There's no OSAS

[sandusky]

cyberjacques:

Did you even read the link you posted?

Why would I do that?

cyberjacques:

Not only does it provide some superb examples of why OSAS is a fantasy, but it specifically rejects Double Predestination, which is what you are referring to.

Your argument is a bit of a strawman; I say a bit of strawman because Calvin does teach predestination to reprobation; however, since his time further study negates that as a necessity; what most reformed conclude, and the scriptures support, is the idea of preterition. God does not have to predestine the reprobate to hell, as their state is already a state of reprobation, and as that group includes all of mankind since the fall, God merely leaves the reprobate in their state, as is His right to do.

cyberjacques:

Just because God knows who won’t be saved doesn’t mean He creates them that way. God does create the Elect specifically to be saved, even though there is no way we can ever know for sure if we’re one of them.

I’ll deal with that in a moment.

But even the Elect aren’t saved until after their resurrection, and I would speculate (though I am unsure if this is in line with Catholic teaching) that even the Elect have the free will to reject their impending salvation.

That is what the CC teaches; however, Biblically, the elect are fully glorified, in eternity past (Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:3ff). The outworking of that takes place in time with respect to calling and justification; with respect to glorification, that is fully realized in eternity at the end of physical life.
Peter Da Rock:

Sandusky, you jumped thru a lot of hoops to derive at these groups.

The problem is that you missed entirely the context of what is being said.

1. The predestined is a fixed number.
2. That number is known only to God.
3. Who is predestined is known only to God.
4. The Individual cannot boast with 100% confidence and certainity they are the predestined. They can only HOPE to be.

On the contrary, I’ missed none of those points, and in fact, I mentioned point #1 in my initial post.

With respect to your points #s 2 and 3, that’s obvious.

With respect to your point #4, the reformed/Biblical doctrine of perseverance is not concerned with whether or not one can have absolute assurance of salvation, as no one is guaranteed infallibility as an attribute; therefore, your point #4 is a strawman as it concerns my position.

What the Biblical doctrine of perseverance states, in simplest terms, is that those whom God justifies, He also glorifies (Rom 8:30); IOW, they will never lose their salvation.

Back to the Catholic notion of predestination/perseverance, those whom God predestines to eternal blessedness, cannot fail to achieve that state either; therefore, “Once Saved, Always” is an appropriate designation for the Catholic Doctrine of predestination to eternal blessedness.

 

[jcoldc]

Someone please tell me what a strawman is???

 

[cyberjacques]

You might want to check into Catholic Encyclopedia on this site.

Look up the word “intent” and you will find that a Catholic is not only gambling on what “he/she” does, but that sincere Catholic is also gambling on what the minister (priest) does.
If that priest does not have the proper “intent” when dispensing grace through the sacraments, then that grace is ineffective or void.

It makes the gamble more than “what we might do”, when considering that possibility. You can’t even be sure you were properly baptized by that standard. It’s possible that you aren’t even a Catholic, if your priest was distracted and not up to “intents” that day .

Perhaps you could provide us with a link or other source for this assertion?

 

[sandusky]

Someone please tell me what a strawman is???

Straw man

 

[VociMike]

Catholics would seem to be more willing to place their trust in God over this issue than you are, since I’ve never in my life met a Catholic who worried about it.

No, the issue I was referring to was the “lack of intent by the priest” “issue”.

 

[Phil12123]

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

**They don’t do??? They DID do—they prophesied in His name, they cast out demons in His name, they DID many wonderful works in His name!! Certainly no lack of DOING! Many wonderful works and in His name!

I think you have it backwards. They did DO and there is nothing wrong with WHAT they did, all in His name, but they were trusting in their works to get them into heaven instead of the Work of Christ at Calvary. They had a works salvation, like you do.**

James corrects anything Paul wrote that was twisted and distorted.

So the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write something that was “twisted and distorted”? And, as is often claimed here, the CC included such twisted and distorted writings in the canon of Scripture?

