There's no OSAS

[DCD]

Ah! Sanctifying grace! Now Who poured that into her soul?

It must have been the Holy Spirit, since the visible church had not yet appeared until Pentecost.

If it worked for the saved woman then, why do some claim that ability for themselves now? The Holy Spirit was already doing His sovereign work of applying grace to protect those that were saved. There is obviously no need to change what already works effectively as the Spirit does His Work of now preserving Jesus’ sheep. I think those who now claim that ability as their right to dispense of the Spirit’s Grace are overstepping the role given to Christ’s Church, and are instead, being very presumptuous.

Maybe that is the problem “I think”. Two thousand years of christian antiquity disagree with your assumption. The Catholic Church is carrying on the mandate given to it by Jesus Christ.

God Bless,
DCD

 

[sandusky]

A De fide dogma of the RC.


Ott states, that with respect to predestination, a Catholic must believe the following: 1. That God has predestined some to eternal blessedness
(complete predestination).

1. That God has predestined some to Grace (incomplete predestination).
2. That God has predestined the rest to eternal condemnation based upon foreseen demerits.

Groups 2 and 3 are predestined to the same place (eternal damnation), because the number of those predestined to “eternal blessedness” is eternally fixed, and cannot be changed; therefore, by default, the destination of the other two groups is eternally fixed as well.

Group one will be glorified, they will never lose their salvation.

Catholic OSAS? What else would you call it?

 

[cyberjacques]

A De fide dogma of the RC.


Ott states, that with respect to predestination, a Catholic must believe the following: 1. That God has predestined some to eternal blessedness
(complete predestination).

1. That God has predestined some to Grace (incomplete predestination).
2. That God has predestined the rest to eternal condemnation based upon foreseen demerits.

Groups 2 and 3 are predestined to the same place (eternal damnation), because the number of those predestined to “eternal blessedness” is eternally fixed, and cannot be changed; therefore, by default, the destination of the other two groups is eternally fixed as well.

Group one will be glorified, they will never lose their salvation.

Catholic OSAS? What else would you call it?

Did you even read the link you posted? 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. 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. 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.

 

[VociMike]

If being saved is just a process that never happens till death, then why did Jesus say to the sinful woman, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”? (Luke7:50)

God’s knowledge is complete. Ours is not. God can certainly say at any point in our lives, and even before we are born, and even before the universe was created, whether we are saved (will be saved) or not. This is not the same as OSAS, which claims that we can say with certainty whether we are saved (will be saved) or not. Just because God can do it gives us no cause to claim we can do it.

 

[JRKH]

Ah! Sanctifying grace! Now Who poured that into her soul?

It must have been the Holy Spirit, since the visible church had not yet appeared until Pentecost.

The Holy spirit is Still the one who pours out the Grace. Why would you think that we believe otherwise?
By your argument here, There would have been no need for the nation of Isreal to ever have existed. God could have poured out his graces and salvation on anyone, anywhere without the need of a “Chosen People”. Yet he Chose “one person”, Abraham, to father “One Nation” through which salvation came to the world. Christ established “One Church”, guided by “One Spirit”, through which Salvation is proclaimed to the world.

If it worked for the saved woman then, why do some claim that ability for themselves now?

I would need specific instances, documents, references to answer this since i do not know who you feel is attempting to usurp anything of God’s.

The Holy Spirit was already doing His sovereign work of applying grace to protect those that were saved. There is obviously no need to change what already works effectively as the Spirit does His Work of now preserving Jesus’ sheep.

I understand what you are saying here, and I really don’t think we have a disagreement. 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.

I think those who now claim that ability as their right to dispense of the Spirit’s Grace are overstepping the role given to Christ’s Church, and are instead, being very presumptuous.

In All christian charity, we believe that those who claim supremacy of private interpretation of the Bible outside of Christ’s Church is presumptuous as well. 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.

