Once saved always saved?

[ascund]

Greetings again.

With respect to the voices.
As an active voice, dikaiovw is used in the present active to show the error of progressive justification in the Rich Young Ruler’s foolish trust in works (Luke 10:29). Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for self-righteously justifying themselves before others (Luke 16:15). Paul likewise denies conditions of active obedience for justification (Gal. 2:16, 5:4). Scripture reveals that God alone is active in imputing justification to the believing sinner at the singular event of faith (Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:17; 3:8). The aorist active shows that God alone is justified (Luke 7:29). Justification, as an historic act, links with glorification, as an historic (future for us – historic for God) act (Rom. 8:30). The two future actives show God will justify only by faith (Rom. 3:30) in Christ (Gal. 2:17). There is not one use of dikaiovw as a perfect active. The active voice of dikaiovw shows that activity in justification is God’s sole domain.

As a passive voice, dikaiovw is used in the present passive tense to show that believers passively receive God’s imputed justification by faith without the deeds of law (Rom. 3:28) and apart from the law (Gal. 3:11). In the aorist passive, justification is in parallel with historic passive sanctification (I Cor. 6:11). Significantly, the perfect tense shows that the publican (Luke 18:14) went and remained totally justified. Believers who die in Christ are and permanently remain freed from sin (Rom. 6:7). The passive voice of dikaiovw shows justification is an event received by faith alone without any human activity.

MORE
This exegetical outline shows that justification is God’s work as the Judge of all mankind. This entails the forensic aspect that describes the believer’s position before God in His heavenly courtroom. Justification is a forensic term referring to God’s activity in His righteous declaration regarding the offense of sin. Because of faith in Jesus’ divine accomplishments as a remedy for fallen humanity, God responds to faith in a variety of ways. Negatively, God’s judicial acts eliminate all aspects of condemnation. His negative acts include a full legal pardon and the total forgiveness of sin. As a result of faith in Jesus Christ, all barriers to God are broken down (Eph. 2:14). In the verses that follow (14-17), Paul emphasizes the OT view of covenantal shālôm as he thrice links peace with this negative forensic demolition of barriers. While justification is inexorably linked with the elimination of negatives, it is much more. Positively, God’s justification does at least the following three things. First, He imputes Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner (II Cor 5:21). Second, He accepts believing sinners and changes their status from enmity to full citizenship in heaven (Col. 1:3) with a title to eternal life. Third, He equips the believer with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:3). God can totally justify sinners because of Christ’s complete, sufficient, and satisfactory work. Forensic justification is a theologically rich concept.

Believers, through faith in Jesus, receive God’s once-for-all time justifying declaration that secures the forgiveness of sins, Christ’s imputed righteousness, acceptance with God, and a certain hope in judgment that is the basis for present confidence.

Justification is an event - not a process.

I should say that But_for_Grace did a rather fine job in defining justification until he/she started getting confused with the definitions of faith that involved obedience. This is your great error: using sanctification as a means to define justification.

This is why I wanted someone to try an honest attempt at a Bible definition. BFG started but then let the human self-righteous urge to do something overrule the Bible.

Let’s stick to the Bible!
LLoyd

 

[E.E.N.S]

Lloyd, quick question: Why do you accept the authority of the Church in the matter of codifying the Bible (defining what is and was is not inspired), but not in the matter of it’s interpretation? (When in fact it was Christ who said to turn to the Church…and Paul said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.)Can you give me a logical answer to this? I can’t think of one…(and also your view on justification is not biblical nor is it historical.)

 

[ascund]

Greetings

With justification firmly defined according to God’s forensic declaration of righteousness we can turn to the confusion where sanctification is blended into justification.
But for Grace:

Each of the verbs associted with faith require a subject, and I to act, and hence faith is an active process and hence a work, so to speak. Therefore if one does not cooperate with God, by appling their faith to God’s grace then one cannot be saved/justified.

Jesus Himself used the brazen serpent as a fitting teaching on faith. When the Israelites murmured, God sent poisonous snakes among them. As a remedy, God had Moses erect a brazen serpent. If/when the bitten Israelite looked to the snake, they were **permanently ** healed.

Jesus drew two parallels in this teaching. First, He equated the brazen serpent with Himself. “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” John 3:14. Second, He equated the look to the serpent with saving faith. “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:15.

I expect a response using the Greek present tense. I will deal with that when I see it. In the meantime, the act of faith that saves is simply a look of faith to Jesus.

