Refuting "Once Saved, Always Saved"...

[guanophore]

I need to know scriptural references and Catholic teachings that refute the whole “Once Saved, Always Saved” (OSAS) theology. I have had people tell me we can be 100% sure of our salvation… but I believe that’s taking God’s ability to judge into our own hands… is that right or wrong? I know that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling but as for OSAS I don’t know how to refute it.

• Brian

I think the best place to start is to be very familiar with the Apostolic Teaching. Be well steeped in your Bible, and the Catechism. Once you are grounded in the True Faith, it is easier to spot counterfeits.

Read the library articles here at CAF, then “search” the forums and study the arguments of the OSAS folks. The most skilled in this are apophasis, and there are some great threads, sandusky, and moondweller. In these posts you will see proferred the core of Calvanism, and how those of us who are the sparring partners have responded.

Ps 18:34-43
34 **He trains my hands for war,**so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
35 Thou hast given me the shield of thy salvation,
and thy right hand supported me,
and thy help made me great.
36 Thou didst give a wide place for my steps under me,
and my feet did not slip.
37 I pursued my enemies and overtook them;
and did not turn back till they were consumed.
38 I thrust them through, so that they were not able to rise;
they fell under my feet.
39 For thou didst gird me with strength for the battle;
thou didst make my assailants sink under me.
40 Thou didst make my enemies turn their backs to me,
and those who hated me I destroyed.
41 They cried for help, but there was none to save,
they cried to the LORD, but he did not answer them.
42 I beat them fine as dust before the wind;
I cast them out like the mire of the streets.

 

[justasking4]

If you think that wrong deeds are not sin, I don’t know what help we can give you.

You have admitted yourself that you still struggle with sin, so obviously Christ did not "take that out of " your way! Neither has he done so for anyone still on earth.

Catholics that i know also struggle with sin and thats why they go to confession…

 

[justasking4]

So its Purgatory?

No.

 

[po18guy]

Catholics that i know also struggle with sin and thats why they go to confession…

Of course! And, so should you. The bible teaches to confess to men. Christ gave men power over sin. Christ is our intercessor and the priest (presbyter) sits in His place. Simple. Perfect. Established by Christ for our sake.

Abandoned by Protestants.

You’ve been cheated.

 

[justasking4]

Of course! And, so should you. The bible teaches to confess to men. Christ gave men power over sin. Christ is our intercessor and the priest (presbyter) sits in His place. Simple. Perfect. Established by Christ for our sake.

Abandoned by Protestants.

You’ve been cheated.

Actually protestants have the advantage of the promise of I John 1:9. We have direct access to the Father through Christ for forgiveness and everything else we need. No need to go through men to be forgiven. The apostles never taught such a thing…

 

[De_Maria]

No.

Well, you might not want to call it that. But it is such a close approximation that it must be considered the Protestant version of Purgatory.

                 Originally Posted by **justasking4**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4189332#post4189332)                 
             *

OSAS would not rule out a judgment of works that 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

That is Catholic Teaching.

This judgment is not about sin since Christ has taken that out of the way but about how we lived our lives in Christ.

Not about sin? But this is what Scripture says:
Romans 2 2 For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against them that do such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? 5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.

What would cause God to be angry if not sin?

Its not a judgment of condemnation.

Oh and Purgatory is not a judgement of eternal condemnation. Everyone in Purgatory will eventually wind up in heaven.

Sincerely,

De Maria *

 

[po18guy]

Actually protestants have the advantage of the promise of I John 1:9. We have direct access to the Father through Christ for forgiveness and everything else we need. No need to go through men to be forgiven. The apostles never taught such a thing…

You, lacking all of the Apostles’ tradition cannot possibly know this. Your incomplete bible, which you twist to your own destruction, does not mention it. That is not proof of a negative. There is not three years’ worth of daily teaching recorded in scripture. What do you do to find the rest? Nothing. You’ve been cheated.

If you have ever asked for prayer from another Christian, you make a mockery of your own beliefs. You cannot ask others to intercede, since Christ is your only intercessor.

Riddle me this, Batman: When have you heard Christ pronounce the moment of Grace in forgiving you? Never. Every time He forgave sins, He specifically told the sinner “you’re sins are forgiven”. But, you have never heard this. Catholics hear it at each and every Reconciliation. That is how Christ taught and practiced. Why don’t you follow the teaching of Christ?

 

[Kaily]

I’m talking to a Calvinist and he says that if we believe Christ died for everyone then what He did could have to been to pay the penalty for sin but only to suffer for it, otherwise no one would go to hell.

What’s your response to that?

 

[Kaily]

I meant he said Jesus could not have been not could of been.

Also now this person is saying that I’m not reading in context and that when it says Christ died for all is saying that he didn’t die for every person but for all those who God gave to Him. And in saying He died for all is to say that God is cruel because He punished Christ for all sins but then punishes those same men again who do not choose Christ.

 

[Robbinson]

I meant he said Jesus could not have been not could of been.

Also now this person is saying that I’m not reading in context and that when it says Christ died for all is saying that he didn’t die for every person but for all those who God gave to Him. And in saying He died for all is to say that God is cruel because He punished Christ for all sins but then punishes those same men again who do not choose Christ.

