Once Saved Always Saved?

[PRmerger]

I’m pretty sure that the pillar and foundation is Jesus Christ.

Right!

But I’ve been told by Catholics that I interpret 1 Tim 3:15 wrong.

:sad_yes:

[SIGN]The only way you know anything that Jesus said is because **the Church **told you he said it. [/SIGN]

So while Jesus is the pillar and foundation,** he uses His Body, the Church, **to let you know what he said.

 

[pablope]

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.”

 

[PRmerger]

Now if you could just explain how you know he lost his salvation then we would be getting somewhere.

Is there some verse that you can quote that tells us if he died immediately after denying Christ (which was your original question) that he was still going to heaven?

Book, chapter and verse, please.

Rather, Catholics give the Scriptural answer: we do not judge him. We may not be aware of anything against him, but that does not mean he is acquitted. It is the Lord Who judges.

 

[PRmerger]

Did Peter lose his salvation when he denied Jesus three times? Yes or no?

Incidentally, Lisa, how do you believe that Peter even had salvation when he denied Jesus three times–Jesus had not yet died on the cross, right?

Is that not how you believe we are saved–through the Blood of the Lamb?

Or do you believe there’s some other way that Peter was saved, without the atoning blood of Christ? Perhaps you believe Peter was, like Mary, saved in anticipation of the Cross?

 

[paul_c]

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 (and Lisa and Tina G),

I’d like to point out something to you. We Catholics are here on this forum to help YOU understand the Catholic Faith. That’s why this Forum is called “Catholic Answers Forum.” We are here for Your benefit and you came to us. We did not seek you out. We are spending considerable amounts of our own time for your benefit. This is not a debating forum. I’m sincerely sorry if you find our answers not helpful but I will continue to answer any question you have to the best of my ability. You are of course free to do with them what you want but know that they are given with your best interest at heart…

 

[Sig]

V23…23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

So why do you need to be grafted in again…unless the elect somehow got disconnected…so one can indeed lose one’s standing before God…ie…lose salvation.

Look, I’ve told you, if you don’t understand that the passage is about Israel, you’d never understand the passage, and now I’d also add that it’s equally important to understand things about Israel, and Israel’s relationship with God, and Israel’s national election, as opposed to individual election, all of which you clearly know nothing about. I say that humbly.

At least go back and read Romans 11, and try and get the gist of what’s going on, and the reason Israel was cut off in addition to unbelief.

And how are they chosen by God?

See Eph 1:11.

So, let me get this then…anybody who believes continously becomes part of the elect…is this correct?

No. Read again, and think about it some more, and think about in terms of other scripture as Catholics claim they do, and then come back with a re-thought and re-worded question.

Really? And how do you know that? And can you explain why they would not be part of the elect or the new elect?

First, I haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about in reference to the “new elect.” What are you talking about?

Secondly, as to how I know, go and read the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13:24. Read it a number of times, and think about it. After you’ve done that, if you still don’t know how I know that not every professing Christian is part of the elect, re-ask the question.

Why is it a logical fallacy? How is it a logical fallacy?

Go online and look up logical fallacies. Find the one I’ve charged you with. Read about it over, and over, and over again until you understand what it is.

And my response to you in a previous post…what is the discipline of God…heb 10:27…27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

Where is this raging fire?

For heaven’s sake, you are confusing condemnation with discipline, and you reject what Jesus says concerning those who believe not coming into condemnation (Jn 5:24). Forgive me, but I don’t have the time to teach you according to the teaching your questions indicate you need. Forgive me. I’m saying these things in as humble a way as I can.

well…let is look at v 21 then…

niv…21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

DR…21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

NASB…21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

It does say…"will not spare you either’…indicating a future action. So where you did get the version that says…“may not”?

My preference is the NASB, but at my desk, at the moment is the NKJV.

So…then…what actions will cause the elect not to be spared?

Have you read the passage at all? If you have, it tells you in the passage.

