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

[squint]

Again, why is that relevant?

There has been a bit of a derail here.

 

[South Bound]

If that's your standard, when do you plan on converting to Eastern Orthodoxy?

Proximity is a big deal for Catholics. Dead "saints" in Heaven are better to pray for us because they're closer in proximity to God.

The Early Church is correct because it's closer in proximity in time to the Earthly ministry of Christ.

Don't judge anything on its merits. Just judge by how close it is to something else.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)
Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:
Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645)

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.
Constantinople

 

[Albion]

'Cut and Paste' substitutes for a reasoned explanation once again.

 

[Albion]

Proximity is a big deal for Catholics....The Early Church is correct because it's closer in proximity in time to the Earthly ministry of Christ.

Don't judge anything on its merits. Just judge by how close it is to something else.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that CLAIMING proximity is a big deal, since the many gaps and unknowns in the historic record are simply ignored or denied out of hand.

Whatever it takes to make the proximity idea appear to have validity is what's believed in--especially by recent converts who are thrilled to believe that they've at last found absolute certainty.

 

[squint]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that CLAIMING proximity is a big deal, since the many gaps and unknowns in the historic record are simply ignored or denied out of hand.

Whatever it takes to make the proximity idea appear to have validity is what's believed in--especially by recent converts who are thrilled to believe that they've at last found absolute certainty.

I think it's more of a methodology to salvage face after making very poor arguments for the topic matter called 'change the subject.'

 

[Albion]

I think it's more of a methodology to salvage face after making very poor arguments for the topic matter called 'change the subject.'

I think that's apparent, but I thought South Bound's point was more about Catholics in general and the mythology of their church's origins that they so desperately want to believe.

 

[squint]

Getting back to topic, can a believer lose their salvation in a temporary sense?

Even those opposed to OSAS agree that this is the case. In their sights someone who has departed the faith can be reinstated by follow whatever quidelines their particular sect employs. Repentence, confession, contrition, incantation, reinstatement (or whatever other forms are deployed.)

And in this sense most OSAS would also agree, that it is only temporary loss. This does not equate to eternal loss.

It was requested quite far back into this thread for any non OSAS adherent to show a single named instance of ANY believer who is shown in the N.T. to have actually 'lost' their salvation eternally.

There is not one named example of this fate to any believer.

Therefore the position is at a minimum, surmised. It does not actually exist in black on white in the scriptures.

A common retort to this is this scripture:
Matthew 7:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The first thing to observe here is that we all work iniquity i.e. we all as believers sin. So, if that were the measure, working iniquity, then we may all very well hear this statement. One might have to not work iniquity in order not to hear this statement.

But since any who make that claim are lying and not in Truth, iniquity is not the measure, as we all do sin.

So, is the above said to unbelievers? Would unbelievers be casting out devils, prophesying and doing wonderful works? Perhaps so. But they are certainly involved with things that are FOR Christ, so it is unlikely they are His enemies.

Luke 9:
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Since all believers do for a fact sin and sin is in fact of the DEVIL it is just as likely that the devil(s) who in any case partially blind believers are being addressed by Jesus in Matthew 7:22-23 because ALL believers do sin/work iniquity.

s

 

[squint]

I think that's apparent, but I thought South Bound's point was more about Catholics in general and the mythology of their church's origins that they so desperately want to believe.

I can't be too hard on them because much of what they believe we also believe.

These people are not my enemies nor do I think of them that way.

And I don't think anyone here who is sincere in their own faith believes that either.

So, another point of losing one's faith is brought into view.

In 'their' view anyone who is not an RCC member, even though they may believe, they may be considered heretics in the sights of the RCC, and therefore assuredly NOT saved. I have made this complaint before, that technically if anyone willingly, knowingly and openly disagrees with nearly anything that the RCC magisterium says, they are automatic heretics and in this sight every adherent to that system poses a direct insult to any other people in faith by claiming they are not saved.

Of course this fact goes unheeded and any mere slip up on my part is quickly quenched. But, the TRUTH hurts in this case and none of them really care to hear of it, or even less confront it.

Many many of us have 'left' that structure of faith and openly knowingly willing rejected it.

s

 

[NorrinRadd]

Getting back to topic, can a believer lose their salvation in a temporary sense?

