Why do some denominations not believe in Once Saved, Always Saved?

[Rick Otto]

Uncharitable like asserting something about someone else's faith that isn't true? Uncharitable like that maybe?

Exactly like that.
Having been raised RC, I've taken some time to sort thru many a fine distinction.

 

[Albion]

So if someone gets saved and becomes a Satan-worshipper and dies during the height of a black mass is he still saved?

What makes you think that this person was saved?

 

[Erose]

Exactly like that.
Having been raised RC, I've taken some time to sort thru many a fine distinction.

Hum, coming up through Protestantism, I also have had some time to sort thru some mess as well. Opposite sides of the coin perhaps?

 

[Albion]

Hum, coming up through Protestantism, I also have had some time to sort thru some mess as well. Opposite sides of the coin perhaps?

In other words, you DON'T have any reason to believe that that person had been saved.

 

[Rick Otto]

If me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the commandments?

For me, it is a combination of wisdom and gratitude, not performance checklist for Kingdom worthiness. Forgiveness is my ticket in, but I will still have to watch most of my works burn. Still, I will be saved 'yet as though by fire'.

 

[Erose]

For me, it is a combination of wisdom and gratitude, not performance checklist for Kingdom worthiness. Forgiveness is my ticket in, but I will still have to watch most of my works burn. Still, I will be saved 'yet as though by fire'.

Hum, pretty much what I said, but I was accused of trying to earn my way into heaven. I am still waiting for the answer from him who accused me of doing such a thing.

 

[squint]

So we should try to avoid sin then? Thanks for proving my point.

Try as any of us might there will be exactly zero people who die sinless. You are left then with the balancing act of orthodoxy, that there will be 'less' sins to adversely judge against you.

So keep on sinning. Got it!

No one becomes sinless. So in effect, when did you or any believer quit being a sinner?

But you keep verifying my assumptions, and I can only thank you for it.

You believe them. That may count for something to you.

Take it you still haven't read that chapter yet.

In every case of sight non-OSAS believers read into the scriptures what isn't there. What ISN'T there is a believer who subsequently falls into the SIN of UNbelief and is then guaranteed to burn alive forever.

Got it. Once saved, move on to whatever and still be saved in the end.

Most non-OSAS believers need the threat of eternal hell on the board for themselves in order to keep their sins in check apparently.

Without the threat they would not serve.

So if someone gets saved, and becomes a Satan worshipper is he still saved?

I've provided Romans 11, particularly Romans 11:25-32 as the measure of what happens to believers who FALL.

Makes complete sense. A relationship is never one-sided.

Our main difference in sight will always revolve around only 1 major difference. I see that the unbelievers are blinded by an entity that is not them, and THAT by Gods Allowance and even Gods DIRECTION.

You (and most, sadly) see only the person. That is not the case made by scriptures.

Did he enter the promise land though?

I used Moses as an example of an action of unbelief that will NOT result in the eternal torment of Moses, period. And I cut the same slack for the entire nation of unbelieving Israel and do so by the scriptures.

They were ALL blinded in our behalves. If for nothing else as an example for those whom God may elect to place back under the THUMB of the spirit of slumber. That would be those who do not continue in His Kindness or show MERCY.

How many fallen believers do any of you want to be unmerciful to? Or unkind to? Or do y'all prefer to threaten them to burn alive forever and call that GODS KINDNESS?

LOL

s

 

[Erose]

What makes you think that this person was saved?

If me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the commandments?

 

[Erose]

In other words, you DON'T have any reason to believe that that person had been saved.

If me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the commandments?

 

[Rick Otto]

Hum, coming up through Protestantism, I also have had some time to sort thru some mess as well. Opposite sides of the coin perhaps?

In a way, but significantly different in terms of homogeneity of doctrine. Freedom of religion has moved the burden of education from a pontiff to the individual conscience.
I would think that to appeal to one who values individual autonomy and equates that with freedom of will.

 

[Albion]

If me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the commandments?

Doing what Our Lord and Savior would have me do. If he is the one in whom I have Faith, I of course will want to live as he would have me live.

And that's exactly how I try to live my own life--doing what he taught us to do because he taught us to do it, and without any thought about how it might gain me brownie points with God or make my salvation more likely.