Afterthought:
The only thing I “need” on my car is the engine. It is what makes it run. But I think you’ll agree that “sola-Engineia”, wouldn’t make a very effective vehicle.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If eternal security is not true then do you lose your salvation everytime you sin or only when you do a big sin ?

Your premise here is false. You are creating an “If : Then” that does not correlate.

Whether or not we are saved is up to God.
Whether or not we are capable to be saved is up to us.
This is called free will and we possess this as long as we live.
Therefore the premise of “eternal security”, as in OSAS is false.

The issue of sin is a bit more complicated.
Being in a state of sin does jeopardize our salvation but does not necessarily seperate us from salvation. It mainly depends on our state of contrition. When we commit a sin, we seperate ourselves from God. That is what sin is. If we recognize our sin and are repentant, then no, our salvation would not be affected, but if we are unrepentant then our salvation is certainly in jeopardy because we are in a state of willful disobedience to God.
Our salvation will remain in jeopardy so long as we remain in a state of “willful disobedience”. Once we repent that disobedience, our loving Father welcomes us back with open and loving arms.

The danger many see in the concept of OSAS is the loss of this “need for repentance”. The OSASer says I am washed clean and god knows I’m going to sin but has already forgiven me, so I don’t need repent and ask His forgivenss when I sin against my neighbor.
I am not saying that this is how you personally feel, but the danger is there.

I hope that this helps clarify.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If being saved is just a process that never happens till death, then why did Jesus say to the sinful woman, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”? (Luke7:50)

Jesus did not say that the woman’s work of repenting, kissing, and annointing His feet is what saved the woman. Those works were only the evidence of the true saving faith which she had.

Jesus declared the woman’s faith as the singular cause of her salvation, not the works.

How could Jesus command her to “go in peace”, if that faith did not have a sure hope of her always being saved from then on?
She already was a weak person, as we could see by her past behaviour, so there would be little chance of her “going in peace” if the continuance of her being presently saved depended on her not “spoiling” everything with her weakness.

Good point brkn1 but let’s look at another situation, the adultress.
Here Jesus says He does not condemn her and then tells her to “Go and sin no more”?
Peace
James

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

A De fide dogma of the RC.

[

Ott](http://www.thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/predestination.htm) states, that with respect to predestination, a Catholic must believe the following:1. That God has predestined some to eternal blessedness(complete predestination).

1. That God has predestined some to Grace (incomplete predestination).
2. That God has predestined the rest to eternal condemnation based upon foreseen demerits.

Groups 2 and 3 are predestined to the same place (eternal damnation), because the number of those predestined to “eternal blessedness” is eternally fixed, and cannot be changed; therefore, by default, the destination of the other two groups is eternally fixed as well.Group one will be glorified, they will never lose their salvation.

Catholic OSAS? What else would you call it?

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. [For scriptural proofs against absolute assurance of salvation I submit the following passages: 1 Cor 9:27, 10:12, Gal 5:1,4, Phil 3:11-14, 1 Tim 4:1, 5:15, Heb 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:15,20-21. These I consider the most compelling, but there are many others as well: e.g.: 1 Sam 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezek 18:24, 33:12-13,18, Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, Heb 6:11-12, 10:23,26,29,36,39, 12:15, Rev 2:4-5.]

Predestined and it’s assurance of knowing that you are predestined is just like being pre-approved. You find yourself in need of a car. You subsequently get a scripture(not the same as Holy Scripture) in the mail stating you are pre-approved for a car loan at a particular car dealer. You get there, and they process you, and then tell you that you can not be financed.

You will not know that you were one of the ACTUALLY PREDESTINED until you reach your point of FINAL DESTINATION.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Originally Posted by brkn1
If being saved is just a process that never happens till death, then why did Jesus say to the sinful woman, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”? (Luke7:50)

Here is something to ponder.

Jesus saved this woman.

Jesus was here Savior at Present Time.

Did she still need Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross?

If so, why?

Also did the woman make any Verbal or Mental acknowledgement that Jesus was her Personal Lord and Savior?

