Once saved, always saved?

[E_Thrower_II]

Think about the consequences of rejecting the Biblical doctrine of eternal security for a moment. If we could really lose (or choose to give up) our salvation, then Hebrews 6:4-6 says that if we ever sin after being saved, we’ll be lost forever with no way back, because the Lord would have to be crucified all over again to retrieve us. BTW, it only takes one sin to fall away, right? I mean, one sin before we’re saved was enough to condemn us, so one sin after we’re saved is enough to condemn us, right? Doesn’t this make the New Covenant worse than the Old? Under the Old Covenant, the Israelites were condemned for their actions, but we’d be condemned for our thoughts.

Under the Old Covenant, under the law, the Israelites couldn’t murder. We couldn’t even be angry. They couldn’t commit adultery. We couldn’t even have a lustful thought. If you’re right, then we lose our salvation by doing less in following the law than the Israelites did!

Is this really the Good News of Jesus Christ? Are these the riches of His Grace, that we have to live in fear of sinning? Are we saved by grace only to be placed under the constraints of an even more severely administered law?

And what of Romans 8:29-30, which says that God predestined those whom He foreknew to be conformed to the image of Christ. If we can lose our salvation and, thus, our conformity to the image of Christ, then does this mean that God’s foreknowledge is wrong? That’s open theism, which has historically been condemned as heresy by the Church.

How about Jude 24, which says that Christ is able to keep us from falling? If we can lose our salvation, does this mean that Christ is able to keep us from falling, but is merely unwilling? How is that consistent with the Biblical description of Christ?

What do you make of Colosians 3:1-4, which promises that if we have been save, we will appear with Christ in glory? It doesn’t say “you might appear with Christ in glory, if you don’t lose your salvation”. It says “you will appear with Christ in glory”. Done deal.

Philipians 1:6 promises us that if Christ has begun a good work in us, that He will finish it. How does He keep that promise if you believe you can lose your salvation?

How do you explain 1 Peter 1:23, which tells us that when we are born again, we are born of incorruptable seed? If we can lose our salvation, then this seed is corruptable and that promise is not true.

Like Colosians 3:1-4, 1 John 3:2 says that we are sons of God now and that when Christ appears, we will be like Him. There is no qualifier. There is no “…if we don’t lose our salvation”.

Titus 1:2 says that God has promised us eternal life and that He never breaks a promise.

In John 10:27-29, Jesus promises us that He has given us eternal life, that we will never perish, and that we are not only in His hands, but in the Father’s hands. How is Jesus’ promise in John 10:27-28 consistent with the idea that we can lose our salvation? Is Jesus really incompetent to keep those whom the Father has given Him?

John 5:24 says that if we are saved, we will not come into condemnation but will have eternal life? How can Jesus promise that we will not come into condemnation if He knows we can lose our salvation?

Romans 11:6 tells us that salvation is not by works. If we cannot be saved by works, then how can we lose our salvation by works?

John 14:16-17 tells us that when we are saved, the Holy Spirit indwells us forever. How can the Holy Spirit indwell in us forever if we lose our salvation? Since when does the Holy Spirit dwell in the unsaved?

Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 tells us that we are sealed unto the day of redemption. If we lose our salvation, then how can we still claim to be sealed?

1 Peter 1:4 says that our salvation is “imperishable, undefiled, and unfading”. If our salvation is imperishable, how can we lose it? If our salvation is promised by God to be undefiled, how can we defile it?

I agree with this.

 

[E_Thrower_II]

So says me:

What are Jesus’ own words on what one must do to be saved?

What say you?

John 3:14-15
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[E_Thrower_II]

catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation
catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-you-saved-if-only

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[E_Thrower_II]

God gave us a free will, and His foreknowledge enables Him to know how we are going to use our free will, but He does not force us to follow Him. His choosing us is not because we chose to follow Him, but it is Him choosing us based upon Him knowing ahead whether we will endure until the end. Many people have converted, but that does not mean they are chosen, because God knows who are going to convert and then reject their faith. Since God knows that later on they will reject the faith after conversion, then He did not choose them in the first place because He knew how they would use their free will. That does not mean that He did not allow them, but He allows them to chose their own fate. Even though someone has had their sins forgiven and are in the state of grace and have their names in the book of life, as Scripture tells us they can be blotted out of the book of life. Being in the book of life can be temporary for some, and even since they were in the book of life does not mean they are chosen. Only those who God knows will die in the state of grace are the ones who are of the elect. We do not know if we are of the elect until we die.

