Eternal Security, so called.

[Bluesky]

This will be a thread devoted to producing evidence that the Bible teaches what AW refers to as "once saved, always saved". Others know it as the doctrine of eternal security, and still others call it the "perseverance of the saints"

AW will no doubt argue against it. It won't be a fair argument, because he argues from what the RCC believes is Sacred Tradition, and he also must subscribe to the RCC magisterium's teaching. I will only put out there what the Bible actually says with my comments interspersed..

My apologies in advance if it gets too technical. But I do want to give SB and others some Biblical pointers that they can use repeatedly whenever AW tries to mock Christians for believing this.

This will not be an argument from the history of the doctrine. It will be more a theological and a Biblical argument.

It is my contention that God does not want his children living in fear, forever wondering if they've "made the cut", never knowing whether their piety is 'good enough', never knowing whether they have unknowingly offended God so as to lose their hope, which si really what we all want and need.

So it is my intention to encourage hope in Christians who read this thread.

[NewCasa]

Great! Nice to see you guys getting your own threads instead of taking over everyone else's!

Carry on ;)

"SO now it's your turn.. watch as everyone else takes over THIS thread!"

Nah. I have more respect than that. See? Instead of adding a new and potentially distracting post I've just edited this one! Aren't I the considerate one?

[Bluesky]

SO now it's your turn.. watch as everyone else takes over THIS thread! :)

Here is a singular text from the Bible. It is from the epistle to the Hebrews, a letter written to Jewish Christians who were getting discouraged in their new found faith. They had left Judaism for Christianity. They had suffered being ostracized because of their belief in Christ and because they had abandoned the sacrifices in the temple. But many were getting discouraged. They really believed Christ would come back by now. ANd so Hebrews was written in order to bolster the faith of these Jewish Christians.

To them. the author says:

25 Therefore he (Christ) is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

The 'salvation' of believer's, in this instance is not conditioned upon the ability of the believer to endure or to keep up the faith and good works in the face of strong opposition. It is conditioned on
a. having come to God through Christ and
b. Christ's mediatorial role on their behalf.

The author uses the words 'save completely'. What did he have in mind with this phrase? Is there a thought in the reader's mind that the work of redemption was somehow incomplete? Or that they will not be saved after all, because they see nothing but persecution and trials ahead of them if they stay the course? I believe that is exactly what is going on.

[Bluesky]

Usually, the first argument that is hoisted up against this teaching is that this only encourages Christians to not care about living as believers should live. "If a believer is guaranteed salvation right at the start, and it doesn't matter what he does, then why not accept Jesus, seal the deal and live like hell the rest of your life and enjoy yourself?" What is to stop the believer from taking forgiveness of his sins for granted?

St Paul anticipated this very question.
In Romans 5, Paul argues that we are justified by faith. He says in Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wea have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

We stand in a condition of grace once we have been justified. (Justified is here use in the legal sense. We are guilty, we appear before the judge, We pledge faith in CHrist, our Saviour, and HE, Jesus Christ, our advocate now steps up to the bar, and shows his wounds to the judge. The judge sees the wounds that my sins have caused. And he says that I am putting my faith in Christ. He therefore acquit me. Forgives me, because JEsus payed the price. I have been, as it were, justified. Made just before a holy God.

And I have peace. Peace with God, because reconciliation has taken place. Not by anything that I have done.. except to believe in Christ.

SO what is my reaction? It is a horrifying thought that I should return to the very lifestyle that brought me to my knees in conviction and persuaded me of the necessity of a Saviour of some sort. And that is exactly the reaction of Paul.

He says, at the end of chapter 5, "where sin increased, grace increased all the more"

And then he says at the start of chap 6, What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

The words, "By no means" is not strong enough. The exact translation would be, "Perish the thought. Don't even think about it!" In coming to faith in Christ, we have died to sin (Sin when singular is the principle that ruled the lifestyle). We stop living in such a way that we are dominated by sin.

In other words, it is ridiculous to think that once I have been pulled out of a bog in which I would surely have perished, that I assume I am free to go swimming in the bog again. Why would I do that?

So too, the professing believer who lives "like hell" presuming that because he went to confession he is okay to sin again, never really got it in the first place. No genuine Christian thinks like that. And personally, I know of no one who uses the grace of God as an excuse to flaunt his freedom to live like the devil.

To presume upon God's grace is like..

