Thoughts on Once Saved Always Saved

[AlegreFe]

I personally used to hold to this teaching, but then I realized that it is neither biblical nor traditional. The Church has never taught such a doctrine as it is not of Christ. One problem is that one must realize that by consciously choosing to sin, the Holy Spirit may not dwell in them. Now I know that I will get many objections to this teaching, however, it is not only biblical; it is logical.

You won’t get any objection from me!

Alexius:

When I held to OSAS, my defense of it was (1) that once in Christ and in the Book of Life, you had a place among the elect in Heaven and (2) that once you received the Spirit, you were cleansed of sin by Christ’s death - past, present, and future. No deed you could do would get you to Heaven or Hell.

Theoretically, you could sin all you wanted and God would continue to grant forgiveness. The outcome was that even now, I struggle to ask forgiveness for my sins ! I got into the mindset that asking forgiveness was a mere formality.

This person that I know thinks the same thing. He doesn’t think he has to ask for forgiveness. I would like to ask him why are the Ten Commandments still here and why does Jesus say that we have to keep His commandments in order to get to Heaven?

Alexius:

The Calvinist doctrinal formulation declared at the Synod of Dordt on “Perseverance of the Saints” teaches that those of the elect of God will ultimately receive salvation; based on two main mistakes regarding predestination and the faith/works issue. For more information on Calvinism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

It is very difficult to “disprove” many of the Calvinist teachings, but we have the Holy Spirit’s guidance…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Yes we do have the guidance of the Holy Spirit given as authority in the Catholic Church.

 

[AlegreFe]

The problem I have with OSAS is that there has to be more to it than that. I don’t believe one can profess being saved, attend church every Sunday, and not really do much of anything for the next 50 years and then expect to go to Heaven without having anything else to show for it.

As for works, think about it: Most Protestants are into “works” just as much as Catholics. They know they’re not going to heaven if they just sit around and don’t do anything but live selfish lives. And they’ll be the first to spout off the passage about how we should not “be hearers only, but doers of the Word” (paraphrasing… don’t have it in front of me) or the passage in James that says “Faith without works is dead.” Protestants believe these things every bit as much as Catholics. And see how they live! See how they’re always so gung-ho about the Missions and stewardship programs and so on. Oh, they believe in works, alright.

But they don’t think that their works are getting them into heaven. They just think that the blood of Jesus alone is getting them there. They just do the works because they think it is produced out of their faith. But that seems a bit half backwards to me. It is not one caused from the other. We have to have Faith AND do good works to show our Faith. I forgot exactly how this protestant person described it to me about his works coming out of his faith or something and he did not agree with the Catholic Faith AND works teaching.

 

[AlegreFe]

I don’t see how an OSAS approach is radically different from the theology that says once you accept Jesus or truly repent or whatever the approrpriate phrase is (my apologies), all your past sins are forgiven.

I don’t think it is different. It sounds the same to me.

Both views can be seen as giving one a license to sin. IN the later example, repentance has to come after the fact. But it still gets the job done. Why should it be seen as a morally or theologically inferior position to believe that experiencing a true moment of faith saves one from past, present and future sins?

Because that moment only lasts a moment and we can go on sinning after that “moment” is over. We still have to keep repenting of our sins if we keep sinning. And who on this earth doesn’t sin?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Not the person that I know. :nope: It’s really sad. He thinks that he doesn’t have to forgive the person who hurt it really bad. And that was many years ago and he still holds a grudge to this day.

Like I said in the OP, some adhere to it more than others do for sure. But, in effect, they do appear to be transforming the grace of our God into a license for immorality by saying that we can sin all we like to without losing our salvation in Christ.

AlegreFe:

It is very dangerous. And I’ve shown many a scripture verse to show this in other threads.

You won’t get any arguments from me. It’s only that some do not take it as far as others do. Some do show sincere repentence even if their theology doesn’t require it. And others go way to the other extreme and say they don’t have to do anything at all-- simply because they beleive.

