Once Saved, Always Saved

[Richard]

Can a Believer Lose His/Her Salvation?​

​

​

John 3:18– We are no longer judged when we accept Christ
John 5:24– We have passed out of death into life
John 6:37-40– Jesus will not cast us out. He will lose nothing. That means us.
John 10:27-30– No one (even you) can snatch you out of God’s hand
Acts13:39– Once we have accepted Christ we are free from all things
Romans 8:1– There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus
Romans 8:35-39– Nothing can separate us from the love of God
Romans 11:29– God’s calling can’t be taken back
1 Corinthians 3: 9-23– vs 15-If we turn from God after we have been saved we will be saved but with very few rewards. Vs 23– We belong to Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:22– We are sealed by the Holy Spirit
2 Corinthians 5:17– We are a new creature in Christ. The old things have passed away Ephesians 1:13-sealed by the Spirit
Ephesians 4:30– sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption
Philippians 1:6– God will perfect what He started in you
Colossians 2:13&14– Christ already paid for ALL of our sins. When we accept Him as our Savior His blood covers ALL of our sins
Colossians 3:3&4– We are hidden with Christ in God. Christ is our life and will reveal us in Heaven.
Hebrews 7:25-27– He covered ALL sins when He offered Himself up on the cross Hebrews 10:10, 10:14
1 Peter 1:4&5
Jude 1:1– We are kept for Christ

So why do good if we are already saved?
​

John 14:15– If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Romans 6– Should we continue in sin so that grace may abound? May it never be! 1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23- ALL things are lawful for us but not all are profitable.
1 Peter 2:16– Do not use your freedom as a covering for evil
If we are truly Christians then Christ’s love should be all the fuel we need to do good.

AMEN !!!!! That is such a great thing. MANY reps to you !!!!

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

2 Peter 2:20-22

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. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Forgive me...

 

[Lynn73]

2 Peter 2:20-22

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. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Forgive me...

Once again, the dog is still a dog and the sow still a sow. Is there any indication they were ever one of Christ's? His people aren't called dogs and sows. One can escape the pollution of the world and know the way of righteousnes by being around Christ or other Christians. That doesn't make them Christian. Here we have people who have knowledge about Christ, and maybe for awhile follow the Christian crowd and learn about the way of righteousness. Maybe even get outwardly cleaned up a bit for awhile. But does anything here say that they actually accepted the gospel, that they actually repented an believed on Christ? That they were born again? No it says they turned away from the way way of righteousness they were being shown and the dog went back to his vomit and the sow to her wallowing in the mire. These aren't saved people imho.

 

[stone]

There is NO WHERE in scripture that says we are saved by "faith alone" except in James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Faith alone was made up by Martin Luther and was never believed in the first 1500 years.

You seem to have a misconception of Martin Luther. I understand that Martin Luther explained to the people that they do not need to pay money to be saved. That they do not need to pay to receive a piece of paper that reserves the spot for a loved one in heaven and that they do not need to pay money to walk up and kiss a million steps to the top of a building or whatever to be saved by Jesus.

This work by Martin Luther greatly reduced the amount of money the vatican was receiveing from Germany and it angered the cardinals and the pope. This could also explain some of the separation of the christian faith from the catholic church.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Once again, the dog is still a dog and the sow still a sow. Is there any indication they were ever one of Christ's? His people aren't called dogs and sows. One can escape the pollution of the world and know the way of righteousnes by being around Christ or other Christians. That doesn't make them Christian. Here we have people who have knowledge about Christ, and maybe for awhile follow the Christian crowd and learn about the way of righteousness. Maybe even get outwardly cleaned up a bit for awhile. But does anything here say that they actually accepted the gospel, that they actually repented an believed on Christ? That they were born again? No it says they turned away from the way way of righteousness they were being shown and the dog went back to his vomit and the sow to her wallowing in the mire. These aren't saved people imho.

How would you reason that they "escaped the pollutions of the world" if they were not saved?

Forgive me...

 

[SPALATIN]

I love it when people refer to Ephesians 2:8-9 as their "proof". Isnt' it funny that they stop reading there. Well here is what verse 10 says...