 

[guanophore]

If being saved is just a process that never happens till death, then why did Jesus say to the sinful woman, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”? (Luke7:50)

Had she died that moment, she would have had a straight ticket to paradise. However, if she did not continue in faith (go in peace) and fell into sin again, then she will be separated from God by that sin, and will need to be forgiven.

Jesus did not say that the woman’s work of repenting, kissing, and annointing His feet is what saved the woman. Those works were only the evidence of the true saving faith which she had. Jesus declared the woman’s faith as the singular cause of her salvation, not the works.

No arguement here.

How could Jesus command her to “go in peace”, if that faith did not have a sure hope of her always being saved from then on?

Certainly, that faith does provide a sure hope. But there is no guarantee that she will hold fast to that faith.

 She already was a weak person, as we could see by her past behaviour, so there would be little chance of her "going in peace" if the continuance of her being presently saved depended on her not "spoiling" everything with her weakness.

God’s strength is made perfect in weakness! If she persists in her devotion to her saviour, He will fill her with His grace, and by that grace she will be able to resist falling into sin.

 

[brkn1]

Had she died that moment, she would have had a straight ticket to paradise. However, if she did not continue in faith (go in peace) and fell into sin again, then she will be separated from God by that sin, and will need to be forgiven.

Certainly, that faith does provide a sure hope. But there is no guarantee that she will hold fast to that faith.

God’s strength is made perfect in weakness! If she persists in her devotion to her saviour, He will fill her with His grace, and by that grace she will be able to resist falling into sin.

I left the qualifying parts of your post explaining the method you see God using to “possibly save” a person if the proper “ifs” line up before death.

Our salvation comes across as a gamble of the “ifs” in your description. There is a “rolling of the dice” sense to our salvation here, although it allows that we might be able to play with a grace-loaded dice. It still comes across as a gamble, which presents an uncertainty that should make any person who considers what would be the biblical explanation of failure (eternal damnation) extremely paranoid and worried, as they go through life.

 

[VociMike]

I left the qualifying parts of your post explaining the method you see God using to “possibly save” a person if the proper “ifs” line up before death.

Our salvation comes across as a gamble of the “ifs” in your description. There is a “rolling of the dice” sense to our salvation here, although it allows that we might be able to play with a grace-loaded dice. It still comes across as a gamble, which presents an uncertainty that should make any person who considers what would be the biblical explanation of failure (eternal damnation) extremely paranoid and worried, as they go through life.

There is no gamble on God’s end. The only gamble regards what we might do in the future. Our preacher turned militant atheist friend demonstrated that.

 

[brkn1]

There is no gamble on God’s end. The only gamble regards what we might do in the future.

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 .

 

[VociMike]

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 .

That is reaching, reaching, reaching! I won’t even dignify it beyond that. Tell you what - if there are people who end up in hell solely because of a lack of intent by the priest, then you win. But there won’t be any, not one, not a single one.

Don’t strain at gnats, be substantive.

 

[brkn1]

That is reaching, reaching, reaching! I won’t even dignify it beyond that. Tell you what - if there are people who end up in hell solely because of a lack of intent by the priest, then you win. But there won’t be any, not one, not a single one.

Don’t strain at gnats, be substantive.

I could use the standard answer that many Catholics here use by saying “How do you know?”.
I would not consider it a win if any ended up in Hell for any reason.

The RCC seems to place more interest in “intent” than you are willing to from your response. They seem to have made a doctrine out of it; so maybe it should not be so casually dismissed as non-substantive.

 

[guanophore]

I left the qualifying parts of your post explaining the method you see God using to “possibly save” a person if the proper “ifs” line up before death.

Our salvation comes across as a gamble of the “ifs” in your description. There is a “rolling of the dice” sense to our salvation here, although it allows that we might be able to play with a grace-loaded dice. It still comes across as a gamble, which presents an uncertainty that should make any person who considers what would be the biblical explanation of failure (eternal damnation) extremely paranoid and worried, as they go through life.

