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

[Erose]

Still on the warpath, even after admitting that he doesn't understand the issue.

Well, still dodging the question it seems. Again, if me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the Commandments?

 

[squint]

So who is doing as you claim? Me saying that I am making progress and not sinning as much as I used to, or as grevious does not equate to me saying I am without sin.

Then who are you or any other sinning believer to be gang tackling a blinded unbeliever who might have once seem a glimmer of hope in Christ and reached out.

Do you know how many people FALL because of phony religious structures? Are you going to toss them all to the gate of hell by the dictates of other sinners?

I say such are very ill willed to say the kindest. I actually detest such demands as UNGodly and hypocritical.

Paul turned people over to Satan to do what? To do WHAT?

uh, YEAH. To SAVE them.

Have you ever seen Satan as fulfilling that role?

Think about it and get back to me.

This response makes absolutely no sense. We are speaking of doctrines, and their validity. Please stop trying to make this personal. No one here as judged you as a person. What has occurred is that some, including myself, have question the validity of your positions.

Your system without any doubt demands that adherents belittle and potentially condemn everyone outside their sect. That is a slur against the conscience of MANY and is a shame quite frankly. So don't beat around the bush about the facts.

I am still curious why you do not trust God.

I try not to respond to spurious comments here, such as the above. I lost my fear of intimidation and bullying from phony authority figures quite awhile back.

s

 

[Setyoufree]

Paul turned people over to Satan to do what? To do WHAT?

uh, YEAH. To SAVE them.

Have you ever seen Satan as fulfilling that role?

Think about it and get back to me.

Again, you need to look at the context. Satan doesn't save anyone...that's not what Paul meant.

1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-1 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with griefhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-2 and have put out of your fellowshiphttp://www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-3 the man who did this?

Apparently the church was proud of this man's act. Apparently this man was practicing sin (not repenting). I'm sure he thought it was okay, especially with the church giving him the thumbs up as if to say, "You go boy!"

What did Paul say?

5 I have decided to http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8deliver such a one to http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10the day of the Lord http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-corinthians/5.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-eJesus. 6 http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-corinthians/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11Your boasting is not good.

In other words since he is hardheaded and thinks himself to be wise, let him learn the hard way. The school of hard knocks is the best teacher.....

 

[squint]

Again, you need to look at the context. Satan doesn't save anyone...that's not what Paul meant.

God uses evil for good. Spiritual principle and fact.

Yes people, God IS that powerful.

1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

Apparently the church was proud of this man's act. Apparently this man was practicing sin (not repenting). I'm sure he thought it was okay, especially with the church giving him the thumbs up as if to say, "You go boy!"

What did Paul say?

5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good.

Yes, I can read.

In other words since he is hardheaded and thinks himself to be wise, let him learn the hard way. The school of hard knocks is the best teacher.....

The bad teacher, Satan, can in fact be used for good results.

I'll share with you an obscure Gospel principle buried deeply in the Old Testament in the wisdom of Joseph:

Genesis 42:
15 Hereby ye shall be proved: By the life of Pharaoh ye shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither.

Joseph learned this lesson by the same events encountered by his father, Jacob. The lesson is identical and it is GOSPEL.

enjoy

s

 

[Erose]

Then who are you or any other sinning believer to be gang tackling a blinded unbeliever who might have once seem a glimmer of hope in Christ and reached out.

Why are you saying this? The last I checked I haven't judged anyone. We are discussing a false idea of OSAS not the condition of anyone's soul. Like I have said in the past, not my place to judge anyone, so I am not going to.

Do you know how many people FALL because of phony religious structures? Are you going to toss them all to the gate of hell by the dictates of other sinners?

Yes I do. How many have fallen due this 100 year old concept of OSAS?

I say such are very ill willed to say the kindest. I actually detest such demands as UNGodly and hypocritical.

So you are judge now?

Paul turned people over to Satan to do what? To do WHAT?

uh, YEAH. To SAVE them.

Have you ever seen Satan as fulfilling that role?

Think about it and get back to me.

Yes I have. God did so to me to teach me humility. Satan did not save me though, for if it was up to him, I would still be heading straight to hell. Christ is my Savior, not Satan.

Your system without any doubt demands that adherents belittle and potentially condemn everyone outside their sect. That is a slur against the conscience of MANY and is a shame quite frankly. So don't beat around the bush about the facts.

honestly what an ignorant judgmental statement. Who is judging now?