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I'll have to tell this to people until I am blue in the face I know, but Paul is NOT referring to "good works" in verses 8-9. He is referring to "works of the law" in other words the Old Testament Law, in other words the "works of the Torah", in other words "Mosaic Law". He is NOT in these verses just like he IS NOT in many places talking about "good works"!!!!! Paul dispells "works of the Torah" in verses 8-9 and then turns toward "good works" in verse 10. When all three verses are taken together what Paul is saying in simple terms is We are created in Christ Jesus to perform good works and NOT works of the Torah because your salvation is through Jesus and not the Old Covenant Law.

This has been pointed out time and time again. There is NO WHERE in scripture that says we are saved by "faith alone" except in James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Faith alone was made up by Martin Luther and was never believed in the first 1500 years.

As for the rest of your post, I will not debate the unbiblical view of "OSAS" at this point. I want to ask you though, why do many many protestants NOT believe in "Once Saved Always Saved"?

Hey Hoser,

First of all, Lutherans do not believe in OSAS. And it is by Grace through faith that we are saved and this not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, not by works so that no one can boast. This verse says that we can not come out and say that because of a specific work that we do we will get to heaven, but rather by God's grace through faith in Christ's work on the cross. through this work we are now his workmanship and our faith mandates that Good works be done to give God the glory.

This verse as you so correctly put it does not point to faith alone but to who gets the glory for it. It is certainly not us, but God.

 

[hoser]

Hey Hoser,

First of all, Lutherans do not believe in OSAS. And it is by Grace through faith that we are saved and this not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, not by works so that no one can boast. This verse says that we can not come out and say that because of a specific work that we do we will get to heaven, but rather by God's grace through faith in Christ's work on the cross. through this work we are now his workmanship and our faith mandates that Good works be done to give God the glory.

This verse as you so correctly put it does not point to faith alone but to who gets the glory for it. It is certainly not us, but God.

SlStrohkirch, yes I know that Lutherans do NOT believe in OSAS. That was part of my question at the end of my post. "Why do many many protestants NOT believe in OSAS?" Because I knew that Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. do not hold to that belief. I am still waiting to here the reason from OSAS believers why it is that so many of their Christian brothers and sisters do not believe in OSAS.

 

[msortwell]

I'm curious what the OSAS people make of these verses:

[bible]Hebrews 6:4-6[/bible]

Or even the rest of Hebrews...

Well . . . to be precise I don't hold to OSAS. Rather, I believe in what is labeled, the perseverance of the saints. That is, God will surely preserve those whom He has saved.

But, to actually address the verses that you cited . . . There are two possible explanations.

First, the most popular, is that the Author was speaking in a type of hyperbole. That is, he was expounding in an extreme fashion (beyond that which is actually possible and/or reflective of reality) to emphasize his point. Those holding this view sometimes point to verse 9 to indicate that the author was not speaking of an actual possibility.

Heb 6:9
9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. KJV

Like my Arminian brothers, I find this explanation unsatisfying. However, I would offer you a better explanation. First it is noted that there are no explicit claims within verses 4-6 that we are speaking of any that are justified by the blood of Christ. Nothing explicit is stated that we are speaking of saved people. Nor is it necessary that these verses are speaking of individuals. Rather, the verses consistently employ language that could be referring to a group of people as a unit. This is important because these verses may be referring to an apostate church. They may be referring to a church that was once made up of the redeemed but which, over time, fell away. Godly men (redeemed men) were no longer to be found in their midst. Where the whole counsel of God was once taught, there is now only the tickling of itching ears. Whereas, an individual may never be so lost that he is beyond redemption. It may be that this text is teaching us that a church that has completely turned away from the truth cannot be brought to repentance.

msortwell

 

[SPALATIN]

SlStrohkirch, yes I know that Lutherans do NOT believe in OSAS. That was part of my question at the end of my post. "Why do many many protestants NOT believe in OSAS?" Because I knew that Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. do not hold to that belief. I am still waiting to here the reason from OSAS believers why it is that so many of their Christian brothers and sisters do not believe in OSAS.

It's just that many Lutherans do not consider themselves to be protestant anymore. Many of us are very Orthodox and confessional. Some even consider us to be Catholics without papal authority.

 

[vanshan]

It's just that many Lutherans do not consider themselves to be protestant anymore. Many of us are very Orthodox and confessional. Some even consider us to be Catholics without papal authority.

