Once Saved Always Saved?

[Lisa44]

Sig;8700127:

Oh…I am familiar with it, Sig. I know the fall and rise and fall and rise of Israel. And I provided you Rom11, v13, where St. Paul says…I am talking to you Gentiles…so can you then explain how it is about Israel and not about the Gentiles…the new believers?

I have read it many times…and everytime somebody comes here with OSAS…and you are not the first one to try to avoid it…by trying to explain it the way you are…and citing other Bible passages to try to explain it away…it is as if the Bible can contradict itself.

So…care to answer the question then…[SIGN]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.

[/SIGN]

Sig…I asked this in response to your response so that I can understand your answer…

I am trying to confirm if this is what you believe. So I gather you have no answer then?

The original elect…Israel…the new elect…you, the believer, the gentile as they were referred to in the first century…and you refer to the new elect as the “elect” today, right?

Just to get our terminologies right.

Well sig…I asked this…“And aren’t the christians (whether protestants or catholics) part of the elect, or the new elect?”

And your response was…“As in each and every person who professes to be a Christian? No.”

Which got me confused, that is why I asked…"Really? And how do you know that? And can you explain why they would not be part of the elect or the new elect?

Sig…the burden of proof is on you to show why. I think it is you who should read it over and over and disregard your protestant lenses, even for a tiny bit…and read it afresh.

I am not, Sig, and thank you for your humility. I asking questions to probe your thoughts…because you keep saying there is no consequence to sin for the believer…OSAS, remember? Which heb 10, v 27…says there is consequence for deliberately sinning.

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

21st Cent KJV: 21for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.

Does your NKJV say it differently?

Ok…but I want you to say it in your own words…not the passage.

Yes…indeed…the Lord Help you…for you said this…*but Paul can strongly admonition them to the point of scaring the dickens out of them. *

And my reaction…*So St. Paul is reduced to scaring the wits out of those he addresses?

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?*

Hi there, concerning verse 23. The “they” is Israel who were cut off due to their unbelief.
They will be grafted back on if they do not persist in unbelief.
So what that means is that we can turn to the Lord and believe in him and if we do that, we will be grafted on to the olive tree.

If you decide tomorrow, that you do not believe in Jesus and you are an atheist, then you will be cut off from the tree for your unbelief. But if you turned around later and believed in God then you will be grafted back on.

Notice, you didn’t get cut off the tree for sinning. You didn’t get cut off the tree because you didn’t honor your parents, or because you coveted. You got cut off the tree for UNBELIEF.

So yes, of course you can stop believing in Jesus! No one said you couldn’t. But you cannot be lost if you believe in Him. Of course it is your choice to not believe in Jesus and worship the moon, but in that instance you will be cut off from the tree.

Do you see?

 

[Sig]

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.

Hey Hansen, do you believe God is the author of sin, or that God permits sin? Which one?

 

[Sig]

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?

Not even the apostles knew who among their charges were saved, Neil.

But it’s a fact, a biblical fact, that John says you can know you have eternal life (Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:13). Don’t forget that.

You can’t know about any one else, but scripture says you can know about yourself.

 

[Lisa44]

19 They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him.
20 For 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.
21 For 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.

Isn’t it clear that verse 20 is referring to people who had escaped the defilements (sin) of the world through the knowledge (faith) in Jesus that fall back into sin and are condemned.

Now, perhaps your adherance to the Calvinist tradition will not allow you to see that you can indeed lose your salvation through sin. That would be just one more example of the subordination of scripture to tradition. And again, your tradition was clearly invented by John Calvin less than 500 years ago. How can you claim it was divinely inspired?

Hey, I cannot “adhere” to something that I know not what it is. I adhere to scripture.

They are “slaves of corruption”. Is that a saved person? Does the bible call saved people “slaves of corruption”?

That is why the dog and the sow “return”. It is saying once a sow always a sow.

So are the dog and sow the saved?

 

[Sig]

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.

Well, anybody can say the sinner’s prayer. But if one is not elect, one can say whatever one wants, his words won’t prevail.

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.

Yeah, I know what your disagreement is, and I disagree with your disagreement.

If man’s will is free, then it has no use for, nor need of grace. It’s free.

 

[fhansen]

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

Grace is free, but God can dispense it however He wants and for the purposes He wants. If He desires to draw us, aiding our wills, but not forcing them, urging and prompting, with some responding and some not, then our cooperation is involved. Our wills are free but without grace they’re apt to choose wrongly. Adam & Eve for all practical purposes rejected grace, by rejecting God, by rejecting His authority as God. They couldn’t do that without free will.

