SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Post #181, thrd paragraph in red
I don’t see where you’ve done anything but offer more scripture while making the same assertion.

“Disqualified,” in the context of the passage being discussed (1 Cor 9), must be referring to Paul’s ministry, and not to his salvation.

“[He] fall,” in the context of the passage being discussed (1 Cor 10), must refer to the “overconfident” believer. He’s saved, but he sins too diberately, and too often.

King David was overconfident, he sinned in the manner described in 1 Cor 10:8.

Did King David lose his salvation? Of course not.
 
Pardon me but I think your answer does not satisfy the conditions. Again you did say that God determines the end but also determines that there is a mean for it. But what if no one evangelize?
“What if,” “what if,” “what if,” “what if…”

Come out of the hypothetical, into reality. People evangelize. 'Nuff said. 🙂
Then God must does something to fulfill his predestination, since no one he has chosen will fall. This also comes off as perplexing since you count anyone who chooses God as “predestined”. That mean God creates certain man with the knowledge that He Himself predestines for them to goes unsaved. A God like that is not necessarily pure good is He?

Also the fact that Christ commissioned for His disciples to spread the Gospel to all is an indicator. Why didn’t Christ say: “Preach my words to whom my Father chooses”?
 
May I have some clarification please. Canon 22 says in the second half, that justified man with the help of God cannot not persevere.
No it doesnt.
Canon 22.
If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received,[123] or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema.
A summary of the intent of what the second half of this statement is saying is as follows. It is contrary to the faith to claim :
  • that a justified person can, without the special help of God, persevere in the state of grace (ie justice received)
  • that a justified person cannot, with the special help of God, persevere in the state of grace (ie justice received)
Two refutations are being made:
It is being refuted that perseverance in the state of grace can occur without God’s help; and it is being refuted that even with God’s help one cannot persevere in the state of Grace

Clear enough?
 
Did King David lose his salvation? Of course not.
How does one know this?

(And just so we’re clear, we’re not talking about where King David is right now–we all have the Church’s assurance that he is before the eternal throne of Jesus as we speak of course. We are talking about what would have happened to David if he died after sinning and before repenting. Did he lose his salvation then? You claim “Of course not”. **But how do you know? ** Please provide the evidence you have. Thanks. :))
 
I’ve answered several of your questions.

My question to you, and to other Catholics on this thread remains unanswered: Please provide some support, or proof that “disqualified = loss of salvation” in 1 Cor 9, and that “falling = loss of salvation” in 1 Cor 10.

Until you either provide what’s been requested, or tell me that you cannot answer the question, I’m going to conclude that you can’t answer the question. I don’t know what the lurkers will conclude.
I’d be happy to, but I’m confused by your request. What is the standard of proof you wish to employ exactly in determining that a “proof” has been successfully delivered? Is it “beyond a reasonable doubt” or is it “by a preponderance of the evidence” and who, exactly gets to be the arbiter of when the standard you propose has been met? Me? You?
FWIW, I think that 1Cor 6, Eph 5 and Gal 5 offer the strongest points against OSAS.
In each of those letters Paul clearly articulates that those he is writing to are what you might call “true believers” - they have repented, accepted Christ as Savior, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc etc. And in each of those letters Paul includes, along with his praise of their faithf, admonitions against certain behavior which jeopardizes their salvation (inheritance in the Kingdom of God, fall from state of Grace, separation from Christ, etc). There really is no reasonable explanation for these admonitions to be in Scripture if there were not a significant danger to the eternal well-being of the recipients. I would call it self-evident, but apparently you do not and that is why I wonder what your burden of proof is. For example, read what Paul says to the saved Galatians here in Chapter 5:
For freedom* Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery…Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcisedc that he is bound to observe the entire law…You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace…You were running well;* who hindered you from following [the] truth?

Its self explanatory…
 
FWIW, I think that 1Cor 6, Eph 5 and Gal 5 offer the strongest points against OSAS.

In each of those letters Paul clearly articulates that those he is writing to are what you might call “true believers” - they have repented, accepted Christ as Savior, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc etc.
Have you ever heard of the parable of the “wheat and the tares?”

I’m certain Paul had. 🙂
Its self explanatory…
Actually what you said sounds presuppositional, rather than self-explanatory, I think your claim of “self-explanatory” statement is somewhat fallacious. 🙂
 
No it doesnt.

A summary of the intent of what the second half of this statement is saying is as follows. It is contrary to the faith to claim :
  • that a justified person can, without the special help of God, persevere in the state of grace (ie justice received)
  • that a justified person cannot, with the special help of God, persevere in the state of grace (ie justice received)
Two refutations are being made:
It is being refuted that perseverance in the state of grace can occur without God’s help; and it is being refuted that even with God’s help one cannot persevere in the state of Grace

Clear enough?
That is what I said.
It is saying that you cannot say that with God’s help a person cannot persevere.

Canon 22.
If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received,[123] or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema.
 
Psalm 23:5: “I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.”

David was absolutely certain of his salvation.

So…David was guilty of the sin of presumption even in the act of writing Scripture, according to Catholic theology? I’ll pick Scripture over Catholic theology any day, any hour, any minute.