No, we're the ones normally seen as Catholics without a pope! Maybe you can been seen as the most Catholic of protestants.

 

[SPALATIN]

No, we're the ones normally seen as Catholics without a pope! Maybe you can been seen as the most Catholic of protestants.

Sorry I wasn't clear about that. I meant to say that some among ourselves consider us to be Evangelical Catholics. The word "Protestant" leaves a bad taste in the mouth if you know what I mean. Luther was excommunicated for his stands against the Pope. He didn't leave voluntarily and if you look at much of his teaching it is still very Catholic in nature.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Sorry I wasn't clear about that. I meant to say that some among ourselves consider us to be Evangelical Catholics. The word "Protestant" leaves a bad taste in the mouth if you know what I mean. Luther was excommunicated for his stands against the Pope. He didn't leave voluntarily and if you look at much of his teaching it is still very Catholic in nature.

"Protestant" still means protesting against Papal Authority. Why would you wish to rid yourself of this proper label?

Is it now being seen as protesting against God?

I see it as an effort toward righteousness, albeit mislead, because IMHO the Protestants should have returned to the Orthodox Church instead of attempting to "go it alone".

Forgive me...

 

[SPALATIN]

"Protestant" still means protesting against Papal Authority. Why would you wish to rid yourself of this proper label?

Is it now being seen as protesting against God?

I see it as an effort toward righteousness, albeit mislead, because IMHO the Protestants should have returned to the Orthodox Church instead of attempting to "go it alone".

Forgive me...

I think it has more to do with our disagreement with other protestants over things like the confessions and sacraments than anything. If anything we were the "True" protestants and true Evangelicals and everyone else borrowed from us. They, however, didn't adapt our views on these things but rather came up with their own interpretations.

To understand why Luther did not establish himself with the Eastern Orthodox faith is found in the Tubingen theologians arguments. I have heard though that it had more to do with the distance from the Orthodox headquarters than it did with their theology.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I think it has more to do with our disagreement with other protestants over things like the confessions and sacraments than anything. If anything we were the "True" protestants and true Evangelicals and everyone else borrowed from us. They, however, didn't adapt our views on these things but rather came up with their own interpretations.

To understand why Luther did not establish himself with the Eastern Orthodox faith is found in the Tubingen theologians arguments. I have heard though that it had more to do with the distance from the Orthodox headquarters than it did with their theology.

IMHO ~ Luther would have made an outstanding EO, and if he could have stayed in the Vatican Church would have made an excellent Pope (head Bishop), and may possibly been able to rectify some of the strain between the Vatican and EO.

IMHO

Forgive me....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

BTW ~ On the subject of OSAS..... some of our readers may be interested in The Shepherd of Hermas. I believe it is a window into the beliefs of the early Christians.

Forgive me....

 

[BlueRose]

SlStrohkirch, yes I know that Lutherans do NOT believe in OSAS. That was part of my question at the end of my post. "Why do many many protestants NOT believe in OSAS?" Because I knew that Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. do not hold to that belief. I am still waiting to here the reason from OSAS believers why it is that so many of their Christian brothers and sisters do not believe in OSAS.

So when many people believe something, it must make it true? The earth must have certainly been flat then, when most of the world believed so!

As humans, we want to take the credit for a lot of stuff. How powerful is Christ's blood, may I ask? So many people think that they are somehow in charge. But where do we draw the line? At what point it someone "cut off" and no longer saved? Is it like a yo-yo.... one year saved, unsaved... saved, unsaved? I know many people who go through phases of backsliding, sometimes even throwing it aside all together for a while. To lose salvation almost makes me picture God dangling a carrot in front of us, with us chasing it around just to make sure not to lose it.

Why is it also that in a number of 'traditional' churches, many people don't even bring their bibles along? Being originally from a somewhat rural area, I would say 90% of the churches were like that. And I'm relying upon these people to fill the majority in dictating a train of thought?

Most Christians in the nation could probably be categorized as "lay people." Many read their Bible on occassion, but often the majority of what they believe has just been told to them by a pastor or two. Or they just assume something and don't really question any further. It's "logical" that turning from God would take away salvation, so why not believe it? It's also logical though, that God would not actually come to earth as a mere human to be killed. Many people haven't researched or studied the scripture very closely. Hermeneutics is what drives a person's study of the Bible--and many probably don't even know what that entails.

