Scriptural evidence for Once-saved-always-saved?

[Edmund_Yeo]

The Catholics in Malaysia are facing a new dilemma. The Home Ministry is putting a stop to all non-Muslims with regard to the use of the word “Allah” especially in print. The Muslim are arguing that “Allah” is a specific name for their god. My questions:

1. Is Allah the same God the Father in our Christian sense?
2. Can we use the word Allah in Mass?

 

[PEPCIS]

Troof.

Protestants (at least, Reformed Protestants) don’t deny that we are obliged to keep the law of God after salvation. We deny that it is as a means of justification.

Very True!

 

[QuickCat]

Dear Ones: We in the Body of Christ are NOT under the Law. Paul wrote the book of Galatians to correct those who wanted to put us back under the Law. Many of you quote the four gospels [which were written about our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel]. During our Lord’s earthly ministry [to Israel] the Law WAS in force. We now live in the dispensation of the Grace of God. Note what Paul says about the Law during this dispensation: “I do not make void the Grace of God; FOR IF RIGHTEOUSNESS COMES BY THE LAW, then Christ is dead in vain.” Gal. 2:21. “…no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God…The just shall live by faith.” Gal. 3:11. “Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED by the works of the Law, but by the FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST…FOR BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED.” Gal. 2:16.

 

[Confessor01]

Dear Ones: We in the Body of Christ are NOT under the Law. Paul wrote the book of Galatians to correct those who wanted to put us back under the Law. Many of you quote the four gospels [which were written about our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel]. During our Lord’s earthly ministry [to Israel] the Law WAS in force. We now live in the dispensation of the Grace of God. Note what Paul says about the Law during this dispensation: “I do not make void the Grace of God; FOR IF RIGHTEOUSNESS COMES BY THE LAW, then Christ is dead in vain.” Gal. 2:21. “…no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God…The just shall live by faith.” Gal. 3:11. “Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED by the works of the Law, but by the FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST…FOR BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED.” Gal. 2:16.

We are not under the law in the sense that, having been regenerated by the grace of God, we have left the covenant of works and entered the covenant of grace. In this case, the law still is in effect, but it is abrogated only in the sense that it is not used for justification purposes (which your verses excellently demonstrate). It is used rather as a standard of righteousness, which all who love God will want to follow.

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. - Romans 3:31

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. - Romans 7:12

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. - 1 Timothy 1:8

And, of course, all of Psalm 119.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, graceandglory,

Thank you for the links! Much appreciated.

Once Saved, Always Saved
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp

**
Aren’t We Saved by Faith Alone? **
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

I think Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical “Spe salvi” (In HOPE are we saved) is about the best refutation of Once Saved, Always Saved, and it’s short, and (I think) accessible by protestants.
Spe Salvi
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B16spesalvi.HTM

God bless,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jarmum,

I enjoyed reading your post…

Many of the early Christians were Jews, and according to the footnotes in both my RSV and NJB James is writing to the Jewish Christians outside Palestine, so he is writing to the Body of Christ.
The danger is using verses as ‘proof text’ ignoring the whole bible. Once righteous through faith, then we can use grace (the gift of the Holy Spirit) for good works. But we still have free will and so can refuse the gift of grace - Romans 6 helps explain here - otherwise why does he implore in Rom 6:12 not to sin.

My understanding is that Protestants (and anyone else who signs onto OSAS) run into a problem with Free Will and how it works (or, as they explain it, it is not needed) to be saved. There is no CO-OPERATION with God’s grace - somehow, that takes the “Free” out of salvation being a “free gift”. As i interpret what they say, God essentially takes over (hijacks) the person with no need for thought, willingness or continuation. I have no idea what happens the day after they make their ‘Altar Call’. Obviously they do not need to WORK for their salvation by co-operating with the Grace of God in doing good and avoiding evil …

God bless

 

[Philthy]

The fact is, there is a Scriptural basis for OSAS. Others have already shown that.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PEPCIS,

Thank you for writing. I would appreciate your clarification on a couple of items:

Well, I can understand why it is that you believe that OSAS cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, because you also believe that OSAS means that you don’t have to follow God’s commandments. But that is false.

OK. Why is it false? If one is saved (and, always saved for that matter) what need is there for keeping the Commandments or any other requirement given to us by Christ? I mean if you are REALLY saved - then everything else is just academic. You have already won the prize - all that awaits is for you to collect it. Isn’t that so?

