Once saved always saved is a false doctrine..

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

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

A non works salvation is one in which man makes no contribution to his salvation. All the glory goes to God.

The turning is brought about by action of God upon the man. In this case we can say that if the will acts it acts only in pulling away from God - man is lost through act of will. If saved it is because the desire to pull away was neutralized by God.

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.”

I'm not sure of the relevance? You seem to be justifying your position that works are required for salvation. Do I take this as confirmation of the question asked in my last post: that yours is a works based salvation?

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

Of course it's possible to ignore the poor once your saved. Show me anyone who says they help every poor person he comes across and I'll show you a liar.

I take it you do notice he doesn't qualify things when he makes statements like this. You either do what he demands or your in contravention of what he demands. He never says: do your best to help/give/behave.

Which is the problem for a works based salvation. No matter how hard you work / avoid sin / do the right thing .. it'll never be enough.

kelly1

Not sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If saved it is because the desire to pull away was neutralized by God.

What you're saying here is that God revokes our free after we're "saved". I don't accept that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do I take this as confirmation of the question asked in my last post: that yours is a works based salvation?

No, you may not. What I'm saying is that we are saved by grace, just as St Paul says, but that we may loose the grace within our souls through serious sin.

Would you accept that grace is God's spirit within the soul? Could this grace not be withdrawn following grave sin?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course it's possible to ignore the poor once your saved. Show me anyone who says they help every poor person he comes across and I'll show you a liar.

Then who does the teaching from Matthew 26 apply to?

J C

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

kelly1 wrote: »

What you're saying here is that God revokes our free after we're "saved". I don't accept that.

... our free will is voluntarily revoked only in so far as to us becoming un-saved ... and who would want to do that anyway, when we know the eternal bliss of being with Jesus Christ, who is far better.
If you are saying that we can lose our salvation by sinning ... you are wrong there ... Jesus made a once only perfect atonement for all sin, when He died ... and when we are Saved all our sins (past and future) are forgiven.
This is only in relation to our Salvation ... all future sin will come with the temporal punishment for such sin, which can be substantial.

kelly1 wrote: »

No, you may not. What I'm saying is that we are saved by grace, just as St Paul says, but that we may loose the grace within our souls through serious sin.

God's grace is infinite ... and thus sufficient to forgive all of our sin. This doesn't mean that nature or society will be as forgiving ... and we need to remember this, if we decide to sin after being Saved.

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you accept that grace is God's spirit within the soul? Could this grace not be withdrawn following grave sin?

We become literally indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God after we are Saved ... and the Holy Spirit doesn't withdraw in the presence of sin ... but pricks the conscience of the sinner to repent and cease sinning.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

What you're saying here is that God revokes our free after we're "saved". I don't accept that.

He revokes our free will on the matter of our choosing his salvation or not. At least, you believe he does that when we are in heaven. We can't chose to leave afterall.

So perhaps deal with your issue of timing, rather than rejecting something which you yourself happen to believe in.

No, you may not. What I'm saying is that we are saved by grace, just as St Paul says, but that we may loose the grace within our souls through serious sin.

Same thing. Whether you obtain salvation by works or retain salvation by works, the salvation is by works.

It depends on you, whether you choose to do good deeds or choose to avoid doing bad deeds. That's works per the definition given.

Would you accept that grace is God's spirit within the soul? Could this grace not be withdrawn following grave sin?

Anything is possible. But such a thing isn't indicated. You've got any amount of pictures painted indicating a one way deal. Born again, but no unborn again. Died to sin, not came alive to sin after having died to sin. Old man dead. No old man resurrected. Adoption as sons, not possible to unadopt a son.

The theology for a profound, final transformation is extensive. The argument for some kind of reversal of that transformation, paltry.

Then who does the teaching from Matthew 26 apply to?

What teaching?

Perhaps you mean what you posted earlier? Perhaps you'd read through what's below in total before responding. The overall point is made at the end.

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.”

1. This teaching, if taken alone like you appear to take it mean all will be condemned. There isn't one of the saved who won't fail to feed the poor at some point in their lives. You, me, everyone else. He doesn't, like I say, qualify the statement by saying some partial fulfillment of his demand is sufficient.

"whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

Could you respond to that?



2. The teaching (the full passage that is) is split into two groups who are addressed as types. The blessed/righteous. And the cursed.

Something is to happen to the righteous. They are to be given an inheritance - a progression of the 'adopted son' picture used elsewhere. Why are they to be granted this inheritance? Well, the next sentence starts with the word "for", which means "because".

They, the righteous, are to receive this inheritance because works done in the body are seen as warranting that. Per my objection to your view at 1: the righteous will have differing amount of "credit" to their account. Not one of them will have attended to every poor person they encountered, but some will have taken up the challenge (Paul's race/prize) to a greater extent than others. The point is that what is to be inherited is connected to the works. Their belonging to the righteous is not conested to the works


You can consider the kingdom of God:

a) As you would any state. The righteous being given this inheritance simply means being allowed entry into the kingdom. Which is fine: the righteous shall gain entry because of works done in the body. If gaining entry because of works done in the body wasn't what was chosen by God to implement, you'd still have the righteous group there before him. God could implement some other kind of inheritance in relation to them - it just happens that he chose the grant them entry to the kingdom of heaven.


b)You can see the kingdom of God as all that the kingdom of God consists of - just as the kingdom of Ireland consists of much more than just being allowed entry to it. One is taught elsewhere of the various crowns earned for works done whilst in the (saved) body. Inheritance is another device allowing for differing levels of award - since that is how it functions generally. There is no issue with "inheritance of the kingdom" permitting differing levels of inheritance of the fruits of that kingdom.

The mechanism for the awards system for the righteous is deeds done in the body. Deeds which are not so much how much you helped the poor, I might add, but the heart with which you did it: truly for the Lord and not self. The widow's mite springs to mind.


The cursed are addressed. They too are to receive an inheritance of sorts and the reason for the inheritance similar, if opposite pole. Their good deeds aren't of interest - for they will have helped the poor for reasons that are laudable. Few of the damned will have been conscience-less psychopaths. But their conscience-driven acts aren't the issue here since they are being dealt with as a group, the cursed. We could speculate that there will, in hell, be differing degrees of agony, depending on works done in the body.


-


The point here is that we don't have a description of how the cursed came to belong to the cursed group nor how the righteous came to belong to the righteous group. The "because" is connected only to that which is being granted to the already-existent groups. It deals with the consequences of belonging to each group, not why they belong to each group.

What you are doing, incorrectly in my view, is supposing that the righteous come to be the righteous because of deeds done in the body. Whereas the text connects what is being awarded to the righteous with deeds done in the body. It a none to subtle difference. We can only go as far as what the text say, we can't presume of it.

The teaching doesn't support/detract from salvation by grace alone - it says nothing about how the two groups came into being. But it doesn't conflict with salvation by grace. It adds to teaching elsewhere of differing reward for deeds done, by the saved, whilst in the flesh.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

The damned came to belong to the cursed group because they are the devil and his angels.

J C

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

dojmx16b58h7af wrote: »

The damned came to belong to the cursed group because they are the devil and his angels.

... but Jesus Christ came to Save sinners ... and not those who think that they can Save themselves.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Yes, Christ came to save sinners. But He cannot save them unless they repent. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

kelly1

Not sure.

Guys, I'm going to step out of this debate.

I think this thread is an example why we need more than the bible to settle debates over correct interpretation. As a Catholic, I believe this authority rests with the Catholic Church through apostolic succession. If we didn't have this authority in the Church, it would have split far earlier than the Reformation.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, I'm going to step out of this debate.

I think this thread is an example why we need more than the bible to settle debates over correct interpretation. As a Catholic, I believe this authority rests with the Catholic Church through apostolic succession. If we didn't have this authority in the Church, it would have split far earlier than the Reformation.

There is nothing more than each person's ability and desire to conclude for themselves which interpretation works best. If you conclude the RC holds the keys then that is something you concluded by the way of some kind of self assessment.

There's a contradiction here: you suppose yourself to have the ability to conclude something as monumental as the one true church. But have trouble going to bat on something involving a straight forward comprehension of English (which is all the point at the endart of my post involves one doing)

??