Once Saved Always Saved?

[fhansen]

According to who? The church?

Who else could? You? Were you around? Everyone thinks they can pick up the bible and know what the early church was like and who they were and what they did-even though scripture, itself testifies that not everything was written down. It’s not a theological handbook or a catechism. It was never meant to serve as anyone’s personal avenue to know God’s will with any kind of conclusive precision. That’s the Church’s role. Answer my question about how you know scripture is Gods word and how you know you’ve interpreted it correctly.

 

[fhansen]

You’re doing it for me.

you could always admit you can’t-just takes a little integrity.

 

[Sig]

Biblical support…that passage is from the Bible…and it is clear what it says…what I am asking is to prove your assertion that no one can lose one’s salvation…using that verse.

Or is it you are evading answering what it plainly states because it goes against your assertion?

I’ve been backing up my assertions that salvation can’t be lost with plenty of scriptures. Read the thread.

You posted a passage from Romans 11, and you assert that scriptures says salvation can be lost, and then you demand that I prove it doesn’t?

That’s not how it works, pablope. You assert, you assume the burden of proof.

Its meaning is very plain.

Very plain to who? To you? Saying the verse is very plain is not a proof, it’s an opinion. It’s my opinion your wrong. Do you accept my opinion as proof of your error? I didn’t think so.

Or is it you are avoiding explaining it and tying it to your assertion that no one can lose one’s salvation?

One more time, you’re making assertions concerning a passage in Romans 11, saying that it disproves my position, and demanding that I prove it doesn’t.

That’s not how it works. You assert, you assume the burden of proof.

 

[Sig]

Who else could?..

Is that a yes?

 

[fhansen]

Is that a yes?

another post you didn’t read?

 

[Sig]

another post you didn’t read?

You take the final word. I trust the reader to decide for him/herself. Go ahead.

 

[paul_c]

I’ve been backing up my assertions that salvation can’t be lost with plenty of scriptures. Read the thread.

Sig, you’ve done nothing of the sort. We’ve shown you on EVERY single point that your assertions are invalid. Read the thread.

You posted a passage from Romans 11, and you assert that scriptures says salvation can be lost, and then you demand that I prove it doesn’t?

Sig, this is not what happened at all. She posted Romans 11, which clearly says that you can be separated from the vine, just as the Hebrews were. She pointed out that this clearly means that you can lose your salvation and asked you if you could explain it in another way. So, what is your interpretation of Romans 11? Enlighten us… maybe you are right…

Very plain to who? To you? Saying the verse is very plain is not a proof, it’s an opinion. It’s my opinion your wrong. Do you accept my opinion as proof of your error? I didn’t think so.

She’s reading it as straight english using Catholic tradition as a guide. Do you see this passage differently? If so, how. And doesn’t that just bring us back to where we were on Matthew 7:21-23. Remember the discussion. You used Reformed tradition as the basis of your interpretation, We used Catholic tradition to interpret it. It was abundantly obvious then as it is now that it is tradition, not scripture that ultimately is the key to the truth. So we pointed out the credibility of Catholic tradition, which is 2000 years old and began with the Apostles versus the credibility of the Reformed tradition, which is 500 years old and began with John Calvin. You didn’t try to defend your tradition, which was smart because it is so obviously a human innovation

One more time, you’re making assertions concerning a passage in Romans 11, saying that it disproves my position, and demanding that I prove it doesn’t.

That’s not how it works. You assert, you assume the burden of proof.

you are treating this as a debate. It is not. It is a search for the truth. If you win the debate but are wrong on the truth, you lose…

 

[TinaG]

To cut to the quick:

1. You cannot come to salvation on your own. To initially turn to Christ, you need prevenient grace.
2. You cannot persevere on your own. To persevere, you need the gift of perseverance.

In order to get the gift, God has to give it to you. He does not give it to everyone, only to the elect. In other words, if you are elect, you get the gift of perseverance. If you are not elect, you do not persevere.

God has predestined the elect from before the foundation of the world. Somewhere in Aquinas I’ve been told he says the number of the elect is fixed and can neither increase nor decrease.

Calvinists see the glory and sovereignty of God as being emphasized over the free will of man. God desires that all be saved, but not are. If they are not saved, it is not that the free will of man is more important than the glory of God.

If you are saved, you are saved. There is no “he loves me, he loves me not” and worrying about whether you are in a state of grace. Salvation is God’s act from first to last. He seeks and saves the lost. We do not come to Him on our own and we cannot stay with Him on our own.

-Tina “Not Exactly a Theologian” G

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope
Mark’s gospel recounts that Peter “wept bitterly”. I think the Matthew and Luke say this as well also.

Obviously, he repented and he also confessed, otherwise no one would know he denied Christ. This was proof for Lisa that Peter, regained grace as the catholic church teaches.

 

[fhansen]

You take the final word. I trust the reader to decide for him/herself. Go ahead.

Tell you what-I have a better idea. I’ll answer your question any way you like if you answer the ones I posed first. On what authority do you claim to know that scripture is the word of God? And by what authority do you claim to interpret it correctly?

