Once Saved Always Saved?

[fhansen]

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?

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?

In Catholic teaching, by Baptism, the first response of faith, we’re basically put back onto the same plane as Adam & Eve, gratuitously, We’re washed clean, infused with grace, made* just again. But that doesn’t mean we had* to respond to begin with, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that we’ll remain just, that we’ll ‘go, and sin no more’. And sin, of course, is what separated man from God to begin with and what can continue to separate him from God now.

God is patient and kind; He wants none to perish. He’s doing a work in us, the work of salvation. So He helps us, that’s what the promises of the New Covenant mean; He’ll ‘write His laws in our minds and on our hearts’, Sin is the willful turning away from God, sin opposes love of God and neighbor. And sinners don’t enter heaven, as scripture tells us. Why should they?; sin opposes God. He doesn’t want to leave us in the same hole we fell into to begin with.

In Calvinism, God predestined Adam & Eve to fall, predestined the elect to be saved and the reprobate to damnation. No one has a choice, because that would mean God’s not sovereign. All men deserve hell, even though God determines everything, the fall to condemnation and the rise to salvation. Why he would bother with such a plan, I couldn’t even begin to ponder. All the suffering, pain and death in this world have no purpose; we’re not like a Prodigal who experiences life in the wrong lane, and then decides to follow the right course. God may as well have just saved creation all the pain and stocked heaven with whoever He wanted there, and hell with whoever He wanted there, pat Himself on the back for being so incredibly sovereign and spend eternity watching us all in our respective fish bowls.

We have no free will, because that would mean God’s not sovereign, even though the definition of free will, IMO, could be the very freedom to oppose the will of God-a freedom He grants for His purposes, the reason for which shouldn’t be so difficult to figure out for ourselves. So then they have to come up with strange ideas such as Gods “permissive will” vs His “secret will”, kind of like “saving faith”, as convenience demands. Not a god I could put much faith in.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

In Catholic teaching, by Baptism, the first response of faith, we’re basically put back onto the same plane as Adam & Eve, gratuitously, We’re washed clean, infused with grace, made* just again. But that doesn’t mean we had* to respond to begin with, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that we’ll remain just, that we’ll ‘go, and sin no more’. And sin, of course, is what separated man from God to begin with and what can continue to separate him from God now.

God is patient and kind; He wants none to perish. He’s doing a work in us, the work of salvation. So He helps us, that’s what the promises of the New Covenant mean; He’ll ‘write His laws in our minds and on our hearts’, Sin is the willful turning away from God, sin opposes love of God and neighbor. And sinners don’t enter heaven, as scripture tells us. Why should they?; sin opposes God. He doesn’t want to leave us in the same hole we fell into to begin with.

In Calvinism, God predestined Adam & Eve to fall, predestined the elect to be saved and the reprobate to damnation. No one has a choice, because that would mean God’s not sovereign. All men deserve hell, even though God determines everything, the fall to condemnation and the rise to salvation. Why he would bother with such a plan, I couldn’t even begin to ponder. All the suffering, pain and death in this world have no purpose; we’re not like a Prodigal who experiences life in the wrong lane, and then decides to follow the right course. God may as well have just saved creation all the pain and stocked heaven with whoever He wanted there, and hell with whoever He wanted there, pat Himself on the back for being so incredibly sovereign and spend eternity watching us all in our respective fish bowls.

We have no free will, because that would mean God’s not sovereign, even though the definition of free will, IMO, could be the very freedom to oppose the will of God-a freedom He grants for His purposes, which shouldn’t be so difficult to figure out for ourselves. So then they have to come up with strange ideas such as Gods “permissive will” vs His “secret will”, kind of like “saving faith”, as convenience demands. Not a god I could put much faith in.

Okay but there is also the non-Calvinist Baptist version of OSAS, which doesn’t include predestination. Basically it means that people who fall away after “being saved” weren’t really saved to begin with. It doesn’t imply predestination. If, by some huge co-incidence (or by God’s plan) it just so happens that everyone who received baptism with the proper dispositions of soul, also happens to persevere to the end, then wouldn’t both the Catholic doctrine and the Baptist doctrine would be correct?