Really…So St. Paul is reduced to scaring the wits out of those he addresses?

Lord help me.

Well…begging the question then…if the elect cannot lose their salvation…why does he need to scare them or anybody else?What is the point?

And if the elect cannot lose their salvation, why would they need to listen to what St. paul is telling them? What is the point of what he wrote? Why did St. Paul even bother to write the epistle?

I’ve recommend that you read the parable of the wheat and tares. It is my fervent prayer that upon reading that parable, some your questions will be cleared up. We’ll see.

Nevertheless, if you read the epistles you will notice the writers using strong admonishments to the readers that may seem to be over the top, and cause the unlearned to think that salvation could be lost. However, the writers know, and you will too if you read and understand the parable of the wheat and the tares, that not everyone in the church, not everyone in their hearing is saved. But in the congregation are many who are unconverted. Therefore, strong admonition from pastors encourage movement of the uncommitted and unconverted to closer to commitment and conversion to the truth. At the same time, it reminds the saved congregation of what’s expected of them.

I don’t expect you to understand that right away, but read the wheat and tares parable, and think about it, and hopefully, you’ll get what I’m saying, but I don’t know if you will.

Fallacies in my thinking? You must be referring to your way to thinking.

Yeah, you’re probably right. The more I read of your posts, the greater thinker I see you are. Nevertheless, I hope you follow my suggestions for reading in scripture, and think about the readings I’ve recommended.

(continued in next post).

 

[Sig]

(continued from post 853).

Really? If this referred to Israel…why would St. Paul talk about grafting new branches starting in v17? Why would there be a need for Israel to be grafted in?

You must have missed v 13…the beginning of this section of Rom 11…13 I am talking to you Gentiles.

The Gentiles…the new believers…the Elect…this is to whom this is addressed.

Look at v 17 again…17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,.

“You, the wild olive shoot”…the gentiles…the new believers, the elect…addressed to you…the believer, as you stated.

Again, I suggest you go and read Romans 11 as many times as it takes to get you stop asking the type of question you ask above.

Perhaps then we can have a meaningful conversation because at your current level of understanding regarding Romans 11 a meaningful conversation between the two of us is a distant dream.

Wait a minute…in one of your statements above…you said…" and Paul’s admonition is one given to the church in general"…and then suddenly, here you are saying it is not about the church?

Well, which is which?

But it is indeed about the “Elect”…that you take heed…of verse 22…Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

OK, I’ll try one more time for the Lord’s sake.

The passage is about Israel, but when Paul is speaking to the church at Rome, he is addressing the church at Rome. I notice in your profile that you are a college graduate, is that right?

Sorry…you lost me here…v38 where? I could not find the verse you are talking about here.

Forgive me, I meant v39.

But let us look at it again…

Let’s not.

Let’s stop here, and you go and read the passages of scripture I’ve recommended, and if you are willing to do that, we can rehash what you will probably still not understand, and then, perhaps, we can move on to Heb 10.

Got an early morning. Gnight and God bless.

 

[Sig]

Sig (and Lisa and Tina G),

I’d like to point out something to you. We Catholics are here on this forum to help YOU understand the Catholic Faith.

Well be encouraged, Paul. You are helping me to understand the Catholic faith, everyone of you Catholics is. Trust me, and keep it up.

 

[Sig]

Incidentally, Lisa, how do you believe that Peter even had salvation when he denied Jesus three times–Jesus had not yet died on the cross, right?

He was baptized. Not with a Trinitarian baptism because the Great Commission had yet to be commissioned, but with a baptism of desire.

I’m learning.

 

[Cinette]

Well, what does it mean?

Does “once saved always saved” mean that babies and young children who are saved suddenly lose their salvation when they hit the age of reason? If not, then why do they have to demonstrate faith to regain their salvation which they lost for no good reason other than hitting a certain age? And by the way, where does the Bible say that there is an age of reason and once you hit it, you better skedaddle to the altar call and say the sinner’s prayer or else?

It’s all very contradictory.

