of baptism as an integral part of salvation in Paul’s statement.

I should think that if it were an act that saved here is the place the Holy Spirit would clearly state it so.

Moreover, if baptism is the means of salvation, then all of the old testament saints have perished, including Abraham, whom Paul upholds as the prototype for all who receive the promise by faith, and not through the law.

Do you not realize the teaching of the Creed? " Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead. " Jesus went and preached to the dead and presumably baptized those that were willing. This is Catholic Teaching. Furthermore, the church teaches a concept called “Baptism of Desire” . If someone was denied baptism but would have accepted it if it was available, then he can be save. St. Dismas, the good thief, was an example on which this applies.

Further, your example applies more radically to the Reformed position than to the Catholic position as I just described. It is not Faith in God that saves in your tradition, but Faith in the saving power of Jesus’ death on the cross, is it not. How would that apply to Abraham, who lived hundred of years before Jesus died on the cross any more than baptism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
And it undeniably says that unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter heaven. It also is clear that Jesus demands the evildoers to depart from him. This clearly supports the Catholic teaching that you must stay in the state of grace through works of love and by avoiding sin to get to heaven.

Were they unbelievers? They called him Lord, did they not? Isn’t that a sign of belief? They believed in him enough to try to do works in his name. It wasn’t lack of belief for which they are condemned. Jesus never said they were being condemned for lack of belief. What he says is that they are being condemned for the failure to do God’s will. (and failing to do God’s will is sin, and that is evil doing). You see, you are locked into a false belief that keeps you from seeing the truth about your position. I fear you are trying to win a debate, not find the truth… Such a win would ultimately be a loss, would it not…

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
But again, this is how Catholics understand this passage. In the end, its not the passage but the credibility of the Tradition that is used to interpret it that matters.

Really? What weakness have you pointed out that I wasn’t able to show was a misunderstanding on your part?

 

[PRmerger]

Can you answer your fellow Catholic’s question (post 547) from Scripture? Yes, or no?

No, I cannot answer my fellow Catholic’s question from Scripture, for how in the world am I supposed to know what your definition of sin is from Scripture? :whacky:

Would you define sin for us?

I can give the Catholic answer though, and it, naturally, quotes and refers to Scripture:

Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”--Psalm 51:4. Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”--Gen 3:5 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.--Phil 2:6-9.
CCC1850

 

[Sig]

If I were frightened, and therefore lacked faith, how would the Reformed position offer me any comfort? To the reformers, I would be dead in my trespasses and sins…I cannot choose to trust God because I am in bondage to sin. If God predestined me to persevere to the end, I certainly would not fall away, but as I have fallen away because of my fear and doubt (hypothetically speaking) I would clearly be a reprobate. Or if not a reprobate, then one of the elect; in which case, it still does nothing to comfort me because I wouldn’t know whether or not I was in fact one of the elect!

Putting the Reformed position aside, I am completely comfortable with putting my salvation in God’s hands.

I see, you could never be comfortable being of the reformed, who put their salvation completely in God’s hands, but you are completely comfortable not being of the reformed while putting your salvation completely in God’s hands.

Interesting, interesting.

…and I realize that He has given me a gift, and not an eternally binding contract (see, e.g., the Rule Against alvatiPerpetuity).

Well you know, StewStew, Paul told the Ephesian church that the Spirit is given as a seal, and guarantee of the believers redemption at the time they believe; he also told the Corinthian church the same thing (Eph 1:13, 14; cf 2 Cor 1:22), and he makes similar statements elsewhere, but hey, if you say God doesn’t have an eternally binding contract with you, who am I to argue?

On the other hand, by claiming it’s impossible to lose your salvation, you appear to be holding God to the terms put forth in the Westminster Confession; that is, he MUST save you! The loss of your salvation is IMPOSSIBLE - even for God! (It says so right here in the bible!)

That’s a straw man, StewStew.

