Why should Catholics Abhore OSAS?

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:
This is written by Peter, whom you call your first Pope. Peter’s language is very clear. Once you are saved by God, you are always saved by God. The reason you won’t believe is, I believe, twofold:

1. You have been taught that you cannot be assured.
2. Even though you say you cannot obtain salvation by works, in your heart you believe that you are responsible for working for/meriting your salvation.
   We believe in our minds as well that we have to work for our salvation. We don’t subscribe to the man-made tradition of the either/or dichotomy that Protestants arbitrarily apply. Faith in Jesus Christ, which means believing everything He teaches, is first and foremost necessary for salvation. This doesn’t mean once we believe we can either do nothing or lead sinful lives. We get this idea from the Bible (all passages are from the King James version):

---

14: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25: Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:14;17-26)**

---

James states a man is justified by works and faith, that faith without works is dead. There is no either/or dichotomy between faith and works, as both are necessary for salvation.

---

Protestants say they believe the Bible, but in their hearts they only believe the Bible when it conforms to their faith. In other words, Protestants conform the Bible to their beliefs rather than conform their beliefs to the Bible.

---

---

---

---

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:
This is written by Peter, whom you call your first Pope. Peter’s language is very clear. Once you are saved by God, you are always saved by God.

On the other hand, Peter (and the other apostles as well) trust in God, who has the power (v5), to save you once and forever. Scripture is very clear that salvation is ***from the creator ***(God); it is not from the creature. Therefore, OSAS is put forth by the apostles.

1 Peter 1:1-9
1 *Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, *who are chosen ***
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. *
3 ***Blessed be the God and Father ****of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, *
4 **to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, **
5 ***who are protected by the power of God **through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, *
7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; *
8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, *
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

Let’s take a look at what the first pope, St. Peter, says regarding salvation. I find it interesting how you highlight the passages you believe support OSAS but gloss over the passages that contradict OSAS.

4: To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5: Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:4-5)

Peter is clear that salvation is to be obtained after life on earth is over and not before that time.

8: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:8-9)

Peter again states the salvation is a process, that the end of faith is salvation. It’s Clintonesque to twist this passage to support OSAS.

Peter goes on to say, which you conveniently left out, that we have to perservere in God’s grace to obtain salvation:

13: Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14: As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16: Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:13-16)

Peter says we have to hope for the grace of salvation to the end. We have to leave our sinful ways and become holy if we hope to be saved. We have to do this, Peter says, because it is written, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Peter gets this idea of becoming holy from Sacred Scripture. Why would Peter say all of this if he believed once saved, always saved? Peter makes it clear we have to perservere in God’s grace and work for our salvation.

---

Continued in next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

This is written by Peter, whom you call your first Pope. Peter’s language is very clear. Once you are saved by God, you are always saved by God.

On the other hand, Peter (and the other apostles as well) trust in God, who has the power (v5), to save you once and forever. Scripture is very clear that salvation is ***from the creator ***(God); it is not from the creature. Therefore, OSAS is put forth by the apostles.

1 Peter 1:1-9
1 *Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, *who are chosen ***
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. *
3 ***Blessed be the God and Father ***of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 ***who are protected by the power of God *through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, *
7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; *
8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

Continued from previous post…

---

There is more proof Peter didn’t believe OSAS:

---

1: The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3: Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4: And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Peter 5:1-4)

---

8: Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (1 Peter 5:8-9)

---

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. (2 Peter 2:20-21)
etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Peter clearly states that the crown of glory will be received after our life on earth and that we must resist the devil. He also says that it would be better for a man not to know Jesus than to have known Him and turn away from Him. Peter would not make these statements if he believed in OSAS.

---

The only way to claim Peter believed in OSAS is to take his writings out of context.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Sgt Sweaters:

Great post, thess. (Thanks for the book recommendation.)

That book is GREAT!!!:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[petra]

bones_IV:

No, Petra. We are not saved. To say you are saved is presumptious. Read the catechism my friend. And no it was not judgemental. You are only saved when you enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus, even said that those who persevere to the end are saved.

No need to split hairs. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a present reality (being in a state of grace) and a future hope (persevering to the end.) It is not incorrect to recognize the state of grace as being an aspect of salvation. Catholics can know whether they are in a state of grace or not, so it is not at all presumptuous to say we are saved.

