J
JeannetteCML
Guest
Let us not call each other sinful on account of a different interpretation of Scripture.
Pax said:1. The constant teaching of the Church from apostolic times until the Reformation. The Catholic Church has never deviated from the pre-Reformation teachings.
Pax said:2. OSAS as taught today differs from the doctrines taught by Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. That makes it even further removed from the original teachings.
Pax said:3. The number of scriptural verses used by OSAS believers to support the doctrine are relatively few in number, and in most instances it is not difficult to show that most of them do not support the teaching. There are a few passages that are not so easily refuted. (This is my opinion and I know you won’t agree)
- If we were to list all of the passages that can “reasonably” be used to make an argument for OSAS they would be very few in number.
- There are an overwhelming number of passages that emphatically deny the notion of once saved always saved. I have personally researched in excess of sixty passages that deny the teaching.
- If we took a verse count alone the case would be closed. OSAS would lose in a blow out.
Pax said:This doctrine, if it were true, would be of such incredible significance that it would have been stated in scripture in exactly the way it is taught. Scripture would actually say the following in no uncertain terms:
OSAS is an absolute. Absolutes never have exceptions and qualifiers associated with them. Scripture uses a generous amount of provisional terminology associated with salvation; scripture says that people can “believe” and then “fall away”; scripture gives warning after warning to “believers” and these warnings pertain to salvation; and scripture tells us what sins will bring condemnation even to “believers.” All of this denies OSAS.*That’s a very weak argument, Pax, and a very inconsistent argument as well. Consistently apply the same Scriptural standards that you demand of ES, in your thesis above, to the Marian dogmas, and there would be no immaculate conception, no perpetual virginity, no sinlessness, no bodily assumption, etc.
- Men are saved by faith “alone.” The word “alone” would be in the Greek. Instead scripture says, that we are not saved by faith alone.
- Scripture would then say in close proximity that "once a person is saved by faith alone, they are always saved and can never lose their salvation. Scripture would also say explicity that there is nothing a person can do that would cause them to lose their salvation. *
- There would never be any verses of scripture that include provisional terminology concerning salvation. There would be no verses that even remotely suggest that salvation can be lost. There are, however, an overwhelming number of verses that do more than suggest that salvation can be lost. Many state that truth quite explicitly. Moreover, for me to accept OSAS, the sixty passages that I have researched that refute OSAS simply could not be part of the bible.
Eternal Security has a substantial amount of Scriptural support; certainly more than
the Marian doctrines.
Romans 8:39 says that nothing can seperate us from the love of God, but then in your comment you left out the word love and made it say that nothing will seperate us from God. that is a very big difference when you are talking about OSAS. Because if we can’t be seperated from the love of God, that would mean that God would still love us if we lost our salvation due to sin, and he would hope that we would repent and come back to him, just like in the parable of the prodigal son.Romans 8:39
nor height, nor depth, ** nor any other created thing,** will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.In the verses preceding v39, Paul lists some created things that are powerless to separate the elect from God, and to make certain, that his readers are left with no doubt as to the powerlessness of created things to separate the elect from God, Paul rounds up the whole of creation in this negative statement: nor any other created thing will be able to…
Are you a created thing, guanophore?
It never ceases to amaze me, how sinful men kick against the word of God, in order to hang onto an autonomy that they do not possess.![]()
I don’t think that’s a good comparison. There are Scriptural passages AGAINST “eternal security,” but there is nothing in Scripture against the Marian doctrines. Although you quoted him, you’ve simply ignored a lot of what Pax said about ES being Scriptural.Consistently apply the same Scriptural standards that you demand of ES, in your thesis above, to the Marian dogmas, and there would be no immaculate conception, no perpetual virginity, no sinlessness, no bodily assumption, etc.
Eternal Security has a substantial amount of Scriptural support; certainly more than
the Marian doctrines.
Perhaps not, but by the grace of God, she has the power to remain faithful to him, for her part.You don’t have the power to keep others from coming between you, and your husband;
No one is doubting the Power of God. Of course He is able! It is God who gave free will to men so that men could choose.God has the power to keep anyone, or anything, including the believer from coming between the love He has for the believer, and the believer himself, including keeping the believer from leaving; thus the question in v31, literally "…God for us; who against us?"
God has created men in his likeness and image. As such, men have free will. Men have the choice to either cooperate with God’s plan, or reject it.Paul’s point? Who, or what is more powerful than God? Are you?
I agree.Code:None of the things that Paul listed, which is essentially, anything, and everything has more power than God; why else would Paul be so comprehensive in his list? It’s a Hebraism, like, “how often do I forgive, 7 times?”