Without grace, synonymous with the indwelling and operation of God the Holy Spirit, man is doomed to fail. At the fall man rejected grace. We’re given the opportunity now to opt to have it back. We’re lost without it, Christ’s sacrifice reconciles us with God, restoring grace for those who believe, but it can be rejected again anytime along the way. God’s working to gain in us the wisdom to not willfully turn away again. I just don’t think you can remove man’s will from the equation without doing harm to the concept of justice. If God doesn’t base His judgment on something we do-some standard of justice- even if His help is required in some manner to aid us in doing it, then His determination would seem quite capricious-and unjust.

And I think the notion that all humans are deserving of hell is overblown, especially if one considers, as Calvinism does from my understanding, that God is ultimately responsible for all evil. How is justice upheld if a person is eternally tormented for something he couldn’t help but do? All have sinned-and man’s righteousness may be filthy rags prior to redemption-but God never meant for man to be unrighteous, He just meant for man to be righteous under His terms-and we can be again.

 

[Sig]

Hey, I cannot “adhere” to something that I know not what it is. I adhere to scripture.

They are “slaves of corruption”. Is that a saved person? Does the bible call saved people “slaves of corruption”?

That is why the dog and the sow “return”. It is saying once a sow always a sow.

So are the dog and sow the saved?

You know Lisa, according to the parable of the sower and the seed in Luke, many “believe,” without conversion, and they fall away without ever being converted.

Moreover, those in the 2 Peter passage are described as false prophets. That’s who they are. If they’re false prophets, I would also assume that any confession, or profession of faith they may have made was false as well.

In the sower and seed parable, some of those who were never converted certainly escaped the defilements of the world through knowledge, but only for a time. Not being converted, what they truly were was manifest in their returning to their old ways. They did not endure. Therefore they were never saved.

Salvation cannot be lost.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C.,

I had really not give much thought to Peter having lost his salvation after he denied Christ. But, it would appear that Peter was quite close to being guilty of mortal sin - there certainly was sufficient grave matter, he repeated the denial with increasing intensity x 3 and since he swore with an oath - is that purjury and/or blasphemy…or both? The degree of his consent is not entirely clear. Fortunately, God is the judge here - so - we will find out at the General Judgment just what took place. Of course, the outcome is known - he repented, was forgiven and is now a caonoized saint. Your references are quite correct.

Had Peter died at the moment of denying Christ - there is an excellent chance he would have been lost forever. Thank God for His many graces. How often could we - individually - been just as guilty, been at risk for eternal damnation but through the Grace of God came back to Christ.

Now when it comes to who joins with who - I have found that people join with the ones they feel most comfortable with. It really does not make a lot of difference what one claims to be - it is what one’s actions are that speak volumes.

God bless

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.

 

[paul_c]

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?

I’m not suggesting at all that you don’t read scripture. I myself read 5 chapters most mornings. I’m suggesting you read the catechism so that you understand the tradition behind the scriptures so you can interpret them correctly.

I used to think as you do, that I knew the truth of faith and morality better than the church and that I could pick out what was right and discard the rest… After a while, by the grace of God, I came to the conclusion that the Church was inspired by God and had millions of outstanding theologians and priests over the centuries looking at these same issues so they must be more credible than me. From that point on, when I found something in Church teaching that didn’t seem right to me, Instead of assuming I was right and the church was wrong, I asked myself, what I was missing. And then I investigated the churches reasoning behind each issue and I found that It always considered things that I had not considered that made perfect sense once I had all the facts. Over the course of time, as I learned more and more about the faith, these incidents where I didn’t get the churches teachings became less and less frequent to the point now where I rarely come across a church teaching that doesn’t make immediate sense. So the next time you see somethign in Church teaching that you don’t agree with, give the Church the benefit of the doubt and investigate further. The truth WILL set you free.

As for the Muslims, the point is that the Muslims descended from Abraham and believe in the same God. While they clearly worship him differently and have some obvious errors in their theology, there still is much truth that they teach.

And as for Peter, he stumbled and probably fell from grace, like we all do from time to time, but by the grace and mercy of God we can be reconciled sacramentally and get back in the state of grace. I’m sure that the reason he confessed it so publicly was a) his remorse, and b) because its a lesson to all of us that we can fail and still be saved if we are willing to come back. God and his church love redemption… Remember, Jesus said there was more joy in heaven over 1 repentent sinner than over 99 rightesous people who have no need of redemption.