Even those opposed to OSAS agree that this is the case. In their sights someone who has departed the faith can be reinstated by follow whatever quidelines their particular sect employs. Repentence, confession, contrition, incantation, reinstatement (or whatever other forms are deployed.) ...

No, Classical Arminians believe apostasy is irrevocable.

 

[squint]

No, Classical Arminians believe apostasy is irrevocable.

Well, some weirdos believe if you sin once after salvation you're eternally cooked too so what else is new?

 

[FireDragon76]

Could you elaborate on how you see the difference between 'chosen before the foundation of the world' and 'chosen on the basis of their faith' Also how you reconcile scripture on that?

It's not my job to school you in Arminian theology. Needless to say, the idea that Arminius' teachings = Finney's teachings is insulting to anyone of intellect. Arminius was a sacramentalist, he believed Baptist and the Eucharist were the ordinary means one received faith, whereas Finney believed people came to faith through a "decision for Christ"

 

[FireDragon76]

No, Classical Arminians believe apostasy is irrevocable.

That's just not true... apostasy can be forgiven provided the person returns to the faith.

Arminius himself never fully delt with the question of eternal security, but it seems logical to think he would deny "once saved always saved", since justification for Arminius is absolutely contingent on faith.

Anyone wanting to know what Arminianism is really about should read Roger Olson's excellent work on the subject, dispelling many myths: http://www.amazon.com/Arminian-Theology-Realities-Roger-Olson/dp/0830828419

 

[Gregory Thompson]

the Pope has called the Bible the "Word of God," and the Rev. Billy Graham has called the Bible the "Word of God." For any of us ordinary mortals to claim more expertise in these matters than BOTH of those men....
​

Well the way I read the statement is . The Pope has called his bible the word of God and . Billy Graham has called his bible the word of God . so it's not so simple .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Truth isn't determined by majority vote.

Who cares how many people use what Bible?

Actually, that was part of the argument presented to me . that "most christians acknowledge a 66 book bible"

the statement was most likely in response to that .

 

[Albion]

Actually, that was part of the argument presented to me . that "most christians acknowledge a 66 book bible"

the statement was most likely in response to that .

No, it was not. The two issues were separate, and South Bound was replying to the idea offered by Catholichomeschooler that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church must be correct only because "Most Christians are Catholic."

 

[catholichomeschooler]

No, it was not. The two issues were separate, and South Bound was replying to the idea offered by Catholichomeschooler that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church must be correct only because "Most Christians are Catholic."

Wrong.

I was responding to this post:

Originally Posted by Albion View Post
You want to throw the baby out with the scriptural bathwater, I take it. Virtually every church in Christendom agrees on the same 66 books, so what is your objection to them?


You crack me up!

 

[catholichomeschooler]

'Cut and Paste' substitutes for a reasoned explanation once again.

Quotes that prove that the Orthodox Church came from the Catholic Church. IF eastern patriarchs acknowledged being Catholic and that the Bishop of Rome was the leader of the Church, then I have made my case.

You may not like it, but....

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, it was not. The two issues were separate, and South Bound was replying to the idea offered by Catholichomeschooler that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church must be correct only because "Most Christians are Catholic."

the argument that was presented to me . by your username was "most christians believe the bible has 66 books" has this argument been retracted or revised?

 

[NorrinRadd]

That's just not true... apostasy can be forgiven provided the person returns to the faith.

Arminius himself never fully delt with the question of eternal security, but it seems logical to think he would deny "once saved always saved", since justification for Arminius is absolutely contingent on faith.

Anyone wanting to know what Arminianism is really about should read Roger Olson's excellent work on the subject, dispelling many myths: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities: Roger E. Olson: 9780830828418: Amazon.com: Books

I am familiar with a few of Olson's books, including that one. Olson is a capable theologian and communicator, but he is hardly the "last word" on what is and is not "Arminianism." His background is Pentecostal, even though he no longer identifies with that tradition, and he has somewhat of a tendency to cite Methodist (i.e. Wesleyan) scholars such as Tom Oden and I.H. Marshall a bit more than scholars who directly claim the label of "Classical" or "Reformation" Arminian such as F. Leroy Forlines or Robert Picirilli, both of whom affirm that the Arminianism developed by the first followers of Arminius taught that apostasy, when it occurs, is irrevocable. The reason it is irrevocable is that according to the understanding of Scripture that sees apostasy as possible, the one who commits it will never again repent, i.e. return to faith.