Paul speaks of externals, not of internals. God does not take away the free will of man.Nothing, no one, not even the believer—no limit to the things that cannot separate the believer from the love of God for the believer, in Christ.![]()
I think the OSAS would just say tht he was never saved to begin with. Anyway, didn’t you know that Jesus does not really have much relevant to say about salvation? He had not been crucified, so salvation was not yet understood by anyone until Paul wrote the book of Romans.The word abide in John’s letters means “to remain.” Keep this in mind when reading the following:
1 John 2: 24-25
Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you.* If *what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.
2 John 9-11
Any one who goes ahead and **does not abide **in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; **he who abides **in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.
Now read what James has to say about a believer that is living in sin:
James 5: 19-20
My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way** will save his soul from death** and will cover a multitude of sins.
Please don’t tell me that this sinner’s wandering from the truth didn’t separate him from God. If this sinner did not come back from the error of his ways, his soul would not have been saved from death.
I could go on and on with scripture that denies the doctrine of OSAS. If you want all the passages that deny the doctrine, I’ll be glad to send them to you via email.
I can agree that they won’t have them by the time they get to the pearly gates. however, Saved people do sin,and if they don’t correct it, it will result in eternal death.Correct, Pax; the elect do not have “soiled garments.”
I don’t believe that I said anything about either soiled garments, or repentance in my reply to your post; and neither did you say anything about either soiled garments, or repentance in your post to which I replied; right?
Are you knocking sense into yourself?:banghead:
Eternal Security is based upon the scriptures, written by the apostles—the earliest church. I disagree.
OSAS is, but eternal security is not; neither Linkowski, nor I believe in OSAS; namely, say a prayer, you’re in, go sin and live it up; Catholics seem to be unable to get away from that Catholic-imposed definition. Go back through the thread, and note all of the times that Linkowski and I said you must persevere, you don’t have license to sin etc., then look at the arguments from Catholics who argue against what we did not say, all the while ignoring what we did say. If your position is not OSAS/Eternal Security, then we are making progress. If your position is identicle to Calvin’s original teachings, then I will reduce my level of criticism. While I do not completely agree with Calvinism, I certainly see more merit there that in OSAS. Another thread on the merits and weaknesses of TULIP might be in order. I have pointed out earlier in this thread that there is a significant difference between Calvinism and OSAS. You and Link have not given me sufficient reason, until perhaps now, to appreciate the fact that you actually align yourselves with original Calvinism as opposed to OSAS. I apologize if I have misunderstood you on this score, but that never came across to me in your posts.
It’s quality, Pax, not quantity, ES is based upon the totality of scripture, and you’ll never defeat it, in fact, your Church teaches it as well, de fide, with some variation in the description, nevertheless, the outcome is identical, and so it is with great wonder that I have watched Catholics on this thread try to defeat it.![]()
Actually, its both quality and quantity. You may believe the quality rests with your position but I strongly disagree especially when the terms OSAS and Eternal Security are used. If you wish to discuss Calvinism that is fine, but for sake of accuracy you should abandon the previously mentioned terms.
That’s a very weak argument, Pax, and a very inconsistent argument as well. Consistently apply the same Scriptural standards that you demand of ES, in your thesis above, to the Marian dogmas, and there would be no immaculate conception, no perpetual virginity, no sinlessness, no bodily assumption, etc.
Eternal Security has a substantial amount of Scriptural support; certainly more than the Marian doctrines. My argument was not weak and this is not a rebuttal. There is nothing in scripture that precludes the Marian doctrines whereas OSAS/Eternal Security are definitely refutable by purposeful and pointed quotes from scripture that were written to keep people from falling into any misunderstanding on the subject. Marian doctrines do not address the issue of salvation. The scripture verses that we have exchanged on this thread most certainly do. We should remain focused on those passages and avoid introducing something that is not related to the debate.
Ouch…you got me!I think the OSAS would just say tht he was never saved to begin with. Anyway, didn’t you know that Jesus does not really have much relevant to say about salvation? He had not been crucified, so salvation was not yet understood by anyone until Paul wrote the book of Romans.![]()
I did not say that there is no mention of crowns in judgment. What I am saying is that the there is only one final judgement in which the righteous and the wicked will appear before the throne of judgement and what is being determined is not who will get a crown and who will not. Judgement primarily deals with the eternal destiny of those being judged. The crown is part of the inheritance. We have not taken possession of this inheritance, both the crown and the eternal kingdom.So, there’s no mention of crowns in the day of judgment…
So when I “receive the kingdom,”—IOW, when I first believed—I got my crown? But, I don’t have a crown right now.
Do you?
Let’s see another verse in which that phrase is used:It also says in the next verse that he must have a good reputation outside the church so that, “he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil"—do you really think that those things mean eternal damnation?
Consequently, the elect - those predestined to glory - will not be lost. Their number is immutably fixed. So why does the Catholic Church teach that a person can lose their salvation? Because we believe that God also genuinely gives the grace of justification to many of the non-elect, but these will fail to persevere in that grace.We shall return to this point. But in any case, from this minimum admitted by all we get three propositions to which all Catholic theologians subscribe. They are: (1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits. These three propositions are admitted by all Catholic theologians. But Thomists and Augustinians on the one hand, and Molinists and congruists on the other, differ in their interpretation of them.