 

[fhansen]

Okay but there is also the non-Calvinist Baptist version of OSAS, which doesn’t include predestination. Basically it means that people who fall away after “being saved” weren’t really saved to begin with. It doesn’t imply predestination. If, by some huge co-incidence (or by God’s plan) it just so happens that everyone who received baptism with the proper dispositions of soul, also happens to persevere to the end, then wouldn’t both the Catholic doctrine and the Baptist doctrine would be correct?

Except who can know for certain who will persevere to the end? It becomes an academic, worthless point in practical terms; only God has the answer. Who can know who has the proper dispositions of soul? Who can know who will fall away and who won’t? Who can know who the elect are? We have some guidelines, we can have an amount of assurance-but we don’t know with a perfect degree of certitude.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fhansen,

Oh, that was priceless … I do not think I have seen a turn-around quite like that! Yes, sarcasm can be an unweildy sword…

Great job:thumbsup:

God bless

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Nice to see you on this thread!

God bless

*What is the altar call? Please expain.

Cinette*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Wow! Talk about ‘Grade Inflation’!!! "D’?

Seriously, please consider an ‘F-’ … and that is only because ‘G’ - the next letter below - would be confusing with ‘Good’!!

God bless

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]

Except who can know for certain who will persevere to the end? It becomes an academic, worthless point in practical terms; only God has the answer. Who can know who has the proper dispositions of soul? Who can know who will fall away and who won’t? Who can know who the elect are? We have some guidelines, we can have an amount of assurance-but we don’t know with a perfect degree of certitude.

From what I can tell, Baptists don’t really ever know for sure who is saved either. They assume the other baptists are saved until they fall away, then they realize that they were never saved to begin with.

I agree with you, it’s trivial, and just playing with words. But Catholics could just as easily say about a fallen-away Catholic “I guess he wasn’t one of the elect after all” or “I guess God didn’t choose to grant him the gift of final perseverance after all”. How is that different than what Baptists believe?

 

[stewstew03]

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 haven’t read all the posts on this thread (who has time?) but if OSAS means God’s salvation plan for the elect, then yes - God saves those whom He calls. However, from my understanding, OSAS traditionally means, at least here in the evangelical south, that once a man says the sinner’s prayer, then that man is saved forever.

Where we would disagree with Calvin, as I understand it, is that God did not predestine man to go to hell; He doesn’t plan for anyone to go to hell. His grace is sufficient for everyone, but man can condemn himself by exercising his free will to reject God’s grace. At the same time, only those who freely choose to be saved will be saved (by God’s grace). Given that God is omniscient, He knows who will cooperate with His salvation plan and who will reject Him. And it’s not that the “power” rests with man - after all the cause is God and His grace - but God did not take away free will, which man may use to reject Him.

 

[pablope]

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.

 

[pablope]

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).

Continuation…

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.

I know what those parable means.

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.

So then…following what you are saying here…the writer of the epistle is lying to those he addressed the epistle?

So if there are lies in the epistle…how can you trust that is the infallible Word of God? Which one is a lie and which is not?

Sorry Sig…but your thinking and reasoning here is way out there…I think you need to rethink…a lot.

But let me take another way…this just proves why taking the Bible alone can lead astray to the reader…without the guidance of the Church…to what actually the passages say.

So thank you for unwittingly confirming what the CC keeps on saying, and disproving Sola Scripture.

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.

That is why salvation is an ongoing process. Not a one time event.

But in the congregation are many who are unconverted.

Unconverted to what? Why would they be in the congregation if they are not Christians, or believers? The message of Christ may not have sunk in yet deeply…but there is some belief in them already…otherwise, they would not be there.

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.

Oh…so you are saying…the pastor is trying to move them to a holier life.

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.

I get it…your terminologies are different. I had to sift through your terminologies.

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.

Thank you…as I said, I am familiar with them.

 

[fhansen]

From what I can tell, Baptists don’t really ever know for sure who is saved either. They assume the other baptists are saved until they fall away, then they realize that they were never saved to begin with.