When I read that God gives me breath, I should tehrefore stop breathing
or when God promises King Hezekiah that he will live another 15 years, he stops eating, because after all, God promised.

So too, God's grace works in concert with me to reflect, with integrity, the ever increasig character of Jesus Christ.

[R W G R]

Sky is now dedicating threads to me...nice!!

...but I'm not getting in his head, just ask him ;)

[R W G R]

1. The Bible says in Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So, when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, I was saved. It’s a done deal.

When a Catholic hears the above assertion, his first inclination is to immediately launch a litany of verses that emphasize that salvation can be lost. Usually this causes the other person to present just as many verses that speak of salvation as a completed event. Both parties feel as if they have offered plenty of evidence, but no progress has been made.

There’s a better way to go at it. Concede that the Bible does speak of salvation as a past-tense event. Offer some verses of your own, such as Ephesians 2:8–9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith." From there, add that Scripture also speaks of salvation as a present-tense event. In Philippians 2:12, Paul exhorted us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Just as we cannot deny that salvation is a past- and present-tense event, the Evangelical Protestant cannot deny that Scripture also speaks of it as a future-tense event. For evidence of this, verses such as Romans 13:11 might be offered: "our salvation is nearer than when we first believed" (Rom. 13:11; cf. 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5).

When you emphasize that salvation can be lost, the Protestant often hears, "You have not yet been saved." He knows that the Bible speaks of salvation as a past-tense event, and so no matter how many verses you offer, you will not be able to prove this to be false. The way to move beyond this impasse is to offer the big picture of salvation: past, present, and future. The Evangelical will then not feel as if you are trying to prove that he has not been saved, but will perhaps be more open to look at salvation in a broader—and more biblical—context. Once you have reached this point, it’s time to offer the evidence that the free gift of salvation can be just as freely forfeited.

2. How could I lose my salvation if Jesus said that no one could snatch me out of God’s hand (John 10:28)?

One mistake that often leads to verse slinging is failing to address a verse that is presented. When we hear a Protestant offer his verse, we think of another verse that seems to argue for our position and we toss it back to him. Then we become frustrated that he never looked seriously as the verse and threw a different one back at us. The remedy for this type of scriptural ping-pong is to take the time to look at each verse that is brought up.

In the case of John 10:28, Jesus says that no one will be able to take us away from God. The language is similar to Paul’s in Romans 8:39 when he says that nothing in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Both of these passages address the same fact that no one is capable of removing you from the grace of God. No one is capable of nullifying your salvation. It would be like saying that no one is capable of pulling you out of a car driving at eighty miles per hour. This does not mean that you are incapable of opening the door and jumping out. In the same way, John 10:28 does not mean that we are incapable of severing our relationship with God. Read on in John, and you’ll see why.

Five chapters later in John’s Gospel, Christ tells the apostles at the Last Supper to remain in his love. He adds that if we keep his commandments we will remain in his love. But he who does not remain in his love is "cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned" (John 15:6). Now, if salvation were a done deal, why would Jesus feel the need to tell anyone to remain in his love? It would be like locking a person in a closet and telling them to remain there. If they are unable to leave, it is senseless to ask them to remain.

Jesus told his disciples to remain in his love because just as we enter freely into a relationship with Christ, we are free to leave him. Scripture is overflowing with examples of this. In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." This is not the language of "once saved always saved."


-Catholic Answers

[Bluesky]

Now if AW would quit quote mining, and were able to interact with his own words... we might have a discussion! :)

[R W G R]

Now if AW would quit quote mining, and were able to interact with his own words... we might have a discussion! :)

Translation: "I have no comeback to Catholic apologetics...none"

You're right, it's not fair. It's like bringing a bazooka to a rock fight.

Carry on. :)

[Bluesky]

Oh quit with your childish translation genre. It's getting tired.

Hey AW, are you saying that the RCC (I assume Catholic Answers speaks for the RCC) disagrees with Augustine?

[R W G R]

Oh quit with your childish translation genre. It's getting tired.

Hey AW, are you saying that the RCC (I assume Catholic Answers speaks for the RCC) disagrees with Augustine?

They may from time to time, yes.

As a Protestant, you should know all about that. :)

[Bluesky]

So there is no unanimous tradition of the fathers?

[R W G R]

So there is no unanimous tradition of the fathers?

I would imagine there are slight disagreements here and there. But on the basics there is a general consensus.