I’m holding God to promises He has made to me, and so is the Westminster Confession.

Overall, the point is to reveal the hypocrisy of your position. On the one hand, you rely upon the “it’s-up-to-God’s-grace” soteriology when you want to avoid a question; but on the other hand you are perfectly willing to put forward that the elect, who incidentally are unaware of their predestined status, can have complete confidence of their salvation.

That’s another straw man, StewStew. As I’ve said before, the apostle John in his gospel, and in his first epistle state that believers can know they are saved (Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:13).

And “if God has a right to do whatever He pleases, and to grace whoever He pleases, including bringing into His kingdom whomever He desires to bring into His kingdom, and at the time of His own choosing, and under the conditions of His own choosing” (Ps 115:3), then how can it be impossible for someone to lose their salvation?

Because God has promised that salvation can’t be lost StewStew. I can’t think of any place in Scripture where it’s stated that one has lost salvation. Can you?

From my understanding, “with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26). Now, what was that tongue-in-cheek remark you made about Catholics not believing that “all” means “all”…?

StewStew, I answered that question almost immediately after my statement, and many other subsequent times as well. I got to be up at 2 am, so I’m going to bed now, and will leave you to go back at look at those statements.

 

[Sig]

Then you’ll have to offer where St. Matthew erred. Chapter and verse, please.

Otherwise, by definition, reason and logic, you believe that Matthew was infallible, (as you and the Church define it.)

And then you can go to Luke. What did he write in the area of faith and morals that was in error? Chapter and verse, please.

And please note that both Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, David, Moses etc etc etc were sinners, and were not impeccable. But, of course, that does not prohibit them from being infallible (as you and the Church define it.)

You’re really having a great deal of difficulty with this aren’t you?

Again, they didn’t err. What they wrote was superintended by the Holy Spirit; therefore, the Scriptures are the Word of God, and infallible, but the writers, being men, are not infallible.

Feel to continue to ask that question, and know that my answer will be the same. Can you say, “Sisyphus?”

G’night.

 

[PRmerger]

Here again is the question I asked you: What proof do you offer that the church was/is infallible other than the pronouncement of one of her later popes that she is?

Are you able to offer any proof other than the church’s own pronouncement, or not?

Your own quoting of Scripture, Sig. Your own quoting.

Each and every time you quote the Bible you give us **proof **that the Church was infallible in discerning that this particular verse you cite is theopneustos. You would not know it any other way.

Unless, when you quote, say Romans, you’re really not 100% certain that the Church was correct in including it in the canon?

So all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23)?

And when you quote Ephesians is there a little voice in the back of your head telling you, “Maybe this is not inspired. The Church, after all, simply can’t be infallible. That would cause my entire paradigm to come tumbling down.”

By grace you have been saved through faith, and not by works (Eph 2:8ff).

Nah. I’m certain you don’t hear that voice.

Which is **proof that the Church is infallible. You proclaim this each and every time you defer to her authority in discerning for you what was theopneustos.

Mt 25:31-46 confirms what Jesus said in Jn 5:24, and what Jesus said about knowing men by their fruit, and that those to whom He gives eternal life will never perish (Jn 10:28) and what James said concerning a saving faith in James 2: A saving faith works.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re really having a great deal of difficulty with this aren’t you?

Again, they didn’t err. What they wrote was superintended by the Holy Spirit; therefore, the Scriptures are the Word of God, and infallible, but the writers, being men, are not infallible

Okay, okay! Don’t start getting frustrated because then you’re going to start lashing out…and then we won’t be able to have a dialogue, which I am enjoying very, very much.

Huge strides are being made. Huge.

So for the sake of this dialogue I will concede that the writers, being men, are not infallible.And that what they wrote was “superintended by the Holy Spirit” and therefore the writings are infallible. Not the men. Fine. Fallible men. Infallible teachings.

