Sola Fides

[Mickey]

Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God’s ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream.
Martin Luther

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Hi all

Just wanted to make a couple of comments first.

Thanks to Maria’s kindness I see that my use of terms have been offensive. This was never my intention and I would ask your forgiveness for that. I am an unshamed Reformed Baptist but in no way hateful towards Catholics. Whilst I do not view my words as bigotted or hateful I will refrain from using them so as not to offend any by them.

The radio program that I heard that first directed me to this site was Catholic Answers and I believe it was late at night/early morning that I listened to it. Which day now I honestly do not remember.

I am a busy pastor with much happening. However I do desire to engage in sensible and courteous debate with you regarding the truth of the gospel and the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Please be patient when I do not answer you all at once.

I would like primarily to stay on this subject of Baptismal Regeneration and flesh it out with you. I would like you to state clearly what you believe so that I am not guilty of misrepresenting your position and therefore end up attacking a straw man.

Once the CC position is stated then I can interact from my perspective.

After that issue is discussed I would like to look at the matter of Free-Will and Grace as this is a vital difference I believe between CC and Reformed churches.

With sincere Christian love

RB

 

[piety101]

Pastor
I presented to you what two leading church fathers wrote concerning what transpires during Christian baptism. They were Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. They both regarded baptism for the remission of sins and expressing the new birth. I ask you once again, how can you maintain your position of baptism merely being symbolic of an inward work of grace and not for the remission of sins, when the early fathers contradict you? Why do you ignore the VERY EARLY testimony of these church fathers and others? Please answer the question.

 

[Pastor_Robert]

DaveD:

Pastor Robert,

Nice to have you back! Here are links that will answer the questions you have asked. I suggest you read them, know them, and even buy and read a copy of the catechism. The arguments you presented are lacking in many ways and a good Catholic apologist will chop them down like wheat before the sickle. Here are common answers to common questions:

1. Justification and Sanctification
   http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-...ication&SCOPE=EnglishUI&hiword=Justification+

http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-..._id=40952&query=Justification&SCOPE=EnglishUI

1. Baptism
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#1262
2. Petrine Office
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Here is a link to the best book a person can buy on the Petrine Office. It is called Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. Every serious Christian should read this.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-2912028-1640718?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

1. Mary Co-Redemptrix
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm#969

Before you engage in any assault on Mary read this; St. Jerome’s refutation of any notions against the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother Written 303A.D.

cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

1. Purgatory
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#1030

Here is a link to the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is Christianity 101. There is simply no way to argue against the faith without knowing this cover to cover. I suggest you buy a copy if you really want to debate Catholocism.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Pastor Robert. I am a convert to the Catholic faith from a Southern Baptist Background. If you would like to discuss anything with me in detail send me a private messege and I will give you my e-mail address. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about why a Baptist would eventually become Catholic.

Peace be with you,

Dave

Many thanks for your kind and informative email. I would love to discuss things with you in more detail and obtain some of the materials you suggest to give me a better understanding of the RCC.

My email is rbriggs@immanuelbc.net

Sincerely in Christ

RB

 

[Pastor_Robert]

piety101:

Pastor

           I presented to you what two leading church fathers wrote concerning what transpires during Christian baptism. They were Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. They both regarded baptism for the remission of sins and expressing the new birth. I ask you once again, how can you maintain your position of baptism merely being symbolic of an inward work of grace and not for the remission of sins, when the early fathers contradict you? Why do you ignore the VERY EARLY testimony of these church fathers and others? Please answer the question.

I am seriously tempted to say Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are these men anymore than others. As a Reformed believer I seek to test the writings of all men in whatever tradition including my own with the word of God.

I do not ignore the VERY EARLY testimony of the church fathers, I bring it to the bar of the original testimony of the Holy Scriptures and where they are not in line with that I follow the Scriptures and not them.

This is a well-known Reformation principle

Sincerely

RB

 

[MariaG]

posted by Pastor Robert

I would like primarily to stay on this subject of Baptismal Regeneration and flesh it out with you. I would like you to state clearly what you believe so that I am not guilty of misrepresenting your position and therefore end up attacking a straw man.

Once the CC position is stated then I can interact from my perspective.

This is from CA Library catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

One key Scripture reference to being “born again” or “regenerated” is John 3:5, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. “Born again” Christians claim the “water” is the preached word of God.