Nice to see you speak of the Church Fathers. Most Prots run from them like a vampire from garlic.

Want to start a thread on what the Church Fathers thought about the Real Presence?

[R W G R]

3. If you can lose your salvation by sin, doesn’t that imply that you are earning your salvation? Ephesians 2:8–9, says, "for by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast."

Perhaps the best place to begin when dealing with this verse is to turn to the Council of Trent. In chapter eight of the Decree on Justification, the Church said that "none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification." This means that no man can work himself into a state of justification. The New Covenant is not a system of works righteousness whereby a person can please God and earn heaven by doing a number of good deeds. This is what Paul is driving at in Ephesians 2. He is not saying that sin cannot separate us from Christ.

When he gave a litany of created things that can not separate us from the love of God in Romans 8:39, notice that he did not say, "neither fornication nor adultery nor drunkenness nor murder will separate us from the love of God." He was well aware that if we choose sin, we renounce Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–2, Paul says, "Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain." So, you could believe, but fail to hold fast to the gospel, and not be saved (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20).

This is why Paul spoke in the book of Romans about the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5, 16:26). It is not enough that one call Jesus Lord, for, as he said, "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21; cf. Matt. 10:33, 18:35). If we are disobedient, God will "take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city" (Rev 22:19).

Just because you may choose to no longer hold fast to what was freely given to you does not mean that you were ever capable of earning what was given to you in the first place. The same is true of earthly sonship—it cannot be earned. But if you were adopted, you would be free to run away as a prodigal son and lose your inheritance.


4. What’s the history behind the teaching that you could lose your salvation?

The first person to espouse the idea of "once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Even Martin Luther didn’t subscribe to the theory. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as John spoke about in 1 John 5:16–17.

In the first century, the Didache, commonly known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, said "Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time" (Didache 16 [A.D. 70]).

In the second century, Irenaeus wrote, "To Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ [Phil. 2:10–11] to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all. . . . The ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men [shall go] into everlasting fire; but [he] may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Such consistent testimony could be given from the dawn of Christianity until today, and no suggestion of "once saved, always saved" can be found on the lips of any Christian before Calvin.

-Catholic Answers

[R W G R]

Philippians 2:12: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Can anyone tell me what there is to "work out", and why we should do so "trembling", if nothing can be lost?

[Bluesky]

I would imagine there are slight disagreements here and there. But on the basics there is a general consensus.

Nice to see you speak of the Church Fathers. Most Prots run from them like a vampire from garlic.

Want to start a thread on what the Church Fathers thought about the Real Presence?

I am not the one who believes the Church fathers are inspired or infallible, nor do I believe in any sacred apostolic tradition that was handed down.

In fact, I believe one of the reasons the RCC quickly rejected Augustine's model of eternal security is because they feared that they would quickly lose control of their people. Keeping people in perpetual fear of their uncertain destiny is a surefire way of repeat business. And keeping the power of absolution in the hands of the clergy is the clincher. What a powerful combination!

[Bluesky]

I would imagine there are slight disagreements here and there. But on the basics there is a general consensus.

So this is what the church means by unanimous consent of the Fathers? I see.
So if Augustine taught eternal security, it's only a slight disagreement. Yet you are going livid over this. Would you care to argue like that with St Augustine?

[Bluesky]

The first person to espouse the idea of "once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Even Martin Luther didn’t subscribe to the theory. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as John spoke about in 1 John 5:16–17.

Wow! Catholic Answers is really disappointing as a reliable source.
Martin Luther didn't subscribe to the theory? So much for Catholic Answers.

Unanimous consent: except for a minor disagreement, huh?

who's confused?

[R W G R]

Keeping people in perpetual fear of their uncertain destiny is a surefire way of repeat business. And keeping the power of absolution in the hands of the clergy is the clincher. What a powerful combination!

LOL!

The best part of all this, however, is that your true colors are now showing. You did not hide your anti-Catholicism well; now, at least, you no longer need to keep up the facade. That's a relief for you, no doubt.

I read somewhere, in First Things I believe (by a former Prot) that you know a Protestant is truly flummoxed as to how to respond in an effective manner to the multitude of corners Catholicism paints him in: he begins to throw the same criticisms at the RCC that atheists throw at Christianity in general. You, my friend, are a perfect example of this.

[Bluesky]

All in good time, my little troll.