-Tina “Come to think of it, I’m not David either” G
 
We all recognize that the sinful soul will not choose God: prevenient grace is required for the soul to turn to God. This has been repeated ad nauseum. We are not saved by our free will, we are saved by God’ election (see Aquinas, et al). Some are not chosen for salvation.

Free will and predestination have been reconciled. I get the impression there is an unhealthy, un-Traditional and unScriptural overemphasis on free will going on here among the Catholics.
Please explain the difference between your position and Pelagianism. I think Augustine would rebuke you sharply.

-Tina “Not that I am Augustine, Either” G
Tina Aquinas would argue that those whom have been elected still have freewill. And even though some are not given efficient grace all are given sufficient grace.
 
Tina Aquinas would argue that those whom have been elected still have freewill. And even though some are not given efficient grace all are given sufficient grace.
I do not deny the existence of free will (even though no effort has been made to define what we mean by it on this thread). No one has demonstrated a contradiction between free will and OSAS.

-Tina “And I don’t think they can” G
 
Hi!

This thread is moving so fast it is hard for me to keep up, as I cannot devote a whole lot of time to it.

I posted material regarding Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Question 23 in which he affirmed the decision for salvation is in God not in man (i.e man’s will does not decide this) and he also affirmed reprobation - some men are created for hell. It is not clear to me that the Catholics on this thread are not attacking Thomist statements from a Molinist viewpoint, or perhaps more precisely, statements in common between STA and “OSAS” proponents, rather than separating out those ideas that are NOT shared between STA and OSAS.

Tina “Still Not a Thomist” G
Also Aquinas tought that God allows those to be reprobate for the greater glory of God. What Aquinas did not teach is that God wills man to fall. When God predestines the elect God produces all the results. We cannont say the say for reprobation. God orders all things to Himself as their final end, sin is the departure from this order. Aquinas was clear on this.

The Thomist position is that God decrees the permission to sin before it occurs (otherwise it would never happen) and deserts man only after he sins. Just because God wills to permit sin for His Devine justice does not mean God wills sin itself.
 
Here Trent says it is POSSIBLE for someone to learn that they have the gift of perseverance by special revelation. You then are contradicting Trent with your assertion that no one can know this. Here Trent says some specifically know this - otherwise there would be no point in making the statement. By the way, I find this whole statement ludicrous - “If you say this, you are anathema - unless God told you.”

-Tina “All In Favor of Special Revelation to Everyone - Except that it Seems Reserved for Protestants” G
The tradition of private revelation in Catholicism is long and very interesting. Private revelations include locutions, visions, apparitions, theophanies, etc. They are extremely rare gifts given for God’s purposes and are of unparalleled profundity. In the case of being informed of ones salvation, this would probably involve a locution where one is given a word by word communication or direct knowledge in any case about their having eternal life. They would know without a shadow of doubt where the information came from, no different in that particular sense from a communication you might receive while speaking to any other individual; one is actually being told a specific bit of information. It is not the same as answering an alter call, being convicted of sin, repenting, and converting, accepting Jesus as Lord and confessing His name as such, believing oneself to be saved, being enlightened by scripture, etc. That God can do these things is, of course, possible-and these experiences can bring with them certain responsibilities and even hardships as well more or less in line with Luke 12:48. Most of us are not dealt with that way.
 
I do not deny the existence of free will (even though no effort has been made to define what we mean by it on this thread). No one has demonstrated a contradiction between free will and OSAS.

-Tina “And I don’t think they can” G
I sorry but you might have to tell me how once one is saved how they can then not freely choose to leave salvation. You will need to explain how that is not a contradiction. If you have than point me to the post b/c I’m not reading this whole thread again. Or it might e easier to just repeat it for the sake of argument 🙂
 
I sorry but you might have to tell me how once one is saved how they can then not freely choose to leave salvation. You will need to explain how that is not a contradiction. If you have than point me to the post b/c I’m not reading this whole thread again. Or it might e easier to just repeat it for the sake of argument 🙂
You are the one asserting a contradiction. The burden of proof is on you.

-Tina “Enough of a Burden Already” G
 
The tradition of private revelation in Catholicism is long and very interesting. Private revelations include locutions, visions, apparitions, theophanies, etc. They are extremely rare gifts given for God’s purposes and are of unparalleled profundity. In the case of being informed of ones salvation, this would probably involve a locution where one is given a word by word communication or direct knowledge in any case about their having eternal life. They would know without shadow of doubt where the information came from, no different in that particular sense from a communication you might receive while speaking to any other individual; one is actually being told a specific bit of information. It is not the same as answering an alter call, being convicted of sin, repenting, and converting, accepting Jesus as Lord and confessing His name as such, believing yourself to be saved, being enlightened by scripture, etc. That God can do these things is, of course, possible-and these experiences can bring with them certain responsibilities and even hardships as well more or less in line with Luke 12:48. Most of us are not dealt with that way.
So…And how do you know God did not speak to me?

-Tina “Usually I am not listening anyway” G
 
So…And how do you know God did not speak to me?

-Tina “Usually I am not listening anyway” G
You tell me if it fits with what I described. If you’ve had one of these experiences you’ll know it- because there’s nothing else like them-they can’t be imagined or conjured, there’s nothing to relate them to. God can do whatever He wants-so tell me. Only you and He know for sure in the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top