I would argue that the second position is extremely dangerous (and in the most radical cases, I would actually argue blasphemous) whereas the first position is more of a ideosyncrasy, or a living contradiction in their own beliefs-- sincerely repenting by the motion of the Holy Spirit even though their theology does not actually require it.

 

[Zelopes]

Join my club, Abira…
Now, for anyone else: This was the very first time I heard of such concept. It goes without saying that I do not really believe in it such as it’s been explained in these postings.
But there is one pervasive idea that keeps popping up to my mind as I go along reading them, and I would summarize it as follows:
When you speak of “faith”, what do you have in mind? The creed of one particular religion or just a sincere and honest “faith” in whatever religion you were educated?
More specifically, could a Buddhist be ever saved? Or a Muslim or a Hinduist? A Southern Baptist? An Anglican?
I would like to hear the opinion of knowledgeable people about this very important issue.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I’ve noticed that many OSAS believers don’t quite know how to deal with the matter of children. Often they will tell you that a young baby who dies will go to heaven because they have not committed any sin, but that means that each and every person on earth is born saved. So do they all lose their salvation when they reach the age of reason (the age of sin)? And they have to regain it at that point?

That’s interesting…I always thought OSAS grew out of the Calvinist Preseverence of the Saints. I thought Calvin thought that babies that died were damned because they were born in sin? Not sure though

 

[Blue_Serenity]

That’s interesting…I always thought OSAS grew out of the Calvinist Preseverence of the Saints. I thought Calvin thought that babies that died were damned because they were born in sin? Not sure though

That would portray God as a merciless and bitter God. We are taught otherwise in scriptures.
I don’t know anything about Calvin. Was he a bible-believing man?

 

[Winchester]

Are Baptists Evangelicals. Because I know a Baptist who highly believes in OSAS.

Yes. All Baptists are Evangelicals (with the possible exception of the ultra-liberal Northern Baptists who are in fellowship with the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church - Disciples of Christ) but not all Evangelicals are Baptists. There are Reformed (Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) conservative Methodists, and other Weslyans who are Evangelicals. There are Evangelicals who came out of Lutheranism (the Evangelical Covenant Church for example,) there are Evangelicals in the conservative wings of Lutheranism (they are called Pietists or Confessing Evangelicals) and even conservative Anglicanism has its Evangelicals (they are called the “low church” party)

And not all Evangelicals accept OSAS stated just that way. But all Evangelicals (with the exception of conservative Methodists, Nazarenes, and other Weslyans who believe in free will,) all Evangelicals accept Calvinism’s teaching of Double Predestination “packaged” in one manner or other (Double Predestination teaches that some are irrevocably predestined to heaven and others - the bulk of humanity - are irrevocably predestined to hell.) OSAS is only one way - used by the Baptists - of packaging and presenting Double Predestination in a positive way that sounds nicer.

In Catholicism, double Predestination as taught by Calvinists is called Predestinarianism, and is a formal heresy (ref. newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

Incidentally, Predestination itself is not a heresy. “Taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man’s free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence” (ref. newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)

The Jesuits, especially Luis de Molina newadvent.org/cathen/10436a.htm and Francisco Suarez newadvent.org/cathen/14319a.htm - have developed a nice way of presenting this Dogma. Explaining (Catholic) Predestination takes some time, so - refer to the online Catholic Encyclopedia for details at newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

 

[Winchester]

Join my club, Abira…
Now, for anyone else: This was the very first time I heard of such concept. It goes without saying that I do not really believe in it such as it’s been explained in these postings.
But there is one pervasive idea that keeps popping up to my mind as I go along reading them, and I would summarize it as follows:
When you speak of “faith”, what do you have in mind? The creed of one particular religion or just a sincere and honest “faith” in whatever religion you were educated?
More specifically, could a Buddhist be ever saved? Or a Muslim or a Hinduist? A Southern Baptist? An Anglican?
I would like to hear the opinion of knowledgeable people about this very important issue.