Actually, Catholics already do buy into this, because Catholics claim that Christians must follow the commandments of God. The difference is that Protestants understand that false professors will TRY to follow God’s commandments, but in the end they will not fool Jesus, because He will tell them to “begone, you workers of iniquity.”

So, a 'false professor, is someone who teaches others to follow the Commandments, but does not believe in OSAS? What about all of those parables that Christ gave us where the subjects of the story actually did something? There is not one parable where OSAS is the theme. Isn’t that intresting…?

The difference is that Catholics maintain that you can lose your salvation, and Protestants maintain that if you walk away from the faith that the Bible tells us that it just goes to prove that “they went out [from us], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19)

I have honestly marveled that none of the NT Saints ever expressed such absolute assurance. Here are just two examples:

1.) Matt 10:22 ("…persevere until the end to be saved…") It’s not over until it is over.

2.) 1Cor 9:27 ("…after preaching to others, I myself become a castaway…") While Christ freely merited our Salvation - we can not take it for granted, lest we lose it.

Exactly. That is why Protestants and Catholics are really not that far apart in their understanding. The difference is that Catholics emphasize that you can lose your salvation, which is a statement that Protestants consider heresy.

I think you have the 'heresy shoe" on the wrong foot! Now, as Catholics, the only individual we know for sure is in Hell is Satan. We may add “Screwtape” and “Wormwood” to our list - but, these are creations of CSLewis…and not Catholic doctrine Now, do Protestants teach that individuals have LOST their salvation (e.g. the guy that I think about is Judas). Seriously, how do you substantiate a case for no one losing their salvation? While God knows from all eternity who will be saved (and who won’t) that does not mean we have access to this information. What is the basis you use to prove your position?

God bless,

 

[Philthy]

Hi Pepcis! :tiphat:
"Philthy:

So you believe that we will be unable to sin against the Commandments of God?

Absolutely not. What I am trying to drive at is that our ORIENTATION is changed. Paul tells us that we are a new creation in Christ. If we are a different creature, then that means that we have a new character and identity. We are not like all the other people of the world.

While this is true, it is irrelevant as far as I can tell. Unless you are claiming that our sins are no longer sins against our Father, then what is the point of introducing the reality that our “orientation” has changed? Does the new orientation alter the obligations that the life in Christ requires to remain united to Him?? Yes or No, please

If the rest of the world is chasing after their own personal pleasures and desires, then that means that Christians must be different - not because we want to prove that we are different, but because we are.

Please define the word “must” according to your intended use above. Is there an eternal consequence to NOT “being different”? Yes or No please. If yes, what is the eternal consequence? If no, why “must” we be different.

You are putting the cart before the horse if you try to say that we work because we must. It is more correct to state that we work because it is part of our new spiritual nature.

I dont disagree! But what I think is more to the point of the thread is, when we DONT work, arent bearing fruit, etc. Does such a realty speak to the status of our new spiritual nature, or not? Is there any eternal consequence are we exposed to if we unrepentently choose to NOT bear fruit and NOT “work out” our salvation?

With that said, Christians will still sin. That’s because we still live in this body, even though we have gained a new spiritual identity. As long as we are still residents of the flesh, we are still enticed by the world.

The question, however, is not whether we will sin, but whether certain, freely chosen unrepentant sins preclude saved Christians from inheriting the kingdom of God. IMHO Paul clearly articulates this in 1Cor 6:9 as well as elsewhere. What do you say? Are there certain sins which saved Christians may commit which, if unrepented of at the time of death, lead to a loss of the inheritance of the kingdom of God (Heaven)? Yes or No, please.

And Protestants say so too.

Well, some do and some dont. Protestants are not particularly unified in their theology; not between denominations and not within the same denomination throughout their brief history. You would do well to speak directly to your own faith (Baptist) on what is believed and what is not. Just for fairness I would appreciate any reference to an official statement of what you claim to be what “Protestants say”. Virtually every theological topic of interest is dealt with in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it is available, free and online.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Can someone please cite Scriptural evidence that shows that it is not just simply necessary for a person only to believe that Jesus came and died on a cross (e.g., that it is not necessary to always go to church, confess one’s sins, etc.) in order to be saved?

OSAS can refer (as a matter of logic, apart that is from the actual realities of belief) to:​

• the Calvinist doctrine of the preservation of the saints, & whatever is therewith connected
• the thing called (horribly ) “easy-believism”

When people refer to OSAS, do they always means the latter idea ? This distinction (a very important one) is never spelled out - for those of us not as familar with the doings & ideas of US Protestantism, some spelling would certainly help Or if it has been spelled out, this poster has not seen the posts that do that.

