Once Saved Always Saved - Why is it so hard?

[thecolorsblend]

Much as the salvation by works Christians, like yourself, view salvation as a reward for services rendered

As I have said in other posts in this thread, nothing could be farther from the truth. Salvation is a gift of faith by God's grace.

What I have said is that the process of salvation is inherently cooperative. God offers it and men accept (or reject) it. This Protestant straw man of "works-based righteousness" is rather poorly conceived since it's typically leveled against Catholics... and Catholics would (or should) be the first to say that one cannot earn salvation. Why Protestants struggle with the concept of Catholics not believing in "works-based salvation" is a mystery to me.

But there are many things I don't understand; the French, for example.

Nevertheless, the point remains that my Church does not teach "salvation by works" and thus your attempt to frame the matter as though it does is so incorrect as to be borderline slanderous.

To bring the issue somewhat back to topical relevance, what my Church does teach is that it is possible for one to fall out of a state of grace. When such happens to somebody, he must repent and confess his sin(s).

Interesting that if you have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit that shows all truth, that you would not just ask God that question, because He is the One who will judge all and knows all.

Asking someone else what is their, human opinion of why God does what He does shows that you are not looking for 'answers', which God can provide, but to have sinful humans try to say what they 'think' God will do.

That idea, if taken to its logical conclusion, would tend to vitiate the entire purpose of forums like CF, would it not? Nevertheless, if you find my posts bothersome, I would understand if you declined to reply to them anymore.

Maybe your barking up the wrong tree asking human beings to guess or give THEIR opinion and not asking God directly.

I am using a Socratic dialectic designed to prompt those with what I believe to be wrong doctrine to examine their doctrine in light of a question encapsulating their views. The dialogue resulting from that could potentially help them recognize their doctrine as flawed. There is also the possibility, however remote, that my mind could be changed.

In short, I see no harm in an exchange of ideas in this matter... particularly considering the fact that I'm not the one who started this thread and issued a challenge to those with a different opinion to explain why they believe as they do.

God never says that mankind is faithful and just and righteous in their own right. God DOES say that He Alone is faithful, righteous and just to finish the good work that He has started in us.

You seem to be referring to total depravity here. The "T" in TULIP. This has some relevance to this thread so I believe this is a worthwhile tangent to follow.

The Council of Trent addressed total depravity in On Justification with "If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished... let him be anathema." The Church affirms that man has free will as a crucial element in our being created in God's image. Free will may be tainted on some level or another by the Fall, of course, but it nevertheless still exists.

I find the logic behind the Catholic Church's pronouncement in the Council of Trent to be quite sound. Indeed, I had become less and less inclined to express belief in total depravity for quite a while prior to converting to Catholicism. The reason I stopped believing in it is because it didn't bear much similarity to observable reality.

For example, a casual glance at my American society shows me that mankind, though inclined toward sin, is still nevertheless capable of doing objective good: homeless shelters, charities, food drives, etc. These actions are undertaken both by Christians and non-Christians alike. And yet, total depravity holds that man is hopelessly inclined toward sin and cannot freely choose the alternative. Were that to be so, however, it stands to reason that "charity" would be so rare as to be a fictional concept. And yet, charitable actions and agencies dot the landscape. Now, a logical counter-argument for that is God's intervention in the lives of faithful Christians realigns them toward righteousness.. However, that rebuttal, while somewhat persuasive, does not (and, indeed, cannot) account for works of mercy and charity by avowedly non-Christian entities.

Thus, either total depravity needs to be redefined (which I expect will happen in this thread now owing to my dismantling of it) or else it needs to be rejected. I have chosen to reject it.

As I well understand that there is no message so simple that the conveying of it won't lead to misunderstanding, allow me to emphasize that I am not arguing that all men are inherently morally righteous. On the contrary, I suspect that most people's behavior is sometimes (or often?) less-than-morally righteous. Whatever our ability to perform acts of charity and mercy, we still have a tendency to sin. I am not arguing the contrary.

I am, however, agreeing with my Church in saying that however much the Fall has affected mankind's free will, we still retain the free will to do good... or to commit sin.

And to tie this tangent back to the purpose of this thread, that same free will can lead us into true fellowship with God one day... and true rebellion against God the next day. Repentance, therefore, should be our constant companion, and confession of sins should be our ongoing habit.