Jesus reiterated this in John 6:27-28. In verse 27, the human-centered self-righteous urge to do something caused the crowds to ask “what shall we do to do the works of God.” In verse 28, Jesus took their human-oriented question and gave a spiritual response: “believe.”

Note that there is no blending of sanctified obedience with justifying faith.

The Beloved Apostle also verified this. The victory that overcomes the world is “our faith. Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” (I John 5:4-5).

It is a grave error to define justification in terms of sanctification. They are parallel - perhaps inseparable; yet, they are nevertheless distinct. Catholic theology fails in this regard.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

E.E.N.S.:

Lloyd, quick question: Why do you accept the authority of the Church in the matter of codifying the Bible (defining what is and was is not inspired), but not in the matter of it’s interpretation? (When in fact it was Christ who said to turn to the Church…and Paul said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.)Can you give me a logical answer to this? I can’t think of one…(and also your view on justification is not biblical nor is it historical.)

Our sovereign God rules. In the early years of the Catholic monolith, there were many spiritual giants not yet corrupted by infant baptism and works righteousness. God’s hand in history must NOT be overlooked. I understand your denominational loyalty in asking such a self-serving question.

Are you serious in saying that my definition of justification is not biblical? Have you not read posts #55,56, and 57? Nothing but the Bible. If you seek to enter into exchanges with me, do not insult me with such outlandish statements or by failure to read these posts.

I thank you in advance for striving to keep up to speed.
Lloyd

 

[E.E.N.S]

ascund:

Our sovereign God rules. In the early years of the Catholic monolith, there were many spiritual giants not yet corrupted by infant baptism and works righteousness. God’s hand in history must NOT be overlooked. I understand your denominational loyalty in asking such a self-serving question.

Jesus said to listen to the authorities because they sit in the seat of Moses - they same goes for the seat of Peter. Infant baptism and such are teachings of the Church and are not corruptions - that is your misunderstanding. (And by the way, the Catholic Faith is NOT a denomination.)

ascund:

Are you serious in saying that my definition of justification is not biblical? Have you not read posts #55,56, and 57? Nothing but the Bible. If you seek to enter into exchanges with me, do not insult me with such outlandish statements or by failure to read these posts.

I am 100% serious; of course your post are from the Bible, but they are taken out of context of the whole of Scripture. That is what I mean by your view being unbiblical. Anyone can take a given number of versus [out of context] and fit it to their intended interpretation…don’t believe me? Just take a look and how many different beliefs there are among the different protestant sects/denominations - they all certainly say they get their beliefs straight from the Bible - are you any different? No. There are two types of people 1) those who are presented to the Truth and conform to it, and 2) those who are presented with the Truth and remain blinded/deceived. (I used to argue from your side of the fence, that is until I looked deeper into the totality of the Bible, history, Truth, etc and I conformed - even though it cost me A LOT of personal sacrafice…you, my friend, wouldn’t know/conform to the Truth if it hit you in the face like a brick - it would seem.

ascund:

I thank you in advance for striving to keep up to speed.
Lloyd

You are more than welcome my brother in Christ.

St. Louis de Montfort knew that he was called to be a saint, but he said “Just not yet!” (This was after his harsh dealings with some drunkards that were mocking his faith.)

PS~ You still didn’t answer my question Lloyd.

 

[ascund]

Greetings EENS

YOU STATED: Infant baptism and such are teachings of the Church and are not corruptions - that is your misunderstanding.

A simple look at Jesus’ example shows that the Church was early corrupted by the human urge to do something.

Q1: Did Jesus need to be saved?
A1: Not at all! He is the Author of eternal life.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptized?
A2: He waited for 30 years until the start of His public ministry. In the same fashion, Noah waited at least 120 years, perhaps close to 500 years before he went through the flood. Since OT salvation is the same as NT salvation, you ought to perk up here. Water baptism for justification is simply not done to infants. There is not one example of such a thing anywhere in scripture OT or NT.

Hence, it is quite easy to spot corruption. When left to our own inventions, humanity willingly shows off its depravity. The only sure guide is God’s Word.

THEN YOU STATED: you, my friend, wouldn’t know/conform to the Truth if it hit you in the face like a brick - it would seem.

Is this a representative Catholic mentality and ethics?
Spout foolishness like this again and I simply will not respond.
Understand?

Lloyd

 

[E.E.N.S]

ascund:

Hence, it is quite easy to spot corruption. When left to our own inventions, humanity willingly shows off its depravity. The only sure guide is God’s Word. Lloyd

Precisely, that is why Jesus gave us the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to give us that everlasting guidance…YOU say that the Church was corrupted, however, JESUS says that this would NEVER happen. I trust Jesus.