I agree with you, it’s trivial, and just playing with words. But Catholics could just as easily say about a fallen-away Catholic “I guess he wasn’t one of the elect after all” or “I guess God didn’t choose to grant him the gift of final perseverance after all”. How is that different than what Baptists believe?

We don’t see it as a definitively once saved done deal-unless someone dies right after Baptism but even then God alone knows the heart. We know salvation is conditional-we never arrive at a point where we have the “vain confidence” (from Trent) of the reformed position, which we consider arrogant rather than as a superior trust in God’s salvific will for the elect.

As long as we’re alive we can have assurance, humble confidence, but never 100% certitude. Salvation takes place on a continuum-a “working out”-a beautiful interplay between our wills and God’s grace where our justice is realized as it’s made perfect in love-because* love* is man’s justice.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
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.

As you can see from the second reference you quoted above, I acknowledged I was not Peter’s judge but speculated that Peter’s tears suggested that he felt he had fallen from grace.

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.

Have you noted that you have been consistently aligned with Sig and Tina G on this thread and have been consistently questioning the views of the other Catholics on this thread? That is very unusual for a Catholic on this forum. Have you read the Catechism to see what the Church really teaches? It might make sense for you to do so just so you know whether we are appropriately representing the Catholic faith to those asking questions of us… Its free on line. (google: Catholic Catechism)

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’m not sure where you are coming from here. Are you making the claim that Peter’s denial of Jesus was not a mortal sin? Or are you claiming that a mortal sin doesn’t effect your salvation?

You understand the three criteria for a mortal sin, right?

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met. CCC 1857 “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

CCC 1858 “Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: ’Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.’ The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.”

CCC 1859 “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

CCC 1860 “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.”

So:
Did he know lying is a sin. most assuredly yes
Was it grave matter : (To deny your lord and savior would seem to be grave.
was it with full consent: so according to ccc1860, we can’t judge this one fully because of the pressures on St. Peter at the time.
So that’s why I said we couldn’t be Peter’s judge.

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?

Jesus was not wrong. However, Peter’s culpability for his sin is not mitigated by the fact that Jesus predicted it or that others also sinned. In this way, Peter is like the rest of us.

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.

The question is whether or not Peter’s denial of Jesus was a mortal sin. On the face of it, it seems like if fits the definition but we can not judge as God will judge.

 

[paul_c]

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.

No, I’m saying that the church teaches that if you sin and then you confess your sins to a priest, then you are saved again. In this case, I pointed out that Peter’s crying showed his repentence and that because he obviously reconciled with Jesus (John 21) and because we know of his denial (it must have come from him, who else would have known), that he also confessed.

---

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Neil Anthony,

How one comes to a realization that the other guy is a Reprobate must be an amazing experience… Could it be that they, too, were never saved to begin with…. The vision they have of God is truly unique.

God bless

From what I can tell, Baptists don’t really ever know for sure who is saved either. They assume the other baptists are saved until they fall away, then they realize that they were never saved to begin with.

I agree with you, it’s trivial, and just playing with words. But Catholics could just as easily say about a fallen-away Catholic “I guess he wasn’t one of the elect after all” or “I guess God didn’t choose to grant him the gift of final perseverance after all”. How is that different than what Baptists believe?

 

[paul_c]

Except who can know for certain who will persevere to the end? It becomes an academic, worthless point in practical terms; only God has the answer. Who can know who has the proper dispositions of soul? Who can know who will fall away and who won’t? Who can know who the elect are? We have some guidelines, we can have an amount of assurance-but we don’t know with a perfect degree of certitude.

yes, and that’s the rub. Catholics know how to get to heaven, they just realize that they can’t judge as God judges so they can never be completely sure of their ultimate salvation. However, a devout Catholic won’t worry about that. They will worry only about what they can control, and that is to love God and others to the best of their ability.

The problem with OSAS is that people become overconfident of thier salvation and don’t love the way that is required, thus losing whtat they thought was guaranteed.