It appears that you may be getting mixed up between God’s plan for salvation in terms of it as a whole for humanity and for the salvation of individuals.

Hey Copland,

Can you explain more.

Also, I was looking at the link you gave me and found this in Ephesians:

In Christ they have redemption through His blood and the remission of sins, according to the riches of His love, which He caused to abound in them in all wisdom and understanding. He made known to them the mystery of His will according as it pleased Him, as He planned in advance to be realized in Christ, to be carried out in the fullness of time, in order to recapitulate all things in Christ – things in the heavens and things on the earth – to do it in Him in whom we were chosen and predestined according to the decision of Him who brings all things about according to the plan of His will. He did this so that they who have hoped in Christ, might praise His glory. In Christ they too, after hearing the word of truth, that is, the Gospel of their salvation, and after believing, were sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, who is the pledge of our inheritance, for the redemption of the people of God, for the praise of His glory.

 

[E_Thrower_II]

Hi, Thrower

The Catholic Church uses the bible in its entirety,and in context it does not pick and choose,after all 2000yrs of teaching must mean something. There are many verses that say it is not finished;such as the vine and the branches, and in John 6,of course the bread of life discourse; " you have no life in you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man.

Consider: Would it be necessary for Jesus to send the Apostles to form a Church ?

Acts 9, St.Paul is converted; would it be necessary as a good Jew, to be converted if all was finished ?

God Bless
onenow1

Wouldn’t it be necessary for Paul to have knowledge of his salvation so he could grow and spread the good news?

 

[E_Thrower_II]

If you want to play the prooftexting game, then of course we can fling verses back and forth to support our positions, creating the impression that the Bible is a collection of contradicting sayings to be used to support any position you choose. But eventually, you’ll have to ask why you’re using a book put together, preserved, and copied by the Catholic Church, and yet think the Church would have faithfully copied something that disproves its own teaching.

Anyway, if we’re doing this:

Philippians 2:

Salvation is not just an one time thing: it is a process.

Or consider Romans 11. If a branch has been grafted on, and can just as easily be broken off again, doesn’t that tell you that you can ‘lose your salvation’. It is very explicit that you can be a branch grafted onto the olive tree, but that God will not spare the grafted branches any more than he spared the natural branches. If you lose your faith, you are no longer part of the tree, although you once were.

Or how did you think the parable of the sower (Luke 8) worked? If salvation is a one time thing that cannot be lost, there should only have been good wheat and wheat that never sprouted.

I have been saved. I am being saved. I hope to be saved. I have, in the past, turned my back on God by committing grave sins. I have been in a state of grace, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and rejected it by willfully sinning. I even lost my faith. But I came back, by the grace of God I came back and repented, and confessed my sins and received absolution, and received the Body of Christ, and had life in me again. Again, I was saved, and hope to be saved. Again, I had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I know I can lose it again by willful sin, but I’m now at a stage where most of those sins just don’t look that attractive. I don’t want to lose my salvation, and my state of grace, and the sins look ugly. I am closer to my hoped for salvation than I was, but I can still lose it! I am grateful for the gift of being able to feel when I am in a state of grace.

We can save a lot of time if you have a look through this webpage which lays out a lot of little Scripture quotes (you’ll need your Bible on hand, as it doesn’t usually quote them) to support the Catholic view. Then, understanding how we are using the word ‘salvation’, you can maybe bring up the particular points you disagree with, and explain how you think the specific quotes used to support it should instead be understood.

scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#salvation-IV

As we can see, the webpage I linked to explains how typical “OSAS” prooftext verses can be understood within the Catholic view of salvation.

