Once saved always saved is a false doctrine..

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

Not tempted beyond that which we can bear doesn't mean we'll bear up to that limit. We can wade into sin earlier than that

You only have to confess the sins you are aware of.

antiskeptic

dojmx16b58h7af wrote: »

You only have to confess the sins you are aware of.

Or else?

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or else?

"Or else!" would presumably be the response in this reading of Christianity.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

"Or else!" would presumably be the response in this reading of Christianity.

Given Owen's turn-r-burn approach, you may well be right. But let's see.

Breadsons

Not sure.

dojmx16b58h7af wrote: »

You only have to confess the sins you are aware of.

The word Sin comes from the Greek "to miss the mark" God will forgive you no matter how deep you go down the pit as he did with myself.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

Or else?

You cannot enter the Kingdom of God if you are in sin.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Breadsons wrote:

The word Sin comes from the Greek "to miss the mark" God will forgive you no matter how deep you go down the pit as he did with myself.

Yes, but you asked Him to take you out of the pit.

antiskeptic

dojmx16b58h7af wrote: »

You cannot enter the Kingdom of God if you are in sin.

Hence my question. A person has unrepented of sin on their account and is run over by a bus before they've an opportunity to confess.

I take it this is where purgo come in?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

I take it this is where purgo come in?

Yes, where they will stay until they have paid the last penny.

antiskeptic

dojmx16b58h7af wrote: »

Yes, where they will stay until they have paid the last penny.

Purgo fits the general "salvation depends on you following the rules" modus operendi of Catholicism.

Which renders it essentially identical to all the other world religions. "Follow these rules and you shall have a happy afterlife outcome"

At least this much can be said for salvation by Grace: it's not only unique, but it doesn't "smell" of religion.

It's classy too. Kind of befitting any God an unbeliever might consider taking a punt on.

Not so, rule following = salvation religions. Dime a dozen those!

kelly1

Not sure.

OSAS is clearly a false doctrine because it means you can't loose salvation even if you want to. It means God would deny us the freedom to reject him.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

OSAS is clearly a false doctrine because it means you can't loose salvation even if you want to. It means God would deny us the freedom to reject him.

Salvation means bring born again. A new creation. Peace with God were there once was enmity. Etc.

Your argument fails because it ignores this transformation. Once transformed the person is unable to reject God. The equipment to do so has been, by their own choice, removed from them.

It's not restricting choice to say that a person who jumps from a building has to hit the ground. Once jumped always jumped.

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation means bring born again. A new creation. Peace with God were there once was enmity. Etc.

Your argument fails because it ignores this transformation. Once transformed the person is unable to reject God. The equipment to do so has been, by their own choice, removed from them.

The implication is that our freedom has been removed. We no longer have a choice to reject God, meaning that God has revoked our free will. I don't accept that.

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/alwayssaved.html

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

The implication is that our freedom has been removed. We no longer have a choice to reject God, meaning that God has revoked our free will. I don't accept that.

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/alwayssaved.html

The free will which enabled a choice for / against God is redundant once the choice is made. Will people have the ability to reject God in heaven? Clearly not. The argument then, is over timing.

As I say, there's little point is constantly revisiting the choice once made. This isn't an Irish referendum.

Your rejecting fundamental transformation. Not born again. Not a new creation. Just the same old person - able to ever do the same old things.

Doesn't stack up

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The free will which enabled a choice for / against God is redundant once the choice is made

Can you back that claim using scripture? You're claiming we lose free will, it seems. I.e. that it's a one-way door, a choice that we become locked into.


I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:27

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; (Philippians 2:12)

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:1-2

J C

Those that believe "once saved always saved" is a false docterine.

dojmx16b58h7af wrote: »

You cannot enter the Kingdom of God if you are in sin.

True ... but then Jesus Christ came to Save sinners.

... and here is how you are Saved ... now and forever.:)

Acts 16:28-31 King James Version (KJV)
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.

29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

J C

Those that believe "once saved always saved" is a false docterine.

kelly1 wrote: »

Can you back that claim using scripture? You're claiming we lose free will, it seems. I.e. that it's a one-way door, a choice that we become locked into.