[R W G R]

Martin Luther didn't subscribe to the theory? So much for Catholic Answers.


Can you show me where Martin Luther believed in "Once Saved, Always Saved"?

[R W G R]

All in good time, my little troll.

I've never seen you so angry!! :)

Hitting a nerve, am I?? ;)

[R W G R]

Ooops! Seems Sky advantageously missed this one:

Philippians 2:12: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Can anyone tell me what there is to "work out", and why we should do so "trembling", if nothing can be lost?

[R W G R]

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud." [2 Peter 2:20-22]

Where does "Once Saved, Always Saved" fit here?

[Bluesky]

Ooops! Seems Sky advantageously missed this one:

Philippians 2:12: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Can anyone tell me what there is to "work out", and why we should do so "trembling", if nothing can be lost?

1. This verse says nothing about the permanence or impermanence of our salvation.
2. Every time you have quoted this verse, you conveniently leave off the next verse. For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
3. As far as your question is concerned: there are many good reasons to tremble at the thought that the very God of the universe is expecting something of me. The command to fear God is written all over the Bible.
And to "work out" (not work for) means there is something INSIDE to work out.. the new life that you have in your heart needs to become evident.. manifest.

[Soundbear]

Why would anyone work so hard to stay in fear??

Thanks, Skyblue.

[Bluesky]

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud." [2 Peter 2:20-22]

Where does "Once Saved, Always Saved" fit here?

These verses portray exactly what Augustine is talking about. The 'elect' are given the gift of perseverance. Then there are others who are professing believers. They adopt the culture of Christianity. They know as much as everyone else about it. In fact they can become experts, even leaders and teachers in the church. But they become apostate. Clouds without water.. vines without fruit. They wither on the vine and die. because they are not truly genuine.

The Lord spoke a parable about tares and wheat. tares are a weed that looks very similar to wheat. And so the question was "Do we go in there and tear out the weeds?" and the answer was, No, lest you tear up the genuine as well, the wheat.. because even the farmer cannot tell the difference between the weeds and the wheat. They are so similar.

[Bluesky]

People who deny eternal security (perseverance) will often say that it is a disincentive to living a godly life. In fact, Paul teaches the Corinthian Christians quite the opposite -
I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
7 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

It's BECAUSE of the promise of eternal life that we are motivated to "bring holiness to completion in the fear of God."

[Bluesky]

According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1 Peter 1:5-6

[Bluesky]

Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.
Heb 6:17-19

Where is the encouragement if we cannot know?

[Bluesky]

v 3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. 4 We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. 5 May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.
2 thess 3:3

If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?
Rom 8

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than allc; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 8:28

On the verse in John 10. It is objected, There is nothing in the passage that says I cannot walk away if I want to.

Wrong. Notice the first phrase. My sheep LISTEN TO MY VOICE. which means (simple logic here) if you walk away, you aren't listening to his voice, which means you are not his sheep.

Secondly, it requires the temptaitons and seductions of the enemy to cause anyone to walk away or to be 'snatched out of his hand'. And this is precisely what he promises to protect us from.

[Bluesky]

30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Eph 4:30Sealed means exactly that. A sign of ownership and authority.
Check any Bible dictionay.

[Bluesky]

38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Jn 6:37-40

On the basis of this passage, why is it presumptuos to say, I believe God hears the prayer of his Son, and on that basis, I am assured.

[Bluesky]

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. (Jn 6)

Note the present tense. has everlasting life... it doesn't get simpler than this.

The objector will say, Yes, but it can be taken away. In which case I will answer, Then it wasn't eternal, was it?

There's more, but I'm done.. for now.
For further study:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/PerseveranceOfTheSaints.htm
http://www.the-highway.com/perseverance_Boettner.html
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/J93-41-1.htm
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols13-15/chs872.pdf
http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/pers.html

To sum up: My father used to teach me, "Son, if you are worried about it, you probably shouldn't be. If you don't worry about it, you probably should."

[R W G R]

The objector will say, Yes, but it can be taken away. In which case I will answer, Then it wasn't eternal, was it?



That's an argument?

That makes no sense.

You're spinning wheels...but what else would one expect, when trying to defend a theology built on sand.

[R W G R]

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 7:21

[Bluesky]

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 7:21

Amen! With that I agree.

[R W G R]

Amen! With that I agree.

Jesus must have got a little lump in His throat, knowing you agreed with Him. :)