 

[Pitcharan]

I’ve been backing up my assertions that salvation can’t be lost with plenty of scriptures. Read the thread.

You posted a passage from Romans 11, and you assert that scriptures says salvation can be lost, and then you demand that I prove it doesn’t?
…

Salvation is merely offered and not doled out like a gift. Salvation is not an event but a process that is completed on the day of last judgement. If you want to know how one loses the offer of salvation, then here it is:
Matthew 22

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

13** “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’**

14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

 

[Sig]

Obviously, he repented and he also confessed, otherwise no one would know he denied Christ. This was proof for Lisa that Peter, regained grace as the catholic church teaches.

Where has it been proven that Peter lost grace?

 

[paul_c]

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa44
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?

Only because this thread is moving so fast.

So let’s take them in reverse order. How do we know Peter fell from grace when he denied Jesus? Well, we are not his judges, to be sure. But the fact that it was reported in the gospel accounts that Peter, realizing what he had done, wept bitterly, it is probably safe to say that Peter recognized his sin. and was repentent. And while a person’s confession would never be made public because of the seal of confession, it is rather obvious that he confessed, otherwise it is unlikely that we would know he denied the Lord.

 

[TinaG]

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

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

 

[Sig]

Only because this thread is moving so fast.

So let’s take them in reverse order. How do we know Peter fell from grace when he denied Jesus? Well, we are not his judges, to be sure. But the fact that it was reported in the gospel accounts that Peter, realizing what he had done, wept bitterly, it is probably safe to say that Peter recognized his sin. and was repentent. And while a person’s confession would never be made public because of the seal of confession, it is rather obvious that he confessed, otherwise it is unlikely that we would know he denied the Lord.

You know Peter fell from grace because he recognized that he had sinned, and he wept bitterly?

How does that prove Peter “fell from grace?”

 

[TinaG]

You know Peter fell from grace because he recognized that he had sinned, and he wept bitterly?

How does that prove Peter fell from grace?

What is this phrase “fell from grace”? Where is it in Scripture? Isn’t this whole thread about whether one can “fall from grace”?

-Tina “Rooting for the Elect” G

 

[Pitcharan]

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

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

Funniest folly that I ever heard. Why would God desire salvation for all after predestining and pre-defining a select (elect) few?

 

[Sig]

Sig, you’ve done nothing of the sort. We’ve shown you on EVERY single point that your assertions are invalid. Read the thread.

More opinion. Here’s mine: No you haven’t proven me wrong in anything.

The readers will read, and those interested will read closely, and they will make up their own minds as to who’s best represented their position, and who’s offered the best support for their position.

Let the reader’s decide for themselves. I’m not afraid of that. Are you?

Sig, this is not what happened at all. She posted Romans 11, which clearly says that you can be separated from the vine, just as the Hebrews were. She pointed out that this clearly means that you can lose your salvation and asked you if you could explain it in another way. So, what is your interpretation of Romans 11? Enlighten us… maybe you are right…

She’s reading it as straight english using Catholic tradition as a guide. Do you see this passage differently? If so, how. And doesn’t that just bring us back to where we were on Matthew 7:21-23. Remember the discussion. You used Reformed tradition as the basis of your interpretation, We used Catholic tradition to interpret it. It was abundantly obvious then as it is now that it is tradition, not scripture that ultimately is the key to the truth. So we pointed out the credibility of Catholic tradition, which is 2000 years old and began with the Apostles versus the credibility of the Reformed tradition, which is 500 years old and began with John Calvin. You didn’t try to defend your tradition, which was smart because it is so obviously a human innovation

you are treating this as a debate. It is not. It is a search for the truth. If you win the debate but are wrong on the truth, you lose…

You assert, you assume the burden of proof for the assertion. It’s not my burden to disprove her assertion.

 

[paul_c]

So God is inarticulate? So much so that someone has to explain what He said to everyone else? And as if the Catholic Church has delivered us from chaos and confusion…

-Tina “Expert in Being Inarticulate” G

Tina, God is articulate, but that doesn’t mean that people dont twist his words so they hear what they want to hear. We’ve had several discussions in this thread about how Reformed Protestants will interpret a passage one way based on their tradition and Catholics will interpret the same passage another way based on the Catholic tradition. It is obvious from these exchanges that the actual scriptural passage is subordinate to the tradition that is used as the key to the interpretation.

So the accuracy of the interpretation of the passage depends on the credibility of the tradition, not the actual text of the passage. The Catholic Church;s Tradition goes back 2000 years to the Apostles. This is an historic fact . The Protestant tradition goes back 500 years to Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is also an historic fact. The Reformers could not show that they had any special insight from God. All they had were their arguments that they were smarter than the Catholics. Not a very credible argument to deflect the obvious fact that Protestantism rests on human theological innovation.

 

[Sig]

Funniest folly that I ever heard. Why would God desire salvation for all after predestining and pre-defining a select (elect) few?

FYI, as a Roman Catholic, you are required to believe, de fide, that God "predestines and pre-defines a select number of humans to eternal salvation."

Do you still think it’s the funniest folly you ever heard?