Once saved always saved?

[But_for_Grace]

well I wonder if ascund intends on coming back

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

NotWorthy:

So how was he able to heal people and exorcise demons if he didn’t have “saving faith”?

Notworthy

The same way a rotten priest can offer Mass - because the work done, is not his, but that of the Christ by Whose authority he work: whether “he” is Judas, or a rotten priest​

Saving faith, is faith in its relation of Christ & the Christian to each other - not in its relation of the Christian to the works Christ does through him for others. If our sinfulness were to stop Christ working, Christ would nothing through the Church on earth at all.

So a priest can be damnable, yet offer Mass. Horrifying, but possible. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Kevan:

There are various forms of the OSAS doctrine.

Some base it on the Augustinian doctrine of predestination, believing that if God chose you before he ever created the world, then you can be sure that he will accomplish his purpose and keep you from falling away.

Some base it on the nature of the New Birth, believing that once a person has passed from death unto life (John 5:24), he’s in an irreversible condition because he has within him an imperishable life.

Some base it on the nature of forgiveness, believing that God forgives all sins–past, present, and future–at the moment of conversion, so the forgiven person can never become guilty again. (Now that’s a plenary indulgence!)

Most Protestants probably don’t believe in OSAS. Among those who do, I find generally a closer walk with God than among those who reject the doctrine. Seems backwards, but that’s what I’ve seen and I’ve been dwelling amongst 'em for several decades.

Thanks for that - it explains why some Protestants on one messageboard I’ve been on were amazed that Catholics felt the need to ask for forgiveness more than once. You’ve just made sense of their surprise.​

I think this shows just how much we Christians of different kinds tend to take for granted that our own beliefs are self-evidently true.

I suspect the last group you mention was aware that grace is given, not to allow us latitide to sin, but to be a stimulus to holy living (to paraphrase St.Paul in Romans). As OSAS is a gracious work of God, and as God is holy, and abominates sin, and did not save us so that we might continue to sin, but that we might walk in the good works He has prepared from all eternity for us to walk in, & because the elect cannot fall away, but are elect so as to do good works - I don’t see anything “backwards” in the way this group acts.

(I do sometimes wonder whether any Catholics think Christ has saved us in order to give us greater freedom to sin - God forbid !) ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

esr:

I am amazed at people who believe OSAS. Do they ever consider the consequences of adhering to this theory? How sad it would be to believe this all of you life and to teach your children this and then at your judgment find out that you were wrong- you did actually lose your salvation. I think people like to believe it because it sounds good and it makes life easier. I will admit it tempts me too to think that no matter what I do I am going to Heaven as long as I believe that Jesus died for me. However, I cannot imagine teaching my children that they can never lose their salvation because I am responsible for being their primary educator of the faith. At least if I am wrong (and you cannot lose your salvation), I will not have mislead them about their eternal security.

OSAS is not a goal - not something one waits to have, and worries that one might not finally get: eternal security is a quality of one’s salvation from the first moment one’s life in Christ begins - it is a reality enjoyed here & now; not something which is purely future.​

• Salvation has begun;
• one is being saved;
• and one awaits and hopes for the full realisation of salvation.

OSAS covers these first two stages, and helps one to look forward to the third unpossessed stage with immovable hope. And the pledge of this hope, is the Holy Spirit. This hope is not human, but God-given. That is why it is so firm.

It is not something passive; and not a reason to hang around wondering, “What next?”. It is a reason to get stuck into doing God’s Will - which includes loving Him. To spend our lives in Christ, means getting to know Him better and better, by His working in us - one is not left a blank, unaffected by God. To know Christ, is transforming - it’s a life and education in itself. Many of the objections to it overlook this. It’s not a dry dead set of words, but a living reality. And the more one knows God, the more certain one’s salvation is, because the Love of Christ draws attention away from oneself to Him: salvation becomes more real, in proportion as one stops worrying about it, & is more deeply united to Christ: salvation is far less important than the Saviour; we grow into it because we are thinking not of it, but of Him. And where there is this GOd-given love of God, how can there be damnation ? Is love of God “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” a sin ? Of course not. Those who are Christ’s “do not come uinto judgement, but have passed from death to life”.

“Believing that Jesus died for us” is the seed of “life in Christ”: it is no more the whole of it, that saying a Hail Mary is the whole of the life of a Catholic. Is Catholicism no more than saying a Hail Mary, and not bothering with God for the next 70 years ? Certainly not. Love of God and obedience to His Will is required for us, and for those who believe in OSAS. ##

 

[WBB]

O.S. Luke:

I’m a Methodist… so for me it’s, “I was saved 2000 years ago, I am being saved today, and I will continue to need to be saved tomorrow.” Salvation is a process, not a one-time event.

The “O.S.” actually stands of “Order of St. Luke,” the religious order I am a member of.

O+

O.S. Luke, I wasn’t aware that Methodists had orders! And my parents are Methodists!

I have read some of the more recent works on theology put out by the United Methodist Church, and they come awful close to a Catholic understanding, even documents on the Holy Eucharist. The above mentioned idea of salvation being a process is certainly in-line with Catholic teaching.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Chazemataz:

What exactly is this? Do protestants have any scripture to back that claim up with?

They do: it involves a lot of other issues too - Divine foreknowledge, election, adoption, justification, the Holy Spirit, to name a few - so that means a lot of places in the Bible can be quoted: just so that the whole case for it is fully articulated.​

If it could be adequately articulated by a single text, that would suggest that not much of a case could be made for it. ##

 

[MattB]

I have a related question: I’ve had the discussion several times with believers in the “once saved always saved” theory, but something new struck me recently. Isn’t it really a double-whammy (or maybe a two-step) that they advocate? Its not really enough to accept and confess Jesus “as your personal savior” and as Lord (since, after all, even us Catholics really do that daily or at least weekly), but doesn’t this school of thought also implicitly require that you believe that by doing so your are saved (and, perhaps, saved forever)?

All the biblical references and arguments I’ve seen to justify the OSAS theory revolve around the “confession of faith” as the point of salvation, but adherents also rely on the confessor’s belief that in making this confession you will attain salvation. In other words, if I truly believe in Jesus and accept Him absolutely into my heart and recognize Him as my Lord and Saviour (which I absolutely do), but I do not think that by doing so I am eternally guaranteed salvation through this confession, do the OSAS folks think I am eternally saved?

I’ve never heard anyone articulate this, but it seems to be what they hold. Any ideas?

 

[chb03c]

MattB:

I have a related question: I’ve had the discussion several times with believers in the “once saved always saved” theory, but something new struck me recently. Isn’t it really a double-whammy (or maybe a two-step) that they advocate? Its not really enough to accept and confess Jesus “as your personal savior” and as Lord (since, after all, even us Catholics really do that daily or at least weekly), but doesn’t this school of thought also implicitly require that you believe that by doing so your are saved (and, perhaps, saved forever)?

All the biblical references and arguments I’ve seen to justify the OSAS theory revolve around the “confession of faith” as the point of salvation, but adherents also rely on the confessor’s belief that in making this confession you will attain salvation. In other words, if I truly believe in Jesus and accept Him absolutely into my heart and recognize Him as my Lord and Saviour (which I absolutely do), but I do not think that by doing so I am eternally guaranteed salvation through this confession, do the OSAS folks think I am eternally saved?

I’ve never heard anyone articulate this, but it seems to be what they hold. Any ideas?

This is sort of true, the only problem is we are sinners. That is why the “works” is so important, it builds our faith and strengthens our trust in our Lord. For someone to say they fully accept our Lord with all the mind and heart, I would find that hard to believe. Because if that were true that person would never sin.