So now tell me how it is that the* writings* of the popes and magisterium couldn’t be assisted by the Holy Spirit and therefore the writings of these fallible men are infallible? Fallible men. Infallible teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t think of any place in Scripture where it’s stated that one has lost salvation.

Is there a song that says “I once was lost, but now am found”?

Does that come from Scripture?

Also, what do you think about the Prodigal Son. Do you think he was lost?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you able to offer any proof other than the church’s own pronouncement, or not?

Well, since you asked…

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

---

 

[fhansen]

LOL.

Gee, from my assertion that I believe the writings of scripture are infallible, you have concluded that I believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Brilliant!

But men are not infallible.

The same Holy Spirit that inspired men to write scripture can inspire men to correctly understand it. I don’t know any Protestant group that doesn’t believe they’re guided to understand scripture by the Spirit, regardless of whether or not they disagree with others who believe the same.

 

[Sig]

No, I cannot answer my fellow Catholic’s question from Scripture, for how in the world am I supposed to know what your definition of sin is from Scripture? :whacky:

Forgive me for not being clearer. Can you answer from Scripture his question concerning those he claims are exempt from Rom 3:23?

 

[Sig]

Your own quoting of Scripture, Sig. Your own quoting.

Each and every time you quote the Bible you give us **proof **that the Church was infallible in discerning that this particular verse you cite is theopneustos. You would not know it any other way.

And everytime I tell you that men are infallible, I prove that you are wrong in what you say when you attempt to tell me what I believe.

Scripture is authoritative, inerrant, infallible, men are fallen and sinful, not inerrent, and not infallible.

I’m patient, and will continue to correct your understanding difficulties regarding my position on that.

 

[Sig]

Okay, okay! Don’t start getting frustrated because then you’re going to start lashing out…

You’re projecting. Calm down. If your old script isn’t working, try a new script.

 

[Sig]

Well, since you asked…

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

The request wasn’t for “suggestions,” but proof. Why should I put any stock into this fellow’s private interpretation?

Seems to me all you have to offer is the Church’s pronouncements about herself, and her claim that she is the only one who has the authority to understand and interpret scripture. That’s classic circular reasoning, IMO.

 

[tqualey]

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

Your questions mostly consisted of “dig through my twenty pages of dodginess and give me post numbers.”

No thank you; I have much better things to do.

Farewell.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C,

Excellent

Yes, the ‘traditions of men’ really do miss the mark!

God bless

I love this exchange. It works on several levels.

First of all, it clearly shows how the same bible passage is interpretted differently using different faith traditions as the catalyst. It puts to rest the concept of sola scriptura because it clearly shows that it is the tradition that governs the understanding, not the scripture itself. This then makes the discussion one of credibility of Tradition, and not one of the facts of scripture, which as we have just shown are subordinate to the Tradition being applied to understand it.

So, I submit that the Catholic Tradition is the original and therefore True tradition going back to the Apostles. You can not argue with this, because it is indeed a fact. The reformed tradition you espouse can be clearly traced to John Calvin in the 1500s. It is a human innovation. Calvin has no works to support his claims, no proof from God. He simply had arguments. You can not get around this fact with your interpretation of scripture. Its a matter of history.

Oh, and by the way, Matthew 7:21-23 says nothing about the saved never losing salvation. That is your own unwarranted extrapolation. It says nothing at all about that. At most, you could argue that there are people who never were saved and I grant you that this is a plausible interpetation that is completely in line with Catholic theology. Those that are never baptized are never saved (except in rare instances). Jesus makes this clear in his discussions with Nicodemus in John 3: No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.

And it undeniably says that unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter heaven. It also is clear that Jesus demands the evildoers to depart from him. This clearly supports the Catholic teaching that you must stay in the state of grace through works of love and by avoiding sin to get to heaven.

But again, this is how Catholics understand this passage. In the end, its not the passage but the credibility of the Tradition that is used to interpret it that matters.