But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

**No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism. **

This tract continues on with quotes from the Early Church talking about regenerating baptism. So here is one scripture verse, that we can clearly point to, with early church backing up the Catholic interpretaion.

Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s kingdom.
(from New Advent newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#III )

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
**ARTICLE 1 - THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM **
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),[4] and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”[5] 198.62.75.12/www1/CDHN/baptism.html#BAPTISM

God has chosen to manifest his power in this manner. Although we do believe through baptism God marks our soul indelibly, Catholics do not believe in anyway that this baptism secures them a spot in heaven for all time. One must continue to walk with Christ through faith. (from me )

Comments? Questions? Additions?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[piety101]

Pastor

         Respectively, when you ignore all that the early fathers wrote on the meaning of baptism and declare only your interpretation is correct, you are declaring yourself sole interpreter of just what Christ and the apostles wrote and meant. 

          Also, you would have to conclude that all the fathers were wrong on their view on baptism and so they fell into total apostasy right after the apostles died. Is this what you are maintaining? Also. you must realize that the early fathers were not just writing their opinion, but what was widely believed by the WHOLE Christian world in their time. The Christian world at the time of the early fathers writings, were in fact the Christian or Catholic church. Did the whole Christian church also fall into complete apostasy? This is the logical conclusion you would have to come to if you still remain firm that the early fathers were in total error.

 

[michaelgazin]

michaelgazin:

Which is the greatest…faith, hope or love? In 1 Cor. 13:13, is Paul a little off?

James 2:22 says Abraham’s faith was completed by his works. If works are the *result *of a saving faith, then your saving faith is incomplete. James, in addition to his other explicit statements, says plainly that faith is *completed *by works. A faith without works is an incomplete faith. Can an incomplete faith save you? According to your theology, works are the result of faith, however according to the Bible, faith is not yet complete without works.

Paul seems to agree in Gal 5:6 “faith working in love,” or an alternate translation is “faith made effective by love.”

So, we clearly see from James that faith is completed by works. From Paul we see that faith is made effective by works of love. How much clearer can it be?

As C.S. Lewis said, focusing on faith or works to the exclusion of the other, is like thinking one blade of a scissors is more necessary than the other.

Also feel free to respond to any of this ^^

The thread’s topic is Sola Fides. Baptismal regeneration should be started in another thread.

Back to the topic of Sola Fides…please respond to the above quote. And one more question, can you be saved without loving God?

Peace,
Michael

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Sola Fides

The main issue of difference is as it always has been the difference of our understanding regarding justification and sanctification. One inseparably follows the other but they are not the same thing.

No one can be saved without loving God because the Holy Spirit brings us to love God.

I do not see faith is completed by works, faith is unto works but works are not the basis of justification, the finished work of Christ is the basis of our justification, Romans 5v1ff is clear on that.

As for the CS Lewis quote, I’ll stick with the word of God.

Enjoying hearing from you.

Warmest regards

RB

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Piety 101

I’ll need to take time to get my early church fathers out and have a look to see if your assertion is substantiated.

I would say this as I do that, it is one of the significant reasons why I am a Protestant. I believe in the final authority of the word of God in all things and not the interpretation of the church fathers.

There is no doubt that after the death of the apostles there was a falling away from the truth in many ways, I am not however willing to say it was a complete falling away.

I do not accept the CC existed at that time as you would probably define it. As one who does not believe Peter was the first Pope you would surely expect me to say that. Matthew 16 needs to be looked at some time.

I’ll get back to you on the baptism issue and the early church fathers.

Sincerely

RB

 

[Pastor_Robert]

MariaG:

This is from CA Library catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

One key Scripture reference to being “born again” or “regenerated” is John 3:5, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. “Born again” Christians claim the “water” is the preached word of God.

But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

**No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism. **

This tract continues on with quotes from the Early Church talking about regenerating baptism. So here is one scripture verse, that we can clearly point to, with early church backing up the Catholic interpretaion.

Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s kingdom.
(from New Advent newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#III )

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
**ARTICLE 1 - THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM **
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),[4] and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”[5] 198.62.75.12/www1/CDHN/baptism.html#BAPTISM

God has chosen to manifest his power in this manner. Although we do believe through baptism God marks our soul indelibly, Catholics do not believe in anyway that this baptism secures them a spot in heaven for all time. One must continue to walk with Christ through faith. (from me )

Comments? Questions? Additions?