 

[Blade]

OP its a truth but not. Well we are still FREE. The gift was freely given. To think one has to KEEP IT. We think like man. WHY would anyone give it back not take it? Ask the countless fallen angels that were standing with GOD in all ALL HIS GLORY POWER.. they NEW what they were giving up and yet did it. Sin was found in him. He made the choice.

So GOD does the same with us. So there are those that have tasted known the POWER and powers to come (lost allot there) and walk away. To bring them BACK is almost impossible. This is not sinning. This is those and they are far and few that KNOW GOD. They KNOW not guess not wonder they KNOW HIM. They have seen tasted touched HAD the power of GOD and NEW they were saying no to God. They are not still saved. God will not can not force HIS will on anyone. To force it would be wrong. To say.. well they were never saved from the start <---that is not written.

SIN = death in this world no more no less. The wages of sin is death. God told Adam and Eve if you eat of this tree you will die. Not be lost for ever from God. It was a sin to go against what GOD said. And after they ate of that tree death came. The earth reacted to sin.

So those that dont know Him never heard of Him? Jesus said if you were blind you would have no sin. You say you see your sin remains.

ALL that being said. I do believe it is FAR easier to be saved then lost. Well when MAN says it.. should say it all. The road wide and nerrow? A salvation.. is that was Jesus was talking about? No.. this world. For me.. is plain to see. The books are open to see as Jesus told the 12.. dont be so happy the enemy is subject to you but that your name is written in heaven. No sin was talked about and Jesus didnt even die yet..yet there names were spoken about as if they were already written in heaven. Duh... John 3:16 they believed. Saved they were. Now. Could they sin and still be saved? Yep. Can they freely sin and be saved?

Praise GOD no one here or ever was or ever will be gets the right to look in HIS books and say. We cant. No matter what we say here..its NOT His word. Only HE has the say period. What we think and say is NOT His word. We cant save anyone. Everyone new the thief on the cross was lost forever. He got was was coming right? Thats what ALL that new him. Ah but saved he is now! Just by a simple ..remember me. So think how many will be saved based on? Sin? No.. praise GOD

 

[ToBeLoved]

As I have said in other posts in this thread, nothing could be farther from the truth. Salvation is a gift of faith by God's grace.

What I have said is that the process of salvation is inherently cooperative. God offers it and men accept (or reject) it. This Protestant straw man of "works-based righteousness" is rather poorly conceived since it's typically leveled against Catholics... and Catholics would (or should) be the first to say that one cannot earn salvation. Why Protestants struggle with the concept of Catholics not believing in "works-based salvation" is a mystery to me.

But there are many things I don't understand; the French, for example.

Nevertheless, the point remains that my Church does not teach "salvation by works" and thus your attempt to frame the matter as though it does is so incorrect as to be borderline slanderous.

To bring the issue somewhat back to topical relevance, what my Church does teach is that it is possible for one to fall out of a state of grace. When such happens to somebody, he must repent and confess his sin(s).

That idea, if taken to its logical conclusion, would tend to vitiate the entire purpose of forums like CF, would it not? Nevertheless, if you find my posts bothersome, I would understand if you declined to reply to them anymore.

I am using a Socratic dialectic designed to prompt those with what I believe to be wrong doctrine to examine their doctrine in light of a question encapsulating their views. The dialogue resulting from that could potentially help them recognize their doctrine as flawed. There is also the possibility, however remote, that my mind could be changed.

In short, I see no harm in an exchange of ideas in this matter... particularly considering the fact that I'm not the one who started this thread and issued a challenge to those with a different opinion to explain why they believe as they do.

You seem to be referring to total depravity here. The "T" in TULIP. This has some relevance to this thread so I believe this is a worthwhile tangent to follow.

The Council of Trent addressed total depravity in On Justification with "If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished... let him be anathema." The Church affirms that man has free will as a crucial element in our being created in God's image. Free will may be tainted on some level or another by the Fall, of course, but it nevertheless still exists.

I find the logic behind the Catholic Church's pronouncement in the Council of Trent to be quite sound. Indeed, I had become less and less inclined to express belief in total depravity for quite a while prior to converting to Catholicism. The reason I stopped believing in it is because it didn't bear much similarity to observable reality.