 

[thessalonian]

bones_IV:

No, Petra. We are not saved. To say you are saved is presumptious. Read the catechism my friend. And no it was not judgemental. You are only saved when you enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus, even said that those who persevere to the end are saved.

Well then Paul preached presumption.

Acts 2:47: praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

That’s past tense.

21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

That’s present tense. So you are incorrect in saying that we can’t speak of ourselves as being saved. We can speak of it in the past and present tense. We can have a moral but not absolute assurance of this. To assume we will be saved is presumptuous. We must persevere. You will find this to be consistent with the CCC.

Blessings

 

[Thal59]

Della:

With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”[324]

Everything you have provided makes perfect sense in relation to those “other” Catholics, whose heirarchy follows the apostolic succession… thal59

No, this does NOT not prove what you are saying here. It is obvious that a new sentence has been started to clearly show that Orthodox Churches are the closest to Catholic of all the Christian bodies. It does NOT say that Christian bodies apart from the Orthodox are not Christian. Don’t take phrases out of context–that’s a Protestant game Catholics shouldn’t want to play.

I’ll start with Della. First of all, Della, it seems to me that you are playing the “out of context” game…

No, this does NOT not prove what you are saying here.<<

What I have said is that what was supplied by thessalonian speaks of Orthodox Catholics of the first schism, not Protestants of the second. Please read his link and quotes and you may zero in on expressions such as “Primacy of Peter,” “Sacraments,” and “Apostolic Succession.” These expressions are shared between Eastern and Western Catholic, not by most Protestant denominations. I did NOT imply that the passages couldn’t possibly be applied to Protestantism, but merely that they spoke as if they were focused and directed to the separated bretheren of the first schism. I find nothing in those passages that openly proclaim their validity towards Protestant churches. One may read that into the quotes; but I do not.

It is obvious that a new sentence has been started to clearly show that Orthodox Churches are the closest to Catholic of all the Christian bodies.<<

Agreed.

It does NOT say that Christian bodies apart from the Orthodox are not Christian. Don’t take phrases out of context–that’s a Protestant game Catholics shouldn’t want to play.<<

Neither did I. I never said it, or inferred it. Della, you have taken my statement out of context. I will say more of this later.

Thessalonian:

Thal,
Are we reading the same Catechism. Actually, yes we are but you are reading your thoughts in to it. It simply cannot be understood the way you are reading it.<<

Thess, read it as if it is addressed ONLY to Eastern Catholics and it fits like a glove for the reasons I stated above. There is nothing in them, however, that suggests it applies to any and every bizarre would-be Christian sect on the planet. Look at your own words…

It says “those baptized” that includes Protestants.<<

To the Catholic church Baptism is a sacrament, to many Protestant churches it is only an ordinance; just like the “Lord’s supper” where bread and wine “symbolizes” the body and blood of Christ. Is their “communion” also valid? How about their “priesthood?” Is a Protestant minister equally as authorized as a Catholic priest of the apostolic succession? Is there anything else you would like to credit a schismatic church with as valid and authorized? Many Protestants who enter the Catholic church submit to re-baptism by a priest! Is this not a statement on their part that they do not fully believe that their “first” baptism was valid?

The orthodox are in schism. They reject the papacy. That is what schism is all about. If they are not in schism what are they in?<<

While eastern Catholics are guided by the Patriarch, they do not reject the papacy per se, but Protestants do. I once had a very lengthy “debate” with a Byzantine monk who stated quite clearly that while both East and Western Catholics adhere to Scripture and Tradition, the East feels that the (T)radition stopped with the apostles and that the pope has no right to add to, or amend it. But they DO acknowledge the papacy and the RCC heirarchy. Many Protestants reject the ministerial priesthood in its entirety. The schism between the Protestants and Catholics is far more complex than simply a rejection of the papacy.

They reject the sacraments, and thereby, the grace they confer. They reject the majority of Catholic theology, etc. But most dangerously of all, they reject the priesthood. Christ once said of his disciples, “If they accept you, they accept me: and if they reject you, they reject me. And he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.” Christ makes it clear that one cannot accept Christ while rejecting those whom he has sent.

It’s getting a bit long. Part II in a moment.

Thal59

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

On the other hand, Peter (and the other apostles as well) trust in God, who has the power (v5), to save you once and forever. Scripture is very clear that salvation is ***from the creator ***(God); it is not from the creature. Therefore, OSAS is put forth by the apostles.