In Luke 8, wouldn’t they had to have been God’s people if they were able to at all receive the seed/word. The Pharisees could not hear because they were, as Jesus said, not of His sheep, but of the Devil.

So does that mean they lost their eternal salvation or does that mean they lost the meaning/feeling/‘knowledge’ of eternal salvation, which works in them a salvation to save them from sinning when they keep the commitment to Christ?

 

[E_Thrower_II]

Answers above get to my question to Chuck of what did Christ say we must do if we want to be saved? Believing in him. Yes. Keep the commandments. Yes. Forgive sins of one another. Yes. Receive him in the Eucharist. Yes. All of the above… YES

When you say saved are you referring to eternal salvation or a timely salvation where I grow in the knowledge of my eternal salvation and the knowledge of my eternal salvation works in me a greater commitment to God through Christ saving (timely salvation) me from the sins I would have done if I had not committed to Christ.

Or do you feel I’m way off base?

 

[E_Thrower_II]

**
I cannot believe the way they interpret scripture, not only is it unbiblical, their doctrine does not contain the teachings of Christ, it preaches Lawlessness, they mistaken the old Mosiac Laws, rituals, etc, the Law of Moses so to speak and confuse it with Gods commandments. They continue to use Romans, Gal. (Paul) cherry pic a few veses and misquote them as a way they can live rather then the way Christ has asked of us.

They seem to place grace above the most important teachings of Jesus Christ himself. It boggles my mind.! however we pray they see the true light.

Lulu**

Hi Lulu,

Do you believe it is possible that a person can have the Holy Spirit and still feel comfortable living a life in sin?

 

[E_Thrower_II]

I agree. I sign off too. There is nothing fruitful coming of this.

Sorry this wasn’t fruitful. I have views I hold to for a number of reasons but I think it is needful to talk to people who don’t agree with me so I can grow. Not saying you should re-engage, just stating my opinion.

Did you know that overseas they are killing Christians and locking them up for believing in Jesus and the trinity? Though we all have our beliefs and disagree, I thank God we can debate openly and not have to worry about getting killed for it.

 

[David_Alexander]

Romans 2

“Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forebearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?”

“For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”

How can this be reconciled with the Protestant position?

Moreover, we do not know the time of our judgment, but is it not clear that justification comes with judgment? We can walk with Jesus in this life, and pray for God’s grace to save us beyond this earthly existence.

By walking with Jesus, we can demonstrate God’s love in all we do.

 

[po18guy]

Greetings in peace Chuck.

I think a big issue with once saved always saved is the complacency it can encourage.

Moreover, from a Biblical perspective, the Gospels are quite clear on encouraging good works, and do you overlook James and frown on thay book the way Luther did?

I think good works are vitally important as part of the natural moral law, and whether they are further encouraged by faith or are encouraged by an uncertainty about salvation is less important than the question: are we doing good works?

I for one pray God saves all, saints and sinners alike, but to presume such would be…well, presumptious!

Well said. If we assume that we cannot lose our salvation, are we not putting God to the test? Essentially, we are daring Him to save us in spite of our disobedience, or unrepentant sinfulness.

Questions for Chuck: So, then, we were never saved? That is not assurance - that is doubt, which is of the evil one. Why does Paul write in Romans that unless we abide in the the goodness of God, we will be cut off? Why did our Lord teach that we must remain in Him, else we suffer being cut off, withering and being cast into the fire? Why then would Jesus say that “he who perseveres to the end will be saved”? Why would Paul teach that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Why must we deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, then follow Christ? We should not have to do any of this if our salvation is assured.

As a Catholic, I know that my salvation is assured IF. And that if pertains to me, not to God, as His promises are trustworthy.

 

[Chuck_Finley]

po18guy:

Questions for Chuck…

No thanks. I made a reasonable effort to have this conversation and you guys just weren’t interested.