For example, a casual glance at my American society shows me that mankind, though inclined toward sin, is still nevertheless capable of doing objective good: homeless shelters, charities, food drives, etc. These actions are undertaken both by Christians and non-Christians alike. And yet, total depravity holds that man is hopelessly inclined toward sin and cannot freely choose the alternative. Were that to be so, however, it stands to reason that "charity" would be so rare as to be a fictional concept. And yet, charitable actions and agencies dot the landscape. Now, a logical counter-argument for that is God's intervention in the lives of faithful Christians realigns them toward righteousness.. However, that rebuttal, while somewhat persuasive, does not (and, indeed, cannot) account for works of mercy and charity by avowedly non-Christian entities.

Thus, either total depravity needs to be redefined (which I expect will happen in this thread now owing to my dismantling of it) or else it needs to be rejected. I have chosen to reject it.

As I well understand that there is no message so simple that the conveying of it won't lead to misunderstanding, allow me to emphasize that I am not arguing that all men are inherently morally righteous. On the contrary, I suspect that most people's behavior is sometimes (or often?) less-than-morally righteous. Whatever our ability to perform acts of charity and mercy, we still have a tendency to sin. I am not arguing the contrary.

I am, however, agreeing with my Church in saying that however much the Fall has affected mankind's free will, we still retain the free will to do good... or to commit sin.

And to tie this tangent back to the purpose of this thread, that same free will can lead us into true fellowship with God one day... and true rebellion against God the next day. Repentance, therefore, should be our constant companion, and confession of sins should be our ongoing habit.

The way you say things, we can definately see you are not a Protestant.

Maybe how you should look at it is that 'in comparison to Protestantism, many view Catholicism to be orientated to salvation through works'. We do not try to single out Catholicism, however Catholicism is pretty different than many Protestant denominations. If you see it that way, that your way of doing things is probably very far from our way of reading the Bible and worship, then it is not an attack against Catholicism, but it highlights the differences because the scale is so wide.

Also, I am not talking about Calvinism at all, nor Total Depravity.

I mean, do you not know the major differences that puts us at opposite sides of the spectrum? Confessing to priests and not directly to God, that's a huge one. Jesus died to reconcile us back to God, yet Catholicism put's a man between God and His Children. Then praying to the saints/Mary. The Bible says that talking/praying to the dead is an obimination to Him. Reading little of the Bible, many weekends, two short readings, one from a gospel and one from somewhere else. Thinking the Pope or any man speaks for God on the earth. Mixing spirtuality/belief and God and money, Vatican Bank.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You were answering someone else's question that was about tithing and you wrote down some scripture. I was only explaining that that verse was not about tithing at all. That's it. Very simple.

I was not saying whether tithing still exists, because it does not. I was saying that verse and verses was not about tithing.

Yes, I said tithing does not exist. There was no reason for you to say the same in reply to my post (like I didn't say such a thing).

Anyways, there is no reason to quarrel. I think it is best we agree to disagree.

May God bless you and please be well.


...

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yes, I said tithing does not exist. There was no reason for you to say the same in reply to my post (like I didn't say such a thing).

Anyways, there is no reason to quarrel. I think it is best we agree to disagree.

May God bless you and please be well.


...

I was sharing what I knew and had just studied those verses with our pastor. Sorry if sharing spiritual insight is a reason to quarrel in your eyes. I'll pray for you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I was sharing what I knew and had just studied those verses with our pastor. Sorry if sharing spiritual insight is a reason to quarrel in your eyes. I'll pray for you.

No. I essentially was saying you were not reading my post and you were posting something I already stated (as if I didn't state it).

That is why I thought you were quarreling with me. If your intention was not to quarrel, then it's all good. But for next time: Do try to read my post before restating a particular thing I already said.

Anyways, peace be unto you.
And may you please be well.


...

 

[thecolorsblend]

The way you say things, we can definately see you are not a Protestant.

With respect, I have done very little to hide that.

Maybe how you should look at it is that 'in comparison to Protestantism, many view Catholicism to be orientated to salvation through works'.

I've tried, and unfortunately that doesn't work. "Many" can view Catholicism however they like but when the Church itself says "We do not believe in salvation through works" (if that phrase is defined as somehow "meriting" salvation). Many Protestants have a view of the Catholic Church which is immune to reality.