This is a very bold statement, to say OSAS was put forth by the Apostles, when there is no documentation to provide such proof.

Let’s take a look at what the Apostles put forth:

15: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:15)

8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:8-9)

12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

7: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:7-8)

9: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:9-10)

James, John and Paul are clear that salvation is an ongoing process, something to be obtained in the future. Paul states that we are now justified by His blood but we have not yet been saved from His wrath. The Apostles are clear that we can lose the salvation.

What does Jesus say in the Gospels about salvation? Does Jesus teach that once we confess our faith in Him and repent of our sins we are saved and there is nothing we can do to lose our salvation? Let’s take a look at what Jesus says in the Gospels:

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. (Matthew 7:21)

13: But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (Matthew 24:13)

31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 25:31-34)

11: Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12: Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13: They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luke 8:11-13)

28: And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. (Luke 21:28)

Jesus Christ clearly states that we can lose our salvation if we don’t work it out. Salvation is not a one-time event, it is an ongoing process. In stating we have to work out our salvation, Jesus also confirms Catholic doctrine that faith without works is dead.

The Bible taken out of context can prove whatever someone wants it to prove. When taken in its correct context, the Bible confirms the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter, whose current visible head is Pope Benedict XVI.

Pax tecum.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

petra:

No need to split hairs. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a present reality (being in a state of grace) and a future hope (persevering to the end.) It is not incorrect to recognize the state of grace as being an aspect of salvation. Catholics can know whether they are in a state of grace or not, so it is not at all presumptuous to say we are saved.

We can have moral certainty that we are in a state of grace, but we cannot have absolute certainty.

---

Moral certainty of being in a state of grace is the theological virtue of hope. Absolute certainty of being in a state of grace is presumption.

---

Fr. Benedict Groeschel told the story of St. Joan of Arc when she was asked by the English bishops if she was in a state of grace. They did this to trap her: If she said she’s not in the state of grace, she would have been executed, as this would have been an admission of guilt; if she said she’s in the state of grace, she would have been executed as a heretic, for only God knows with absolute certainty if we are in the state of grace. What was St. Joan’s answer? She said, “If I’m not in the state of grace, may God put me there; if I’m in the state of grace, may God keep me there.” This answer left her accusers confounded and she escaped execution at that time.

 

[Thal59]

Part II

Although I would like to make it clear that I have no animosity towards anyone on this website, I have had enough of this nonsense. I have tried to communicate with people on both Catholic and Protestant websites for years now. Most of what should be an intelligent debate breaks down into a “I am right and you are wrong” argument. It was bad enough to be perpetually taken out of context by the Protestants, but I have endured it too often even by fellow Catholics. I cannot help but believe that the medium of the website forum board is simply inadequate for proper discussion.

One thing is for sure: I am sick and tired of all the “religiously correct” rubbish. Make a simple statement that questions a person’s motives, (for the sake of discerning the issue from as many angles as possible) and everyone goes berserk!

Who are you to insinuate that!!??
How dare you say something like that???
You are too judgmental! Who are you to judge that person???
You don’t understand… you are wrong, wrong, wrong!

While it is admirable to try and be Christian in these discussions, if one proceeds in a mode of always trying to be inoffensive, then the harder aspects of a subject is never revealed. The end result? An issue is raised; it is beaten to death, but never resolved. Then, it is raised over and over again. I simply don’t have the patience to have to explain myself over and over again.

I am 46. I had been away from the church for 13 years when I attended confession and mass last July. I feel I may have to step away from the church again. I have prayed, read, studied Hebrew… you name it. And I have come to the conclusion that something is missing. Something important; not just in my life, but in all of humanity as well. I currently do not know where to find it, but I have decided to look – and I will most likely not be back on any website forums anymore.

I am not even certain of what I am looking for. But when I find it, I will know it.

Thal59

 

[thessalonian]

Thal,

You really need to study the baptism issue alot more. The teaching of the Church is not that a baptism is valid only if they teach what the Catholic Church teaches and believe it exactly. A baptism is valid IF they intend to do what Christ intends. I This from Aquinas:
newadvent.org/summa/406808.htm

Note reply to Objectoin three.

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.”

Reply to Objection 2. The Church’s intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Is. 27:9: “This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away.” And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): “From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed.”