 

[Phil12123]

I do think that there is a mis-understanding of what the Church is, and what her role is in the work of salvation.
You believe you are saved by God - So do we.
You Believe this based on Holy Scripture - So do we.
Under OSAS you believe that, now that you are saved, you have no “need” to go to church, or even to perform any acts. Your sins are forgiven, past present and future. To you Salvation is a moment, a decision on your part.
We believe that, now that we are saved in Christ’s Church, that we must work to become perfected in Christ. To work to establish His kingdom on earth. To hold tightly to the discipline of the Church which helps us to be better diciples. To endure to the end as scripture tells us. But we don’t believe that the Church saves us. It is God who saves. The church is the tool through which God works.
The Church, and her laws is like an AA for sinners. We enter as sinners and recognize our sinful natures. Then, relying on God’s grace and mercy, we work to overcome our sinful natures. To become more Christlike.

But don’t you also believe that if you don’t obey “the laws” of the Church, you won’t go to heaven? If you don’t “work” in the way mentioned, you won’t go to heaven? If so, your getting to heaven will ultimately depend on your works, not on the Work of Christ at Calvary to pay for your sins. So, when do you receive God’s free gift of eternal life? Only after you have worked for it, and died in a state of working for it?

Here is a little timeline:
First Came God
Then Came Us
Then Came Sin and Death
Followed By Jesus with God’s Salvic Grace
Afterwards Came the Christ’s Church, guided by and through the Holy Spirit.
Lastly Came the Bible (NT) in it’s present form, codified and declared inerrant By the Spirit Guided Catholic (translate: Universal) Church.

A thousand years later, the Bible was separated from the Church by radicals and confusion has reigned ever since.

So who are the presumptuous ones?
The Church that, determined, codified, translated, defended and proclaimed the gospel and the Bible?
Or is it the persons who, for whatever reason, seperated the Bible from Christ’s Church, declared that Church evil and subtituted Sola-Scriptura.

**Your timeline leaves out the original intention of those “radicals” or Reformers—to correct abusive, unbiblical practices of “the Church” like selling indulgences, etc. Luther, a good priest, never intended to break away from “the Church.” He was thrown out when he did not recant his assertions which were based on biblical truth and which were rejected by prideful Catholic leaders. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Catholic leaders had absolute power and they were absolutely corrupted by it. The only thing that has changed since then in the CC is the loss of that absolute power, politically, though they still maintain spiritual power over its members to say when and if and how they may have their sins forgiven and be able to enter heaven. The very notion that there is a “treasury” from which the CC dispenses grace and indulgences is absurd; if such existed and the CC really cared about souls suffering in purgatory (if it existed), it would immediately dispense the entire treasury if necessary to grant relief and release of those souls to heaven. There would BE no souls in purgatory if the CC really cared about them and the suffering that they supposedly have to endure to pay for their sins (another unbiblical notion).

I praise God for those “radicals” who sought to follow biblical truth, even to the point of certain death at the hands of “the Church” Christ supposedly founded.**

 

[JRKH]

But don’t you also believe that if you don’t obey “the laws” of the Church, you won’t go to heaven? If you don’t “work” in the way mentioned, you won’t go to heaven?
Yes and No. The purpose of the Church is to act as an intermediary between Jesus, who is it’s Head and the Faithful. The Church is to teach, (and remember that when the Church started, very few people could read). So we, as good Children of God and Brothers in Christ, learn and obey the teaching of the Church.
If we follow “The Laws” with sincerity of heart and Love of God, we will reach heaven. However, if we act like the pharasees and follow the law with mind, but not heart, none of our acts will count for a thing.
In the end, it will be God who determines.

If so, your getting to heaven will ultimately depend on your works, not on the Work of Christ at Calvary to pay for your sins.

We refer to the idea of dying in a state of grace. So I would rephrase your statement as “died in a state of Grace”, and yes we work to maintian that state of Grace. Why? Because we are imperfect and want to correct our imperfections because we Love Our Lord.
We recieve the Gift of eternal life at baptism. We determine where we will spend that eternal life by our actions after baptism. We recieve our just reward after corporeal death.