Calvinism would say that Christ’s atone was limited: it was for the elect alone. A Baptist or Angllican might or might not be saved - that was predestined long before he or she was born and it was decided either way then - in eternity. A Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim would, by definition, not be of the elect. (Though they might say that they did not know the fate of a given non-Christian, the eternal fate of that Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim was in the hands of God and was decreed in eternity before the creation of the world/universe. But they were confident in the salvation of those Christians whom God elected to be saved. This goes to the five points of Calvinism as per the acronym, TULIP:

T = Total depravity (of all of humanity)
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irrestible Grace (but for the elect only)
P = Perseverence of the Saints (the elect only)

Reliable Catholic references: newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm and on John Calvin, himself, newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm

Getting back to OSAS, this is an expression, a packaging of double predestination (Predestinarianism) which is a formal heresy, is Calvinist, and is held by all schools of Calvinism; which is used by Baptists to make this unpalatable heresy more palatable.

Note that the ultra-liberal Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) has demythologized scripture and doctrine to the point that double predestination - or anything else supernatural - is no longer taken seriously by them.

 

[AlegreFe]

Yes. All Baptists are Evangelicals (with the possible exception of the ultra-liberal Northern Baptists who are in fellowship with the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church - Disciples of Christ) but not all Evangelicals are Baptists. There are Reformed (Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) conservative Methodists, and other Weslyans who are Evangelicals. There are Evangelicals who came out of Lutheranism (the Evangelical Covenant Church for example,) there are Evangelicals in the conservative wings of Lutheranism (they are called Pietists or Confessing Evangelicals) and even conservative Anglicanism has its Evangelicals (they are called the “low church” party)

And not all Evangelicals accept OSAS stated just that way. But all Evangelicals (with the exception of conservative Methodists, Nazarenes, and other Weslyans who believe in free will,) all Evangelicals accept Calvinism’s teaching of Double Predestination “packaged” in one manner or other (Double Predestination teaches that some are irrevocably predestined to heaven and others - the bulk of humanity - are irrevocably predestined to hell.) OSAS is only one way - used by the Baptists - of packaging and presenting Double Predestination in a positive way that sounds nicer.

In Catholicism, double Predestination as taught by Calvinists is called Predestinarianism, and is a formal heresy (ref. newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

Incidentally, Predestination itself is not a heresy. “Taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man’s free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence” (ref. newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)

The Jesuits, especially Luis de Molina newadvent.org/cathen/10436a.htm and Francisco Suarez newadvent.org/cathen/14319a.htm - have developed a nice way of presenting this Dogma. Explaining (Catholic) Predestination takes some time, so - refer to the online Catholic Encyclopedia for details at newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Wow, thanks for your post. Very informative.

Are you thinking of becoming Catholic? A legit question, I’m really curious.

 

[Winchester]

Wow, thanks for your post. Very informative.

Are you thinking of becoming Catholic? A legit question, I’m really curious.

I am an Evangelical Catholic Lutheran.

 

[Zelopes]

Calvinism would say that Christ’s atone was limited: it was for the elect alone. A Baptist or Angllican might or might not be saved - that was predestined long before he or she was born and it was decided either way then - in eternity. A Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim would, by definition, not be of the elect. (Though they might say that the eternal fate of that Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim w3as in the hands of God and was decreed in eternity before the creation of the world/universe. This goes to the five points of Calvinism as per the acronym, TULIP:

T = Total depravity (of all of humanity)
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irrestible Grace (but for the elect only)
P = Perseverence of the Saints (the elect only)

Reliable Catholic references: newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm and on John Calvin, himself, newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm

Getting back to OSAS, this is an expression, a packaging of double predestination (Predestinarianism) which is a formal heresy, is Calvinist, and is held by all schools of Calvinism; which is used by Baptists to make this unpalatable heresy more palatable.