The scriptures tell us that “God desires that all be saved”. The prevailing story throughout both the Old Testatement and New Testament is one of “choice” (choose God and live). The calvinist doctrine is not one of choice (our choosing God or not) but one of election. Those not chosen by God from the beginning of time are damned and totatly depraved and not capable of choosing God. This makes Jesus’s preaching a mockery (why would God preach the good news if he knew we can’t respond?). It is not the gospel.

Christ died for all - but that sacrifice will only help those who accept the sacrifice through faith. Just as in the Old Testatement God told us that sacrifice without repentence was not acceptable to him.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Randy_Carson]

I meant he said Jesus could not have been not could of been.

Also now this person is saying that I’m not reading in context and that when it says Christ died for all is saying that he didn’t die for every person but for all those who God gave to Him. And in saying He died for all is to say that God is cruel because He punished Christ for all sins but then punishes those same men again who do not choose Christ.

Let me see if I understand this correctly…

“For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Your friend will use this verse to argue that Mary was a sinner. All means all.

“Christ…died for all” (2 Cor 5:14) means that He died only for those that God had given to Him. All does not mean all.

Your friend is trying to have it both ways…

 

[Pwrlftr]

Let me see if I understand this correctly…

“For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Your friend will use this verse to argue that Mary was a sinner. All means all.

“Christ…died for all” (2 Cor 5:14) means that He died only for those that God had given to Him. All does not mean all.

Your friend is trying to have it both ways…

Randy,

Remember I’m converting so I am not trying to defend OSAS but…your example cuts both ways doesn’t it?

 

[DavidPalm]

On the original question, while I was studying at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (an evangelical Protestant seminary) I had a professor who was convinced to disbelieve OSAS from Colossians 1:22-23

…He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach–if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

This man was an absolutely brilliant Greek scholar, but his observation wasn’t based on any great subtleties of language. Rather he said, “I just couldn’t get around that little word, if.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Remember I’m converting so I am not trying to defend OSAS but…your example cuts both ways doesn’t it?

Sorry. I thought I was responding to Kaily about someone (s)he was referencing. Was that you?

As for the example cutting both ways, I don’t think so. Catholics would understand the literal (not literalist) meaning of “all have sinned” to be that Paul meant “most” and not that every single human being ever on the face of the planet.

“Christ died for all”? Absolutely.

The key is to understand what the author is trying to say. To explain the difference between literal and literalist, let me use this example:

“It’s raining cats and dogs outside.”

Literal meaning: it is raining very heavily
Literalist meaning: there are felines and canines falling from the sky

Hope this helps.

 

[sodak]

Let me see if I understand this correctly…

“For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Your friend will use this verse to argue that Mary was a sinner. All means all.

Since all means all, then that also means Christ also sinned and fell short of the Glory of God. Which is utter nonsense and heresy.

 

[po18guy]

Since all means all, then that also means Christ also sinned and fell short of the Glory of God. Which is utter nonsense and heresy.

Great point, since Christ was fully human and fully God. Do you suppose that Paul was addressing the early Christians in Rome as to their own behavior? The bible lover in me notes that each of Paul’s letters was addressed to a specific audience or individual, and addressed specific problems unique to those early branches of the One Church.

Christ’s peace.

 

[guanophore]

I’m talking to a Calvinist and he says that if we believe Christ died for everyone then what He did could have to been to pay the penalty for sin but only to suffer for it, otherwise no one would go to hell.

What’s your response to that?

This does not make any sense.

I meant he said Jesus could not have been not could of been.

And, why not? Jesus paid the price for all. It is like we are all imprisoned in our sins. He paid our bond, to get us out. However, when the time came for us to be released, some chose not to enter His custody, and therefore, could not be freed.

Also now this person is saying that I’m not reading in context

This is a common tactic. Let me assure you that the “context” of the New Testament is the Catholic Church. All the authors are Catholic, and it was written by, for, and about Catholics. It completely represents Catholic teaching. Therefore, any attempt to understand it outside of the Catholic Church will be prone to error.

and that when it says Christ died for all is saying that he didn’t die for every person but for all those who God gave to Him.

This is a form of predestination, part of the Calvanist error. God gives to Christ all who come to Him. God calls all, and draws all. Only those who respond to His grace, and choose Him are given to Christ.

And in saying He died for all is to say that God is cruel because He punished Christ for all sins but then punishes those same men again who do not choose Christ.

God knew before He sent His Son that not all would choose Him. Yet, He loved those who were His own before the foundation of the world. He loved us so much that He sent His own Son to die for us, that we could be reconciled to Him. It is the greatest sacrifice that one can make, giving oneself when one knows that the gift will be rejected by some. His suffering was sufficient to forgive the sins of the world.

 

[guanophore]

the example cutting both ways, I don’t think so. Catholics would understand the literal (not literalist) meaning of “all have sinned” to be that Paul meant “most” and not that every single human being ever on the face of the planet.

“Christ died for all”? Absolutely.

The key is to understand what the author is trying to say. To explain the difference between literal and literalist, let me use this example:

“It’s raining cats and dogs outside.”

Literal meaning: it is raining very heavily
Literalist meaning: there are felines and canines falling from the sky

Hope this helps.

Yes, it does. However, the origin of this phrase is that roofs used to be made of thatch and mud. When the deluge of rain came, the mud would actually dissolve and start to melt into the house. The cats and dogs, who always slept on the roof, would actually fall through the thatch into the house.