Your timeline leaves out the original intention of those “radicals” or Reformers—to correct abusive, unbiblical practices of “the Church” like selling indulgences, etc. Luther, a good priest, never intended to break away from “the Church.” He was thrown out when he did not recant his assertions which were based on biblical truth and which were rejected by prideful Catholic leaders. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Catholic leaders had absolute power and they were absolutely corrupted by it. The only thing that has changed since then in the CC is the loss of that absolute power, politically, though they still maintain spiritual power over its members to say when and if and how they may have their sins forgiven and be able to enter heaven. The very notion that there is a “treasury” from which the CC dispenses grace and indulgences is absurd; if such existed and the CC really cared about souls suffering in purgatory (if it existed), it would immediately dispense the entire treasury if necessary to grant relief and release of those souls to heaven. There would BE no souls in purgatory if the CC really cared about them and the suffering that they supposedly have to endure to pay for their sins (another unbiblical notion).
There is a great deal that I left out of the timeline, just as there is a great deal that you leave out of your understanding of Christ’s Church. but my intent was only to show that the Bible, that book which you place all your hopes on, was the last thing created in God’s salvation plan and not the first.
The post that I was responding to indicated that God didn’t need a Church, and that the HS was dispensing salvation before the Church. etc. (I’m paraphrasing) my response was that God may not need these things but He chooses to use them, and that the Catholic church predates the Bible. So why are you putting so much faith in the Bible, but none in the Church christ Founded and which compiled, preached, defended, and translated the bible for 1000 years?
As to abuses within the Church at that time - or any other - that would be a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that Satan is insidious.

I praise God for those “radicals” who sought to follow biblical truth, even to the point of certain death at the hands of “the Church” Christ supposedly founded.

To an extent I do too, for they did help the Church to reform, but The cost was awfully high. Thousands of different denominations, millions of different interpretations - all from the same book - all claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit - all just as sure the other is wrong - and no central authority of learned, prayerful men with the historical lineage, to help determine which interpretations are correct and which are not.
If the split from Rome resulted in one or two or even three other very similar Christian churches then maybe we could say that the HS was at work. But thousands??? It’s just another Babel.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

“Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” —Acts 20:21

Repentance is turning to the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from one’s sins (Romans 4:5). Salvation is receiving; NOT giving. Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 5:15;6:23), paid for by Jesus’ precious literal blood (1st Peter 1:18,19). To be saved we simply need to come as a guilty sinner to Jesus Christ to have our sins washed away by His redeeming blood (1st John 1:7). Salvation is turning to Jesus to be forgiven of one’s sins; NOT turning from one’s sins in order to be forgiven by Jesus.

The word “believe” is mentioned 85 times in the Gospel of John; YET the word “repent” is not mentioned even ONCE!!! Clearly, the sinner who believes on Jesus as the Christ to forgive their sins has repented.

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” -Romans 4:5

I agree that one must be repentant in order to turn to Jesus in faith. To truly believe in Christ is to cease from sin, and to follow HIs commandments.

Are you proposing that confession of one’s sins is a “work” that does not lead to rightousness?

It is not appropriate to develop a soteriology based upon one book of the Bible, or a handful of chosen passages. You may not find the word “repent” in the book of John, but it is clear that the Baptist is administering the baptism of repentance. The concept of repentance is also clear:

John 5:13-15
13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.”

What Jesus expects is that we turn away from sin. It is also clear that sin has ongoing consequences,both temporal and eternal.

 

[guanophore]

** They did DO and there is nothing wrong with WHAT they did, all in His name, but they were trusting in their works to get them into heaven instead of the Work of Christ at Calvary. They had a works salvation, like you do.**

I read this whole thread, and I still cannot understand the reference here. Are you saying this comment to a certain member of the forum, or are you saying that all Catholics embrace a “works salvation”? Either way, can you explain what “works salvation” means and give an example of Catholic “works salvation”?

I am confused by this, because it seems to me that the Catholic Church teaches the opposite - that people are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast.

Furthermore, I cannot find “works salvation” in the bible anywhere, and I do not think it even exists!
Since it is impossible to be saved by “works” then how can there be any such animal as “works salvation”? It seems like a contradiction in terms to me.

So the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write something that was “twisted and distorted”? And, as is often claimed here, the CC included such twisted and distorted writings in the canon of Scripture?

No, the twisting and distorting is done by people, usually ignorant and unstable ones, that misunderstand the Holy Writings.

2 Peter 3:15-16
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which **the ignorant and unstable twist **to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

For example, the invention of a concept called “works salvation” might be one such.

 

[guanophore]

But don’t you also believe that if you don’t obey “the laws” of the Church, you won’t go to heaven? If you don’t “work” in the way mentioned, you won’t go to heaven? If so, your getting to heaven will ultimately depend on your works, not on the Work of Christ at Calvary to pay for your sins. So, when do you receive God’s free gift of eternal life? Only after you have worked for it, and died in a state of working for it?