I try not to respond to spurious comments here, such as the above. I lost my fear of intimidation and bullying from phony authority figures quite awhile back.

s

I don't really know how to respond here. This statement really just expresses that you have hit a wall, and can no longer defend your position. If that is the case, which looks very likely, perhaps you should spend some time reviewing your beliefs, that you can no longer justify.

I will pray for you in your search for truth.

 

[squint]

Why are you saying this? The last I checked I haven't judged anyone. We are discussing a false idea of OSAS

And of course you don't see the circular reasoning being employed in the above either.

not the condition of anyone's soul. Like I have said in the past, not my place to judge anyone, so I am not going to.

You already did when you 'take' Jesus away from any saved person who has called upon Him. At that moment, you already took on the judge in your heart against that person.

Yes I do. How many have fallen due this 100 year old concept of OSAS?

Yeah, you're no judge? Pretty funny.

So you are judge now?

It occured to me several years (a couple decades plus now) that it is probably in my own best interests to see other believers in the most beneficial light that I can possibly see IF I desire same for myself. Spiritual Principle 101.

Yes I have. God did so to me to teach me humility. Satan did not save me though, for if it was up to him, I would still be heading straight to hell. Christ is my Savior, not Satan.

I think we've already examined the status of 'might be saved, might not be' thoroughly enough. I am not fond of waffle theology and double dealing topic matter, if you can tell.

s

 

[Gottservant]

It's a free choice, you can either believe once saved, always saved, or always committed, once delivered.

One is Jesus the other is God.

One is the present, the other is the future.

Only the lukewarm would say you need to marry the two in some way.

 

[Erose]

And of course you don't see the circular reasoning being employed in the above either.

So when did an idea become a person?

You already did when you 'take' Jesus away from any saved person who has called upon Him. At that moment, you already took on the judge in your heart against that person.

We are talking about an idea. A false idea. This whole false narrative is a little strange.

Yeah, you're no judge? Pretty funny.

Any concept that teaches Christians that it is ok to sin, in fact it is better for you to sin, so that you cannot assume that you are trying to earn your way into heaven, is quite frankly a scary idea. Do you not see the conflict? Albion wrote above that anyone trying to follow the Commandments were trying to earn their way into heaven. When did keeping the Commandments which Jesus told us to do, become evil? Yet that is exactly what is being proposed. You can deny that fact all you want, but that is exactly what is being implied here.

So again, I am not judging anyone. I am judging a false concept that is contradicted many, many times in Scripture as false.

It occured to me several years (a couple decades plus now) that it is probably in my own best interests to see other believers in the most beneficial light that I can possibly see IF I desire same for myself. Spiritual Principle 101.

Amen.

I think we've already examined the status of 'might be saved, might not be' thoroughly enough. I am not fond of waffle theology and double dealing topic matter, if you can tell.

Then why do you believe in it then?

 

[squint]

So when did an idea become a person?

There is a rather common christian fallacy that if one doesn't attach their so called judgment to a specific person, that means they are not judging. You are taught that, but it's not true. It's really just double dealing the subject matter.

FOR example, the RCC supposedly holds forth the possibility for prevailing Grace of God for ALL, but simultaneously most of their members will also affirm for no uncertain fact that there will be people in hell. That my friend is double dealing and quite far from reasoned logic.

I understand it may be beneficial to play two fiddles at the same time, but it is also anatomically impossible to do so.

We are talking about an idea. A false idea. This whole false narrative is a little strange.

It may seem more strange to some to adhere to a Savior who can't get the job done.

Any concept that teaches Christians that it is ok to sin,

That ploy is used against universal atonement as well, which you hold to. It doesn't play either as it doesn't follow.

None of us become sinless upon belief.

We may 'sin less' but-> the RCC presentation of being placed in the sliding sin scale where they hope the good outweighs the bad is probably not going to be how it happens.

in fact it is better for you to sin, so that you cannot assume that you are trying to earn your way into heaven, is quite frankly a scary idea.

Hmmm? Don't recall that any form of threats are going to make a person 'sinless' or even 'sin less' for that matter.

If you are trying to claim I'm advocating sinning, that is not the case. I don't advocate lying about being a sinner either, so there's some math for you.

Do you not see the conflict?

There is no amount of threatening that is going to make anyone sinless. In fact it's a LIE to say we have no sin, so there is a sin that the SINLESS may have to face huh?

Albion wrote above that anyone trying to follow the Commandments were trying to earn their way into heaven.