We do not try to single out Catholicism, however Catholicism is pretty different than many Protestant denominations. If you see it that way, that your way of doing things is probably very far from our way of reading the Bible and worship, then it is not an attack against Catholicism, but it highlights the differences because the scale is so wide.

Currently you're "speaking" to a recovering Protestant so it would be fair to say I'm aware of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Also, I am not talking about Calvinism at all, nor Total Depravity.

By implication, your post touches upon total depravity vis a vis the scripture you posted, which is a conventional reference when the subject of TD comes up.

I mean, do you not know the major differences that puts us at opposite sides of the spectrum?

I do.

Confessing to priests and not directly to God, that's a huge one.

Such a practice is both scriptural and historical.

Jesus died to reconcile us back to God, yet Catholicism put's a man between God and His Children.

If you're still referring to Confession, what does John 20:23 mean if not that clergy have the authority to hear Confessions and forgive (or not forgive) sins?

Then praying to the saints/Mary.

Asking you to pray for me would not be an unusual request. Is it really crossing all that big a line to ask the faithful departed to pray for me as well?

The Bible says that talking/praying to the dead is an obimination to Him.

The practice forbidden by scripture is necromancy. This is a mode of divination (another forbidden practice) whereby someone uses a medium (which we Catholics do not do) in order to summon the dead (which we Catholics do not do) for purposes of dialogue (which we Catholics do not do) or for predicting the future (which we Catholics do not do) or perhaps other purposes. The only way seeking the prayerful intercession of the saints can be considered necromancy is if the word "necromancy" is radically redefined.

Hermas, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage and others were keenly aware of necromancy as a practice (surely a thriving enterprise during their lives and times), and yet commended communion of the saints anyway. So either all these men were absolute rubes who couldn't see their own hypocrisy staring them in the face or else, as above, they clearly recognized the difference between the communion of the saints and necromancy.

Reading little of the Bible, many weekends, two short readings, one from a gospel and one from somewhere else.

We're going very far off topic now but... WHAT?! If you're referring to the Liturgy of the Word during the Mass, we customarily hear a reading from the Law or Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels and the Epistles. Taken together, I darenot exaggerate in saying I likely hear more scripture on Sunday morning than most Protestants do.

Thinking the Pope or any man speaks for God on the earth.

Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea and others bluntly articulated a special importance for the bishop of Rome. Where do you suppose they got that idea?

Mixing spirtuality/belief and God and money, Vatican Bank.

You can question the wisdom of such a practice (although I do wonder what that entails for any financial tithes you offer since that would be, y'know, mixing spirituality with money) but that doesn't make it an objectively bad idea.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Which is talking about that they do not root themselves spiritually in the vine.

Think we missed something here " for believing God’s word."

 

[Vicomte13]

Jesus has restored us back to the perfect time when man and woman walked with God.

If so, why do we die?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Such a practice is both scriptural and historical.

I totally disagree. Where in the New Testament under the blood of Christ has a person ever been told to go through a third party when talking to God or repenting for sins? Please list the scripture.

Historical? I have no idea what you mean by historical unless you think the Catholic church has some claim to the apostle Peter which I would disagree with as well and ask for your proof of that.

I live by God's Word, not man's.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Think we missed something here " for believing God’s word."

Jesus calls Himself the vine in scripture, so I am refering to the fact that when people root their faith in Christ and His Word, combined with prayer and worship, that they are setting their footing for their Christian faith on very solid ground.

Many who fall from faith do not invest time into their relationship with God and it is important that we prioritize God as being a priority that we are willing to give our time to so we can see our faith grow.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If so, why do we die?

When we die, we are not afraid to die or even if we are afraid to die we know that we will be going to a place where we will be with our Savior forever. If we listen to the two commandments that Jesus left us with, which is love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind then we will not be happy to die, but we will be happy when we are united with our Lord.

And when we are with Him, He promises that there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more sorrow only joy in heavenly places with Him where we will be co-heirs with Christ to the Father for eternity.

So death, even though it is not a joy will be beneficial for us. Not a place of sorrow or pain or hell, but eternity with the God who loved us enough to die for us.

After Adam and Eve sinned, in Genesis it says that if God would not have removed them from the Garden of Eden and they would have eaten from the Tree of Life that they would have lived forever, but in sin and apart from God.