So anyway, after my long winded response, I just want to say that just because a big group of people believes something, it no more makes it true than me sitting in a garage makes me a car.

 

[Singinman]

Most of the OSAS folks I know use this doctrine as a kind of litmus test of theology believe this or be damned.

I do not believe this because I pay attention to the message of the whole Bible.

First it is noted that there are no explicit claims within verses 4-6 that we are speaking of any that are justified by the blood of Christ. Nothing explicit is stated that we are speaking of saved people. (sorry I did not do the quote thing right)

Heb 6:4 sounds like a good discription of a "born again Christian" to me. If there is any doubt here, I think Heb 10:29 clarifies it.

"How much worse punishment do you think will be diserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified and outraged the Spirit of Grace."

We are talking here about real saved persons. And their souls are in danger.

I know a lot of people who wish the Book of Hebrews had been left on the cutting room floor.

 

[Melethiel]

Why is it also that in a number of 'traditional' churches, many people don't even bring their bibles along?

Because we have, as part of the service, extensive readings from the Old Testament, Epistles, Gospels (always), and sometimes the Psalms as well. Seeing as the sermon is based directly on these readings, there is no need to be flipping pages. Also, the very words of the liturgy are often directly based on Scripture.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So anyway, after my long winded response, I just want to say that just because a big group of people believes something, it no more makes it true than me sitting in a garage makes me a car.

Which is why in the history of the Church we can see several cases of a minority, sometimes just a single, lone Bishop, stands up against the majority to uphold the truth.

 

[hoser]

So when many people believe something, it must make it true? The earth must have certainly been flat then, when most of the world believed so!

As humans, we want to take the credit for a lot of stuff. How powerful is Christ's blood, may I ask? So many people think that they are somehow in charge. But where do we draw the line? At what point it someone "cut off" and no longer saved? Is it like a yo-yo.... one year saved, unsaved... saved, unsaved? I know many people who go through phases of backsliding, sometimes even throwing it aside all together for a while. To lose salvation almost makes me picture God dangling a carrot in front of us, with us chasing it around just to make sure not to lose it.

Why is it also that in a number of 'traditional' churches, many people don't even bring their bibles along? Being originally from a somewhat rural area, I would say 90% of the churches were like that. And I'm relying upon these people to fill the majority in dictating a train of thought?

Most Christians in the nation could probably be categorized as "lay people." Many read their Bible on occassion, but often the majority of what they believe has just been told to them by a pastor or two. Or they just assume something and don't really question any further. It's "logical" that turning from God would take away salvation, so why not believe it? It's also logical though, that God would not actually come to earth as a mere human to be killed. Many people haven't researched or studied the scripture very closely. Hermeneutics is what drives a person's study of the Bible--and many probably don't even know what that entails.

So anyway, after my long winded response, I just want to say that just because a big group of people believes something, it no more makes it true than me sitting in a garage makes me a car.

My whole point in asking why so many protestants do NOT believe in OSAS is the common belief in "sola scriptura" and that the Bible, they believe is their ONLY authority in matters of faith and morals. Protestants don't need a church to interpret scriptures correctly they say. They can do it all on their own if they ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, or follow a particular pastor with his own particular viewpoint on what scripture says.

Sorry, but OSAS, whatever side you are on, is NOT a trivial matter. I have seen how some protestants use the excuse that protestants all agree on the "essential" matters. How can whether or not our salvation is absolutely guarenteed, NOT be an "essential" matter of faith?

How can one protestants personal interpretation of the Bible be incorrect and the other's be correct whey they are all following the same "sola scriptura" concept, and all asking the Holy Spirit for guidance? Both sides are using the Bible as their "sole authority". So how does this major division amongst protestants be reconciled? Both sides say their interpretation is the correct interpretation based on the Bible and the Bible alone. Well OSAS is either true or it is NOT true. One or the other, it cannot be both, and it cannot be inbetween.

It is amazing how this "sole authority" can create such a major devisive issue with absolutely no way to solve it, because in the "sola scriptura" believers mind their is no other authority.