The Apostles appointed bishops, and invested them with their authority, which came from Christ. Obedience to them is a reflection of our obedience to Christ:

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Titus 2:15

Does it not seem clear that the Apostle expects the Bishop to rule in his stead?

It seems to me that you are separating grace from the holy works that are to be produced in us who are saved. This appears to be a consequence of excising scriptures out to make doctrine. If you read Eph. 2:8-10 as a whole, instead of stopping at the end of vs. 9, it is clear that the purpose of our salvation is to manifest holy works. These cannot be separated from the grace by which we are saved.

So, when do you receive God’s free gift of eternal life? Only after you have worked for it, and died in a state of working for it?[/qupte]

No. In order to receive eternal life, then one must die in a state of grace. Such a state cannot be achieved by human effort, but only by receiving the grace of God. Once a person has received that grace, it will be expressed in good deeds, but these can only proceed from grace, through faith. Catholics do not separate justification from sanctification.

We enter into life at baptism, when we are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Throughout our life on earth, we work out (not work “on”) our salvation with fear and trembling. We strive to lay hold of that (grace) which has laid hold of us. Our eternal life is perfected when we are united with Christ in heaven, where our imperishable crown is kept for us.
Phil12123;3614121:

Your timeline leaves out the original intention of those “radicals” or Reformers—to correct abusive, unbiblical practices of “the Church” like selling indulgences, etc. Luther, a good priest, never intended to break away from “the Church.”

Luther was not a “good priest”, because if he were, he would have not broken unity with the Bride of Christ. However, I agree that he never intended to break away. He chose a secular method to address abuses he saw, and his initiative was pounced upon by German politicians who realized their opportunity to wrest economic and political power from Rome.

He was thrown out when he did not recant his assertions which were based on biblical truth and which were rejected by prideful Catholic leaders. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Catholic leaders had absolute power and they were absolutely corrupted by it.

Yes, and I think the same devil ultimately got to Luther also. When one reads about his attitudes and behaviors that came afterward, we can see that the corruption was running rampant in both directions. It is a mistake, however, to equate the corruption of men with the Holy Bride of Christ. What people don’t seem to perceive is that the Head of the Church is Christ, and the Church is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divinity of the Church that makes her Infallible, not the errant men who are members of her.

The only thing that has changed since then in the CC is the loss of that absolute power, politically, though they still maintain spiritual power over its members to say when and if and how they may have their sins forgiven and be able to enter heaven. The very notion that there is a “treasury” from which the CC dispenses grace and indulgences is absurd; if such existed and the CC really cared about souls suffering in purgatory (if it existed), it would immediately dispense the entire treasury if necessary to grant relief and release of those souls to heaven. There would BE no souls in purgatory if the CC really cared about them and the suffering that they supposedly have to endure to pay for their sins (another unbiblical notion).

Clearly you do not understand the concept of the treasury of merit, or purgatory, or the value of suffering. Are any of those concepts germaine to this thread? I think they could be, if you would like to go there. for example, what was the treasure of which Jesus was speaking?

Matt 6:20-21
lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I praise God for those “radicals” who sought to follow biblical truth, even to the point of certain death at the hands of “the Church” Christ supposedly founded.

I praise God for all reform, as men are always in need of reform, whether they are Catholic, or Protestant. However, Jesus founded One Church, and only has One Body, therefore, all who are in Christ are members of the One Body.

 

[JoeyWarren]

At the risk of going off on a shaky limb…

Catholics believe in a “Faith with accompanying Works” Salvation which can be found in the Holy Scripture.

Phil believes in a “Faith Alone” Salvation which cannot be found in Holy Scripture and which is debunked by Holy Scripture in the Book of James. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD Phil.

 

[Ronald_E]

For those who believe that the reformation was the right work look at this verse from Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

 

[jcoldc]

Straw man

Thanks for the info. Sounds like everyone is throwing strawmen around.

 

[brkn1]

Thanks for the info. Sounds like everyone is throwing strawmen around.

That statement could be used as an example of the strawman technique. Just throw something out there without much substance to it and thereby imply the statement has truth to it.

What I just did here might also be used as an example. It never ends, if that is how one chooses to present the truth to others.

It is a technique that should generally be avoided IMO.

 

[brkn1]

My getting to heaven will depend soley on God’s mercy. However it is my intention to do all that I can to be worthy of His mercy.

We recieve our just reward after corporeal death.

Peace
James

I saved this part of your post, because it seems to define the mindset of many as they relate to God.

