Thoughts on Once Saved Always Saved

[Winchester]

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.

Well, it is not me speaking, per-se, it is Gaudium et Spes. That document opens the door to that possibility in some circumstances but in circumstances in which their salvation is by God the Holy Spirit and as such within the Church. It is up to the Catholic Church’s theologians to go into the details. As a document of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes is part of the Magesterium of the Church and the Magesterium is a notch above the theologians, and for that matter anyone except the Pope speaking ex-cathedra. Personally, I follow the authority of the Magesterium,and am not able to say anything which outside of it. Perhaps someone on this Forum has more of a background in the interpretation of Vatican II documents and could weigh in here.

 

[Zelopes]

AlegreFe:
I infer that your answer is no, and I do respect it. However, as far as I know, God does not forbid us to think and to honestly express our own feelings. And I am only speaking of what I – personally – think about the issue. Also, I believe I’m not deviating from the scope of this thread – Is there any human being forever saved or forever condemned?

Winchester:
In this context, how would the idea of salvation as an exclusive of the Churches be necessarily different from the case of the child that died before he reached the free-will of adulthood? How could a man who was born and always lived in the remotest region of the world be condemned for something he was not guilty of - namely, of not knowing about the Catholic’s teachings? Not even decent humans would commit such an injustice.
But God is God, not human. And only humans can commit injustice or cruelty. So to me – and I stress, personally – I do believe that any honest and decent human being, the kind or person we would call a “saint”, would be saved.

 

[Philthy]

I just want to clear up some issues. First, on the topic of OSAS, a lot comes down to the meanings of the words you use. For example, if I said that Catholics believe in OSAS most people would disagree with me. But it depends upon what you mean by saved. Once we are judged as good and faithful servants by Christ we are saved for all eternity. Now that obviously isnt what Evangelicals have in mind…they mean that once you “believe” in Christ that you are instantly, completely, and permanently saved.
There are many verses of Scripture which clearly refute the Evangelical concept of OSAS. There are verses which speak of salvation in the past, present and future tenses; there are verses which warn of sin causing one to be “cut off of the branch” and of making a “shipwreck” of ones faith. Perhaps one of the simplest verses is Christs admonition in Matt 6:14-15 that “if you dont forgive others their trespasses, neither will your father in heaven forgive you yours” All Christians acknowledge that the forgiveness of our sins by God is a prerequisite of salvation. Christ says in this verse that that forgiveness is not only conditional, but it is something ongoing until death. You cannot forgive someone in advance of them having sinned against you. Forgiving others is a life-long, repeatable process of responding to the world with the attitude of humility and selflessness in appreciation of the gift of salvation received and through the empowerment which comes from being a “new creation” in Christ. It requires dying to oneself and perseveraning in faith. No one in this present time can know that they are going to forgive every one who sins against them. The attempt by OSAS adherents to preserve the doctrine (when confronted with Christians who later lose their faith) with the statement that “they were never saved to begin with” only reaffirms that we dont know whether we are, in fact, destined to persevere. OSAS then becomes useless: because even if it were true there is no way(apart from divine revelation) to be certain whether one is a member of the “elect” who is saved and destined to persevere. Without that knowledge, OSAS is useless.
The next issue to clear up is the “no salvation outside the Church” issue. First off, the Church NEVER judges anyone as having been condemned to Hell - never. Not Hitler, not Jeffrey Dammer, no one. Of all the Christians in history, relatively few have been definitively pronounced as having achieved eternal life - ie the Saints. No judgement is pronounced on the rest - including Luther and the reformers.
Part of the confusion is that the term “Catholic Church” is, by definition, all those who are currently in a state of grace or have already been judged worthy of Heaven. It is that simple - anyone who is in a state of Grace is a member of the Body of Christ which is defined as the Catholic Church by the Magisterium. With the exception of the Saints, who exactly the members of the Catholic Church are, is unknown.

 

[Zelopes]

I just want to clear up some issues. First, on the topic of OSAS, a lot comes down to the meanings of the words you use.
…]
The next issue to clear up is the “no salvation outside the Church” issue. First off, the Church NEVER judges anyone as having been condemned to Hell - never. Not Hitler, not Jeffrey Dammer, no one. Of all the Christians in history, relatively few have been definitively pronounced as having achieved eternal life - ie the Saints. No judgement is pronounced on the rest - including Luther and the reformers.
Part of the confusion is that the term “Catholic Church” is, by definition, all those who are currently in a state of grace or have already been judged worthy of Heaven. It is that simple - anyone who is in a state of Grace is a member of the Body of Christ which is defined as the Catholic Church by the Magisterium. With the exception of the Saints, who exactly the members of the Catholic Church are, is unknown.