 

[paul_c]

Hey, I cannot “adhere” to something that I know not what it is. I adhere to scripture.

They are “slaves of corruption”. Is that a saved person? Does the bible call saved people “slaves of corruption”?

That is why the dog and the sow “return”. It is saying once a sow always a sow.

So are the dog and sow the saved?

You adhere to your interpretation of scripture. As has been abundantly clear throughout this thread, scripture can mean different things to different people. You need the church to explain to you what they mean…

 

[Sig]

Grace is free, but God can dispense it however He wants and for the purposes He wants. If He desires to draw us, aiding our wills.

If God needs to aid your will, and draw you to Christ, it is, according to God, because you have no ability to come to God by yourself.

In fact, in John 6:44, Jesus says that very thing.

Jesus says, "oudeis dunatai elthein pros me," that word I’ve put in blue is the equivalent of the English word “power,” in fact, it is from that Greek word that we get our word, “dynamite.”

So Jesus says no man has the power to come to me [on his own] finish the passage…

Your will needs grace because it has no power of its own to come to Christ, it’s not free to do that. That’s why it needs grace.

A little theological truth tidbit for those interested in theological truth.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C,

Without the Magesterium (ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm) everyone would be left to their personal interpretations of the Scriptures - (2Peter 1:20) - which Scripture condemns… And, in no small measure this explains why there are currently 40,000+ Protestant denominations - all clamoring that they are right and everyone else is wrong - and only agreeing on one thing: the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong!

Even Luther and Calvin could not agree on the meaning of Scripture - and the splintering has been non-stop since then.

God bless

You adhere to your interpretation of scripture. As has been abundantly clear throughout this thread, scripture can mean different things to different people. You need the church to explain to you what they mean…

 

[Lisa44]

You know Lisa, according to the parable of the sower and the seed in Luke, many “believe,” without conversion, and they fall away without ever being converted.

Moreover, those in the 2 Peter passage are described as false prophets. That’s who they are. If they’re false prophets, I would also assume that any confession, or profession of faith they may have made was false as well.

In the sower and seed parable, some of those who were never converted certainly escaped the defilements of the world through knowledge, but only for a time. Not being converted, what they truly were was manifest in their returning to their old ways. They did not endure.

Salvation cannot be lost.

Right, so if I am following you then the “false prophets” of 2 Peter 2 were never saved to begin with, and that is why they “returned” to what it was they were doing before they came into the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

No, I didn’t know that you could believe and not be converted. I thought that to believe was to be converted.

 

[Sig]

Oh…I am familiar with it, Sig. I know the fall and rise and fall and rise of Israel. And I provided you Rom11, v13, where St. Paul says…I am talking to you Gentiles…so can you then explain how it is about Israel and not about the Gentiles…the new believers?

Well, good. Enjoy your conversation with yourself and your “knowledge” of Israel and Romans 11 because I cannot see any possibility of a meaningful conversation coming out of our exchange.

What I would suggest you do now, is to stand up and crow at how you’ve won this argument because sig won’t involve himself in a discussion with you.

Go ahead, make up anything you’d like pertaining to that. I promise I won’t say word against yours or tqualey’s claims.

Ciao baby :tiphat:

 

[Sig]

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

Your will isn’t free. If it were you’d be able to come to Christ apart from grace, but you can’t, because you don’t have the ability, the power, you don’t have the free will to do so Jn 6:44, but you desperately need grace.

But I give you a for trying

 

[fhansen]

If God needs to aid your will, and draw you to Christ, it is, according to God, because you have no ability to come to God by yourself.

In fact, in John 6:44, Jesus says that very thing.

Jesus says, "oudeis dunatai elthein pros me," that word I’ve put in blue is the equivalent of the English word “power,” in fact, it is from that Greek word that we get our word, “dynamite.”

So Jesus says no man has the power to come to me [on his own] finish the passage…

Your will needs grace because it has no power of its own to come to Christ, it’s not free to do that. That’s why it needs grace.

A little theological truth tidbit for those interested in theological truth.

Any truth’ll do.
Catholicism teaches that it’s impossible for man to save himself; we can’t be saved without God. But He elects to use us in the process-He doesn’t force us to be saved.

 

[Lisa44]

I’m not suggesting at all that you don’t read scripture. I myself read 5 chapters most mornings. I’m suggesting you read the catechism so that you understand the tradition behind the scriptures so you can interpret them correctly.