Reply to Objection 3. Even he who has not right faith on other points, can have right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not hindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and as the Church bestows it.

This is from the Council of Florence. It is interesting with regard to this thread.

" But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God. :

piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm
"Reply to Objection 4. Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither should it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not unto salvation. "

newadvent.org/summa/406808.htm

In reality it appears that all baptisms as long as form and intent (not full theological intent) are there it is valid. One may not specifically know what the Church intends or Christ intends but as long as there intent is to do what the Church says the baptism is valid. It is important for the one being baptized to know the truths of the sacrement. Yet if they do not out of ignorance it is still valid.

From reading Aquinas it sounds as if in reality all Christian baptism are valid. Church practice confirms this and I trust that Church practice is a good indicator. They have never required heretics to be rebaptized and have stood firmly on that line. Even for those who obstinately reject what the Church teaches regarding the sacrament or for those who are attached to their sins and do not ask forgiveness for them before baptism. It seems the sacraement on these types implants the character but does not confer the grace. Thus the one who is baptized is not sanctified. “not unto salvation” as Aquinas says. The one who is baptized in such a state must then go to confession to recieve the sanctifying grace.

Pope St. Stephen I believe it was argued with Cyprianover the baptism of the heretics. St. Stephen declared them valid and hat is the positoin to this day.

As for whether or not their Eucharist is valid that is a different matter. The Church has declared that even a pagan or aethist can baptise in emergency if someone wants to be baptized. Baptism does not require the priesthood. The Eucharist does require the priesthood and so there is no way that Protestants can consecrate bread in to anything other than bread.

I hope you will stay. You are in my prayers.

God bless

 

[sonseeker]

SwissGuard:

This doesn’t mean once we believe we can either do nothing or lead sinful lives…

I don’t have a lot of time today, so I am going to answer your posts quickly. This is a tiresome point put forth by Catholics. Compare it to this: The Eucharist is cannibalism. I’m sure you get tired of that. If anyone says that they are saved and go and live sinful lives they are wrong. I hope not to hear this from you again. This requires that you listen to me, and then think about what I am saying.

You go on to quote James about faith + works, and faith without works. James is saying that works are the fruit of saving faith. If I am not mistaken, Trent pronounced anthema on anyone who believes what I have just stated that I believe: works are evidence of faith. In the James 2 passage he talks about Abraham, and Rahab, again to show that their works demonstrated their faith in God, which is a gift from God, all the way, not just in the beginning, and then you take over and earn your salvation. I know you disagree. No need to explain it, but since you disagree, how do you square works as saving you with these verses: Acts 13:39, Rom 3:20; read also Romans 4 with regard to Abraham, as mentioned by James to see that Abraham has nothing to boast about with His works, they cannot save him, but are a gift of God prepared beforehand (Eph 2:10); Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; and don’t say that I am taking them out of context, I am not. Clearly, if your understanding of James is true, then the Scriptures are contradicting themselves.

You too easily dismiss what Peter is saying in the verses of 1 Pet 1 that I posted above. Deny it if you will, but it confirms OSAS. Yes the full expression of salvation is yet future, but that does not mean that the true believer will only possess it then. He possesses it now. God did not reveal Himself and His plan to us to keep us in the dark, but so that we may know that we have eternal life (1 Jn 5:13 etc.).

You tell me that I quote verses out of context, and yet do not see that you have done the same thing. All of the verses you used to show that OSAS is untrue, in fact support OSAS. You are stuck on the future tense of the verbs, and do not understand the already/not yet tension that is presented. The future tense says it is a done deal; it is accomplished, or better yet, to quote Christ, “it is finished.” No more work needs be done. That also speaks to your statement that “salvation is a process.” It is not; it is accomplished by God, through Christ on the cross; it is finished. You are confusing salvation with sanctification, which is a process. Salvation is not a process.

You quote Mt 7:21 out of context. Those who say “Lord, Lord,” are clearly unbelievers, because the true believer will not have to say that, his salvation is secure. What the Mt 7 passage shows is that there are only two religions in the world. The religion of divine accomplishment (which I believe in)—God has done it all (the narrow gate); and the religion of human achievement (which you believe in)—I must do it (the wide gate). Those who enter by the wide gate are those who say, “Lord, Lord….” Those who seek to enter by their works are like the Galatians, of whom Paul says that “Christ will be of no benefit,” and that you have been “severed from Christ,” because you seek to be justified by your own works (Gal 5:4). Do not come back at me about this, but rather rail at Paul, and at God, for it is His revelation and truth that I am telling you. It is not difficult to understand what is being said.