PS~ You STILL have not answered my question…

…and I would like to add another question, though you seem to have difficulty answering questions, but let me ask you this…if once we are saved we can never loose our salvation, then why does St. Paul tell us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? He even said that he needed to persevere lest after his preaching to us his would lose himself…

 

[E.E.N.S]

THEN YOU STATED: you, my friend, wouldn’t know/conform to the Truth if it hit you in the face like a brick - it would seem.

Is this a representative Catholic mentality and ethics?
Spout foolishness like this again and I simply will not respond.
Understand?

Lloyd

No this isn’t a representation of Catholic mentality and/or ethics, obviously, it is simply my own weekness, a frustration at failing to reach my seperated brother in truth…it’s not really all that harsh of a comment - didn’t Christ do the same to Saul/Paul? (Knock him of his horse with the truth)

 

[William_P]

Brethern…this idea is mainly promoted via the Baptist and 'Southern Baptist" denomination. I don`t think the majority of Protestants hold to it. I know for a fact the “Assemblies of God” and many non-denominational groups do NOT. 2 Peter ch 2 and Hebrews 10:26-31 (among many other verses) make it a very hard “pill to swallow” for many of us non-Catholics. newlife333.com/pope.html
Nothing like more common ground, eh? Blessings,WP

 

[Philthy]

ascund:

Believers, through faith in Jesus, receive God’s once-for-all time justifying declaration that secures the forgiveness of sins, Christ’s imputed righteousness, acceptance with God, and a certain hope in judgment that is the basis for present confidence.

Justification is an event - not a process.

Let’s stick to the Bible!
LLoyd

Hi Lloyd! :tiphat:

I have to admit that I didn’t read all of your posts and I was pleasantly surprised that you, after typing all of your own excellent thoughts, have concluded that we should “stick to the bible” - thank goodness. My guess would be that you have a little more time on your hands than I do, so please forgive my skipping some of the details. My talent lies more in the analysis of logical application of information, and that is what I hope to contribute.
Now, if Im not mistaken, our topic was salvation: OSAS - right? You seemed to have a game plan with your discussion of “justification” but it escaped me as Im not sure you fully connected your thoughts on justification to your thoughts on salvation - namely how the nature of justification, being exclusively an act of God(I’ll give you this for now), is an instantaneous and permanent and completed action at the “moment of” faith. If I skipped it, I apologize in advance.
Now one thing I definitely read was the bolded statement above. It is critical because with it you have reached a conclusion relevant to OSAS and have firmly returned to the topic at hand. Unfortunately IMO you are not necessarily justified (ha ha ) in reaching this conclusion from the discussion of justification so far. In addition, you have comitted a little oversight by neglecting to identify precisely what you mean by “through faith”. Of particular practical importance in this latter concern is how, precisely, one will be aware of the fact that they, in fact, have “faith in” Jesus through which they may have …“certain hope in judgment that is the basis for present confidence.” of their eternal salvation. Lastly, this conclusion must be shown to be consistent with the entirety of Scripture.

So could you briefly tie these few loose ends together and then we will have some serious grounds to discuss salvation.

Thanks-

Phil

 

[But_for_Grace]

Back and forth with the verses and analysis, hey ascund?

Okay, you do realize what the bible does say about how to recieve the promise, don’t you? Just in case you have acidentally passed over it, let me remind you of it…

Heb 10:36 υπομονης γαρ εχετε χρειαν ινα το θελημα του θεου ποιησαντες κομισησθε την επαγγελιαν (Scrivener Textus Receptus)

and for those of us who are not fluent in Greek as you present yourself as being…

Heb 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. (ESV)

so now let us look at this verse and its key words…

Done
ποιέω
poieō
Thayer Definition:

1. to make
   1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
   1b) to be the authors of, the cause
   1c) to make ready, to prepare
   1d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
   1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
   1f) to make a thing out of something
   1g) to (make, i.e.) render one anything
   1g1) to (make, i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
   1g2) to (make, i.e.) declare one anything
   1h) to put one forth, to lead him out
   1i) to make one do something
   1i1) cause one to
   1j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
2. to do
   2a) to act rightly, do well
   2a1) to carry out, to execute
   2b) to do a thing unto one
   2b1) to do to one
   2c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
   2d) to celebrate, keep
   2d1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
   2e) to perform: to a promise

and

Recieve
κολυμβάω,
kolumbaō
Thayer Definition:

1. to care for, take care of, provide for
2. to take up or carry away in order to care for and preserve
3. to carry away, bear off
4. to carry, bear, bring to, to carry away for one’s self, to carry off what is one’s own, to bring back
   4a) to receive, obtain: the promised blessing
   4b) to receive what was previously one’s own, to get back, receive back, recover

As we have said before the actions, obedience, are necessary to recieve the promises of God, which include salvation. Those who do not continue to do th will of God will not recieve the promised salvation. Need we be any more concise?