My mother thinks that a person only has to believe that a person need only believe that Jesus came and died on a cross in order to go to heaven; therefore, she grants herself the right to go to church (she is Protestant, not Catholic) when she wishes among other things. She thinks the Catholic Church is too regimental.

Evidence does not exist - unless both sides agree that it is evidence. If a man’s POV excludes the possibility that the USA occupes space on the surface of the globe, no power on earth will convince him otherwise - unless one of the following happens:​

• he enlarges his POV so that it can accommodate the existence of the USA
• he denies his POV totally
• his denial does not in fact mean that he thinks the US doesn’t exist, but has been misunderstood to mean that

And presumably there are other possibilities. If there are not, & if the above is accurate, no proof from any source will alter his mind. This all assumes that the denier of the USA is being consistent in his thinking. If he had a dogma on the matter, that he was satisfied was final in its authority, the difficulty of showing the USA really is or was real would be far greater: for such a person would be going against his conscience if he admitted the existence of the USA - he would be lying, and therefore sinning. If, that is, his USA-excluding POV remained intact & unchanged.

So in matters of religion: what our first principles exclude as unreal, cannot be shown to be real to our satisbfaction: for such a showing is excluded in advance. So it is not possiblre for others toshow us that there is good evidence for what they believe unless we are able to accommodate it in our understanding of reality; nor can they accommodate ours, if their FPs exclude our beliefs.

How to overcome such problems ?

 

[Biggie]

Right Biggie, Thank God for the Universal Church, for His Love and sanctifying grace. We have his love especally in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist. How blessed we are!. Carlan

r

Amen, Carlan.

 

[Biggie]

Let me start by prefacing my answer with this statement: I agree with much of what some Catholics have written here regarding “cheap grace”, that Protestants advocate that a person can “accept Jesus into their heart” and then forget about living for the One who died for them. I do not believe in such a thing.

That is why Jesus said that you will know them by their fruits. If a person has TRULY been converted, then he will become a new creation. He will be “born again”, not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit of God. This Spiritual birth comes with its own “spiritual genes”, which direct the new believer and orient his life, attitude, and behavior TOWARD God, whereas in times past, he was oriented away from God and toward Satan (“wherein times past, you used to walk according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air” - Ephesians 2).

You seem to have solved the obvious problem with OSAS with the conclusion that if a person sins he was not saved in the first place, as evidenced by his sin. You also seem to be speaking as someone who has not lived a pattern of sin, broken it, relived it, etc… Those of us accomplished in our sins will confirm that metanoia or conversion is a daily process, a struggle if you will. Have we who sin and repent and sin again not been saved?

You also seem to be indicating that Our Lord’s sacrifice removes the effects of original sin. You will remember that the effects of original sin are the interior proclivity, tendency, attraction to sin. While the sin itself is forgiven in baptism, the effects of original sin persist, thereby requiring our salvation in the first place. (Of those effects, only two were ever free - Our Lord, and his mother by virtue of the Incarnation).

There is a difference between Redemption (the act accomplished by Christ) and Salvation (my achievement of the fruits of redemption).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, QuickCat,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this an intellectually stimulating forum to discuss ideas and get resonses from the view point of the Catholic Church.

Our apostle, Paul, writes to the Ephesians - “That we should be to the praise of His Glory; In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the Word of Truth, the GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION; in whom also after ye BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED with that Holy Spirit of promise.” 1:12,13.

Now that is God doing the sealing. Now if one can be lost after salvation, that seal is not really a seal at all. If one can be lost after being saved in what sense was he ever saved? And what does one have to do in order to be saved again?

It is usually better to get as much of the context from a scriptural passage so that we do not go off in the wrong direction. Here is the section incorporating Ephesians 1:3-14.

3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,
4
as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love
5
he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will,
6
for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved.
7
In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace
8
that he lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight,
9
he has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him
10
as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth.
11
In him we were also chosen, destined in accord with the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will,
12
so that we might exist for the praise of his glory, we who first hoped in Christ.
13
In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit,
14
which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory.

I think there are three ideas that we can get from this passage - and none endorese OSAS.