It's an eternal legal contract between yourself and Jesus Christ ... that nobody can break.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Can you back that claim using scripture? You're claiming we lose free will, it seems. I.e. that it's a one-way door, a choice that we become locked into.

Firstly, I'd repeat what I said above so that you might deal with the points raised. They are:

Will people have the ability to reject God in heaven? Clearly not. The argument then, is over timing.

As I say, there's little point is constantly revisiting the choice once made. This isn't an Irish referendum.

Your rejecting fundamental transformation. Not born again. Not a new creation. Just the same old person - able to ever do the same old things.

-

I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:27

One of the reasons for querying the position from a logical/rational point of view is that the scriptural arguments have already been done to death. You can easily read up on what reformed theologians have said about the likes of the above and draw your conclusions. The same goes for other supposed loss-of-salvation verses.

I'll leave aside the translational nuances which shape the above verse to more strengthen the following view. And that view is that Paul is talking about the prize of heavenly reward - for there are degrees of heavenly reward for work done whilst in the body. Reward additional to basic (lets call it) salvation.

What point preaching to others about the reward one can gain for partaking of the race (to subdue the flesh) and miss out oneself?

The trouble here is that salvation isn't mentioned.

kelly1

Not sure.

Antiskeptic, I think this is the essential point I need to deal with:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your rejecting fundamental transformation. Not born again. Not a new creation. Just the same old person - able to ever do the same old things.

I think a bit of nuance is required here.

Yes, there is transformation in the soul of a person who comes to Christ and this is brought about by the presence of the Holy Spirit in that person's soul. This makes us a member of the mystical body of Christ. But this is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs.

We still retain free will. It is still possible to sin gravely and thereby cut ourselves off from the Body of Christ.

If OSAS is true, then it means:

1) It is no longer possible for us to sin, or
2) No matter what sins we commit, we cannot forfeit our salvation.

Would you accept this?

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I think this is the essential point I need to deal with:


I think a bit of nuance is required here.

Yes, there is transformation in the soul of a person who comes to Christ and this is brought about by the presence of the Holy Spirit in that person's soul. This makes us a member of the mystical body of Christ. But this is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs.

We still retain free will. It is still possible to sin gravely and thereby cut ourselves off from the Body of Christ.

If OSAS is true, then it means:

1) It is no longer possible for us to sin, or
2) No matter what sins we commit, we cannot forfeit our salvation.

Would you accept this?

Of course I'd plump for 2. We do, of course, keep sinning.

There are any number of elements dealing with this

1. Paul's dealing with the most natural objection to osas in Romans. "Doesn"the this mean we can go on sinning - now that it is by Grace and not by law abiding?"

His answer is to point out their being tranformed: transferred from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light. He argues about the incongruity of supposing we can go on merrily sinning. It is an appeal to reason. Not loss of salvation. "To sin is to fight against your own side. It's nuts!" Look for that tone romans 6.

2. The picture used of being born from above is adoption into sonship. The new relationship
cannot be ignored. Once a son always a son. It isn't like a marriage, which can be dissolved. You can disown your son but he remains a son. Unless you suppose the sons of God in Hell then this is where you must reside.

3. Grave sins. Problematic this given the equating looking at a woman lustfully with the "grave" sin of adultery. It means you can have no assurance, no firm hope. You are left dangling on a string. The inevitable result is working for your salvation (or retention of same). It's worry. Fear. This is incongruent with a God of perfect love and kindness.

You wouldn't dream of dealing with your own child this way - unless a bit sick in the head. And our love for them isn't perfect like his is for his children.

4. Revisiting our choice. If sin can lose us our salvation then being born again merely shifts us from division 2 (certainly lost) to division 1 (possibly lost). You appear to hold that we now have to work at avoiding being relegated from the first division. We must strive for the prize now.

Ockhams Razor springs to mind. God could simply have placed everyone in league 1 and set them at avoiding relegation. Nothing is achieved by making it a two step process.

Thoughts on it for the moment.

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course I'd plump for 2. We do, of course, keep sinning.

You realize the implications of this? It means we can sin as much as we like without impunity! So for instance, I could leave my wife and live with another woman and still enter heaven.

I don't know where you get the idea that as soon as we're saved, we loose the freedom to rebel against God. God never takes away our freedom!