I completely agree with the idea of our getting to heaven depending soley on God’s mercy.

But then you go and say that you want “to do all that you can to be worthy” of that very mercy soley provided by God.

The fact is that there is nothing you could ever do to be “worthy” of the least bit of mercy God freely provides you by His Grace.

It would be far better to simply praise, thank, obey, and worship our Mercifully Gracious God Who is the only One Worthy and Good.

The motivation to be worthy of God’s Mercy should not come out of the idea that we can ever deserve that Mercy in any way of ourselves; but that motivation should come out of our response in awe and gratitude and love for a God that would provide such a great Mercy on such miserable and undeserving beings as we were without Him.

Our just reward after corporeal death should be eternal damnation, if it were not for the Mercy and Grace of Our Awesome God and Redeemer, Who provided a Way for us to be justified by Him alone, which saves us from what we truly would have deserved even now, without His Mercy, Grace, and Patient Love for us.

 

[jcoldc]

The fact is that there is nothing you could ever do to be “worthy” of the least bit of mercy God freely provides you by His Grace.

The motivation to be worthy of God’s Mercy should not come out of the idea that we can ever deserve that Mercy in any way of ourselves; but that motivation should come out of our response in awe and gratitude and love for a God that would provide such a great Mercy on such miserable and undeserving beings as we were without Him.
.

We say at every mass:

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you. But say the word and I shall be healed.”

 

[JRKH]

I read this whole thread, and I still cannot understand the reference here. Are you saying this comment to a certain member of the forum, or are you saying that all Catholics embrace a “works salvation”? Either way, can you explain what “works salvation” means and give an example of Catholic “works salvation”?

I am confused by this, because it seems to me that the Catholic Church teaches the opposite - that people are saved by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast.

Furthermore, I cannot find “works salvation” in the bible anywhere, and I do not think it even exists!
Since it is impossible to be saved by “works” then how can there be any such animal as “works salvation”? It seems like a contradiction in terms to me.

I have posted links to actual Church teaching in a previous post. That seems to have been ignored by some, (or never seen I suppose) which completely rebukes the idea of Catholics believing in a works salvation.

Some people just can’t let go of the concept.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Brkn1,
I like you - I really do, but your making me crazy.

I saved this part of your post, because it seems to define the mindset of many as they relate to God.

I completely agree with the idea of our getting to heaven depending soley on God’s mercy.

But then you go and say that you want “to do all that you can to be worthy” of that very mercy soley provided by God.

The fact is that there is nothing you could ever do to be “worthy” of the least bit of mercy God freely provides you by His Grace.

Why is it when you say that you “do” things, such as obey the commandments, or study the scriptures, or other things that require effort (work) it’s OK because you do it for the glory of God and when i say almost the same thing, you read it as “works salvation”. Why is MY desire to Please my God, upon whom I rely for my very life, any different from yours?

It would be far better to simply praise, thank, obey, and worship our Mercifully Gracious God Who is the only One Worthy and Good.

Where did I say I wasn’t praising God? I want to please God who is my savior. Therefore I do things that are worthy of a Diciple of Christ. Please note that I wish to be worthy diciple, not trying to be worthy of Heaven.

The motivation to be worthy of God’s Mercy should not come out of the idea that we can ever deserve that Mercy in any way of ourselves; but that motivation should come out of our response in awe and gratitude and love for a God that would provide such a great Mercy on such miserable and undeserving beings as we were without Him.

So why is this different than what i am saying? The Key word here is do. For as we both know, “faith without Works is dead”.

Our just reward after corporeal death should be eternal damnation, if it were not for the Mercy and Grace of Our Awesome God and Redeemer, Who provided a Way for us to be justified by Him alone, which saves us from what we truly would have deserved even now, without His Mercy, Grace, and Patient Love for us.

Well the next time I say that this is wrong, you can call me on it. However I have never said that God is not our Savior so your counterpost to mine just saying the same thing.

Peace
James

 

[brkn1]

However it is my intention to do all that I can to be worthy of His mercy.

Merit: reward or punishment earned or deserved.
: to be worthy of or entitled or liable to
: EARN

The real reason you must reject OSAS is because it makes a person unable to EARN some part of their salvation by works.

A person already saved can not earn that free gift of salvation anymore.

A person already saved has a very different motivation to do the resulting works of true faith, which are only possible after having received the free gift of eternal salvation.