I would generally concur. The notion of being a legal sinner is quite laughable.

We may very well refrain from letting internal evil get the best of us on the outside where everyone can see it for obvious sin, but that in no way makes us legal by any stretch of the imaginations.

Jesus was exceptionally clear about what constitutes 'adultery in heart' in Matt. 5:28 for example, showing for a fact that 'thinking about it' is SIN INSIDE. I'm going to go with Jesus on this fact:

"hath committed adultery with her"

And I'll just profess my real internal guilt (rather than EXCUSE that sin) right now so I don't complicate that SIN by LYING or trying to cover it up.

I think Pope Francis just tried to deal with this issue with some of his priests who are plagued with a particular adverse internal tension for the same sex. I can't quite relate that direction but I can relate with the opposite sex and probably daily, if not more often.

So now it's time for honesty. HOW ABOUT YOU?

s

 

[Erose]

There is a rather common christian fallacy that if one doesn't attach their so called judgment to a specific person, that means they are not judging. You are taught that, but it's not true. It's really just double dealing the subject matter.

So if I believe that Adultery is a sin, I am actually judging all people who commit adultery? No the fallacy falls into your reasoning here. Me judging what is true and not true, is not judging those who hold to that which isn't true. If that is the case, you are more of a judge than I.

FOR example, the RCC supposedly holds forth the possibility for prevailing Grace of God for ALL, but simultaneously most of their members will also affirm for no uncertain fact that there will be people in hell. That my friend is double dealing and quite far from reasoned logic.

If you are meaning by the term prevailing grace that all WILL be saved, then no, the Church does not teach such things as we have discussed before. If you are using the term prevailing grace to refer to the fact that all men MAY be saved, then ok. And if your understanding is the second latter, then how does that conflict with the sad fact that some are going to hell?

It may seem more strange to some to adhere to a Savior who can't get the job done.

It seems strange to me that some adhere to the idea that we shouldn't obey Jesus.

That ploy is used against universal atonement as well, which you hold to. It doesn't play either as it doesn't follow.

It is a false ploy that has no merit.

None of us become sinless upon belief.

We may 'sin less' but-> the RCC presentation of being placed in the sliding sin scale where they hope the good outweighs the bad is probably not going to be how it happens.

Can you stop pretending to know what the RCC teaches? The understanding of our Church is reflected in Ezekiel 18. This whole sliding scale thing is something made up by early reformers who had to come up with false narratives because they couldn't argue against true teaching.

Hmmm? Don't recall that any form of threats are going to make a person 'sinless' or even 'sin less' for that matter.

No following Jesus, and striving to do His will, through His grace, is the path one must take. Sticking your head in the sand, and doing nothing, because you are afraid to do a work, isn't the way to go.

If you are trying to claim I'm advocating sinning, that is not the case. I don't advocate lying about being a sinner either, so there's some math for you.

There is no amount of threatening that is going to make anyone sinless. In fact it's a LIE to say we have no sin, so there is a sin that the SINLESS may have to face huh?

Actually I am claiming that. You have made it pretty clear that there is no reason to strive for sinlessness because we can't possibly do that because we can't control ourselves because the devil controls us since all sin comes from him, narrative points directly to that assertion.

I would generally concur. The notion of being a legal sinner is quite laughable.

We may very well refrain from letting internal evil get the best of us on the outside where everyone can see it for obvious sin, but that in no way makes us legal by any stretch of the imaginations.

Jesus was exceptionally clear about what constitutes 'adultery in heart' in Matt. 5:28 for example, showing for a fact that 'thinking about it' is SIN INSIDE. I'm going to go with Jesus on this fact:

"hath committed adultery with her"

And I'll just profess my real internal guilt (rather than EXCUSE that sin) right now so I don't complicate that SIN by LYING or trying to cover it up.

I think Pope Francis just tried to deal with this issue with some of his priests who are plagued with a particular adverse internal tension for the same sex. I can't quite relate that direction but I can relate with the opposite sex and probably daily, if not more often.

So now it's time for honesty. HOW ABOUT YOU?

Interesting, you say that you are not advocating sin, and yet you turn around and advocate sin, because we can't control ourselves. You are getting into a loop.

How about this how about we trust Jesus Christ enough to believe that He will give us the necessary graces to follow Him, if we ask for them.

 

[squint]

So if I believe that Adultery is a sin, I am actually judging all people who commit adultery? No the fallacy falls into your reasoning here. Me judging what is true and not true, is not judging those who hold to that which isn't true. If that is the case, you are more of a judge than I.