God Bless,
Maria

Maria

Thanks for the clarity, I must confess that I am more amazed than I thought I would be. Your catechism is indeed very clear and the sacramentalism of the CC does not need to be guessed at.

Am i understanding you right when i think you are saying baptism brings us into relationship with God but we can lose that in some way ? Are you saying that salvation can be obtained and then lost? If so that hardly says much for the power of grace in your system or holds out much hope of assurance of heaven.

Sincerely

RB

 

[thessalonian]

Pastor Robert:

MariaG:
Am i understanding you right when i think you are saying baptism brings us into relationship with God but we can lose that in some way ? Are you saying that salvation can be obtained and then lost? If so that hardly says much for the power of grace in your system or holds out much hope of assurance of heaven.

Sincerely

RB

Pastor Robert,

It’s not a matter of loosing salvation as if God takes it away. The gift is freely given. God gives us sufficient grace to persevere in the faith (a common theme in Paul’s writings). Yet grace is not irresistable, therefore one can turn from the gift and reject it.

Gal 5
3] I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
5] For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.

1 Cor 15
1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.

You can’t fall away from what you were never apart of.

If is a conditional. We cannot hold fast on our own, but by the grace which he freely gives as a part of salvation, we can. We can however reject that grace.

Luke 12 goes along well with this verse. There is a servant and that servent is behaving rightly when the master comes and is rewarded. Yet it says if the master delays and “THAT SAME SERVANT” who is caring for what the Master owns (not he himself owns), when the masters coming is delayed, begins to behave badly he is treated “with the UNBELIEVERS”.

Heb 6
4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the HEAVENLY GIFT, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

These are just a few of the many verses that show that OSAS has a few problems. Now it is not a loss of salvation such that the salvation is taken away. We can trust in God to give us sufficient grace such that that does not happen. Not the loss of a set of keys (since the object of what we hold on to is the God of the universe he cannot loose himself as keys can get lost by our mental lapses, but rather a throwing of the keys in the river which we have the freedom to do. There’s a difference.

More later.

 

[thessalonian]

One other thing Pastor Robert.

You it appears believe in 100% assurance of salvation. You base this on your scriptural interprutations, I am sure .
I suspect you don’t claim to be an infallible interpruter of scripture. Well, let’s apply some simple logic to this. If you are 95% sure of your scriptural interprutions that lead you to conclude that you are 100% Assured of salvation are you 100% assured of salvation?
A weather man can be 100% assured that it rained this morning and 100% assured that it is raining. Yet he is not an infallible interpruter of the weather and so can only tell you there is an 80% chance of rain this afternoon.

Blessings

 

[michaelgazin]

Pastor Robert:

Sola Fides

The main issue of difference is as it always has been the difference of our understanding regarding justification and sanctification. One inseparably follows the other but they are not the same thing.

I understand we have differences in our definitions of justification and sanctification. That aside, with sola fides, I simply want to talk about what is required for salvation. No need to get into justification and sanctification right now.

No one can be saved without loving God because the Holy Spirit brings us to love God.

So you believe that one must believe and accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, and *also *love God? According to the definition of sola fides, one must only have faith that Jesus is Christ, however love is nowhere in the equation for salvation. How will you explain this? So by “faith,” you mean more than mere intellectual assent…you mean faith working in love? If it were mere intellectual assent that was necessary for salvation, then certainly love would be no part of the requirement, so you must believe that faith *and *love are required for salvation…you said it yourself…so in fact you do not believe in sola fides, in the sense that one is saved through mere intellectual assent alone.

I do not see faith is completed by works, faith is unto works but works are not the basis of justification, the finished work of Christ is the basis of our justification, Romans 5v1ff is clear on that.

If you do not see that faith is completed by works, here is James 2:22 again:

“You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works”

That is quite plain and clear. Word for word, “faith was completed by works.”

Catholics and protestants both believe in the finished work of Christ being our basis for justification, so that is a non-argument. The difference is you believe that you only have to *do *one work as a response to God’s grace…i.e. have faith…Catholics believe that faith is not the only necessary response to God’s grace. But then again, you said above that one must have faith in God, but also love God, so apparently you do not believe in faith alone.

As for the CS Lewis quote, I’ll stick with the word of God.