God did not want His Children to live in sin and pain without Him for eternity so He numbered the days that mankind would have on this earth, so eventually we would be released from our bodies and sinful nature and be with God in heaven.

 

[Neogaia777]

The Lord does give commandments, and teaches that only those persons who keep them are known by God. These verses posted above don't contradict the Lord's teaching that we must keep His commandments if we are to receive Eternal Life, because only those who, by faith, repent of sin and confess Christ, truly believe in Him. This is what the whole Gospel teaches. To repent is to reject all sin within yourself and to do the perfect will of God rather than one's own sinful will. Those who believe they are saved while not repenting and keeping Christ's commandments are deceived, being among those who have tried to enter by the wide way, which leads to perdition. Within all of Christendom, there are always very few who truly believe in and confess Christ.

By trying or exerting self-effort, or any kind of effort in "trying" to keep the commandments, by observing the commandments, you will fail miserably... You must observe Christ by faith, not the letter of the law(s)... Keeping the commandments must be a "fruit" of faith, true, right Belief, and a truly converted person... A fruit not a work. Not by a work of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, or in faith of the law being a "fruit" of perfected faith... Not a work, not by effort, but a fruit of right believing, are those who have the fruit of keeping the commandments, by right believing and a, in short, "perfect(ed) faith"...

Fulfillment of the law comes by the law of faith or right believing, and by that faith, fulfills it as a fruit, and not by a work...

Those ones are known by the Lord and they know him...

God Bless!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jesus calls Himself the vine in scripture, so I am refering to the fact that when people root their faith in Christ and His Word, combined with prayer and worship, that they are setting their footing for their Christian faith on very solid ground.

Many who fall from faith do not invest time into their relationship with God and it is important that we prioritize God as being a priority that we are willing to give our time to so we can see our faith grow.

My point was these that fall away God calls believers.

 

[CodyFaith]

OP, the reason it's one of the most important doctrines is because it's a part of the gospel itself.

Whoever believes in Jesus has their sins paid for eternally, their past present and future sins are covered by the blood of Christ who is the Passover Lamb. If you believe in Jesus, his payment is put "on your account" so to speak, the blood of the Lamb is "put over your doorway" and you are saved from the wrath.

The gospel is simple... but it is hated.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hate. Ok, show of hands. Who here hates the part where Jesus says the believers fall away?

 

[ToBeLoved]

If you're still referring to Confession, what does John 20:23 mean if not that clergy have the authority to hear Confessions and forgive (or not forgive) sins?

John 20:20-23
20 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” 22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”

This is a specific situation where after Jesus has been resurrected He gave His disciples a special blessing, for them to begin Christ's church after His death. This happened once in this specific situation and was the blessing of Christ Himself on disciples, not a general statement to the church after the disciples deaths.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Asking you to pray for me would not be an unusual request. Is it really crossing all that big a line to ask the faithful departed to pray for me as well?

The practice forbidden by scripture is necromancy. This is a mode of divination (another forbidden practice) whereby someone uses a medium (which we Catholics do not do) in order to summon the dead (which we Catholics do not do) for purposes of dialogue (which we Catholics do not do) or for predicting the future (which we Catholics do not do) or perhaps other purposes. The only way seeking the prayerful intercession of the saints can be considered necromancy is if the word "necromancy" is radically redefined.

I don't think the Bible puts it the same way. The Bible is pretty clear that it is all types of divination.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12
10 “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 “For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Hermas, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage and others were keenly aware of necromancy as a practice (surely a thriving enterprise during their lives and times), and yet commended communion of the saints anyway. So either all these men were absolute rubes who couldn't see their own hypocrisy staring them in the face or else, as above, they clearly recognized the difference between the communion of the saints and necromancy.

Why does it matter what another man/human being does if God's Word tells us that is it an abomination to God? We follow God's law not what other people may find acceptable. When we die, God will be judging us on our own merit, not what someone else thinks.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We're going very far off topic now but... WHAT?! If you're referring to the Liturgy of the Word during the Mass, we customarily hear a reading from the Law or Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels and the Epistles. Taken together, I darenot exaggerate in saying I likely hear more scripture on Sunday morning than most Protestants do.

Well if that is your experience than that sounds fine. But I grew up in Catholic School and we went to mass 3 x's per week and we never read that much from the Bible, ever. So I don't know, maybe that has changed.