1.) Eph 1:3-6 From the very beginning of time, God knew what He was going to do - there were no surprises - what we are seeing is His Divine Plan. And, our salvation is from God strictly as an unmerited favor of His Will. The Catholic Church teaches that God wills the salvation of all men (1Tim:3-4) and that Christ died for all (1Tim2:6). But, man has free will and can choose whether to accept this most precious gift or reject it by rejecting the Commandments (Eph 5:18). Now the idea that man has Free Will and that God knew what each individual man would do from all eternity did not sit easily with Calvin and those who focus on predestination to the exclusion of free will. This is a major issue - and the only answer is that God loved us so much that He has allowed us freedom to accept or reject the Gift of His Son.

2.) Eph 1:7-10 Basically the same as the preceeding section with the addition of Christ’s having shed His Blood for us and that God has made known to us this tremendous mystery of His Love in and through Christ for our eternal salvation. But, again, this is a Gift that must be accepted. A yourng child receiving a bank check for their birthday present may not know how to work this financial instrument - and does not cash it. This is not a reflection on the check being inadequate, but rather, the inability of the child to put this Gift to its intended purpose. The uncashed check remains a piece of paper to the child. To the adult, this same check represents a valuable asset. Merely having the Gift does not mean you can use it to its intended purpose.

3.) Eph 1:11-14 We have been predestined to God’s glory. Paul talks about the, “…first installment of our inheritance…” and this must give you pause - an ‘installment’ - that means that something else is due. If it were fully delivered - there would be NO installment. What is missing (the next installment) is our free will acceptance of the Gift of God’s Love. Failure on the next installment is like the child’s failure to cash the check - we have to do something to make God’s Gift operative in our lives.

Don’t you see that our Lord Jesus Christ paid the full penalty for every sin you and I will ever commit [Col. 2:13]? When He saved you it was complete and final. Grace and Peace

True. But, you simply can not stop there. If you fail to respond, you will be just holding that check and not cashing it. The value of the check is determined by the writer of the check, it unchanged by the person endorsing the check. If, for whatever reason, the ‘payee’ fails to do what is necessary to collect the funds - he does not get the funds. We must give our free consent - and act of the will - to cooperate with the Grace of God to cash this ‘Divine Check’.

God bless

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholics in Malaysia are facing a new dilemma. The Home Ministry is putting a stop to all non-Muslims with regard to the use of the word “Allah” especially in print. The Muslim are arguing that “Allah” is a specific name for their god. My questions:

1. Is Allah the same God the Father in our Christian sense?

The word Allah is Arabic for God. Muslims don’t use it only. I know Arab Christians who use the Allah in their Liturgy.

1. Can we use the word Allah in Mass?

I meet an Iraqi who is a Caldeanean Catholic (Eastern Rite), who said that in their Divine Liturgy. Allah is used which means God.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, QuickCat,

Actually, towards the end of Christ’s life we see more and more non-Jews appearing in the Gospels. The 40-days after the Resurrection, immediately before Christ ascends into heaven, He gives His Apostles the command to preach the gospel and baptize all people.

Peter is given a message that the Gentiles are to received the Word of God and he went immediate to the house of Cornelius.

Dear Ones: We in the Body of Christ are NOT under the Law. Paul wrote the book of Galatians to correct those who wanted to put us back under the Law. Many of you quote the four gospels [which were written about our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel]. During our Lord’s earthly ministry [to Israel] the Law WAS in force. We now live in the dispensation of the Grace of God. Note what Paul says about the Law during this dispensation: “I do not make void the Grace of God; FOR IF RIGHTEOUSNESS COMES BY THE LAW, then Christ is dead in vain.” Gal. 2:21. “…no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God…The just shall live by faith.” Gal. 3:11. “Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED by the works of the Law, but by the FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST…FOR BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED.” Gal. 2:16.

The “…works of the Law…” were the required activities of the Mosaic Law (ritual washings, how sacrifices were to be handled, Sabbath observances, etc.)

Jesus Christ, True God and True Man freed us from the Mosaic Law. Those who claim to follow Christ are to deny themselves, pick up their cross and carry it daily. We are to love God with all of our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves.

God bless

 

[PEPCIS]

The fact is, there is a Scriptural basis for OSAS. Others have already shown that.
Philthy;5426884:

Isolated Scriptural verses are capable of being misinterpreted. . .

I agree.

Philthy:

. . . the Reformation has revealed that with stunning clarity.

Again, I agree. I agree 1000% that the Reformation showed the many errors of the Catholic Church isolating Scripture verses and misinterpreting them.