Yea, I am going to have to agree with you that the Word of God has a certain primacy over CS Lewis. I don’t know what I was thinking putting a quote from him

Enjoying hearing from you.

Warmest regards

RB

Peace,
Michael

 

[MariaG]

Pastor,

Posted by Pastor Robert
Thanks for the clarity, I must confess that I am more amazed than I thought I would be. Your catechism is indeed very clear and the sacramentalism of the CC does not need to be guessed at.

You’re welcome!

Am i understanding you right when i think you are saying baptism brings us into relationship with God but we can lose that in some way ? Are you saying that salvation can be obtained and then lost? If so that hardly says much for the power of grace in your system or holds out much hope of assurance of heaven.

Sincerely

RB

I would like to reiterate what thessalonian said. It is not so much we can lose our salvation as willfully throw it away and reject the gift. This speaks nothing of God’s power but to our ability to freely accept that grace or willfully reject it. Looks like the talk needs to move towards free will/select or elect?

I would say this as I do that, it is one of the significant reasons why I am a Protestant. I believe in the final authority of the word of God in all things and not the interpretation of the church fathers.

But have you not in fact relied on other writers such as Calvin to help you interpret that word? How is this any different than the Catholic Church which today can read Scripture and look at the Early Church Fathers to see that our interpretation today is the same as the Early Church and has been the same since the time of the apostles?

Although the Catholic Church looks at this issue differently since the written word was not easily available to all, nor even agreed upon which was God’s written word for awhile, the Catholic Church doctrine is very Scriptural. We just point to the early Church Fathers to show how our interpretation of Scripture today is the same as those taught by the apostles.

Or we could also go this direction instead of free will? Ultimately, this is what it comes to, interpretation of Scripture because the Catholic Church beliefs are deeply rooted in Scripture. Whose interpretation is right, Calvin? Luther? Wesley? or Ignatius? Justin Martyr? Irenaeus?

But your choice Pastor.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[javelin]

Pastor Robert:

Thanks for the clarity, I must confess that I am more amazed than I thought I would be. Your catechism is indeed very clear and the sacramentalism of the CC does not need to be guessed at.

After reading this several times, I’m not sure if you think that “sacramentalism” is good or bad.

The sacraments are very important, as they are a God-ordained means by which we receive His Grace. I learned from Scott Hahn that the roots of the word “sacrament” mean to “swear an oath”, and that oath swearing is the principle means by which covenants are created and renewed.

That is one reason why the sacraments are important! Each time we participate in one of them, we are renewing our oath of faith and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. What could be wrong with that?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Again Pastor Robert;

I don’t want to be accused of “piling on” but you haven’t answered my specific questions, posed earlier. Nor have you offered any Scriptural support for the (in my opinion) artificial separation of “justification” and “sanctification” necessary to support the protestant doctrine of sola fide. Again, consider the urging of Paul in his letter to the Philippians:

[1] So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
[2] complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
[3] Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.
[4] Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
[10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
[11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
[12] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence,** work out your own salvation with fear and trembling**;
[13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Phil. 2:1-13. (Emphasis added.)

If Paul is talking about “sanctification” then why does he specifically use the word “salvation” as something to be worked out in fear and trembling. Again, it is only by distorting this text that the protestant understands a clear demarcation to exist between one’s salvation - i.e. justification - and one’s later “sanctification.”

To avoid the conclusion that faith and works are both required, one must - by esegesis - say that what Paul “really meant” was not that one works out “salvation” in fear and trembling, but that one works to become “sanctified” *after * one gets saved. But that’s *not * what the clear text of the Scriptures says. If one is already “saved” and is simply working out their “sanctification” then why the fear and trembling? The answer seems obvious - one’s ultimate salvation is still in the balance, even after one is initially justified by grace.

I look forward to hearing from you, eventually, Pastor Robert.

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Robert SD

I believe I have answered you but you choose to ignore what I say. It is evident that your interpretation of Paul’s words is different from mine but that does not mean I have failed to make my point, you simply do not agree with it.

It is evident that you can have no assurance of salvation as an RC according to what you say. I rejoice that in being justified by faith alone I have assurance of salvation and having received such a great blessing walk in the fear of God with a desire to honor God in all my ways.

For the Reformed believer salvation includes both justification and sanctification. I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I believe. You do not seem to understand my position and that causes you to respond wrongly.