 

[stewstew03]

From what I can tell, Baptists don’t really ever know for sure who is saved either. They assume the other baptists are saved until they fall away, then they realize that they were never saved to begin with.

I agree with you, it’s trivial, and just playing with words. But Catholics could just as easily say about a fallen-away Catholic “I guess he wasn’t one of the elect after all” or “I guess God didn’t choose to grant him the gift of final perseverance after all”. How is that different than what Baptists believe?

Neil - based on my experiences in the southern baptist community, baptists and Catholics hold nearly identical views on the issue of predestination.

 

[onenow1]

If God is actively willing the salvation of all men, then all men must be saved. And if man’s will is free, it has no need of grace. It’s free.

Hi, Sig, I don’t have time to read all the posts as I rarely do But ! This is what Jesus says about free will as a human person, to the Father. I guess you never read this verse ?

Luke 22: 42 “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”

" Hope this helps."

God bless
one now1

 

[Lisa44]

As you can see from the second reference you quoted above, I acknowledged I was not Peter’s judge but speculated that Peter’s tears suggested that he felt he had fallen from grace.

Have you noted that you have been consistently aligned with Sig and Tina G on this thread and have been consistently questioning the views of the other Catholics on this thread? That is very unusual for a Catholic on this forum. Have you read the Catechism to see what the Church really teaches? It might make sense for you to do so just so you know whether we are appropriately representing the Catholic faith to those asking questions of us… Its free on line. (google: Catholic Catechism)

I’m not sure where you are coming from here. Are you making the claim that Peter’s denial of Jesus was not a mortal sin? Or are you claiming that a mortal sin doesn’t effect your salvation?

You understand the three criteria for a mortal sin, right?

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met. CCC 1857 “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

CCC 1858 “Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: ’Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.’ The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.”

CCC 1859 “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

CCC 1860 “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.”

So:
Did he know lying is a sin. most assuredly yes
Was it grave matter : (To deny your lord and savior would seem to be grave.
was it with full consent: so according to ccc1860, we can’t judge this one fully because of the pressures on St. Peter at the time.
So that’s why I said we couldn’t be Peter’s judge.

Jesus was not wrong. However, Peter’s culpability for his sin is not mitigated by the fact that Jesus predicted it or that others also sinned. In this way, Peter is like the rest of us.

The question is whether or not Peter’s denial of Jesus was a mortal sin. On the face of it, it seems like if fits the definition but we can not judge as God will judge.

Yes, I think Sig is winning this argument based on the scripture provided by both sides. Yes, I have to agree with him, as he is providing evidence for his position.

Well Paul, according to the Catechism, I worship God with the Muslims so I’m not super keen on that catechism.

I prefer scripture and I do like to read the bible and I hope that doesn’t offend you that I like to read the bible?

My douay rheims bible says in the front cover “Pope Leo XIII granted to the faithful who shall read for at least a quarter of an hour the books of the Sacred Scripture with the veneration due to the Divine Word and as a spiritual reading, an indulgence of 300 days.”

But what you are telling me, is I should not read the sacred scripture but instead, I should read a book written by men in the 1970’s that says we worship God with the Muslims.

No thanks. I’ll stick to sacred scripture.

I think its outrageous to say that Peter was hell bound after he denied Jesus.

So what you are saying is that Jesus made Peter the rock (as Catholics believe, or Peter’s confession the rock at the very least), and then when Peter stumbled Jesus would have sent him to hell? Don’t you think that if Jesus had confidence in his disciples that he wouldn’t send them to hell?

 

[Sig]

In Catholic teaching, by Baptism, the first response of faith, we’re basically put back onto the same plane as Adam & Eve, gratuitously, We’re washed clean, infused with grace, made* just again. But that doesn’t mean we had* to respond to begin with, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that we’ll remain just, that we’ll ‘go, and sin no more’. And sin, of course, is what separated man from God to begin with and what can continue to separate him from God now.

God is patient and kind; He wants none to perish. He’s doing a work in us, the work of salvation. So He helps us…

Helps you what?

 

[Sig]

We have no free will…

If you have a free will, why do you need grace. A free will doesn’t need grace, it’s free.