Once Saved Always Saved?

[Lisa44]

Lisa, there was never a question of whether St. Peter is in heaven. He is a canonized saint. The question YOU asked was did he lose his salvation. That is a totally different thing, because you can fall from grace through sin and regain it through he sacrament of reconciliation.

No, I said that his bitter weeping showed he was sorry for his sin (which is the definition of repentence). The weeping had nothing to do with confession. Although there is not direct record of his confession (nor would there be because of the seal of the confessional), the fact that he was reconciled to Jesus is shown in John 21.

No, not exactly. contrition, repentence, confession to a priest and penance, will put you back in the state of grace.

Yes

I said while we are not his judge, we can surmise by his own actions that he thought he fell from grace.

Of course we know that St. Peter is saved. He died and is now a canonized Saint.
This is foolishness. He is in heaven.

St. Peter himself teaches this. Read 2Peter 2.

Sig has asserted the opposite. He has done nothing to prove his point.

Asserting something doesn’t make it true. And I already showed you quite clearly that thee readings can be interpreted as giving the opposite views depending on the tradition you use to interptet them. So the question is really, which tradition is more credible: the one that is 2000 years old and began with the apostles, or the one defined by John Calvin 500 years ago.

Quote from 2 Peter 2 please. Show me where it says what you are asserting it says.

 

[Sig]

Sig has asserted the opposite. He has done nothing to prove his point.

He has according to Lisa, and probably to uncountable numbers of lurkers.

Be that as it may, what point is it you think I haven’t proven?

Is it that if baptism is the means of salvation, as the RCC says it is, that all of the OT saints have perished? You haven’t addressed that.

What point haven’t I proven Paul?

 

[Sig]

And I already showed you quite clearly that thee readings can be interpreted as giving the opposite views depending on the tradition you use to interptet them. So the question is really, which tradition is more credible: the one that is 2000 years old and began with the apostles, or the one defined by John Calvin 500 years ago.

Lisa, notice that Paul is admitting that he can’t prove anything about the veracity of Catholic teachings (so really, what’s the point of listening to him anymore?), and that being able to prove something true isn’t really important to him.

What is important to Paul is that the Catholic church is Oooooooold.

Paul believes in Catholicism not because he can prove its positons are correct, but because they are “ancient.”

 

[Sig]

Yes, thank you. I am in agreement with you.

You’re right, I’m sorry and wrong, I didn’t post that, pablope did. I’m a bit tired. God has graciously given me much work in this bad economy.

 

[Lisa44]

Lisa, notice that Paul is admitting that he can’t prove anything about the veracity of Catholic teachings (so really, what’s the point of listening to him anymore?), and that being able to prove something true isn’t really important to him.

What is important to Paul is that the Catholic church is Oooooooold.

Paul believes in Catholicism not because he can prove its positons are correct, but because they are “ancient.”

By the same token he says he cannot know whether St. Peter is saved. And yet he follows his teachings.

Correction: He said he knows that St. Peter lost his salvation, but regained it through his tears, and therefore he knows that he is now saved. If he had not cried, his future would have been uncertain.

 

[pablope]

I’ve never said I don’t know what Rom 11 means.

OK, cut off: From the same root as “severity,” used earlier in the verse. God deals swiftly and severely with those who reject Him.

 

[pablope]

I’ve never said I don’t know what Rom 11 means. What I’ve said is I don’t what it means to you.

 

[pablope]

By the same token he says he cannot know whether St. Peter is saved. And yet he follows his teachings.

Correction: He said he knows that St. Peter lost his salvation,** but regained it through his tears**, and therefore he knows that he is now saved. If he had not cried, his future would have been uncertain.

Let me ask yo this then, Lisa…if you had offended God, denied Him as Peter did…would you cry in remorse, and weep bitterly, like Peter did?

Or would you rather drink, be merry, and party and show no remorse?

 

[fhansen]

You are the one saying the passage “seems” to be saying something.

On the other hand, I’m not. I’m definitely telling you what it says.

Yes, that’s your problem, sig, You’re playing pope with your so-called interpretations, while I, OTOH, don’t have to obsessively cling to the false notion that I must interpret scripture correctly myself-I already have the truth regardless of scripture. With scripture and tradition together, the church supports the faith she’s been given.

