Once saved, always saved?

[Convert2013]

You know. I hate to put it so bluntly, but an obedient Catholic isn’t really interested in hearing anyone’s opinion on this issue. An obedient Catholic is interested in the official teaching of the Church. OSAS is not a teaching of the Church. The matter would seem to be closed.

So any of us who are discussing this are not obedient Catholics? I did mention earlier that I have relatives who buy in to this notion - btw, they are not Calvinists, Baptists or of Reformed church. How could I not want to understand it more so that I could have a discussion with them about it at some point? I certainly don’t believe in what I know of it as it does not make sense to me and isn’t biblical as far as I can see.

Again I am wondering if anyone can explain it clearly …OSAS - does that mean that once you are saved (believe in Jesus as your savior and Lord and accept his death as your salvation) can you do anything you want (sin) and it is automatically forgiven?

 

[Alizarin]

God doesn’t tear up the adoption papers, but the mortal sinner petitions for and receives emancipation.

You and I agree that one can seek emancipation so to speak by way of sin. I think where we differ, is that as a Catholic, you would say that one episode could bring that about, whereas I would say – somewhat along the lines of CS Lewis and Martin Thornton – that it takes a whole lifetime of disobedience and twisting of one’s soul. Interesting difference.

 

[aemcpa]

You and I agree that one can seek emancipation so to speak by way of sin. I think where we differ, is that as a Catholic, you would say that one episode could bring that about, whereas I would say – somewhat along the lines of CS Lewis and Martin Thornton – that it takes a whole lifetime of disobedience and twisting of one’s soul. Interesting difference.

So essentially, you’re saying that one can be saved by one act and damned only by persevering in sin until the end, while I’m saying that one can be damned by one act and saved only by persevering in grace until the end.

Which of those two positions conforms more closely to the Scriptures?

 

[manualman]

Here’s a question for you as a Catholic: is there such a thing as once Catholic, always Catholic?

Good point and a distinction that should be explained. Catholics believe that Baptism is the infusion of Grace which marks the point where a person becomes a Christian. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on us, it cannot be undone. Or a you say, “once catholic, always catholic.” The difference is that Catholicism doesn’t promise that baptism will automatically get you to heaven. It’s where we are first given the Grace without which we cannot reach heaven.

To the poster who questions what sort of gift could Grace and Salvation be if it can be taken away? The answer is that it ISN’T taken away. But it can be THROWN away. If it’s lost, it’s because we made that choice. The usual Calvinist response to that is to object that then humans must DO things to reach heaven in which case they can say it wasn’t so much a “free” gift as one that was achieved. To them I have a parable:

A mountaineer falls into a crevasse in a glacier and cannot get out. He has broken both legs and cannot climb. His friends call for help and rescuers come with rope and a winch, but the crevasse is too small for them to enter. They throw a rope down and tell him how to fasten it securely to his body so that they can pull him up.

The rescuers offer a free gift of salvation, no? Is the injured hiker REALLY going to complain that it’s crummy gift, not really FREE since he is required to cooperate in his salvation by tying himself off before they haul him up? Is he likely to boast in bars after his recovery that he rescued himself from a crevasse? One sure hopes not! Perhaps not a coincidence, the word “religion” literally means “to bind.” That’s what we’re called to do in life; to cooperate with Grace by binding ourselves to God and surrendering our will to His.

 

[eyesopening]

So any of us who are discussing this are not obedient Catholics? I did mention earlier that I have relatives who buy in to this notion - btw, they are not Calvinists, Baptists or of Reformed church. How could I not want to understand it more so that I could have a discussion with them about it at some point? I certainly don’t believe in what I know of it as it does not make sense to me and isn’t biblical as far as I can see.

Again I am wondering if anyone can explain it clearly …OSAS - does that mean that once you are saved (believe in Jesus as your savior and Lord and accept his death as your salvation) can you do anything you want (sin) and it is automatically forgiven?

I wasn’t trying to put you on the defensive or stop you from talking about it, but to state very clearly for those who do not hold to church teaching that this is a non-negotiable.