Philthy:

I would not use the term “Scriptural basis” to describe a misinterpretation of Scripture - its confusing.

Neither would I.

Now, with all of that said, did you have a point to make? Or, are you just trying to toss insults between Catholics and Protestants?

The real debate is not whether there are verses which support OSAS, but how do we, as Christians, reconcile those verses with the commandments in the Bible which tell us that we must work.

Philthy:

I dont think there really is a debate. . .

Then what is it that you are replying to?

Philthy:

. . .there is no clear Scripture that says that one cannot lose their salvation if they are still living on earth.

As I said, that has already been shown in earlier posts. Why should it be repeated?

Philthy:

Furthermore, it is abundantly clear when one looks at the TOTALITY of Scripture that OSAS is not reconcilable with the Apostolic faith.

I suppose that is why you refuse to look at those verses which others have already pointed out that show OSAS? You are afraid to consider the TOTALITY of Scripture?

Philthy:

The way to reconciliation is to jetison OSAS as unscriptural.

This is a good way for you to put your head in the sand, but it’s also jetisoning a huge portion of the Scriptures to maintain your view. So much for looking “at the TOTALITY of Scripture”. . . .

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi, PEPCIS,

Thank you for writing. I would appreciate your clarification on a couple of items

I will do my best.

Well, I can understand why it is that you believe that OSAS cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, because you also believe that OSAS means that you don’t have to follow God’s commandments. But that is false.

tqualey:

OK. Why is it false? If one is saved (and, always saved for that matter) what need is there for keeping the Commandments or any other requirement given to us by Christ? I mean if you are REALLY saved - then everything else is just academic. You have already won the prize - all that awaits is for you to collect it. Isn’t that so?

That’s a crude caricature of Calvinism and my position. As I have tried to explain in other posts, you WANT to follow God’s commandments. The command is for everyone to follow God’s commandments, but the only ones who can are those who are His children. All others can try, but it will not result in any effect on their own salvation. That’s because salvation is GOD’S WORK, not man’s.

But for clarification, when any person becomes born into the family of God, s/he comes with a rudimentary knowledge of God and His Son. S/he knows that God loves him/her, and God has shown that love by applying the Son’s work of the cross upon that person’s life. But s/he doesn’t know all of God’s commandments.

Just like when someone first comes to a new job, he is considered an employee of that company, even though he may not know all the rules and regulations and job requirements. As he learns, he becomes more proficient, and he is able to become more effective for his boss. So too, the new believer is considered a bonafide “employee” of the Father and His Son, even though he may not know all the rules and regulations and job requirements. As he learns, he becomes more proficient, and he is able to become more effective for his Boss.

Actually, Catholics already do buy into this, because Catholics claim that Christians must follow the commandments of God. The difference is that Protestants understand that false professors will TRY to follow God’s commandments, but in the end they will not fool Jesus, because He will tell them to “begone, you workers of iniquity.”

tqualey:

So, a 'false professor, is someone who teaches others to follow the Commandments, but does not believe in OSAS?

???

Where did a say a false believer will teach other to follow the Commandments of God, but will not believe in OSAS?

OSAS is not a doctrine which is dependent of salvation. People are not saved, or lost, because they misunderstand this doctrine. This is not a salvational issue.

tqualey:

What about all of those parables that Christ gave us where the subjects of the story actually did something? There is not one parable where OSAS is the theme. Isn’t that intresting…?

Parables are specific to the truth being supported. A parable is not intended to be an exact match in every detail. For example, Jesus was quite specific in the parable of the sower, to point out what the parable meant. Some people mistake what is meant by the seed, and what is meant by the ground. But the parable shows clearly that any seed which is placed into the appropriate/fertile ground WILL produce fruit. It is only the other types of seed which fails to produce fruit.

It is clear that the Parable of the Sower exhibits quite well the understanding that OSAS is Scripturally based. For sure, this parable cannot be used to deny OSAS.

The difference is that Catholics maintain that you can lose your salvation, and Protestants maintain that if you walk away from the faith that the Bible tells us that it just goes to prove that “they went out [from us], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19)

tqualey:

I have honestly marveled that none of the NT Saints ever expressed such absolute assurance. Here are just two examples:

1.) Matt 10:22 ("…persevere until the end to be saved…") It’s not over until it is over.

2.) 1Cor 9:27 ("…after preaching to others, I myself become a castaway…") While Christ freely merited our Salvation - we can not take it for granted, lest we lose it.