 

[fhansen]

Fhansen, why were the branches cut off?

It’s not what I say, I didn’t write the bible.

Rom 11:17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and have come to share in the rich root of the cultivated olive tree, do not brag that you are better than those branches. But if you do brag - you do not sustain the root but the root sustains you.

I do not speak of bragging, that is what the verse speaks of. Do you understand what the “root” is and why no one can brag?

Sheez, Lisa, read the passage carefully. It’s very plain. Believers should not be arrogant but tremble, just like tells us they should tremble in working out their salvation, because God may cut them off, too. Sig may believe “is” means something different that “is” and then accuse others of his own error but you don’t have to go along with it.

**But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
**

 

[JRRTFAN]

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?

From whence commeth thy quotation and from what context, if you don’t mind. We are also required to believe “extra ecclesia nulla salus” but absent an explanation that would presume that everyone but Catholics in a state of grace are lost and that’s not what it means.

So I ask you to expound.

 

[Sig]

So, He does not give them a chance to repent?

See v23.

And who are the “elect”?

They are those chosen by God.

How do you know you are of the Elect?

Because I’m continually believing.

Can you absolutely be sure?

Scripture says I can be: ”but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:13.

And aren’t the christians (whether protestants or catholics) part of the elect, or the new elect?

As in each and every person who professes to be a Christian? No.

Look at verse 20…why would it say do not be arrogant but tremble? If the elect cannot lose their salvation, what do they need to tremble for?

By linking Paul’s admonition that believers should not be haughty toward God, but fear Him, with your unproven conclusion that not following that admonition results in a loss of salvation, you’ve committed the logical fallacy of “begging the question.”

Don’t do that.

As I’ve made abundantly clear on this thread, disobedience by the elect does not result in condemnation, but in discipline (Heb 12:3ff).

And the last part says both the original and those grafted in will not be spared, therefor, the elect are included.

Actually it doesn’t say He will not, but that He may not, and Paul’s admonition is one given to the church in general. Again, Paul makes it very clear that no one can make a charge against God’s elect, not even Paul (Rom 8:33), but Paul can strongly admonition them to the point of scaring the dickens out of them.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you (the elect), provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you (the elect) also will be cut off.

The passage does not distinguish between the elect and the unelect…for what would the unelected have to lose if they are predestined for somewhere already.

It is so obvious this passage refers to the “elect”…as you put it…for they have much to lose.

That’s a form of the “bandwagon” fallacy. "It’s so obvious…you wouldn’t want to disagree with the obvious would you?"

I’m sure you’re not aware of the fallacies in your thinking, but stop with them anyway, will you.

Moving on. It’s important to understand that THE CONTEXT OF THIS PASSAGE HAS TO DO WITH GOD’S DEALINGS WITH ISRAEL.

That needs to be emphasized. The passage is not about the church. It is also not an expositional treatment on the means of salvation.

Well, let us look at it again…Heb 10…

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

**Who are the “we” who "have received the knowledge of truth?

The elect. For why would God give the unelect the knowledge of truth for they have nowhere else to go?**

OK, following your point to its logical conclusion, if “we” are the elect, the writer says in verse 38 that “we” are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.”

Therefore, those condemnations and punishments have nothing to do with the elect because “we” [the elect], don’t go back to unbelief, but continue in belief to final salvation.

If the elect sin, are they still friends or enemies of God? Does not sin offend God?

As I’ve said before, if the elect sin, God is offended, and He may discipline them (Heb 12:3ff), and no, as I’ve also said before, the elect are not enemies of God, but have saved by God.

Can you absolutely say you have not sinned?

I have sinned.

And I do not think you answered this question in V29, which I asked you to answer…

29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Who were those sanctified by the blood of the covenant?

I think that’s referring to Christ. He was sanctified, or set apart unto God (cf Jn 17:19). It can’t refer to the apostates described in the passage, because apostates are not sanctified, and it can’t be the elect, because we’ve followed your assertion that “we” are the elect, and the writer says that “we” [the elect], are not those who return to perdition, but continue in faith to final salvation.