Proponents of OSAS maintain that once you have a conversion experience to Christ you gain a ticket to heaven (to put it crassly.) According to them, there is nothing you can do to lose this ticket, just as there was nothing you could have done to earn this ticket. Your salvation therefore is not contingent on any earthly behavior, either positive or negative. This means that you can sin at will, however no Calvinist worth his salt would ever encourage sinful behavior.

In order to more fully understand this Calvinist mindset one must realize that Calvinists believe humans are inherently evil from the fall. This means that one cannot perform a good work even if one desires. Man is only capable of evil thoughts and works because he is utterly depraved. Any good works that occur is The Holy Spirit doing good works through you. This includes the acceptance of salvation in the first place because man is incapable of accepting salvation. In other words, there is no participation on the part of man whatsoever. Because you could not have accepted this gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit accepting for you, you likewise cannot do anything to merit keeping this salvation, even if you blatantly reject Christ at a later time. (Calvinists would argue that someone who did this was probably never saved to begin with…more on this in a sec.)

This has also led Calvinists to believe that God selected (before time began) who would go to Heaven and who would go to Hell and this decision is finalized and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Calvinists would see those who people would describe as backslidden or fallen away as having never been saved in the first place i.e. they were just faking being a Christian and finally showed their true colors.

Calvin additionally thought there were signs to be able to identify those who were predestined to salvation, one of which was worldly prosperity. He maintained that those who were saved (from before all time) would experience relative comfort in life and those who were destined to Hell would experience relative suffering.

Calvinists would say that although works are not necessary in the least for salvation, those who are saved should naturally tend to good works because of the infusion of the Holy Spirit. They do however believe that the works simply follow as a natural companion to faith but that the works have nothing to do with salvation.

None of this is Church teaching you understand and they are the hallmark teachings of Evangelical Protestants aka Calvinists (Baptists, Presbyterians, and others). In fact these are heretical teachings and they have been formally condemned by the Church. In fact, these particular teachings were even condemned by Martin Luther who maintained until his death that John Calvin would burn in the fires of Hell, a courtesy returned by Calvin who maintained that Luther would be the one to burn.

 

[Ranp]

This is an entirely protestant idea foreign to and contrary to catholic teaching.

That sort of protestant thinking see salvation as a legal status, rather than the outcome of a lifelong relationship with God. Here’s their thinking in a nutshell

1. All humans have sinned.
2. The punishment for sin is death (and hell eternally).
3. Jesus came and accepted the death sentence that was due for sinners.
4. Those who repent of their sins and ask Jesus into their hearts, at that specific moment, their status is changed from guilty sinner. Instead, since Jesus received the sentence they were due, they are fully pardoned and receive his status of righteousness instead.
5. Their legal status of righteous is a “cover” provided by Christ, not the outcome of actual actions in their own lives. Therefore their salvation is assured since the “cover” of Christ’s righteousness is eternal.

Catholics should find this line of logic totally bizarre. It essentially accuses God of deluding Himself into thinking that believers are perfect and deserving of heaven. It’s just weird.

Catholics, of course, understand Grace differently. We agree that our sins are grievous and constitute a fatal flaw that will destroy us eternally without divine intervention. We affirm that Christ’s Incarnation and sacrificial death on the cross was done to save us from this fate. But we understand the offer of Grace to be a free offer that must be accepted throughout a lifetime, not merely a single instant. Throughout a Grace-filled life, we are not “covered over” with Grace, but thoroughly changed and remade. We have to constantly choose to cooperate with Grace in that happening. It’s not over until it’s over. We do have an assurance of salvation, but it isn’t a one-time ticket. It’s a lifetime relationship.

Very well stated.

Ran Pleasant

 

[Convert2013]

I wasn’t trying to put you on the defensive or stop you from talking about it, but to state very clearly for those who do not hold to church teaching that this is a non-negotiable.

Proponents of OSAS maintain that once you have a conversion experience to Christ you gain a ticket to heaven (to put it crassly.) According to them, there is nothing you can do to lose this ticket, just as there was nothing you could have done to earn this ticket. Your salvation therefore is not contingent on any earthly behavior, either positive or negative. This means that you can sin at will, however no Calvinist worth his salt would ever encourage sinful behavior.