I am just mystified by this. Can you help me? It seems to me that scripture is quite clear that if we believe with our heart, and confess with our mouth, we will be saved. How is that gambling? Where is the possiblity for the “dice” to fall anywhere else but “in grace”?

I agree that there are people who do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about grace and salvation, and that some of them are paranoid and worried (do not go in peace). However, it seems to me that this results from poor catechesis. There are so many solid promises of Christ about salvation, it is incomprehensible to me that a person who knows them could think that it is a “gamble”, or be worried.

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.

Well, do you think it would be ok for a priest to go around secretly wanting to commit people to the care of satan? Don’t you agree that the priest needs to act in the person of Christ?
I think it is a matter of trust, of course. Whenever we depend upon another member of the body of Christ to minister to us, it is a matter of trust. I don’t really think of it as a “gamble”. I mean, we know who these people are and would not go to them for ministry if we did not believe they could act in the person of Christ.

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 .

Well, it would take more than “distraction” to nullify intent. When the priest takes his vows, he pronounces the intentions for his whole ministry. However, I did hear on Immaculate Heart Radio that some subversives in the 60’s were baptizing 'in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier", and that this is not considered a valid baptism. However, since we renew our baptismal vows annually (at least) such a person would be covered under a baptism of desire.

I could use the standard answer that many Catholics here use by saying “How do you know?”.
I would not consider it a win if any ended up in Hell for any reason.

We agree on that. Really, how do any of us really “know” about anything? The spirit bears witness in our hearts, and He is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire posession of it. If we are bearing the fruit of righteousness, then we can be sure that we are firmly planted in the waters of salvation.

The RCC seems to place more interest in “intent” than you are willing to from your response. They seem to have made a doctrine out of it; so maybe it should not be so casually dismissed as non-substantive.

I don’t know about it being a doctrine. Can you give an example of when a priest might administer the form of a sacrament, without the power thereof? I mean, other than “distraction” which does not qualify as a lack of intent. For example, if he is blessing the water in the baptismal font, how might that blessing lack validity?

 

[Fisher]

The danger many see in the concept of OSAS is the loss of this “need for repentance”. The OSASer says I am washed clean and god knows I’m going to sin but has already forgiven me, so I don’t need repent and ask His forgivenss when I sin against my neighbor.
I am not saying that this is how you personally feel, but the danger is there.

“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

 

[VociMike]

I could use the standard answer that many Catholics here use by saying “How do you know?”.
I would not consider it a win if any ended up in Hell for any reason.

The RCC seems to place more interest in “intent” than you are willing to from your response. They seem to have made a doctrine out of it; so maybe it should not be so casually dismissed as non-substantive.

As a Christian you should know that God did not reveal everything to us (no doubt for our own good). One very large thing he did not reveal to us is the fate of those who do not follow the normative Christian path to salvation. The matter you brought up is but a tiny drop in that great ocean of non-revelation. Why you would choose to criticize the Church over one drop in that great ocean that God has deigned not to reveal to us is curious to say the least. 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.

 

[Fisher]

Here is something to ponder.

Jesus saved this woman.

Jesus was here Savior at Present Time.

Did she still need Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross?

If so, why?

Also did the woman make any Verbal or Mental acknowledgement that Jesus was her Personal Lord and Savior?

Because she was a Jew and knew Jesus was the Christ read the OT Isa 53 52 7 all the OT its Is about Jesus read Psalm 22 every book has Jesus. If a saved Jew died they went to Abrham’s bosom Luke 16:22 the Jews were looking to the cross we are looking back at the cross.

2Cro 5: 7 **(For we walk by faith, not by sight **
5: 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Luke 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

 

[Fisher]

As a Christian you should know that God did not reveal everything to us (no doubt for our own good). One very large thing he did not reveal to us is the fate of those who do not follow the normative Christian path to salvation. The matter you brought up is but a tiny drop in that great ocean of non-revelation. Why you would choose to criticize the Church over one drop in that great ocean that God has deigned not to reveal to us is curious to say the least. 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.

A catholic started this Thread.