Hebrews 10:26: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

2 Pet 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

This is just one example of why Jesus left us a teaching authority on earth, i.e the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It alone has the divinely appointed authority to interpret scripture. We wouldn't be having this discussion if people accepted the teachings of the Church.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

You realize the implications of this? It means we can sin as much as we like without impunity! So for instance, I could leave my wife and live with another woman and still enter heaven.

1. You raise the very same objection that Paul addresses in Romans 6. It's a very natural and understandable objection to make

2. In his dealing with the objection, Paul adds theological flesh to the rebirthed, but as yet, uneducated Christian. A person who hasn't the Spirit would think precisely as you think*: they are driven by the flesh and now have a carte blanche to sin, yet still enter heaven. Lotto territory!

The person with the Spirit however, is driven by new motivations. Yes they have to battle with the mortal flesh, but now they are equipped for that battle in a way the person who hasn't been born again and who hasn't gotten these new motivations isn't. Paul exhorts: educating them as to this reality and exhorting them to engage in the battle

*I'm not supposing that by raising this objection you are not born again. Paul deals with the objection being raised by people who are born again.

3. There are rewards in heaven (crowns) for deeds done whilst still in the body but born again. A person who carries on sinning merrily will miss out on crowns.

4. The person is under new management - and if they suppose they can go on sinning away then there are consequences to be had which a person who hasn't the spirit won't experience. If you've once experienced the presence of God then you will notice, in a way the person without the spirit won't, the absence of God. You will be miserable in a way the person without the spirit won't be.

It's not that there is no cost to carrying on sinning. There are. It's just that the cost isn't loss of salvation.

I don't know where you get the idea that as soon as we're saved, we loose the freedom to rebel against God. God never takes away our freedom!

I'm not saying we can't sin. Sin is rebellion. I'm merely saying you can't lose your salvation, once had.

I'd reiterate the point which you didn't address: God, you presumably agree, takes away our freedom to sin in heaven. In which case, we seem to be arguing about the timing of not being able to lose your salvation.

Hebrews 10:26: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

Which means all would perish. All sin is wilful, is it not?

2 Pet 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Again, you ought to have no problem finding argument which see's this in context. General problem: you have Romans which is a beginning to end treatise on salvation by grace. The loss of salvation argument consists of verses here and there.

Do you suppose that God would take the trouble to lay out the theology of salvation by grace (and deal with natural objections to it) and then not equally attend to an equally important issue? The loss of salvation?

This is just one example of why Jesus left us a teaching authority on earth, i.e the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It alone has the divinely appointed authority to interpret scripture. We wouldn't be having this discussion if people accepted the teachings of the Church.

The trouble with this thinking is that it relies on your belief that this is what Jesus did. That the authority says the Bible/history gives it authority is circular reasoning. Your belief alone, is what gives the idea purchase, for you.

That you consider yourself to have interpreted scripture sufficient accurately to allow the rest of scripture to be interpreted for you is somewhat self-confounding an idea.

In any case, if you grant yourself the right to interpret scripture and draw conclusions (such as the Church is the church established by God) then you must allow me the same space.

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The person with the Spirit however, is driven by new motivations. Yes they have to battle with the mortal flesh, but now they are equipped for that battle in a way the person who hasn't been born again and who hasn't gotten these new motivations isn't. Paul exhorts: educating them as to this reality and exhorting them to engage in the battle

I agree with that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not that there is no cost to carrying on sinning. There are. It's just that the cost isn't loss of salvation.....
I'm not saying we can't sin. Sin is rebellion. I'm merely saying you can't lose your salvation, once had.

This just makes no sense. If I've been saved (past tense) and I continue to sin through adultery etc, I can't expect to be welcomed into heaven. Paul says this is 1 Cor 6:9.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd reiterate the point which you didn't address: God, you presumably agree, takes away our freedom to sin in heaven. In which case, we seem to be arguing about the timing of not being able to lose your salvation.

I don't think God ever takes away our freedom. Anyone who makes it to heaven has already made up their minds to abandon sin. I think the overwhelming grace of being in the visible presence of God would make sin impossible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you suppose that God would take the trouble to lay out the theology of salvation by grace (and deal with natural objections to it) and then not equally attend to an equally important issue? The loss of salvation?