 

[feed_me]

Is another herasy, that is used my most pastors to a) those pastors do not know what they are doing, or b) are going to hell, and are trying to bring the most people that they can with them. Even God condemed them in when he said that those pastors do not enter and prevent people from entering themselves. Matthew 23: 1-36. That’s why God also said "depart from me you evil doers into everlasting fire"Mathew 7: 21. Those people were saved and had the gifts of the spirit, but they chose to still do evil instead of good, and because sin lived in them more then good God did not know them.

 

[po18guy]

May peace be with all of you, we all share passion for God.

I re-iterate the importance of good works because the scriptural debate can rage on and on and we can miss the practical necessity of being good! Not to mention the tribesman who has never heard the Word, how else might he be judged but by his actions?

That said, it is not for us to presume the ‘mind’ of God beyond knowing Him through true love.

Christ’s sacrifice for humanity should never be taken for granted.

Once saved always saved reduces the entire New Testament to four very misleading words.

Truer words were never spoken!

 

[Daizies]

Okay, I’m feeling like a sucker today, so I’ll give it a shot.
However, I’m not going to address the whole argument at once, but one piece at a time. Proper exegesis takes a lot of time and effort, and I have other things to do today
And too, if all I’m going to get is a glib remark, why bother doing all that work for nothing? (sorry for that, I’m feeling a little pessimistic about people’s logic and rationality today )

I will start here:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Heb 6:4-6)

Why?

He would have to come back and die all over again.

So let us look at this verse piece by piece
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame

Now looking at this verse, we see 5 criteria that must be met for this verse to apply. So let us look at each one individually

1. once enlightened: or in other words, to have been made to see. Within the context of the preceding verses, we know that we are referring to the doctrine of Christ.
2. have tasted the heavenly gift: again, within context, we can see this as the gift of faith and salvation, which is a gift from God.
3. made partakers of the Holy Ghost: so, those who have received the Holy Spirit
4. tasted the good word of God: So referring to those who have learned the word of God. Looking at Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionary, “tasted” also carries the implication of experienced.

Thus far, it is clear we are speaking of believers in general. But then this would imply that any sin would be irreconcilable if we were to stop here. so let us finish with the last criteria

1. the powers of the world to come: Now from sentence structure we can re-state it as those who have tasted (or experienced) the powers of the world to come. Turning back to Strong’s, we see that powers means

δύναμις
dunamis
doo’-nam-is
From G1410; force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.

and world means:

αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn’
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

So we see that this means those who have experienced the miraculous powers of a Messianic period that is yet to come. Now what are we to make of that? It cannot refer to salvation although it is a miracle, as it is something that is presently occurring. As for physical miracles (healing, etc), again, this is an occurrence of the past and current ages.
Perhaps then, we can take this as miraculous powers of the time when Christ returns again to rule the earth. In other words, those who have been granted special visions and miraculous powers of things to come (Saint John on the Island of Patmos springs to mind).

This then does not refer to just any Christian, but one who has been granted these special graces from God. So to go back to the whole, we can then take that if someone who had been granted these special graces were to apostatize, they cannot return, and this verse cannot be seen as referring to the permanence of salvation.

(References to Strong’s accessed via e-sword)

 

[po18guy]

No thanks. I made a reasonable effort to have this conversation and you guys just weren’t interested.

Projecting a little are we, Chuck?

The Catholic teaching is almost 2,000 years old, and shared with the Orthodox Churches, which also have the identical Apostolic origins. These teachings are not traceable to any named man, other than the man Jesus Christ.

Your “teaching”, on the other hand, is less than 500 years old.

I know that it is uncomfortable to have your “truths” challenged, as it requires diligence and an honest search for the truth. It requires the denial of the self, the taking up of one’s cross, then struggling behind our Lord.

Yet, your assertions are further evidence of the grace of free will than mankind is blessed with. I ask only that you please ponder whether such a new teaching as yours, identifiable to man, is the truth. You have to go outside of your comfort zone to do this.

You can accomplish this here at CAF, but it would appear that you are not seeking truth, but rather seeking only to teach that which you are comfortable with. I invite you to the deep theological end of the pool. The water is fine.

 

[Chuck_Finley]

Projecting a little are we, Chuck?