Thank you Winchester for your reply and for your thoughts but what I really want to know is what do people think about the issue I questioned: Is salvation possible outside the Catholic Faith?
This question is triggered by the inference that some of these posts seem to imply that it is not. What do you think?

 

[AlegreFe]

Thank you Winchester for your reply and for your thoughts but what I really want to know is what do people think about the issue I questioned: Is salvation possible outside the Catholic Faith?
This question is triggered by the inference that some of these posts seem to imply that it is not. What do you think?

Salvation is possible outside the Catholic Faith but not outside the Church.

 

[AlegreFe]

I am an Evangelical Catholic Lutheran.

How is that possible? I take it you are not under Pope B16. In fact with that name I know you’re not. But you can well make your way all the way across the Tiber.

 

[Winchester]

Thank you Winchester for your reply and for your thoughts but what I really want to know is what do people think about the issue I questioned: Is salvation possible outside the Catholic Faith?
This question is triggered by the inference that some of these posts seem to imply that it is not. What do you think?

The short answer is no. But Vatican II has qualified that. Those in Churches which are sister churches and separated bretheren are in some way connected to the Catholic Church, but in an incomplete, imperfect manner.

To go into detail would take a long time, so I would refer you to The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes(nn.18. 22). That document states, “Since Christ died for all men, and the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, that is a divine vocation, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being united with this paschal mystery in a way known only to God. Such is the great mystery of man, enlightening believers through the Christian revelation.” (refer to the Liturgy of the Hours, Volume III, page 136, Office of Readings, Third Week in Ordinary Time, Saturday) The entire document is available online.

Hope this helps. Blessings.

 

[Winchester]

How is that possible? I take it you are not under Pope B16. In fact with that name I know you’re not. But you can well make your way all the way across the Tiber.

We’re working on that trip across the Tiber. I belong to the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran (ECCL) which is part of the Augustana Evangelical Catholic Communion. (ref. ecclnet.org , and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Community_Church-Lutheran , home.sprintmail.com/~gallups/id2.html , and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholicism .) We are part of a movement within Lutheranism to return to visible, corprate union with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church and bring as many Lutherans with us as possible.)

 

[Zelopes]

Salvation is possible outside the Catholic Faith but not outside the Church.

Does that mean approximately the same as what Winchester wrote in his answer to my question?
If so, how so? Can or cannot an anonymous Muslim or Buddhist be saved?

 

[Zelopes]

The short answer is no. But Vatican II has qualified that. Those in Churches which are sister churches and separated bretheren are in some way connected to the Catholic Church, but in an incomplete, imperfect manner.

To go into detail would take a long time, so I would refer you to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes (nn.18. 22). That document states, “Since Christ died for all men, and the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, that is a divine vocation, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being united with this paschal mystery in a way known only to God. Such is the great mystery of man, enlightening believers through the Christian revelation.” (refer to the Liturgy of the Hours, Volume III, page 136, Office of Readings, Third Week in Ordinary Time, Saturday) The entire document is available online.

Hope this helps. Blessings.

Thanks again, Winchester.
So, if I read you well, salvation is impossible outside of Catholicism and of the sister churches and separated brethren. Is that Godly? Could God do that? This is my point.

 

[Winchester]

Does that mean approximately the same as what Winchester wrote in his answer to my question?
If so, how so? Can or cannot an anonymous Muslim or Buddhist be saved?

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) speaks for itself on this matter and as a document of Vatican II, is part of the Magesterium of the Church. You can read the entire text of that document here: ewtn.com/library/councils/v2modwor.htm

I would also refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t have chapter and page cites, but can look them up for you (or you can check them out yourself.)

Blessings.

 

[rmcmullan]

There are so many scriptures that refute the OSAS doctrine!

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

I should probably stop right here because the list goes on and on.