*What is the altar call? Please expain.

Cinette*

 

[PRmerger]

Well be encouraged, Paul. You are helping me to understand the Catholic faith, everyone of you Catholics is. Trust me, and keep it up.

The Truth shall set you free, Sig.

And, I add to paul’s post that I feel we are here to ask you questions that you’ve never considered before, such as “If the Church is infallible, where did she err in declaring the canon of Scripture?” and “How do you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas isn’t?”

 

[PRmerger]

He was baptized. Not with a Trinitarian baptism because the Great Commission had yet to be commissioned, but with a baptism of desire.

I’m learning.

Is this part of your Protestant paradigm, Sig? Because it’s certainly a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

I think you are under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church proclaims that you are saved without the atoning blood of Christ.

On this, the teacher gives you a D.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No. My conclusion is that the elect cannot lose their salvation.

That is also the conclusion of the Roman Catholic Church in its doctrine of election to eternal blessedness, a doctrine you must believe de fide.

Can anyone provide a link that explains this dogma? It doesn’t appear in Ludwig Ott’s list of dogmas.

 

[Sig]

Can anyone provide a link that explains this dogma? It doesn’t appear in Ludwig Ott’s list of dogmas.

The one I used no longer comes up on a google search, but I found this one, and seems to be the same:

Catholic Predestination.

 

[Sig]

Is this part of your Protestant paradigm, Sig? Because it’s certainly a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

I think you are under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church proclaims that you are saved without the atoning blood of Christ.

On this, the teacher gives you a D.

I tried.

 

[Lisa44]

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.

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.

Lisa, you would be a lot more credible if you actually reported what I said in a factual matter. It right in the thread so anyone can see that you are distorting what I said.

St. Peter did not regain his salvation through his tears. He reconciled himself to God through contrition, confession, repentence and penance, just like any other Catholic would. These are the same words I used before.

It seems like you are having trouble grasping the concept of falling out of grace by sin and regaining it through the sacrament of reconciliation. Why is that, since you call yourself a Catholic?

In your words Paul, you said Peter repented and confessed a “sin” and regained grace.
But you assume that Peter lost his grace when he denied Jesus. A claim you cannot substantiate except to say Peter cried.

Yes I am a Catholic. (Please do not bear false witness against me.) I don’t know who Calvin is or what he wrote, I know practically nothing about Protestantism. **But what I DO KNOW, is what I READ in the BIBLE. **

What i have trouble with is people distorting scripture to support their claims. In this case you claim that Peter lost his salvation when he denied Jesus.

I would not assume that, nor do I think you have been able to support that claim with scripture. In fact, Jesus said all his disciples would fall at that time and how could Jesus be wrong? How on earth could Jesus be wrong?

Peter didn’t lose his faith in Jesus. But Peter is HUMAN. I fail to see how you can say that Peter lost his salvation. Again, you haven’t proven it by saying he cried.

We all know that crying is not going to remove our mortal sins. Or are you saying that the Catholic church teaches that if you sin, and then cry, you are saved again. Of course not.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The one I used no longer comes up on a google search, but I found this one, and seems to be the same:

Catholic Predestination.

That’s really interesting.

I wonder if there is a possible overlap between OSAS and Catholicism. Could a good Catholic hold the opinion that only the elect have received baptism with the ‘proper dispositions of soul’ necessary to be incorporated into the body of Christ?

"Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: “You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” - UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

And further hold that all of the elect have been given the grace of final perseverance?

How is that any different than OSAS? Or how does it contradict Catholic doctrine?

 

[Sig]

Sig, I addressed that in the very first note in which I explained Catholic Sotierology. The Catholic Church teaches that while baptism is the normative way in which grace is given, it is not the only way. There are two exceptions. The baptism of blood, which applies to those that die for the Faith before being baptized and the baptism of desire, which has broader application. You see, if you were not physically able to be baptised but would have desired it had it been available to you, then God will accept your intent. This applies to the saints of the Old Testament and to those who never heard of Christianity but otherwise lived lives of love. Its scriptural support lies in the case of St. Dismas, who desired to be baptized when on the cross next to Jesus but of course we physically unable to do so. Further, the Church teaches that after Jesus’ death on the cross, he went to preach to the dead, redeeming those who loved and did the will of God.