I have no issues judging those who have called upon Jesus to save them as saved because of Jesus' statements of fact to that extent.

I know some RCC members take offense at my viewing of them in this way, but I would submit that such a sight on my part contains no harm and no foul, so judge that how you will...

I suppose they prefer the waffle territory of maybe, maybe not?

If you are meaning by the term prevailing grace that all WILL be saved, then no, the Church does not teach such things as we have discussed before. If you are using the term prevailing grace to refer to the fact that all men MAY be saved, then ok. And if your understanding is the second latter, then how does that conflict with the sad fact that some are going to hell?

I said the topic matter is double dealt. Both positions can not be logically held.

It is not logical to hold forth the possibility of Prevailing Grace and simultaneously the fact that Prevailing Grace will not happen.

Karl Barth dealt with this exact matter and I appreciate how he set his mind to it in the conclusion that Prevailing Grace can NOT be ruled out. And many a wise theologian of orthodoxy arrived at similar conclusions.

It seems strange to me that some adhere to the idea that we shouldn't obey Jesus.

Obey by what terms? You see most sects define 'how God thinks' and they then proceed to shove it down everyone else's throats at the threat of possible eternal hell. To me that is just a common form of fear mongering. Not much different than the government saying OBEY or GO TO JAIL, except with an eternal bent.

Can you stop pretending to know what the RCC teaches?

What they teach is open for anyone to view and assess. If you have some particulars to say where I'm missing it you are welcome to expose it and I'll stand corrected.

The understanding of our Church is reflected in Ezekiel 18. This whole sliding scale thing is something made up by early reformers who had to come up with false narratives because they couldn't argue against true teaching.

I would beg to differ. Your hope is to be 'mostly legal.'

No following Jesus, and striving to do His will, through His grace, is the path one must take. Sticking your head in the sand, and doing nothing, because you are afraid to do a work, isn't the way to go.

Call it what you will.

Actually I am claiming that. You have made it pretty clear that there is no reason to strive for sinlessness because we can't possibly do that because we can't control ourselves because the devil controls us since all sin comes from him, narrative points directly to that assertion.

I know for no uncertain fact that exactly zero people avoid having an evil conscience, period.

Paul was pretty open about the fact that EVIL was present with him. I think any believer should be able to make that same truthful statement of fact. John was pretty open about 'having sin' and same being 'of the devil.' The math on these matters is very clear to me.

s

 

[Erose]

I said the topic matter is double dealt. Both positions can not be logically held.

It is not logical to hold forth the possibility of Prevailing Grace and simultaneously the fact that Prevailing Grace will not happen.

I'm still not sure by what you mean, by prevailing grace. I provided two options. Is it one of them or something else entirely?

Karl Barth dealt with this exact matter and I appreciate how he set his mind to it in the conclusion that Prevailing Grace can NOT be ruled out. And many a wise theologian of orthodoxy arrived at similar conclusions.

a theologian, isn't the Catholic Church. Mr. Barth, was a very intelligent and insightful theologian; but he was also wrong in many areas as well, which have been refuted, by the Church herself.

I have already showed you the Church's position on the matter from her official teaching document the Catechism. So I think enough has been said on this matter.

Obey by what terms? You see most sects define 'how God thinks' and they then proceed to shove it down everyone else's throats at the threat of possible eternal hell. To me that is just a common form of fear mongering. Not much different than the government saying OBEY or GO TO JAIL, except with an eternal bent.

God's terms. The Catholic Church doesn't determine what God thinks. You have a horrible and false view of the Catholic Church.

What they teach is open for anyone to view and assess. If you have some particulars to say where I'm missing it you are welcome to expose it and I'll stand corrected.

I already have. The Church does not teach a balance sheet whatever, for justification. We will enter heaven or hell depending upon the condition of the soul at our death. If we are in the state of Sanctifying grace we will end up in heaven, if in the state of mortal sin, then in hell. I have already illustrated that from the Catechism under its entries on heaven and hell.

I would beg to differ. Your hope is to be 'mostly legal.'

My hope is in Christ, nothing more or less. You are thinking in Protestant terms, Catholics don't think that way.

I know for no uncertain fact that exactly zero people avoid having an evil conscience, period.

Paul was pretty open about the fact that EVIL was present with him. I think any believer should be able to make that same truthful statement of fact. John was pretty open about 'having sin' and same being 'of the devil.' The math on these matters is very clear to me.