Again, the apostles (and all who believe according to the testimony of God), rely on God for their salvation, knowing that they are impotent to effect any part of it themselves. That is why the call to “work out” your salvation is not a call to “work for it,” again, if it is, then the Scripture contradicts itself.

That is why Paul calls the Gospel the “power of God to salvation to everyone who believes.” Salvation is the power of God, not of men; men can do nothing to earn it; Christ has done it all.

You say that Christ says we can lose our salvation; He says no such thing. In fact, In Jn 6:40, 44, He says that He will raise up the ones given to Him by the Father. Again, salvation is by the power of God, not the works of man. Work for it if you must, but work will not attain it for you.

Bill

 

[piety101]

Sonseeker
What does Jesus say to the 7 churches in Revelation 3:5. And what does Paul say about "continuing" in the faith in Colossians 1:21-23 ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

thessalonian:

I was reading a book last night called “Peace of the Soul” by the late Bishop Fulton Sheen. It’s a marvelous book, full of insight about the human physcy and particularly about what sin has done to mankind. The particular chapter I was on was with regard to modern psychiatry. How Fruedianism in his day (and even still today) tried to write sin off as a product of our societal inhibitions. One psychologist, Nitzshky, even went so far as to say sin until your conscience is seared and you are no longer inhibited by societal moores that hold you back and it does happen. That is how people like Jeffrey Dahmer were able to do the horrors that we read about in the paper.

He spoke that what was lacking is a healthy, what we Catholics call “Examination of Conscience” and I guess if I had to p(name removed by moderator)oint my objection to OSAS doctrine that would be my objection. I believe that it neglects a healthy daily reflectoin on what we do in our lives that needs to be rooted out. We are no longer under the law so we no longer have to obey it and even our future sins are fogiven. David speaks of the withering of his soul. Psalm 51 is called the penitential Psalm. It is a great reflection on our sinfulness.

3: For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.
4: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment.
5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6: Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
7: Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8: Fill me with joy and gladness; let the bones which thou hast broken rejoice.
9: Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
10: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.
11: Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.
12: Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit.

I have not lived OSAS but I do believe that it neglects a heartfelt examination of our daily lives and a refelction on our sinfulness much like the Fruedian pychoanlysis that is essentially a running away from our fallen nature, rather than truly understanding it and getting to the root of our faults and failings, so that rather than being in bondage we can TRULY be FREED of our sins. These We can root out the things in the garden of our hearts that keeps us in bondage. It is not a negative thing as you might think to acknowledge that we sin and to reflect on those sins. Rather it is a great vehicle of freedom by which we come to acknoledge the abhorence of God to sin. (“God hates sin”) and how he has given us the grace through the sacraments to OVERCOME it. That is what God wants and why he gave us the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and confession to root out the sin in our lives. These are sacraments of mercy, not bondage by which God wants to free us from what truely limits our ability to do his will. Confession is good for the soul and Bishop Sheen lingers on that point. Psychoanlysis fails because of neglect of a heathy view of physchology, that acknowledges sin. It has been show that those who regularly attend confessoin actually have a much healthier life, with less physical problems, and a much smaller rate of suicide. This has evened out some over the last 20 or 30 years because of the neglect of the sacrament of confession in Catholic Churches. Something thta I hope is coming back and that JP II emphasized in the later years of his papacy. What a loving and kind God who truly wants to restore our fallen natures. There is much more that I should say scripturally on this but I will perhaps address that later. I highly recommend Bishop Sheen’s book which would help greatly in understanding why we Catholics cannot acknowledge the doctrine of OSAS and why we have such abhorence for it.

God bless

But should we abhor OSAS ? ?​

Not all OSAS is antinomian (& the antinomian sort is what you seem to be rejecting). Rejecting OSAS is not enough - for legalism can take its place: and that is no better than antonomianism, but is an exaggeration in the opposite direction. ##

 

[sonseeker]

piety101:

Sonseeker

What does Jesus say to the 7 churches in Revelation 3:5. And what does Paul say about “continuing” in the faith in Colossians 1:21-23 ?