There can be no sanctification for a sinner without justification and there is never justification without sanctification following so please grasp this so that we can properly discuss the issues.

Paul’s words in Philippians 2 do not contradict this position and can be easily interpreted in line with this truth. I am still waiting for anyone to respond to Paul’s teaching in Romans 3-5 regarding how a sinner is made right with God.

Sincerely

RB

 

[Pastor_Robert]

thessalonian:

Pastor Robert:

Pastor Robert,

It’s not a matter of loosing salvation as if God takes it away. The gift is freely given. God gives us sufficient grace to persevere in the faith (a common theme in Paul’s writings). Yet grace is not irresistable, therefore one can turn from the gift and reject it.

Gal 5
3

] I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
5] For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.

1 Cor 15
1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.

You can’t fall away from what you were never apart of.

If is a conditional. We cannot hold fast on our own, but by the grace which he freely gives as a part of salvation, we can. We can however reject that grace.

Luke 12 goes along well with this verse. There is a servant and that servent is behaving rightly when the master comes and is rewarded. Yet it says if the master delays and “THAT SAME SERVANT” who is caring for what the Master owns (not he himself owns), when the masters coming is delayed, begins to behave badly he is treated “with the UNBELIEVERS”.

Heb 6
4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the HEAVENLY GIFT, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

These are just a few of the many verses that show that OSAS has a few problems. Now it is not a loss of salvation such that the salvation is taken away. We can trust in God to give us sufficient grace such that that does not happen. Not the loss of a set of keys (since the object of what we hold on to is the God of the universe he cannot loose himself as keys can get lost by our mental lapses, but rather a throwing of the keys in the river which we have the freedom to do. There’s a difference.

More later.

This would all be so true if the bible did not teach irresistable grace and the fact that God’s elect shall come to Christ and never be lost

I would like to open this up with you as it is the heart of the true gospel, John 6v37 is a good place to start !!!

Warmest regards

RB

 

[Eden]

The question is: is it possible anyone to be “assured” of their salvation? I believe Scripture is very clear on this topic.

There are numerous verses that hit on this, but I’ll simply refer to the most relevant and clear.

Hebrews 10:26-27,29. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. . . How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Can someone fall after being “saved”? I think this verse is pretty clear that it can happen and those it happens to are in for a terrible judgment and punishment. It’s important to note that he’s referring to those who have already been “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant.”

1 Corinthians 9:27. But I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

St. Paul is writing this. Read it again if you need to. Now, if St. Paul is concerned about “being disqualified”, shouldn’t you be? I recommend reading this whole section, since he begins by comparing our quest for heaven to a race and notes that we should “run that we may obtain [the prize].” Does anyone think that a runner who has qualified to enter a race can be assured of victory? If the Olympics tell us anything, it’s that we must compete hard to win – no one is assured of the prize.

Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Clearly this verse shows that it is possible to lose one’s salvation. I think everyone would argue that someone who has (a) been enlightened, (b) tasted the “heavenly gift”, which I would call grace, (c) partaken of the Holy Spirit, (d) tasted the goodness of the word of God, and (e) tasted the powers of the age to come, would be considered “saved.” Yet St. Paul says that it is “impossible” to restore these people again – so they have actually lost not only their salvation, but also the ability to come back to God.

Hebrews 3:12-14. Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today” that none you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end

Again we are told that we must persevere to the end. “If only” is a very strong statement in this sentence. We cannot fall away and expect to be saved. Period. Which means we have no assurance of salvation until we die.

Romans 11:22. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his grace; if not, you too will be cut off. This continues the thought from Hebrews; we must “continue” or “persevere” until the end. This again implies that assurance of salvation is not possible.2 Peter 2:20-21. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. Again, those who had “escaped” fall back into the “defilements of the world.” It’s interesting that St. Peter suggests that it would have been better for them if they had never escaped these defilements through Christ in the first place. Think about this for a second. Why would it have been better? If you believe that the next world is either heaven or hell and depends on whether you have accepted Christ or not, you would have to argue that either St. Peter is wrong (and thus the Bible) or that your understanding of the next world is wrong. Catholics have always taught that there is some possibility of salvation for those who never know about Christ through no fault of their own, so in Catholic theology this makes sense. But it contradicts the protestant viewpoint. In addition, it’s clear that some can and do lose their salvation, even after escaping.