 

[Philthy]

ascund:

Greetings
Jesus Himself used the brazen serpent as a fitting teaching on faith. When the Israelites murmured, God sent poisonous snakes among them. As a remedy, God had Moses erect a brazen serpent. If/when the bitten Israelite looked to the snake, they were **permanently **healed.

A little sloppy: You have left us without a decisive conclusion as it relates to OSAS. Is it your contention that if they were bitten again by a snake that they would no longer need to look to the “brazen serpent”? That would be the OSAS position, no? Or are we to understand this in the way some would understand baptism as it relates to original sin - one baptism for the forgiveness of sin? Simple stories and complex conclusions mostly don’t mix.

ascund:

Jesus drew two parallels in this teaching. First, He equated the brazen serpent with Himself. “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” John 3:14. Second, He equated the look to the serpent with saving faith. “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:15.

I have to say that the “look to the serpent” was obedience to God’s command, which is, of course,a critical part of faith. To claim that it(the look to the serpent) is faith apart from the obedience of the individual is an invalid conclusion IMO.
Your second parallel seems a bit biased Im afraid. First off, you have ignored that the actual text you quote says *should not *perish - not “will not” perish. To be honest, I have also seen that rendering (will not) and also have seen, might not or may not. My point is that for you to quote that verse with “should not” as the translation completley invalidates the logical conclusion you would like us to reach, and indicates that your conclusion preceded the verse rather than resulting from it. When I said my contribution is analytical application of logical conclusions this is the kind of stuff I meant - I hope its not too dry or obnoxious - its how my mind works…
In addition, we need some clarification on “eternal life” from the verse - does this mean eternal salvation to you? My understanding is that this refers to the quality of life rather than the quantity. I don’t know how to check such a thing, but if you would teach me I would be grateful (use a lexicon?) PM me…

ascund:

Jesus reiterated this in John 6:27-28. In verse 27, the human-centered self-righteous urge to do something caused the crowds to ask “what shall we do to do the works of God.” In verse 28, Jesus took their human-oriented question and gave a spiritual response: “believe.”
Lloyd

I always thought this was the strongest verse to support sola fide - you are the first one I have ever seen use it! Good work! If it were the only verse on the subject I would agree with the manner you have presented it - it isn’t however, and exactly what it means to be a believer in Jesus is still unclear. Can we call him Lord and not do what he says? I think you know the answer to that. Can we know that we believe apart from obedience? Scripture says no, we cant.

Peace-

Phil

 

[gardenswithkids]

William P.:

Brethern…this idea is mainly promoted via the Baptist and 'Southern Baptist" denomination. I don`t think the majority of Protestants hold to it. I know for a fact the “Assemblies of God” and many non-denominational groups do NOT. 2 Peter ch 2 and Hebrews 10:26-31 (among many other verses) make it a very hard “pill to swallow” for many of us non-Catholics. newlife333.com/pope.html
Nothing like more common ground, eh? Blessings,WP

Thank you for your posts William, and welcome to the forums!

I love finding common ground with Protestands, and I have many Protestant friends. I also enjoy friendly exchanges to discuss our different interpretations. (But unfortunately I sometimes loose my patience with the rare few who do not believe Catholics are Christians.) Thank you for pointing out the common ground we share many non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Lillith]

Lillith:

Hello Loyd…Yes…lets
Long ago, I looked up what the word justification means to once saved always saved Protestants, because I thought it would be helpful for understanding. I have also been very surprised to find that a lot of O.S.A.S. subscribers do not understand what they are buying into. To me it seems easier to argue with their truth, than how they “pretty” it up.

This is it in a nutshell:

G-d is the judge and when justification is declared Fundamentalists believe that G-d covers our sins but never actually removes them, even if the born again person remains in sin or is unjust, he is justified, and this justification occurs when a person says the sinner’s prayer. Justification does not get rid of the sin…justification covers the sin, like a cloak. Underneath the cloak the person can be perverse and sinful, because all men are always, and there is no way to be good…we are all inherently bad and sinful evil creatures. It is not inner renewal, only Christ’s sacrifice. On judgment day, the Lord our G-d will not see the person’s sin, and when he looks at the saved person he only sees Jesus, and he is declared justified.

