Once saved, always saved?

[Gorgias]

But how many times do we hear,its a free gift but you must accept it,when you say that you have imposed a condition!!!the error light just went on.

As I mentioned earlier, the gift of a puppy is a totally free gift; yet, when one accepts it, one likewise accepts the obligation of caring properly for the gift.

Heres a totaly free gift… You are running in a marathon,its hot,and you pass a water stand,the attendant comes trackside and throws a bucket o refreshing water on you. You did not ask for the water,nor was their any condition imposed,it was freely given,no strings attached.

That’s not a gift, that’s an assault!

Seriously, though: a gift is something freely given and freely received – if you didn’t assent to the ‘gift’ of the impromptu shower, then it’s not a gift! Rather, it’s something that was imposed upon you, in violation of your ability to use your free will and choose to accept or reject it! Grace doesn’t work like that – God doesn’t impose any of His gifts on us!

 

[wbradl]

Gorgias, thanks for the reply .I see the puppy analogy the same as the idea of.grace! You did not ask for the puppy,and it was given freely, but you had to accept the puppy prior to receiving you had to do something to get the puppy.My example of the water dousing required nothing of the reciepient he did not have want the dousing,it was given without his mental agreement,truely a free gift. when you say the pup was freely given and freely recd, it was only recd after reciepient agreed, there wld have been no transferr olf the pooch if the agreemety wasn’t given. grace on the other wld have had its effect upon it’s immediate showering upon the person you wld have had to accept it… p.s. what kind of puppy was it?? lol,w bradl

 

[Gorgias]

grace on the other wld have had its effect upon it’s immediate showering upon the person you wld have had to accept it…

This is exactly not how grace operates! Think about it – if grace is showered on a person, and the person has no choice but to receive it, and the person is immediately affected by it, then we have a problem: how is it that some people are grace-filled and others are not? How is it that there are atheists in the world, if they are showered with God’s grace, and that grace always has an ‘immediate effect’?

So, if your idea is right, then you’re essentially saying that Calvin had it right: God only gives grace to some people (others get nothing, and are damned from the day they come into existence). Incidentally, this would also mean that the Bible is lying: everywhere it says that God wants all to come to Him, it means that He only really wants some to come to him!

On the other hand, then, maybe the Catholic Church is right: God reaches out to everyone with his grace; when we accept his grace, it has an effect in our lives; if we make the free choice to reject his grace, we can do so, but then we don’t see an effect.

 

[wbradl]

To GorgiasOK already,ck this Johnch5 5 vse 21,the last part is key…“so the Son grants life to those whom whom He wishes,” now doesn’t that sound just like that which you are taking issue with.when you say
'god only gives grace to some people…" now there a problem here…w bradl

 

[Gorgias]

To GorgiasOK already,ck this Johnch5 5 vse 21,the last part is key…“so the Son grants life to those whom whom He wishes,” now doesn’t that sound just like that which you are taking issue with.when you say
'god only gives grace to some people…" now there a problem here…w bradl

No, it doesn’t sound like Jesus is excluding people!

After all, the key is: context, context, context…!

In John 5, people were complaining that Jesus was healing on the Sabbath. Jesus’ reply was “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work.” What was their response? “For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he … called God his own father, making himself equal to God.” (John 5:18)

How did Jesus respond to their negative attitude toward him? “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; … For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes.’” (John 5:19, 21)

So, the quote you give isn’t an example of Jesus saying “I pick this guy to save and that guy to damn eternally”…! Rather, since they were criticizing Jesus for choosing to heal a man on the Sabbath, Jesus responded, “Hey! It’s the divine prerogative to heal! If I choose to heal a man on the Sabbath, I can do so!”

It’s not that Jesus is saying “I pick him and ignore her”, but rather, “stop telling me that I can’t pick him!” In other words, your contention that John 5:22 is making a statement about excluding people doesn’t hold up – what’s really happening is that Jesus is making a statement about his divine right to include people in his miracles of healing!

 

[Randy_Carson]

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
by James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm “double-predestination,” a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.
The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.

The Council of Trent stated, “If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema… If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.”

 

[wbradl]

to gogias,thanks for the reply. yes I agree contex is key.so lets follow it.yes he was speaking about the father,and then but then he goes off about the work of the son. another mystery],the son can not do anything by himself,if the Trinity is 3 aspects of one god’ its alway been my understanding they are all co-equal, you can’t have one god greater than the othe two “’ I assure you the son CAN ONLY DO what the father does,everthing the father does he shows him.” sounds like they are separate and how do we get separate but equal there? Everythingthe fathter does he shows the son,seems if they were the same person they wld know intuitevly. So jesus chooses to heal on the sabath,I agree thats is the devine perogative and its also the divine perogative to give grace which he knows will not be effective [or none at all].Then we go into the the son grants life to whom he wishes…you want another mystery,ck.jhoh 5,vse29…'those who have done Right shall rise to live" Since when did salvation depend on what you’ve done,and just when I thought it was Grace that did the trick…wbradl

 

[Pax]

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature** a slave to the law of sin. (Romans 7: 15-25)

Having a debate this morning with a Pentecostal - This was his main support for the fact that one can not lose their salvation. Although I provided other scripture that proves otherwise, I was regarded to as reading the scripture out of it’s context. So can anyone help with this and suggest a way I can approach and show otherwise??**

I would suggest that you do two things. First of all, make them prove that the quotes they have used are within the context of scripture, and then have them prove that your quotes are truly taken out of context. They are making claims and accusations without substantive evidence. The next thing to do is to actually study the scriptures they quoted to see if indeed they support OSAS, and then show them why they do not do so.

One would think that a doctrine that is as absolute and as significant as OSAS would be clearly defined in scripture. Scripture, however, makes no such claim and those that support the doctrine are thus forced to cobble together a hand full of quotes that might on first glance suggest that the doctrine is true, but with a little scrutiny are shown to be false.

I have a list of over 60 quotes from scripture that are clearly opposed to OSAS. I also developed arguments against the most often used justifications for OSAS, and those arguments are very effective in refuting it. If you’re interested, I can send you email attachments of all that material in Word format. Just send me a PM with your email address and I will send the files. I would send them to you via the Forums’ PM system, but the file size is too large for that method, and thus the need to use email.

God bless.