Ok so I was right about what you are proposing.

 

[BobRyan]

And I am still waiting for an explanation of Exekiel 18.

Ezek 18,

Matt 18,

Gal 5:4

Romans 11:19-23

The only way osas survives the text is by ignoring it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[squint]

I'm still not sure by what you mean, by prevailing grace.

As it pertains to believers subsequently fallen, that they have a real Savior that saves.

God's terms. The Catholic Church doesn't determine what God thinks. You have a horrible and false view of the Catholic Church.

Gods terms as defined by the sect, some of which is replicable and much of which is not replicable or agreed upon.

We can thank the RCC for maybe and maybe not salvation. It's not the only sight available.

I already have. The Church does not teach a balance sheet whatever, for justification.

The terms themselves are a shell game with the RCC:

For example ATONEMENT is universal as it applies to mankind but ATONEMENT is also simultaneously ineffective for the given purpose.

s

 

[Erose]

As it pertains to believers subsequently fallen, that they have a real Savior that saves.

please clarify that statement a little more. It is too ambiguous.

Gods terms as defined by the sect, some of which is replicable and much of which is not replicable or agreed upon.

We can thank the RCC for maybe and maybe not salvation. It's not the only sight available.

Again a strawman, as this is not anywhere near to the the Teaching of the Church.

The terms themselves are a shell game with the RCC:

For example ATONEMENT is universal as it applies to mankind but ATONEMENT is also simultaneously ineffective for the given purpose..

Atonement is universal in that Christ died for all men. So no one is exempt from God's saving grace. But not all accept this saving grace, which is obvious for any person with eyes to see and/or ears to hear.

 

[squint]

please clarify that statement a little more. It is too ambiguous.

The long and short of this entire sight is that the Savior does save.

The sight of non OSAS says that isn't the case on any number of performances by man requirements.

Atonement is universal in that Christ died for all men. So no one is exempt from God's saving grace. But not all accept this saving grace, which is obvious for any person with eyes to see and/or ears to hear.

Yes, I'm familiar with the 'atonement' being made completely ineffectual and worthless based on man.

Atonement is only as good as the man who makes it so?

Again, unlikely.

s

 

[Erose]

The long and short of this entire sight is that the Savior does save.

The sight of non OSAS says that isn't the case on any number of performances by man requirements.

Ok since no straight forward answers are coming, then perhaps we look at it this way. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

Yes, I'm familiar with the 'atonement' being made completely ineffectual and worthless based on man.

Atonement is only as good as the man who makes it so?

Again, unlikely.

s

I guess we are back to determinism vs free will. I believe God will not impose His will upon us, and you say yes He will for we are all automatons.

No body has answered a question I proposed a while back and perhaps I should bring it back up. For what reason does God need slaves?

 

[squint]

Ok since no straight forward answers are coming, then perhaps we look at it this way. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

Why are you asking me? In RCC land they don't even know with certainty they are going. The are 'reasonably assured' according to the 'reasoning' and 'systems' deployed to make that determination, but it also includes the 'maybe not' possibility.

It's similar to the old hack that Jesus never leaves the believer but the believer can leave Jesus.

And they think that form of circular reasoning makes sense.

No, the person did NOT make Jesus leave them because Jesus never left them.

No body has answered a question I proposed a while back and perhaps I should bring it back up. For what reason does God need slaves?

For what reason does God need your acceptable performances in order to reward you?

That is part of the fallacy of freewill. That it is somehow able to 'justify' itself.

s

 

[Mama Kidogo]

You have been falsely taught that evil thoughts are not sin nor are they defiling nor are they of the tempter.

That is not the case.

Therefore you excuse them, and the tempter in the process.

s

An evil thought is only a sin if you succumb to it. What an evil thought entering you mind truly is: Temptation. It is not a sin to be tempted.
If I stop there it would not be the full truth so let me explain.
A thought entering you mind is nothing but being tempted. Taking further (in thought or deed) can indeed be sin.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

This is not accurate, but rather an erroneous view of OSAS.

OSAS does not make us anxious to sin, no one is looking to rebel.



OSAS is about security and certainty.

OSAS is about resting in the finished, completed, perfect work of Christ.

OSAS is realizing it is all God and none of me. I am what I am by His grace.

Odd. I sure thought those of OSAS say we need a "personal relationship with God." How can it be a relationship if it's completely one sided?