The Catholic teaching is almost 2,000 years old, and shared with the Orthodox Churches, which also have the identical Apostolic origins. These teachings are not traceable to any named man, other than the man Jesus Christ.

Your “teaching”, on the other hand, is less than 500 years old.

Just shows what you know. All of the scripture references I provided are older than your own Catholic Church, including several that pre-date even the incarnation of Christ, while the testimony of the ECFs I cited are well over 500 years old.

I know that it is uncomfortable to have your “truths” challenged

Not at all. To the contrary, in my seminary classes, I was often required to be able to debate issues from both sides, which I was happy to do, as I found it both edifying and challenging. And that philosophy continues today, as I pass it along to my own students and require weekly debates, where students are often called on to argue the other side.

The problem here wasn’t that my beliefs were challenged, as no one actually challenged my beliefs. “Nuh-Uh” is not a challenge.

No, the problem was the general childishness and rudeness with which my attempts to explain our beliefs were met.

Yet, your assertions are further evidence of the grace of free will than mankind is blessed with. I ask only that you please ponder whether such a new teaching as yours, identifiable to man, is the truth. You have to go outside of your comfort zone to do this.

The problem is that you assume that I just woke up this morning and decided to believe these things, when nothing could be further from the truth.

My argument is the culmanation of nearly twenty-five years of study.

You can accomplish this here at CAF, but it would appear that you are not seeking truth, but rather seeking only to teach that which you are comfortable with. I invite you to the deep theological end of the pool. The water is fine.

Thank you, but I swim in the deep end already. I just don’t do it here because none of the Catholics here want to join me.

So far, every Catholic has told me that I’m wrong, but not one has explained what I’ve said that’s wrong, or what the correct understanding is. I’ve been told that I’m taking verses out of context, but no one has even tried to explain how I took them out of context or what the correct context is. I’ve been told that I’m “twisting verses to make scripture contradict itself” but no one has explained which verses I’ve posted contradict other verses. I’ve been told that I’m “ignorant” but nobody has explained what I’ve said that’s wrong or corrected it. I’vebeen told that I’m guilty of prooftexting, but nobody has given any examples.

So far, it’s just been a lot of name calling with nothing to back it up.

Sorrry, but if you really think that constitutes the “deep end”, you are seriously, seriously deluded.

 

[Daizies]

So far, every Catholic has told me that I’m wrong, but not one has explained what I’ve said that’s wrong, or what the correct understanding is. I’ve been told that I’m taking verses out of context, but no one has even tried to explain how I took them out of context or what the correct context is. I’ve been told that I’m “twisting verses to make scripture contradict itself” but no one has explained which verses I’ve posted contradict other verses. I’ve been told that I’m “ignorant” but nobody has explained what I’ve said that’s wrong or corrected it. I’vebeen told that I’m guilty of prooftexting, but nobody has given any examples.

So far, it’s just been a lot of name calling with nothing to back it up.

This comment illustrates precisely why I only did the analysis on one verse. What’s the point of doing the work to disprove the use of the verse when no one even bothers to read it?

 

[Chuck_Finley]

This comment illustrates precisely why I only did the analysis on one verse. What’s the point of doing the work to disprove the use of the verse when no one even bothers to read it?

Actually, I would have been more than willing to read what you wrote and discuss it with you. Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want to do that.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–9):

[bibledrb]Romans 8:24[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Ephesians 2:5-9[/bibledrb]

But I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15):

[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 1:18[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]2 Corinthians 2:15[/bibledrb]

I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15):

[bibledrb]Romans 5:9-10[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 3:12-15[/bibledrb]

Through all this, like the apostle Paul, I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling, knowing that it is not by my works but by Faith manifested in me through His Grace (Phil. 2:12, John 15:1-17, Rom. 11:17-24):

[bibledrb]Philippians 2:12[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]John 15:1-17[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Romans 11:17-24[/bibledrb]

With confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)

[bibledrb]Romans 5:2[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]2 Timothy 2:11-13[/bibledrb]

In Him!