Piety101, continuing in the faith is not working for salvation. Salvation is accomplished in Christ Jesus. It is finished.

What is John saying in 1 Jn 2:13, 14; 4:4; 5:4; 5:5? The one who believes, as John says has overcome. That is what is being said in Rev 3. Thus the connection to the book of life, a divine journal that records the names of all those whom God has chosen to save and who, therefore, are to possess eternal life (13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19; cf Dan 12:1; Lk 10:20). Under no circumstances will God erase those names. Jesus will also confess those names to the Father (cf Mt. 10:32; Lk 12:8). The true believer is secure. Have you confessed His name as sufficient for salvation, without the addition of external ritual? If not, when you have finished reading Mt. 10:32, continue on to Mt 10:33. Swiss Guard himself says in the opening paragraph of his first post to me, “Faith in Jesus Christ, which means believing everything He teaches, is first and foremost necessary for salvation.” Christ is as the Father is, jealous. He alone has done the work, add anything to His work, and Christ is of no benefit (Gal 5:2, 4).

All true Christians have overcome (1 Jn 2:13, 14; 4:4; 5:4; 5:5). That is what John is saying: to be an overcomer is to be a Christian. It carries the meaning of a continual overcoming.

Bill

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

bones_IV:

No, Petra. We are not saved. To say you are saved is presumptious. Read the catechism my friend. And no it was not judgemental. You are only saved when you enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus, even said that those who persevere to the end are saved.

Of course we are saved ​

Christ does the all-essential all-sufficient foundational work of salvation at Calvary

His grace operates in his chosen, whom He has called - so that they will never fall out of His hands - to make the power of His working through the Holy Spirit effectual and fruitful in them

His grace perfects His work in us, by causing our perseverance; for if we do persevere, it is not by our strength: otherwise it would not be a grace as the CC says it is.

Salvation is a present fact, and a future hope - something already enjoyed in part, and something for which we are to hope so that we may experience it in its fullness.

All this is wholly of grace, and requires our obedience, so that we may live holily, just as He is holy - not by any strength of ours, by by His. It leaves absolutely no place for carelessness or for a life of self-indulgent sinfulness. It does require that we should, “as obedient children”, “walk in the works which He already prepared for us to do”. Our working, is a sharing in His omnipotent working, and in so far as it is united to His, shares the character of His. His is the primary authorship of all such good as we do “in Christ” - the defects, and the secondary authorship of our works, are ours. ##

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

I don’t have a lot of time today, so I am going to answer your posts quickly. This is a tiresome point put forth by Catholics. Compare it to this: The Eucharist is cannibalism. I’m sure you get tired of that. If anyone says that they are saved and go and live sinful lives they are wrong. I hope not to hear this from you again. This requires that you listen to me, and then think about what I am saying.

Thank you for your reply. Pull up a comfortable chair and grab a cold beverage because I have many questions to ask and many points to make. It will take several posts, so I don’t expect you to reply to every post. I hope you will be able to answer my questions.

I didn’t mean to upset you by my comment about leading sinful lives. I didn’t realize I was being offensive.

Actually, what this compares to is the tired claim you put forth that Catholics believe we are saved by works alone. This is a heresy known as Pelagianism. This is a brief explanation of Pelagianism:
catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

I hope you will extend the same courtesy to Catholics that you want Catholics to extend to you. Catholics do not believe we are saved by works alone but rather by faith and works.

According to Fundamentalists, salvation is obtained by:

1. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior
2. Repentance of sins

Now, if I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and repent of my sins, I am saved. There is nothing I can do to lose this salvation. I can be the worst sinner ever but I will still go to heaven because I cannot lose salvation because I have fulfilled the necessary requirements for salvation.

If I’m wrong about this, please correct me. I listened to what you said and thought about it. I found it to be illogical.

sonseeker:

You go on to quote James about faith + works, and faith without works. James is saying that works are the fruit of saving faith. If I am not mistaken, Trent pronounced anthema on anyone who believes what I have just stated that I believe: works are evidence of faith. In the James 2 passage he talks about Abraham, and Rahab, again to show that their works demonstrated their faith in God, which is a gift from God, all the way, not just in the beginning, and then you take over and earn your salvation. I know you disagree. No need to explain it, but since you disagree, how do you square works as saving you with these verses: Acts 13:39, Rom 3:20; read also Romans 4 with regard to Abraham, as mentioned by James to see that Abraham has nothing to boast about with His works, they cannot save him, but are a gift of God prepared beforehand (Eph 2:10); Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; and don’t say that I am taking them out of context, I am not. Clearly, if your understanding of James is true, then the Scriptures are contradicting themselves.