First, let me congratulate you on the clarification of the first issue you addressed. As I said before, I had never heard of this OSAS issue before. After reading your post, I think I understand the meanings and the differences between the various interpretations.
Secondly, thank you for your thoughts on the issue of “no salvation outside the Church”. Besides lacking your obvious knowledge and writing expertise, I tend to be more blunt in my language and to the point when trying to post my ideas.
But your clarification is something I could live with. If I read you well, you would not deny the fundamentals of what I tried to convey, even if somewhat ineptly. Indeed, how could God deny salvation to someone who coherently lived his/her whole life in the most profound conviction that he/she was doing according to the best of what his/her conscience dictated?
Also, as you state, who is in there to prejudge how God will reward or punish anyone? Who?
In our own days, we had and still have people who, for their public acts and personal conduct, leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that God did (or will) definitely reward them with eternal salvation. Names such as John XXIII, Mother Theresa, JPII easily come to mind. Now, these are all within the Catholic Church. But what about those who may have lived similar lives during their passage through this world but (and who is there to stand up and judge why?) never joined the Catholic Church, in the restricted sense that is usually attributed to these two words? What did Christ mean by those words (I paraphrase): “He who is without fault, let him throw the first stone”?
And finally, please come back, if you could, and elaborate a bit more if you may, on this subject.

 

[sandusky]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I honestly don’t know that much about OSAS. I know that it stands for Once Saved Always Saved, implying that the Christian can essentially do almost whatever they want and still not lose their salvation.

It isn’t Scriptural as far as I can tell. It’s not a Catholic idea either-- and I think the idea has been condemned on numerous occasions by our Catholic Church.

Here are some links for you to read.

The first is a chart comparing Reformed theology with Arminian (I consider that Catholic as well) theology on the issues.

Also here are two articles: Perseverance of the Saints, and Once Saved Always Saved .

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

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?

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved.

Such was held by Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, and B.B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Warfield states: “*Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills *(akin to what Catholics claim happened to Mary) …And if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation…This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway.”

The doctrine of infant salvation has a logical place in the reformed/Calvinist system, and it is scriptural; for the redemption of the soul is infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in the Catholic system as that system holds to a personal act of rational choice.

Infants are certainly under condemnation and culpable due to the imputation of Adam’s sin; (cf Ps 51:5; 58:3; 1 Cor 15:22; Eph 2:3); that is attested to by the fact that infants die (cf Rom 6:23).

 

[Titus03]

What did Christ mean by those words (I paraphrase): “He who is without fault, let him throw the first stone”?

The end of your post became slightly confusing, so you might have put up this question not expecting an actual reply, but, I shall try to answer it anyway. Ha.

When Christ said this, he was confronting a group of Jews, Jewish leaders I believe, who were bringing forth a woman caught in the act of adultery, which is punishable by death by stoning. So, as these Jewish teachers and leaders were trying to trap Jesus and get Him to say something contrary to their laws, they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

The thing was, in the Law of Moses, both the man AND the woman, who were caught in the act of adultery, were to be stoned, but they brought only the woman. So, He was turning it all around on them, and said, “If you have really come here to fulfill the Law of Moses, with a pure heart, you throw the first stone.” And, as we read, the elders left first, understanding that Jesus had uncovered their plot, and then the younger men left later.

Just thought I’d clear that up, I enjoy that passage.​

Concerning Once Saved Always Saved:

It has been broadly covered above, but to reiterate, the OSAS idea is that Christ’s work on the cross was complete. It was whole. Once you’re saved, of course by His work on the Cross, you’re saved forever. True salvation. You can know and understand righteousness and salvation, you can know and understand that Christ died for you, but you don’t have to believe it. This is was most of the scriptures used above refer to. People who understand salvation, but never commit themselves wholly to it. And other scriptures referred to the saved that fell out away from where they should be, but never does it say they will go to hell.

To say that you can lose your salvation, says that you can do something to forfeit your salvation. This, in turn, must mean that you can do something to gain salvation. You can neither gain nor lose salvation. Christ’s work alone is sufficient to save you, and if Christ saves you, what can you do to overturn it?