I can’t find support in scripture for what you say above, and neither have you provided any scripture references for what you say.

I’ve shown you from Scripture, Mark 16:16, that condemnation is for unbelief, condemnation is not for not being baptized.

That isn’t difficult Paul, it’s right in Scripture.

New Testament baptism is the counterpart to Old Testament circumcision, and circumcision couldn’t save anyone either, moreover, the Old Testament covenant sign was performed on men only.

So you haven’t proven your case regarding baptism and salvation.

As for what you haven’t proven , you haven’t proven your case that men, once saved are always saved. Your entire thesis rests on interpretations of scripture based on the Traditions of John Calvin and you certainly haven’t proven his credibility. In your heart, you must know that this is true. We can and have shown you multiple scriptural readings that refute your proof text but we all know that it ultimately comes down to the credibility of the CAtholic tradition vs that of Calvin published for the first time less than 500 years ago. What can you do to prove the credibility of your tradition, when Calvin readily admits to having created it…

You know Paul, regarding scriptural statements and any doctrine one can move either from the lesser to greater scriptural support, or from the greater to the lesser.

Let me offer a couple of the greater scriptural statements that demonstrate that a person, once saved, cannot lose salvation given to them as a gift by God. First, John 10:25-30, with particular attention paid to the 4 words: they shall never perish (v28). There is such great strength and comfort in those words for those who are saved. Second, Eph 4:3-14. Any believer who reads that and is taught by the Spirit has his spirit soar to new heights. The revelation of God’s purposes in election revealed, and the promises of God’s kingdom which, once given, cannot be lost, are simply astounding. And third, the identification of the Christian’s defender and keeper right up to, and including his entrance into bliss, God Himself, 1 Pet 1:3-5.

God bless.

 

[Lisa44]

Incidentally, Lisa, how do you believe that Peter even had salvation when he denied Jesus three times–Jesus had not yet died on the cross, right?

Is that not how you believe we are saved–through the Blood of the Lamb?

Or do you believe there’s some other way that Peter was saved, without the atoning blood of Christ? Perhaps you believe Peter was, like Mary, saved in anticipation of the Cross?

sigh. Seriously? Is that a zen koan meant to stop my mind?

 

[Sig]

That’s really interesting.

I wonder if there is a possible overlap between OSAS and Catholicism. Could a good Catholic hold the opinion that only the elect have received baptism with the ‘proper dispositions of soul’ necessary to be incorporated into the body of Christ?

I wouldn’t know, and it would probably be best for you to seek an answer to that from a Catholic. Check out James Akin’s writings. He has a flair for writing about protestant doctrines and describing how, after some slight tweaking, Catholics can believe them as well. Of course a doctrine tweaked is no longer the original.

He wrote a piece entitled, “A tiptoe through the TULIP,” I think it was called. He should have something to say concerning that under the “P.”

And further hold that all of the elect have been given the grace of final perseverance?

How is that any different than OSAS? Or how does it contradict Catholic doctrine?

Again, you’d be better off speaking to a Catholic about that, but for me, I don’t know how one can escape the conclusion that Catholic predestination includes final perseverance, I mean, it is “predestination to eternal blessedness,” for heaven’s sake.

I always chuckle when Catholics rail against the reformed position that salvation can’t be lost. I mean, if predestination to eternal blessedness isn’t “OSAS,” then what is it?

I think the need for the church to distance itself from the reformers, especially Calvin in this, plays a key role in the wording of their doctrine, even the Catholic emphasis on free will in those predestined to final salvation is probably intended more as a distancing from Calvin than anything else, IMO.

Oh well. But check out Akin’s writings. He may help you answer your questions.