I used to think as you do, that I knew the truth of faith and morality better than the church and that I could pick out what was right and discard the rest… After a while, by the grace of God, I came to the conclusion that the Church was inspired by God and had millions of outstanding theologians and priests over the centuries looking at these same issues so they must be more credible than me. From that point on, when I found something in Church teaching that didn’t seem right to me, Instead of assuming I was right and the church was wrong, I asked myself, what I was missing. And then I investigated the churches reasoning behind each issue and I found that It always considered things that I had not considered that made perfect sense once I had all the facts. Over the course of time, as I learned more and more about the faith, these incidents where I didn’t get the churches teachings became less and less frequent to the point now where I rarely come across a church teaching that doesn’t make immediate sense. So the next time you see somethign in Church teaching that you don’t agree with, give the Church the benefit of the doubt and investigate further. The truth WILL set you free.

As for the Muslims, the point is that the Muslims descended from Abraham and believe in the same God. While they clearly worship him differently and have some obvious errors in their theology, there still is much truth that they teach.

And as for Peter, he stumbled and probably fell from grace, like we all do from time to time, but by the grace and mercy of God we can be reconciled sacramentally and get back in the state of grace. I’m sure that the reason he confessed it so publicly was a) his remorse, and b) because its a lesson to all of us that we can fail and still be saved if we are willing to come back. God and his church love redemption… Remember, Jesus said there was more joy in heaven over 1 repentent sinner than over 99 rightesous people who have no need of redemption.

No, no, no, no, no, no. NO.

 

[Lisa44]

I’m not suggesting at all that you don’t read scripture. I myself read 5 chapters most mornings. I’m suggesting you read the catechism so that you understand the tradition behind the scriptures so you can interpret them correctly.

I used to think as you do, that I knew the truth of faith and morality better than the church and that I could pick out what was right and discard the rest… After a while, by the grace of God, I came to the conclusion that the Church was inspired by God and had millions of outstanding theologians and priests over the centuries looking at these same issues so they must be more credible than me. From that point on, when I found something in Church teaching that didn’t seem right to me, Instead of assuming I was right and the church was wrong, I asked myself, what I was missing. And then I investigated the churches reasoning behind each issue and I found that It always considered things that I had not considered that made perfect sense once I had all the facts. Over the course of time, as I learned more and more about the faith, these incidents where I didn’t get the churches teachings became less and less frequent to the point now where I rarely come across a church teaching that doesn’t make immediate sense. So the next time you see somethign in Church teaching that you don’t agree with, give the Church the benefit of the doubt and investigate further. The truth WILL set you free.

As for the Muslims, the point is that the Muslims descended from Abraham and believe in the same God. While they clearly worship him differently and have some obvious errors in their theology, there still is much truth that they teach.

And as for Peter, he stumbled and probably fell from grace, like we all do from time to time, but by the grace and mercy of God we can be reconciled sacramentally and get back in the state of grace. I’m sure that the reason he confessed it so publicly was a) his remorse, and b) because its a lesson to all of us that we can fail and still be saved if we are willing to come back. God and his church love redemption… Remember, Jesus said there was more joy in heaven over 1 repentent sinner than over 99 rightesous people who have no need of redemption.

Yeah, he’s human, we’re human, I am pretty sure that we all stumble.

The thing is you were saying that he was going to go to Hell and that is where I depart from your reasoning. It is impossible that Jesus would elect him and then send him to hell because he messed up. (got scared and said the wrong thing). No way, no how.

 

[Sig]

Any truth’ll do.
Catholicism teaches that it’s impossible for man to save himself; we can’t be saved without God. But He elects to use us in the process-He doesn’t force us to be saved.

You misunderstand because you misread, again, Mr Hansen.

You’ll note in my post that I said nothing about “man saving himself.” For some reason, upon reading my post, that’s what you thought I was saying, but that’s not so.

What I said is what Jesus says, you have no ability on your own to come to God. You don’t, you won’t because YOU CAN’T.

You don’t have the power to do so, you don’t have the ability to do so (Jn 6:44), you’re not free to do so because your will isn’t free, but it is in bondage to sin (Jn 8:34; Rom 6, et. al.).

That’s why Paul confidently, and without blushing says,

"There is none righteous, no not one.
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God…" Rom 3:10ff.
Your will isn’t free. Thus its need for grace.

 

[Lisa44]

You adhere to your interpretation of scripture. As has been abundantly clear throughout this thread, scripture can mean different things to different people. You need the church to explain to you what they mean…