 

[Erose]

Try as any of us might there will be exactly zero people who die sinless. You are left then with the balancing act of orthodoxy, that there will be 'less' sins to adversely judge against you.

And that is why we have confession and forgiveness. As I have pointed out to you at least a dozen times: 1Jn: [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

But there is a process by which we do become more Christlike; and Jesus has called us to do. Unless you believe that Christ would command us to do something that we cannot nor should not do.

In every case of sight non-OSAS believers read into the scriptures what isn't there. What ISN'T there is a believer who subsequently falls into the SIN of UNbelief and is then guaranteed to burn alive forever.

Still haven't read it have you.

Most non-OSAS believers need the threat of eternal hell on the board for themselves in order to keep their sins in check apparently.

Without the threat they would not serve.

Threat of hell helps some initially just like the threat of a spanking helps a child be a little less unruly; but if you remain at the point of dodging sinning out of fear instead of love, you aren't growing and your faith is stagnant, and needs some little looking into. A stagnant faith, bears no fruit and we know what happens to a branch that doesn't bear fruit don't we? (Hint it is in John 15)

I've provided Romans 11, particularly Romans 11:25-32 as the measure of what happens to believers who FALL.

Yes you did and thank you for providing that; but the Bible isn't composed of just 7 verses, and those verses aren't the only ones that speaks of soteriology in Scripture.

Our main difference in sight will always revolve around only 1 major difference. I see that the unbelievers are blinded by an entity that is not them, and THAT by Gods Allowance and even Gods DIRECTION.

You (and most, sadly) see only the person. That is not the case made by scriptures.

The main difference is what is true and what isn't. If give Satan way too much power. He is not equal to God, and he is not the yang to God being yin. That isn't a Christian teaching, Satan is a creature, just like us; nothing more. Is he powerful? Yes he is. But he isn't almighty.

I used Moses as an example of an action of unbelief that will NOT result in the eternal torment of Moses, period. And I cut the same slack for the entire nation of unbelieving Israel and do so by the scriptures.

They were ALL blinded in our behalves. If for nothing else as an example for those whom God may elect to place back under the THUMB of the spirit of slumber. That would be those who do not continue in His Kindness or show MERCY.

How many fallen believers do any of you want to be unmerciful to? Or unkind to? Or do y'all prefer to threaten them to burn alive forever and call that GODS KINDNESS?

Did he enter the promise land?

 

[Erose]

Doing what Our Lord and Savior would have me do. If he is the one in whom I have Faith, I of course will want to live as he would have me live.

And that's exactly how I try to live my own life--doing what he taught us to do because he taught us to do it, and without any thought about how it might gain me brownie points with God or make my salvation more likely.

So you are trying to earn your salvation.

 

[Albion]

So you are trying to earn your salvation.

I didn't say anything about earning my salvation. In fact I said the opposite. Here it is again:

doing what he taught us to do because he taught us to do it, and without any thought about how it might gain me brownie points with God or make my salvation more likely.

 

[Erose]

In a way, but significantly different in terms of homogeneity of doctrine. Freedom of religion has moved the burden of education from a pontiff to the individual conscience.
I would think that to appeal to one who values individual autonomy and equates that with freedom of will.

Perhaps, but when it comes to truth, and what truth is; I am not going to depend upon me living in a cave somewhere, trying to determine what the sky looks like.

Another point is that the pontiff, is the supreme teacher of the faith no doubt, as he is the patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church; but he isn't the only teacher, nor does every Catholic sit at his feet to learn from him; the doctrine of faith is greater than the pope. The pope doesn't make the deposit of faith, but rather his purpose is to safeguard it.

One comment made in a previous post about the immaculate conception and infallibility for example. Both of the doctrines have been around for quite a long time. But because they were defined as dogma recently doesn't mean that these didn't become doctrine until this point. There are many things that we believe as doctrine that have never been defined as dogma, because they never had to be. For example God created the universe. The Catholic church teaches this as infallibly true, but this doctrine has never been defined as dogma.

