Once Saved Always Saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shocktrooper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Children do turn their backs on their parents! That is the whole point, but the parents do not stop loving them. If you think you will never turn your back on God then think about Peter, he loved Jesus with all his heart and he still denied him three times.
That’s right, God never stops loving us and that’s why we can return to his good graces at any point through the sacrament of reconciliation. Peter also reconciled to the lord and his confession is read in the gospels 2000 years later. But if we never desire to return, he will not force us to do so. And for that we will be condemned.

If you have mortal sin on your soul, it is imperative for you to repent and confess to a priest so you can get back into the state of grace. I you die in the state of grace, you will go to heaven.
 
Hi, Paul C,

I never really thought of it this way.

Thank you for the ideas.

God bless
Just remember, that questions not answered can still have the desired effect. Often, in fact, those questions get the other person rethinking their position, even if they aren’t willing to discuss it. I have never seen anyone just abruptly say. " you are right, I need to become Catholic. " But I’ve seen several cases where people you are arguinng with vehemently suddenly go off line and several months later re-emerge with RCIA as their new religion. Its a huge decision, of course. So when someone is spending this much time online, you know you have their interest. And often, they will be the most challenging right before they decide on a change. This will be followed by “radio silence.” The holy spirit works in mysterious ways. Sometimes he uses us for his purposes without us even knowing it. So don’t get frustrated. Just keep answering questions to the best of your ability. That’s all we are called to do.
 
That’s right, God never stops loving us and that’s why we can return to his good graces at any point through the sacrament of reconciliation. Peter also reconciled to the lord and his confession is read in the gospels 2000 years later. But if we never desire to return, he will not force us to do so. And for that we will be condemned.

If you have mortal sin on your soul, it is imperative for you to repent and confess to a priest so you can get back into the state of grace. I you die in the state of grace, you will go to heaven.
Did Peter lose his salvation when he denied Jesus three times? Yes or no?
 
OK, nothing in Mt 7 tells us that a person can’t stop asking, stop knocking, can’t turn back away from God, can’t undermine their own foundation. Our free will is no more nullified than was Adam & Eve’s. And 2 Pet 2 certainly supports this notion much more forcefully than any verse in scripture which might be construed to support the idea than salvation cannot be forfeited.
Really? Not even when it tells you that a good tree can’t produce bad fruit? You still insist that the good trees might be cast into fire?

What about 2 Peter 2? Who are these trees? Are they good trees or bad trees?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
That’s right, God never stops loving us and that’s why we can return to his good graces at any point through the sacrament of reconciliation. Peter also reconciled to the lord and his confession is read in the gospels 2000 years later. But if we never desire to return, he will not force us to do so. And for that we will be condemned.
Sure, he fell from grace just like anyone else who commits a mortal sin. And if he hadn’t reconciled with Jesus, he would have been condemned to Hell. But he did repent, confess, and do penance and for that, he re-entered the state of grace and eventually joined Jesus in heaven. (hence, he is known as St. Peter).

The same applies to all of us. We are saved by baptism, entering the state of grace. If we fall from Grace through sin, we will be condemned unless we partake in the sacrament of reconciliation. If we die in the state of grace, like St. Peter, we will enter heaven.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhansen
OK, nothing in Mt 7 tells us that a person can’t stop asking, stop knocking, can’t turn back away from God, can’t undermine their own foundation. Our free will is no more nullified than was Adam & Eve’s. And 2 Pet 2 certainly supports this notion much more forcefully than any verse in scripture which might be construed to support the idea than salvation cannot be forfeited.
Good trees can become diseased with sin and no longer produce good fruit.
What about 2 Peter 2? Who are these trees? Are they good trees or bad trees?
Here is the passage in question:

20For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
21For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down* to them.
22* What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, “The dog returns to its own vomit,” and “A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire.”

As you can see in verse 20, these people escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. In other words, their sins were forgiven in baptism and they entered the state of grace.

And just as obviously the second half of verse 20 says that they have fallen from grace by returning to sin. And now they are condemned more than if they hadn’t been baptised to begin with
 
Wow PRmerger! You did a lot of work on this post! 🙂

And, not only is this proof - but proof based upon the Holy Word of God. I would have thought that this material would lead would have lead to an indepth discussion on how OSAS simply evaporates from the page when exposed to the Truth of God’s Word. Well, of course it would - if it were even looked at:(

I appreciated the presentation you made - thank you very much.

God bless
Wish I could take credit for it. Just using the script of someone else (namely, Randy Carson). 🙂
 
The request wasn’t for “suggestions,” but proof.
😃

It’s the same “proof” that you have for claiming that Jesus is Divine, Jesus has 2 natures, God is a Trinity, that God loves you…

Why do you demand less proof for those doctrines? :hmmm:
 
😃

It’s the same “proof” that you have for claiming that Jesus is Divine, Jesus has 2 natures, God is a Trinity, that God loves you…

Why do you demand less proof for those doctrines? :hmmm:
You’re dodging PR.