Do you also marvel that you fail to take into account the whole of Scripture? Why do you not attempt to reconcile where Paul states that "“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Philippians 1:6)?

Or, “That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.” (John 18:9)

Matt. 10:22 reads: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

How will that person be saved? By enduring to the end. How will he endure? By the power of God that resides within him. Remember Philippians 1:6 which I just quoted? It says, in part: “he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” God began this work in us, and Paul assures us that HE WILL PERFORM IT IN US UNTIL THE DAY THAT JESUS RETURNS.

1 Cor.9:27 read: “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”

But, of course, Paul is an excellent writer, and he often writes rhetorically, asking questions and posing instances which are impossible. Which is why after writing about all of the things that God will perform for us in Romans 8, he then asks (rhetorically) “If God is for us, who could possibly be against us?” The answer, of course, is NO ONE. No one is able to thwart God’s plans for the individual believer, or for His Church.

 

[PEPCIS]

Exactly. That is why Protestants and Catholics are really not that far apart in their understanding. The difference is that Catholics emphasize that you can lose your salvation, which is a statement that Protestants consider heresy.

tquatley:

Seriously, how do you substantiate a case for no one losing their salvation?

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19)

“That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.” (John 18:9)

Just two verses. There are many others.
tquately:

While God knows from all eternity who will be saved (and who won’t) that does not mean we have access to this information. What is the basis you use to prove your position?

The Bible is my basis, and it clearly states that once someone is saved (Placed into the hand of Christ by God), that none can be lost. I’m not sure how that can be argued against.

 

[PEPCIS]

So you believe that we will be unable to sin against the Commandments of God?

PEPCIS:

Absolutely not. What I am trying to drive at is that our ORIENTATION is changed. Paul tells us that we are a new creation in Christ. If we are a different creature, then that means that we have a new character and identity. We are not like all the other people of the world.

Philthy:

While this is true, it is irrelevant as far as I can tell.

Irrelevant?? How could this possibly be “irrelevant”? It is how we are defined. We couldn’t possibly remain the same person, because if we did, then we would not be a “new creation in Christ Jesus.”

Philthy:

Unless you are claiming that our sins are no longer sins against our Father, then what is the point of introducing the reality that our “orientation” has changed?

Let’s be clear here: I am not the one that is “introducing the reality that our “orientation” has changed.” God did that. For example, in Ephesians 2, Paul states that we used to be a different type of person, with an orientation AWAY from the things of God. He states unequivocally that:

“in time past you used to walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

That’s the picture of a person totally immersed in the world, and unable to choose God in any positive capacity. But then, Paul goes on to explain that we were changed. He tells us that,

“God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

Notice that the “choice” given to us is to MAKE us sit with Christ Jesus in heavenly places.

Philthy:

Does the new orientation alter the obligations that the life in Christ requires to remain united to Him?? Yes or No, please

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me “yes” or “no”.

That’s not a “yes” or “no” type of question. The “obligations” are no different than the “obligations” you have to breath. I could command you to breath, but do you think that is necessary?

The reason that we are commanded to follow God’s laws is because there is a contrast between law and grace being illustrated. “Do this, and thou shalt live”, compared to “Believe (have faith) and thou shalt be saved.”

That is why the rich, young ruler walked away saddened - because he had already done everything that was in the law, and it still was not enough to satisfy Jesus. Instead, Jesus told him he had to sell everything he had and follow Jesus. If the law could save, then THAT man would have (indeed, SHOULD HAVE) been saved.

I’ll have to try and pick this up later tomorrow…hope you have a great night everyone!!

 

[spn82756]

Catholic teachings maintains that you can lose your salvation when you commit a sin. The only to gain it back is through repentance by receiving the Sacrament of Penance/ Reconciliation. The priest acts in the Person of Christ, so in actuality, it is Jesus who forgives your sin not the priest. The priest is merely the instrument of God. For it is the Name of Jesus, that sins are forgiven.

Howdy…
I’ve never posted but have done a lot of reading.

I agree that confession is an integral part of reconcilliation…but to ask Christ for forgiveness for a sin commited has cleansed us of our sin. Is not the sacrament of reconcilliation an aide in bestowing graces and strength to avoid the sin again…as well as restoring us to the community? I don’t believe that if I commit a serious sin and ask for forgiveness with sincerity that I will be damned if I die before being able to go to confession.

Just my thoughts.

spn82756