Not defensive at all, was just confused by the post. Thanks for clarifying that! So my understanding was pretty much spot on, although give a nice elaboration and you worded it much better.

I don’t agree with this OSAS doctrine or whatever you call it. I have found the Catholic faith to be true and biblical. It just seems like it exists to give those who don’t want to be held accountable for their sins, a way to look passed it as though nothing happened. That kind of thinking can IMO get you into trouble! I believe it is this that has always bothered me about the Protestant churches and my own family. The Catholics that I knew growing up and even now live their lives in a different manner. It is that example that continually worked on me to ask myself “what is it about their faith?” and drew me further into the Church. Now that I have been thru RCIA and fully received into the Church and living my life as a faithful Catholic, my life is so much better, happier and fuller. I certainly do not mean to offend any Protestants whatsoever.

 

[Alizarin]

So essentially, you’re saying that one can be saved by one act and damned only by persevering in sin until the end, while I’m saying that one can be damned by one act and saved only by persevering in grace until the end.

Which of those two positions conforms more closely to the Scriptures?

Throughout all of scripture Israel sins grievously. But not once does God forsake Israel. Disciplines them, to be sure, but never forsakes them.

And the apostles kept messing up, too, but only one is thought to be in hell, because, to put it in Lewis’ words from The Great Divorce:
*
“If there is a real [person]—even the least trace of one—still there inside… it can be brought to life again.
If there’s one wee spark under all those ashes, we’ll blow it till the whole pile is red and clear.
But if there’s nothing but ashes we’ll not go on blowing them in our own eyes forever. They must be swept up.”*

Comparing it to how God dealt with Israel throughout scripture, it appears pretty scriptural to me

 

[manualman]

I don’t agree with this OSAS doctrine or whatever you call it. … It just seems like it exists to give those who don’t want to be held accountable for their sins, a way to look passed it as though nothing happened.

To be fair, I don’t think that’s the motivation of OSAS people. In fact, I wonder if OSAS particularly appeals to people who might otherwise struggle with issues of scrupulosity. This might explain why it seems to have a strong appeal among catholic populations, but has little appeal to hedonists (After all, the OSAS sort of belief doesn’t really tend to produce much evangelistic fruit among NON-Christians, but seems to get most of their converts from other nominally Christian groups, catholics included.)

The devil is a clever fellow, after all. If he fails to tempt you to mortal sin, he falls back into tempting you towards scrupulosity. If one begins to recognize the absurdity of scrupulosity, he offers this false doctrine as a salve to the malformed conscience. Humans have this peculiar tendency to careen from an error/sin/abuse on one side of the spectrum on over to one on the opposite side of the spectrum. Smells like evil influences to me. There’s probably a Screwtape Letter on the subject!

 

[manualman]

Comparing it to how God dealt with Israel throughout scripture, it appears pretty scriptural to me

Israel is a nation, not a person (don’t get nitpicky here!). Are you asserting that every Israelite in OT history went to heaven? Is it not possible that God’s establishment of the covenant with Israel has more to do with the story where Abraham (?) bargained with God not to destroy a sinful city if he could find just a HANDFUL of upright men in it? God’s mercy towards Israel demonstrates the way in which He is patient, merciful, loving and just. It doesn’t remotely look to me like a pointer towards OSAS.

 

[Gorgias]

TO MANUALMAN: YOUR POST SUGGESTS THAT THE FREE GIFT [GRACE] REQUIRES SOMETHING FROM MAN, HOW IS IT FREE IF SOMETHING IS REQUIRED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE?

I could give you the gift of a puppy. It’s a completely free gift; no strings attached. However, that doesn’t mean that your receipt of it – as a gift – implies that there isn’t a proper or improper way to utilize the gift! Of course, if you misuse a gift that has been given to you, then you might just lose the gift, through your negligence or improper actions!

i SEE A FREE GIFT AS HAVING NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

“no strings attached” is not the same thing as “no obligations for proper use and maintenance of the gift”…!