One might say that it is a bit arrogant to claim you have the power to overturn what Christ has done in your life. I am sure none of you have that arrogance, and I don’t think anyone who understands salvation would make such a claim, but you understand the general idea.

So that is the basis of OSAS: You can do nothing to gain salvation, thus you can do nothing to lose it. So, once you’re saved, you’re saved to the bone. The works done are proof of your salvation, they are outward expressions of your inner change. If one lacks works, and lacks fruits, he more than likely lacks salvation.

Hope that helped.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The OSAS people would say that this person had never been saved to begin with. Which means, in practice, that no person can ever truly know if they are saved. So OSAS actually buys a person nothing, because even if it is true that once saved, always saved, there is still the unknowable question, but am I actually saved, or am I only deceiving myself?

I read this about 4 times before I realized just how excellent a point this was. These people essentially have assurance that Christ will save them instead of knowledge that they have already been saved.

 

[CatholicGal1977]

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.

I know all this already so you don’t have to tell me. The point I was trying to make is that most Protestants are into “works” just as much as Catholics REGARDLESS if they believe the works will get them into Heaven or not.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

That’s a very good question. Maybe we should start a thread about what potential for salvation there is for those who are non-Christian for whatever reason-- and even disacuss the potential reasons?

If you start one, I would share and partake in it. I’ve read a lot on this from the Catholic perspective. I cannot say anything definitive for sure, but I could share what Catholicism has been teaching and that the potential for salvation certainly seems to be there.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Here are some links for you to read.

The first is a chart comparing Reformed theology with Arminian (I consider that Catholic as well) theology on the issues.

Also here are two articles: Perseverance of the Saints, and Once Saved Always Saved .

Thank you for the links. I have not read them yet, but I will.

Do you believe that once we are saved we are always saved?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

Well, I suppose one thing that stands out is that one is truly sorry (as far as we know) for what they’ve done in the past. They may also have a penance set in place to make reparations for their past sins too.

Valke2:

Both views can be seen as giving one a license to sin.

Actually, I think you have a valid point there Valke2. I remember one fellow Catholic actually saying that he was going to go out drinking and partying and then go to confession to be forgiven for his liscentiousness. In fact, he basically said that he was already forgiven for the sins he was going to commit because he knew he would be forgiven during confession.

To say the least, I found his view fairly disturbing. He didn’t seem too interested in my explanation of why “it doesn’t work that way” either.

Valke2:

IN the later example, repentance has to come after the fact. But it still gets the job done.

True. But there’s at least sincere repentance and the desire to correct past wrongs, even changing oneself if possible so that this does not happen again. The man I noted above didn’t even have any real concerns about repenting or changing his life at all. Neither was he interested in knowing why his confession probabaly didn’t really reflect a true confession of his sins.

I could be wrong, but I believe that in order to obtain a valid confession, the penitent must have true sorrow for committing their sins-- and must confess all mortal sins which they are aware of at the time of the Confession after examining their conscience.

Valke2:

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?

I think it would be fair to say that one has assurance that one’s future sins will be forgiven if they repent of their sins. I also think that many smaller sins can be forgiven without repentence-- even if the effects of the sin do build up so to speak.

But to go one step further and say that they are already forgiven for something they haven’t even done yet (or actually felt genuine remorse over yet) seems to be stretching the ability to forgive beyond what’s been revealed.

I think it is true to say that, from God’s infinite perspective, our sins are indeed already forgiven-- since he sees the end from the beginning.

But, from our own human perspective, all that we can really say in regards to our future is that we believe that God will save us and allow us to repent if further sins do indeed occur.

As the Scriptures say in Romans 8:37-39…

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If one looks at this passage very carefully, it doesn’t say that we will not ever sin. Nor does it say that we will automatically be forgiven if we do sin either.

Rather, this passage is stressing the tremendous amount of faith and trust that the author has that God will indeed bring him to repentance even when he does sin.

In other words, God will not stop loving him when he sins. God will continue to call out to him to draw him back to God so long as he is not entirely separated from God’s Spirit drawing him back (ie., hell). And even when he is partially separated from God’s Spirit (in life or in purgatory), God’s Spirit can still draw him back.

If someone dies and they are totally separated from God’s Spirit, then there is no chance for them to be saved. They’ve gone past the point of no return so to speak.

Since God’s Spirit is the very grace which holds the soul together after death, dying without God’s Spirit results in the soul being destroyed forever in hell-- since God’s Spirit is not with their soul to hold it together in Christ anymore.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Very good point. I never thought about that. But then again I don’t have to think about it because I baptized my child as an infant. But it’s something good to think about and I could bring that up to some of my protestant friends.