Basically, the soul remains ugly and hidden under a cloak. To me I find this depressing and what I don’t understand is how fundamentalists square this with the teaching that G-d gives us stating that we are made in his image.

LOYD

Sorry for such loud measures, but you ignored my post. Are you Hidden under a cloak…or not?

 

[ascund]

Greetings Philthy

By the way, I think your ID is a great one for us all. Isa 64:6 says that even our best righteousness is as filthy rags. How then can anyone achieve the inner personal righteousness necessary to please God? Even Roman 3:19 shows that all the world will be condemned based on self-righteousness.

Philthy:

A little sloppy: You have left us without a decisive conclusion as it relates to OSAS. Is it your contention that if they were bitten again by a snake that they would no longer need to look to the “brazen serpent”? That would be the OSAS position, no? Or are we to understand this in the way some would understand baptism as it relates to original sin - one baptism for the forgiveness of sin? Simple stories and complex conclusions mostly don’t mix.

I have to say that the “look to the serpent” was obedience to God’s command, which is, of course,a critical part of faith. To claim that it(the look to the serpent) is faith apart from the obedience of the individual is an invalid conclusion IMO.

Well, half-true. The look can be done even by a quadrapilegic (spelling?) who can only look with the heart. Hence you have used the definition of any type of “work” for “the work of obedience” (John 6:28-29). This is confusion.

Philthy:

Your second parallel seems a bit biased Im afraid. First off, you have ignored that the actual text you quote says *should not *perish - not “will not” perish. To be honest, I have also seen that rendering (will not) and also have seen, might not or may not. My point is that for you to quote that verse with “should not” as the translation completley invalidates the logical conclusion you would like us to reach, and indicates that your conclusion preceded the verse rather than resulting from it. When I said my contribution is analytical application of logical conclusions this is the kind of stuff I meant - I hope its not too dry or obnoxious - its how my mind works…
In addition, we need some clarification on “eternal life” from the verse - does this mean eternal salvation to you? My understanding is that this refers to the quality of life rather than the quantity. I don’t know how to check such a thing, but if you would teach me I would be grateful (use a lexicon?) PM me…

Sure. The actual Greek employs the definite article plus a present participle all within a third class conditional sentence. The 3rd class condition gives the protasis as an likely but not certain event. Hence whenever the likely but not certain protasis is true (if one believes), then the apodosis is true.

Within the 3rd class conditional, John uses the definitie article plus participle to speak not of a conditional process of continued belief, but the gnomic principle of a generic timeless truth. This is standard Greek that all 2nd year students (should) know.

Now, knowing that eternal life is a timeless unconditional truth, I can tell you that eternal life is not a quality per se but a Person. I John 5:20 shows that Jesus is Eternal life. Anyone who is immersed into Him is immersed into Eternal life. While eternal life has many qualities, these are secondary to the event of being in Christ. Because Christ’s righteousness can not change, and believers are viewed as the very righteousness of Christ (II Cor 5:19-21), all who believe have both the Person and the many qualities. Then, at that moment, we have all spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3).

Philthy:

I always thought this was the strongest verse to support sola fide - you are the first one I have ever seen use it! Good work! If it were the only verse on the subject I would agree with the manner you have presented it - it isn’t however, and exactly what it means to be a believer in Jesus is still unclear. Can we call him Lord and not do what he says? I think you know the answer to that. Can we know that we believe apart from obedience? Scripture says no, we cant.

Simply look up 1 John 5:13.

Phew! Long post. Perhaps we should stop copying everything that went before.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings
E.E.N.S.:

No this isn’t a representation of Catholic mentality and/or ethics, obviously, it is simply my own weekness, a frustration at failing to reach my seperated brother in truth…it’s not really all that harsh of a comment - didn’t Christ do the same to Saul/Paul? (Knock him of his horse with the truth)

I really udnerstand! It appears we are made alike! I also share the same frustration. I also tend to speaking as I ought not.

To me, anything added to the Cross is an unwitting denial of Jesus. Scripture declares the Jesus alone is the WAY and that no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). Furthermore, there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)

Can we actually fulfill God’s requirement of perfection? Isa 64:6 says NO! This is my most basic plank! How can we be perfect within ourselves?