Obviously you can’t produce scriptural proof of papal infallibility but are forced to rely on a circular argument; namely that a pope pronounces popes infallible, and the church pronounces that only she can correctly interpret scripture.
 
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.
So Mr. Hansen is laying the groundwork that leads to the conclusion that he believes all men, not just popes, but all men are infallible.

Thank you for that very interesting leading.
 
Did you mean “yours”?

Just a little pet peeve of mine. (Unnecessary apostrophes drive me crazy.)

Also, it’s kind of funny when you’re making a jab at someone to be making such an elementary grammatical error.

Just sayin’. 😃
BTW, Sig. I hope you’re not currently feverishly searching all my posts to look for any grammatical errors.

With over 11, 000 to my name you’re going to be searching a long time before you find something. 🙂
 
Good trees can become diseased with sin and no longer produce good fruit.

Here is the passage in question:

20For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
21For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down* to them.
22* What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, “The dog returns to its own vomit,” and “A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire.”

As you can see in verse 20, these people escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. In other words, their sins were forgiven in baptism and they entered the state of grace.

And just as obviously the second half of verse 20 says that they have fallen from grace by returning to sin. And now they are condemned more than if they hadn’t been baptised to begin with
2 Peter 2:17 “These people are like springs without water…”

What makes you think that they were saved and in a state of grace? Please quote what lines you believe indicate that “these people” were once saved.
 
Sure, he fell from grace just like anyone else who commits a mortal sin. And if he hadn’t reconciled with Jesus, he would have been condemned to Hell. But he did repent, confess, and do penance and for that, he re-entered the state of grace and eventually joined Jesus in heaven. (hence, he is known as St. Peter).

The same applies to all of us. We are saved by baptism, entering the state of grace. If we fall from Grace through sin, we will be condemned unless we partake in the sacrament of reconciliation. If we die in the state of grace, like St. Peter, we will enter heaven.
Where does it say that Peter repented, confessed and did penance and then re-entered a state of grace? Where also does it say he lost his state of grace in the first place?
 
Hi PRmerger,

“You is (sic) sooooooooo right!” 😃 But really, with all of the evasion, denial and just plain non-responsiveness to OSAS issues - you got him cold on this improper use of the apostrophe!

But, it may be that this slippery, evasion artist has once again shown his true talent - and that would be shifting the topic from OSAS to papal infallibility. This certainly seems rasonable - supporting the unsupportable gets tiresome. But, maybe there is an opportunity for a new therad…😉

Simply stated Christ was quite clear about there being no merit in anything short of perserverance to the end. And for the Scriptural basis for this, please look at:
Matt 10, 22, Matt 24:13, and Mark 13:13. There is no reason to encourage someone to persevere to the end of they are already the ‘Elect’. Of course, they may have missed something and are really a ‘Reprobate’ and just don’t know it yet! So, persevering to the end would probably not do them any good under a OSAS system as devised by Calvin & Co.

Now, for a really nice explanation of how this works - in real life as the Scriptures are examined - here is a good link: catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation

God bless
Did you mean “yours”?

Just a little pet peeve of mine. (Unnecessary apostrophes drive me crazy.)

Also, it’s kind of funny when you’re making a jab at someone to be making such an elementary grammatical error.

Just sayin’. 😃
 
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.
Well, I wouldn’t want to completely misunderstand Scripture Paul, so I will have to conclude from the Catholic position that "those who are not baptized are not saved," consigns all of the OT saints to hell.

That’s a very interesting position for the Roman Catholic church to take.
We are called to be baptized, just as the Jews were called to be circumcized.
But the Scriptural fact still stands that, according to Mark 16:16, the reason for condemnation is unbelief, and it is not because one is not baptized.

For that reason, and many others, I reject your assertion that those who are not baptized are never saved. You have asserted that position, and I’ve refuted that position from Scripture, Mark 16:16. Men are condemned for unbelief, men are not condemned for not being baptized.

And just to reiterate what I said earlier, Paul states in Ephesians 2, that humans 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. None, zero, zip, nada.
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.
LOL, “presumably baptized?” I’ll say, and that’s coming directly from your presuppositions.
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.
There’s no scriptural teaching about a “baptism of desire,” Paul. At least I can’t think of any. Can you?
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?
IMO, you are desperate, Paul, and reduced to quibbling, about whether or not, according to reformed tradition, it’s faith in God, or faith in Jesus that saves.

FYI, Jesus is God, and "the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand…" (Gal 3:8). Mkay? Abraham knew the Gospel…
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.
That’s just more desperation Paul, IMO.

As I stated earlier, and you now ignore, in John 10 Jesus plainly states that He knows His sheep, and His sheep know Him, and that He gives His sheep eternal life, and that His sheep will never perish. To those in the Mt 7 passage, Jesus says, “I NEVER KNEW YOU.”

Let the reader put the pieces together and make their own decision.
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…
IMO, you’re projecting, Paul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top