Another point that I don’t understand is that is that many who seem to be unwilling to accept that God has promised to clearly guide his Church without error still seem to believe that they are nonetheless guaranteed salvation in Christ.

In other words, they seem to be undermining their own claim to salvation whenever they insist that God has never guaranteed to clearly guide their church without error.

How do they know they are always saved once they are saved is they cannot even say for sure whether their own church is teaching the correct teaching or not?

Of course, we believe that God is guiding our Church, keeping her free from error by the Holy Spirit. I’m guessing they believe the same thing too-- although they will argue until their blue in the face that God never actually promised them this. I simply don’t understand what’s being said.

Perhaps the rise of multiple denominations in the Christian faith is like the multiple toungues that God allowed to be spoken at the Tower of Babel-- confusion caused in order to prevent us from doing something much worse than than the rise of denominationalism. Then again, maybe there is something positive going on here that I simply cannot really grasp until the Last Day.

When asked similar questions as to why so many denominations, Pope John Paul II answered as follows…

There are two possible answers to this question.

The more negative one would see in these divisions the bitter fruit of sins committed by Christians.

The more positive answer is inspired by trust in the One who is capable of bringing forth good even from evil, from human weakness.

Could it not be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ’s Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ?

Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise.

More generally, we can affirm that for human knowledge and human action a certain dialectic is present.

Didn’t the Holy Spirit, in His divine “condescendence,” take this into consideration?

It is necessary for humanity to achieve unity through plurality, to learn to come together in the one Church, even while presenting a plurality of ways of thinking and acting, of cultures and civilizations.

Wouldn’t such a way of looking at things be, in a certain sense, more consonant with the wisdom of God, with His goodness and providence?

Nevertheless, this cannot be a justification for the divisions that continue to deepen!

The time must come for the love that unites us to be manifested!

Many things lead us to believe that that time is now here, and as a result, the importance of ecumenism for Christianity should be evident.

Ecumenism is a response to the exhortation in the First Letter of Peter to “give an explanation [of] the reason for our hope” (cf. 1 Pt 3:15).

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.)

As a former Lutheran now Catholic, I find this very interesting.

Bearing this in mind, is there anything within Catholic teaching that you disagree with?

I haven’t read the links, but I’m guessing no-- and I will be reading the links in more detail after. .

 

[sandusky]

Do you believe that once we are saved we are always saved?

Yes, I do.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, I do.

But do you know you are saved or do you believe that you are saved?

In other words, how do you know that you are saved?

 

[VociMike]

Yes, I do.

How would you explain this former evangelical preacher, who clearly thought he was saved and acted as one who was saved?

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

How would you explain this former evangelical preacher, who clearly thought he was saved and acted as one who was saved?

How would you explain this:Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.Are you familiar with the concept of repentance, Mike? Or, do you automatically assume it will never happen?

Your example is no good as it shows that either you lack understanding of scriptural teaching, or you choose to ignore it in order to make a circular, and faulty point.

 

[Winchester]

As a former Lutheran now Catholic, I find this very interesting.

Bearing this in mind, is there anything within Catholic teaching that you disagree with?

No, there really isn’t.

 

[Syele]

I think that many who hold to some form of OSAS do not necessarilly believe that they are denying the Lord Jesus Christ by believing that once they are saved they are always saved. And 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.

In this sense, in my opinion, they are actually denying our only Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, by saying that nothing matters except their faith which has saved them. As far as I can tell, they’re placing their own faith in God as being more important than the things God is actually calling them to do by the Holy Spirit.

OSAS is a Calvinist doctrine that stems from Predestination and the other of the 5 points of Calvinism. (TULIP)

If a person truly believes in that version of Predestination, then God decided arbitralily who will and won’t be saved before the people were ever born. With this definition, to suggest that a saved person can lose salvation is declaring that God can and does make mistakes and that people have some say in the process. To say either would be heresy to such believers.

To get a better idea read up on the 5 points of Calvinism.

Once you understand the 5 points better you can see that they don’t even believe “their faith has saved them”… due to “Total Depravity” they don’t even have the ability to have Faith in the first place. Then they have “Unconditional Election” God chose them with no reguard for anything they might do good or bad, Add in “Irresistable Grace” - If they have been chosen they couldn’t avoid following God even if they wanted to and OSAS (Or the actual term “Perserverence of the Saints”) is fairly logical.