Thus, pPerfection must come from OUTSIDE in the Person of Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone. Any appeal to inner obedience is a degradation into defeat (Rom 3:19).

Shalom
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings Lillith.

LOYD
Sorry for such loud measures, but you ignored my post. Are you Hidden under a cloak…or not?

Loud? Not at all! A pretty fair and honest question! Our two theologies contrast over the words “impute” and “impart.” Have you done a search on these words? Which one (if not both) are in God’s Word?

Can a person actually clean themselves up to a state where God will be pleased enough to grant entrance into heaven? Try to answer this question without an appeal to Jesus. The only righteousness that pleases God is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Any appeal to the fleeting fickle foibles of human righteousness is a repudiation of Jesus Christ - at least to evangelicals.

I view self-righteous imparted words as belonging to sanctification - not justification. If you start down the refutation trail of answering justification with verses of sanctification, you unwittingly pit one part of God’s Word against another part.

Instead, they are both right in the following way. Justificaiton is the event of faith - alone. Sanctification is an imperfect process of failure that never is complete until glory. Justification is in parallel with yet distinct from sanctification.

Catholic blending of the two is seen as a huge error by evangelicals.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Here is an easy one.

The force of this passage comes from the prior verses. God is comparing the repetitious imperfect priesthood of the Levites with the once-for-all time perfect priesthood of Jesus. Jesus priesthood is eternal, unchanging, and faithful. Therefore Jesus is able to save to the uttermost.

The word uttermost comes from the Greek word pantelhv~. The word has two parts: a prefix (pan) which means all and the root (telhv~) which means complete. Thus, the whole word means all-complete or perfect or utter. The KJV rendering of “uttermost” is a faithful translation of this concept.

Because Jesus: has finished the task of redemption propitiating God’s wrath, intercedes for us, represents us, mediates for us with God, intercedes for us, lives forever, has sanctified us, functions as our surety, brings us to God, is the basis of our life, and will never ever leave us - He will always be able to save to the UTTERMOST (Heb 7:25) those who come to Him.

How do Catholics respond to this verse? How can uttermost be conditional? or temporary? I’ve got 8 more aspects of Hebrews that proves OSAS. This will do for starters.

I need to pick out one person with which to respond? This is time consuming.
Lloyd

 

[E.E.N.S]

ascund:

Greetings

I really udnerstand! It appears we are made alike! I also share the same frustration. I also tend to speaking as I ought not.

To me, anything added to the Cross is an unwitting denial of Jesus. Scripture declares the Jesus alone is the WAY and that no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). Furthermore, there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)

I agree.

ascund:

Can we actually fulfill God’s requirement of perfection? Isa 64:6 says NO! This is my most basic plank! How can we be perfect within ourselves?

6 And we are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (“Our justices”… That is, the works by which we pretended to make ourselves just. This is spoken particularly of the sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies of the Jews, after the death of Christ, and the promulgation of the new law.)

ascund:

Any appeal to inner obedience is a degradation into defeat (Rom 3:19).

I don’t see the relation…“19 Now we know, that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God.”

 

[E.E.N.S]

Confessing Jesus or Denying the Lord Jesus Christ is the “saved / not saved” main issue. It is something THAT WE DO, based on our beliefs. People who argue for OSAS will often say, “There’s nothing you can DO to become saved, or it will be works. Therefore, there is nothing you can DO to become unsaved, you can’t GAIN or LOSE salvation based on what you do.” Well, the first premise is wrong, because to be saved, one has to DO quite a lot; first be willing to hear the message, second, believe it in faith, third, repent of your sins, and fourth, confess that you believe God rose Jesus from the dead, and fifth, continue in the faith. And the act a person takes that leads to salvation is the opposite act one takes as a result of falling away from the faith. Confession or Denial of Jesus!

The other common thing people who belive OSAS often say in the debate is “how much or which sin would actually cause one to be unsaved? If we can lose salvation, where do we draw the line? or How much sin can I get away with?” Again, it seems they forget the key issue, belief in Jesus and confession of Him.

2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Exodus 32:33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Psalm 69:28, Deuteronomy 29:20

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

The ACT of confessing Jesus is not only important to salvation, but also for determining who goes to heaven in the rapture.

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: )
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my
word, and hast not denied my name.
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth. Some scholars have tried to deny that Matthew 10:32 applies to them, saying it’s for the Jews, or people of a different dispensation. However, this same theme is found, as quoted above, in the Epistles: Timothy, Romans, Jude. It’s found in Revelation. It’s found in the Old Testament. It’s a theme of the entire Bible!