 

[Alizarin]

He is patient, merciful, loving and just. It doesn’t remotely look to me like a pointer towards OSAS.

It could be argued that because He is all those things you mentioned – patient, merciful, loving and just – He will do everything in His power, which is perfect, to save us.

 

[Alizarin]

It’s a completely free gift; no strings attached. However, that doesn’t mean that your receipt of it – as a gift – implies that there isn’t a proper or improper way to utilize the gift! Of course, if you misuse a gift that has been given to you, then you might just lose the gift, through your negligence or improper actions!

Here’s the problem I’ve always come up against with that analogy:

God gives me a gift, hands it to me nicely wrapped. I say thank you, and then when I don’t use it the way He wants me to, He rips it from my hands and chucks it out the window.

Until I apologize for the misuse… at which time He goes outside, picks up the gift off the front lawn, comes back in and hands it to me again. Being part of a fallen race, a sinner, a weak person indeed, we go through this gift-chucking dance thousands of times until the day I die.

Best I can do is hope that I die on a day when the gift is still in my hands.

 

[manualman]

It could be argued that because He is all those things you mentioned – patient, merciful, loving and just – He will do everything in His power, which is perfect, to save us.

Why just “us” then? (presuming you are speaking of those who at some point in life made a sincere prayer of faith and repentance). Why not just save everybody via His perfect power?

What kind of heaven will heaven be if you and I and Jim Jones are allowed in without being truly and totally transformed by Grace first?

I appreciate that you really do repudiate the idea of “cheap Grace,” but I’ve never heard an explanation from your side on how OSAS can be true without leading to that.

 

[Alizarin]

What kind of heaven will heaven be if you and I and Jim Jones are allowed in without being truly and totally transformed by Grace first?

I agree that to be in heaven, we have to be transformed first; common sense, really, and I’m glad we agree on that

 

[Zachary]

Why just “us” then? (presuming you are speaking of those who at some point in life made a sincere prayer of faith and repentance). Why not just save everybody via His perfect power?

What kind of heaven will heaven be if you and I and Jim Jones are allowed in without being truly and totally transformed by Grace first?

I appreciate that you really do repudiate the idea of “cheap Grace,” but I’ve never heard an explanation from your side on how OSAS can be true without leading to that.

Go and sin no more.

Can’t more clear. He didn’t say “Go and sin no more unless, of course, you’re already saved, then do as you please ”

Anything else is a twist and a lie. Calvin was wrong, Luther was wrong, Smith wrong. Peter, he was right.

 

[manualman]

I agree that to be in heaven, we have to be transformed first; common sense, really, and I’m glad we agree on that

Well, I’m calling it a weekend then!

 

[Zachary]

I agree that to be in heaven, we have to be transformed first; common sense, really, and I’m glad we agree on that

If your actions on earth after you’re saved don’t matter, well, maybe Hitler was saved.

OSAS seems more a twisted support of Purgatory that guaranteed salvation before death and without the sacraments.

 

[Alizarin]

If your actions on earth after you’re saved don’t matter, well, maybe Hitler was saved.

Let’s stick to Catholic theology for a second (since he was raised Catholic) and say that for all we know he could’ve repented before he died, with an act of perfect contrition, and therefore be in heaven. Of course, with him you have the suicide issue to contend with, but the CCC does say to trust in God’s mercy on that front.

 

[manualman]

Let’s stick to Catholic theology for a second (since he was raised Catholic) and say that for all we know he could’ve repented before he died, with an act of perfect contrition, and therefore be in heaven. Of course, with him you have the suicide issue to contend with, but the CCC does say to trust in God’s mercy on that front.

Theoretically, that IS possible! But not before Hitler would have been through an incredible transition in purgatory. It’s important to note that the church has never in history declared any particular person to be in hell. Not in her jurisdiction. Personally though, I rather doubt a hatred as thorough as Hitler’s could be set aside at the moment before death. Fortunately, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant!

Oops, I said I was leaving, didn’t I?..