Eternal destiny has already been determined, Mike, and you know that:Judgement primarily deals with the eternal destiny of those being judged.
mikeledes from post #103 said:I believe that in the case of the elect, this “fall from grace” will be temporary. In the case of the “justified” reprobate, there will ultimately be a permanent “fall from grace.”
Maybe you haven’t taken possession of the inheritance, but the elect have. Again, there is an already/not yet tension, and all of the elect possess all of the promised inheritance right now, as well as eschatologically; the promises of God are eternal.John 3:3We have not taken possession of this inheritance, both the crown and the eternal kingdom.
You cited several verses with respect to this: 1 Pet 1:4; Heb 9:15.I believe that in the case of the elect, this “fall from grace” will be temporary.
mikeledes FROM POST # 103 said:I believe that in the case of the elect, this “fall from grace” will be temporary. In the case of the “justified” reprobate, there will ultimately be a permanent "fall from grace."
Php 1:6: For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
**Isn’t justification a good work? And what does Paul say about a good work God begins in a reprobate?
Unless of course, you believe that this pertains only to the Philippians?**
The predestination to ‘justification,” has no assurance of perseverance; those elected in that way, may lose their salvation, on the basis of their own “free-will” choice. IOW, no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father, but they can leave on their own.
But, that kind of predestination means that God was deceitful in His statement to the Philippians; therefore, all of His promises are rendered suspect.
1 Peter 1:4Eternal destiny has already been determined, Mike, and you know that:Be consistent, Mike.
The elect’s destiny is fixed; correct? It is only these “justified reprobate,” so-called, whose eternal destiny is in question; correct?
You have yet to prove that there is a “justified reprobate.”
Maybe you haven’t taken possession of the inheritance, but the elect have. Again, there is an already/not yet tension, and all of the elect possess all of the promised inheritance right now, as well as eschatologically; the promises of God are eternal.John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, **unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**When one believes, he sees, and he enters the kingdom of God, and has all of the promises associated with that kingdom already.Romans 8:15
15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.And the elect will indeed “suffer with Him so that they may be glorified,” as you stated:
You cited several verses with respect to this: 1 Pet 1:4; Heb 9:15.
The “reservation” in 1 Pet 1:4, and the “calling” of Heb 9:15 are perfect, passive, participles, in the Greek, you can’t get more secure than that; it is the same construction used in Lk 1:28 with reference to Mary, kekechartiomenē, which is used, I believe, to maintain the “eternal sinlessness” of Mary; it is the same construction used in Eph 2:8, referring to the elect.
Be consistent, Mike; if the “perfect passive” delineates an eternal truth about Mary, then it delineates an eternal truth about the elect as well.
As far as all of the other verses you cite with respect to a loss of salvation, you’ve already answered that question by yourself, for yourself.
Against your idea of a “justified reprobate,” I said this:
If genuine Christians can desert Christ for a false gospel, be severed from Christ, and fall from grace, why can’t those in Hebrews 6:1-6 be people who were genuinely Christian and saved?Let’s take a look at several verses from Galatians:
Galatians 1:6
6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
Galatians 3:3
3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Galatians 4:8
**8However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back **again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Galatians 5:1-4
1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
The Galatians had wandered from the truth by deserting the One who called them. Let me add a related verse:
James 5:19-20
**19My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth **and one turns him back,
20let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Straying from the truth endangers a persons soul. Therefore, the situation of the Galatians is a serious matter that has eternal consequences. Now the “separated from the love of God” verse has been used a lot by our Protestant brothers in this thread. However, Galatians 5:4 states that the Galatians in question were “severed from Christ” and have “fallen from grace.” This is similar to another verse:
Romans 11:20-22
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
To continue in God’s kindness is to continue in His grace. If we have fallen from grace, we have been cut off, severed from Christ. If one has fallen from grace, there can be no salvation for one cannot be saved without grace. That is why John 15:6 states:
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
Notice the order of events. The branch is thrown away (i.e. cut off), “dries up” (i.e. dies) and is cast into the fire. The branch dries up because it has been caught off from its source of life (i.e. the Vine). A person cut off/ severed from Christ the Vine is also cut off from the source of life and his/her end is the eternal fire. That is why John urges the Christian community to abide in Christ:
1 John 2:28
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.
They shrink away in shame because they know they will experience everlasting shame.
Therefore, the situation of the Galatians is very serious and has grave eternal consequences. According to the OSAS doctrine as understood by Protestants, such a situation is impossible. A true Christian can never really fall from grace, be severed from
Christ, or desert him. Such a person was never saved to begin with. Looking at the general profile of the Galatians based on the first couple of verses I gave, they were genuinely saved.
God Bless,
Michael