By "attend to", you mean ensure that we can never lose salvation? It's a dangerous doctrine that gives us a false sense of security.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree with that.

To be honest kelly, there is little point in progressing. The salvation by works mode of salvation is as embedded in you as is salvation by grace in me. You read works everywhere, whereas I read grace everywhere.

I think that if salvation by grace is looked for, then it will be revealed. You could say the same about salvation by works.

The question then is motivation. I've none to go looking for what you hold to be the case. Not so much because salvation by grace is easier (although it can only be easier than a salvation that is uncertain), but because once satisfied that your theology stitches together, you don't need to upend it for something you don't believe is to be found.

Hope that makes sense.

Auntie

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To be honest kelly, there is little point in progressing. The salvation by works mode of salvation is as embedded in you as is salvation by grace in me. You read works everywhere, whereas I read grace everywhere.

I said nothing about salvation by works, which is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.

J C

Those that believe "once saved always saved" is a false docterine.

kelly1 wrote: »

You realize the implications of this? It means we can sin as much as we like without impunity! So for instance, I could leave my wife and live with another woman and still enter heaven.

You could also sin without impunity under non-OSAS theology ... and then have a deathbed conversion and be saved.
... so forgiving sin (whenever this occurs) is always an undeserved gift from Jesus Christ.
OSAS just cuts to the chase ... and says that you are forgiven all your past and future sins, when you are Saved.

Non-OSAS just keeps people having to ask for forgiveness over and over again ... and never really knowing if they are Saved ... which is a bit of an insult to a God who died that we might live ... and came to Save sinners, in one act of perfect atonement for all sin.
... I can see how a church could us such an interpretation to garner enormous power and wealth to itself ... by making an industry out of forgiving sin.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know where you get the idea that as soon as we're saved, we loose the freedom to rebel against God. God never takes away our freedom!

Hebrews 10:26: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

2 Pet 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

These people know God ... but they haven't believed on Him to Save them ... and therefore are un-Saved ... with all that follows from that ... they are indeed in a spiritual mess allright, in many ways worse off than people who have never known God.

kelly1 wrote: »

This is just one example of why Jesus left us a teaching authority on earth, i.e the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It alone has the divinely appointed authority to interpret scripture. We wouldn't be having this discussion if people accepted the teachings of the Church.

It is just one church among many ... and in so far that it denies the sufficiency of belief on Jesus Christ for salvation, it is in error.

kelly1 wrote: »

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths

This scripture is being fulfilled around us every day !!!

Breadsons

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not saying we can't sin. Sin is rebellion. I'm merely saying you can't lose your salvation, once had.

.

Very Dangerous comment.

Those saved will be judged far more than those unsaved and will be cast into the lake of fire along with the unbelievers if they fall from grace.

“For if we sin willfully (knowingly, purposefully, deliberately) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" Hebrews 10:26

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

I said nothing about salvation by works, which is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.

Anything that you have to do or not do, which in anyway contributes to your salvation constitutes a works salvation. Whether your doing/not doing is assisted by the Spirit is irrelevant. Once any element of your own doing/not doing is involved in your salvation then it is a works one.

By that definition, is yours a works salvation?

antiskeptic

Breadsons wrote: »

Very Dangerous comment.

Those saved will be judged far more than those unsaved and will be cast into the lake of fire along with the unbelievers if they fall from grace.

“For if we sin willfully (knowingly, purposefully, deliberately) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" Hebrews 10:26

I see your Hebrews 10:26 and raise the first half of Romans

I'd also point out that your verse makes certain all the saved will be damned. It's an If/then statement. If we sin then we perish. And sin we will.

Once Saved, Surely Lost.

I presume this isn't what you meant. Shows the dangers of quote mining

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anything that you have to do or not do, which in anyway contributes to your salvation constitutes a works salvation. Whether your doing/not doing is assisted by the Spirit is irrelevant. Once any element of your own doing/not doing is involved in your salvation then it is a works one.

By that definition, is yours a works salvation?

By your definition, the mere act of turning to Christ for salvation is works!

Here is what I'm talking about:

Matthew 25:44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Are you going to tell me it not possible to ignore the poor once you've been "saved"?