 

[Erose]

I didn't say anything about earning my salvation. In fact I said the opposite. Here it is again:

doing what he taught us to do because he taught us to do it, and without any thought about how it might gain me brownie points with God or make my salvation more likely.

So you are trying to earn your salvation.

 

[squint]

And that is why we have confession and forgiveness.

I'm not aware those exercises confer a position (however fleeting) of sinless perfection.

As I have pointed out to you at least a dozen times: 1Jn: [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

So your belief is that you are sinless perfection at the completion of whatever exercises are used to 'get there?'

But there is a process by which we do become more Christlike; and Jesus has called us to do. Unless you believe that Christ would command us to do something that we cannot nor should not do.

Legalists make a similar claim. That they can (and sometimes do) work themselves into a state of sinless perfection by following the law. Or in the RCC case, their system.

Still haven't read it have you.

Many times. I requested early in this thread that if any of you has a single named example of any believer who subsequently falls and then is assured to be burned alive forever this subject wouldn't even be discussed. So what you seek for the surety of non-OSAS isn't there to be had in a single named instance of any person.

IF you think you see God burning alive forever His children whom all of Israel are, you are sadly sadly mistaken.

We all die a bodily physical death because of sin.

Threat of hell helps some initially just like the threat of a spanking helps a child be a little less unruly;

Poor equation.

but if you remain at the point of dodging sinning out of fear instead of love, you aren't growing and your faith is stagnant,

The threat of hell to believers can be dangled and none will produce sinlessness in any case of threat.

and needs some little looking into. A stagnant faith, bears no fruit and we know what happens to a branch that doesn't bear fruit don't we? (Hint it is in John 15)

Bad trees can't and don't produce 'good' fruit. Didn't you read the fine print? Neither are vessels of dishonor turned into vessels of honor.

Yes you did and thank you for providing that; but the Bible isn't composed of just 7 verses, and those verses aren't the only ones that speaks of soteriology in Scripture.

I understand that section drives a hard stake in a lot of false doctrine. That's why I cite it.

The main difference is what is true and what isn't. If give Satan way too much power.

If the god of this world blinds the minds of every unbeliever I would observe that power to be rather far reaching. It also clarifies who is my enemy and who is not. It is NOT the captives.

He is not equal to God, and he is not the yang to God being yin. That isn't a Christian teaching, Satan is a creature, just like us; nothing more. Is he powerful? Yes he is. But he isn't almighty.

Uh, no. Satan is not a child of God.

Did he enter the promise land?

Depends on who's making the call doesn't it? There is no doubt in my mind that Moses is with his Heavenly Father in GLORY. Either that or we had a poser on the mount of transfiguration with Jesus.

s

 

[Rick Otto]

Perhaps, but when it comes to truth, and what truth is; I am not going to depend upon me living in a cave somewhere, trying to determine what the sky looks like.

Another point is that the pontiff, is the supreme teacher of the faith no doubt, as he is the patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church; but he isn't the only teacher, nor does every Catholic sit at his feet to learn from him; the doctrine of faith is greater than the pope. The pope doesn't make the deposit of faith, but rather his purpose is to safeguard it.

One comment made in a previous post about the immaculate conception and infallibility for example. Both of the doctrines have been around for quite a long time. But because they were defined as dogma recently doesn't mean that these didn't become doctrine until this point. There are many things that we believe as doctrine that have never been defined as dogma, because they never had to be. For example God created the universe. The Catholic church teaches this as infallibly true, but this doctrine has never been defined as dogma.

Of course you seethe same logic could be applied in that the doctrine of OSAS merely remained latent until someone not blinded by tradition could define it.
What's good for your goose is also good for my gander, no?
Still, I recognize your good character and intent and sympathize with your feeling assaulted.
Thank you for your patience with us and your continuedinterest.

 

[Foghorn]

I didn't say anything about earning my salvation. In fact I said the opposite. Here it is again:

doing what he taught us to do because he taught us to do it, and without any thought about how it might gain me brownie points with God or make my salvation more likely.

Good grief huh? I wonder sometimes if some even read what we write.

 

[Albion]

Good grief huh? I wonder sometimes if some even read what we write.

Oh, they read it. But when they have no answer to what we wrote, some of them like to pretend that we said something other than we did.