 

[Sig]

From whence commeth thy quotation and from what context, if you don’t mind. We are also required to believe “extra ecclesia nulla salus” but absent an explanation that would presume that everyone but Catholics in a state of grace are lost and that’s not what it means.

So I ask you to expound.

Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

I’ll leave the reading of it up to you. It used to be available online.

 

[Sig]

Let me ask yo this then, Lisa…if you had offended God, denied Him as Peter did…would you cry in remorse, and weep bitterly, like Peter did?

Or would you rather drink, be merry, and party and show no remorse?

Oh for heaven’s sake.

 

[Sig]

Yes, that’s your problem, sig, You’re playing pope with your so-called interpretations, while I, OTOH, don’t have to obsessively cling to the false notion that I must interpret scripture correctly myself-I already have the truth regardless of scripture. With scripture and tradition together, the church supports the faith she’s been given.

In deciding the Catholic Church is the true church on the basis of your own interpretations and will, you too are playing pope, Hansen. Handing off the business of interpretation to the church after your decision they’re the true church doesn’t change that fact.

 

[Sig]

Sheez, Lisa, read the passage carefully. It’s very plain.

It’s so plain, Lisa, why can’t you see it? Fhansen can see it. Why can’t you?..

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

I know what you and Paul C are saying … ah,… but is there room for a ‘Doubting Thomas’ in this discussion?

Maybe this is because I have not less experience here than you … but NO experience in what you are saying. Having snarky comments (yes) silly face logos (not so much) than ‘radio silence’ (maybe) followed by RICA… (so far, not on my watch). Please do not misunderstand me - I would truly like to see such a change … dare I say… conversion. I just don’t know - that is truly a lot to hope for.

God bless

One perfect example is from this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7099969#post7099969

While the ID says this person is Catholic, when we were in original dialogue with him he ID’d himself as a Protestant, if I remember correctly.

He was very, very opposed to many Catholic doctrines, and then offered us the above post.

So, just in rather recent dialogue we have a wonderful example of this! :extrahappy:

 

[fhansen]

In deciding the Catholic Church is the true church on the basis of your own interpretations and will, you too are playing pope, Hansen. Handing off the business of interpretation to the church after your decision they’re the true church doesn’t change that fact.

True enough, but the difference is I’ve come to see that scripture is non-interpretable, with any degree of precision. The written word, unlike the pope or any other living being, cannot interpret itself, cannot tell you what it means, as this thread has again proven, IMO. Jesus didn’t say He came to establish a bible that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against, and 1 Tim 3:15 doesn’t tell us that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth-instead the church is said to have those roles. If it wasn’t for the CC, I would no longer consider myself Christian-I couldn’t because one thing I know is that scripture alone isn’t sufficient.

 

[fhansen]

It’s so plain, Lisa, why can’t you see it? Fhansen can see it. Why can’t you?..

Yes, Lisa, answer us; we’re waiting. :coffeeread:

 

[fhansen]

So, are you still unsure if St. Peter is saved?
You are saying that weeping equals repentance and confession.
And that repentance and confession equal salvation.

The question was did St. Peter LOOSE his salvation when he denied Jesus three times?
The assertion that he lost his salvation cannot be proven by your own admission. Therefore you also cannot know if St. Peter is saved. And therefore you are following the teachings of a man whom you do not even know if he is in heaven or hell?

So what makes you think that St. Peter lost his salvation? Because you assume that if a believer sins that he looses his salvation. But this has not been adequately demonstrated. In fact, Sig has demonstrated the opposite.

Matthew 7 does not prove your thesis, nor does 2 Peter 2. Nor does Romans 11. Nor does Heb 10:26.

I’m sure all Catholics are at the very least 99.99% certain that Peter is saved in light of all we know about the way he lived his life up to and including his martyrdom. But only God knows the heart and scripture tells us that He judges by it. Only He can know with 100% certainty. So in humility, recognizing human frailty and weakness, we can admit to a .01% -or whatever-possibility that he’s not saved.

However, in his case there’s another difference, because, since the church has canonized him, we can know that he’s anyway saved based on the authority given her.