Bill

First, let me deal with your question regarding the Council of Trent. This is the anathema you are speaking about regarding works being the fruit of faith:

---

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Good works can be done by those without faith. An atheist can help the poor. Is this a good work? Absolutely. However, as Catholics believe, he cannot receive sanctifying grace because his soul is in a state of mortal sin. He may obtain acutal grace from God to move him to receive the theological virtue of faith, but he does not sanctify his soul. If good works are the fruits of faith, then they aren’t really good works, since we were compelled by faith to do it. Free will is necessary for us to do anything because without it we are puppets controlled by God and therefore we aren’t created in his likeness because God is free. Again, if I have stated anything incorrectly, please point it out.

I will address the rest of the quote in the next post.

 

[thessalonian]

Sonseeker,

You said:

Salvation is accomplished in Christ Jesus. It is finished.

Could I have a Bible quote please. I know which one you will use but humor me.

 

[MaggieOH]

I agree that “Peace of Soul” is an excellent book. I recommend it to all the Catholics and catholic wannabe’s on the board. At the same time I recommend the other book that is a companion to Peace of Soul. It’s name is “Lift up your hearts”. If you do not own a copy then go and purchase one because these are two books that should be in every Catholic library.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen had a way of speaking about sin and its consequences that really makes you stop and think about everything. He covers the subject in a lot of depth. Both books give a lot of hope to the reader.

There is another book that I recommend, and it is called “A Life Giving Vision” (I need to find my copy and check the title for accuracy). It covers a similar subject area, but most of all it gives hope to those of us who have been depressed for whatever reason.

All of these books give us a concept of sin that is compatible with the teachings of the Church. They add to our depth of understanding of how we offend God through our egocentric behaviour.

The reason that I do not accept the Protestant concept of OSAS is that I believe that it tends to deny the consequences of sin upon a soul, even after Baptism. The fault seems to lie in the lack of value that is given to the Sacraments, especially Baptism. By declaring the gifts of God to be nothing more than ordinances, the Protestant tends to think that all is necessary to be a Christian is to pay lip service through a sinner’s prayer and making all sorts of claims about what one can do just because one is allegedly a Christian.

I am not detailing here all of my theological reasons for objecting to OSAS but I have plenty of them. BTW Swiss Guard you are doing a great job with your responses.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

sonseeker:

You go on to quote James about faith + works, and faith without works. James is saying that works are the fruit of saving faith. If I am not mistaken, Trent pronounced anthema on anyone who believes what I have just stated that I believe: works are evidence of faith. In the James 2 passage he talks about Abraham, and Rahab, again to show that their works demonstrated their faith in God, which is a gift from God, all the way, not just in the beginning, and then you take over and earn your salvation. I know you disagree. No need to explain it, but since you disagree, how do you square works as saving you with these verses: Acts 13:39, Rom 3:20; read also Romans 4 with regard to Abraham, as mentioned by James to see that Abraham has nothing to boast about with His works, they cannot save him, but are a gift of God prepared beforehand (Eph 2:10); Rom 11:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; and don’t say that I am taking them out of context, I am not. Clearly, if your understanding of James is true, then the Scriptures are contradicting themselves.

Bill

Continued from previous post…

I’m confused about your statement about Abraham and Rahab. You said after we receive the free gift of faith from God, we take over and earn our salvation. Earning salvation is a work, which you criticized Catholics for believing in post #14. Catholics believe that we cannot earn our salvation without faith, but once we have faith, we have to work out our salvation. How is what you state different from Catholic teaching?

Now for the Bible passages:

39: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)

This is Catholic teaching. We cannot be justified by the law, we need faith in Jesus. However, we are not to stop at justification, we need to proceed to sanctification because, as St. Peter writes, "*Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." Remember, Catholics believe in faith and works, not works alone.*

---

20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

---

Again, no problem here. St. Paul is talking about those Jews who believe only in observing the Mosaic law. Catholics don’t believe in works alone, as pointed out by the condemnation of Pelagianism.

---

Continued in the next post…