The Consequences Of Once Saved Always Saved

[Paddington]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1946355' date='Aug 11 2009, 05:32 PM']"Once saved always saved" people can soundly justify their evil actions[/quote]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1946494' date='Aug 11 2009, 07:58 PM'][/quote]

No consequences once saved.....right?

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/red+hot+chili+peppers/track/californication"]Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Paddington]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1946513' date='Aug 11 2009, 09:11 PM']No consequences once saved.....right?[/quote]

No to Hell. Yes to consequences. Yes to morals. Yes to "know them by their fruits."

Not to say you have no point or that all OSASers are the same, but you said "soundly justify."

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1946533' date='Aug 11 2009, 08:36 PM']No to Hell. Yes to consequences. Yes to morals. Yes to "know them by their fruits."[/quote]

Only consequences are earthly. Still going to heaven. Know by their fruits? Ambiguous verse meant in a general sense. The saved will sin at some future point and when they do, am I allowed to throw that verse at them? The unsaved can technically still do something to qualify as a "good fruit." I could be mistaken in deciding what qualifies as a good fruit and what is bad. Plus, I might see a good fruit, and someone else could see it as a bad one.

I mean, if I am saved, can I kill someone and still be saved? Can I attempt to kill someone and still be saved? Where is the line?

[quote]Not to say you have no point or that all OSASers are the same, but you said "soundly justify." [/quote]

Yeah. Trouble with debating Protestants is that their doctrine changes with who you are talking too. Then you think you finally pin down one of their beliefs and then you run into someone who tries to convince you that the REAL belief is slightly different.

At least Protestants have an official Roman Catholic Catechism and Vatican documents to go to while we get told the fifteenth variation of Sola Fide.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/bon+jovi/track/have+a+nice+day"]Bon Jovi - Have a Nice Day[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Paddington]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1946536' date='Aug 11 2009, 09:48 PM']Only consequences are earthly. Still going to heaven. Know by their fruits? Ambiguous verse meant in a general sense. The saved will sin at some future point and when they do, am I allowed to throw that verse at them? The unsaved can technically still do something to qualify as a "good fruit." I could be mistaken in deciding what qualifies as a good fruit and what is bad. Plus, I might see a good fruit, and someone else could see it as a bad one.

I mean, if I am saved, can I kill someone and still be saved? Can I attempt to kill someone and still be saved? Where is the line?



Yeah. Trouble with debating Protestants is that their doctrine changes with who you are talking too. Then you think you finally pin down one of their beliefs and then you run into someone who tries to convince you that the REAL belief is slightly different.

At least Protestants have an official Roman Catholic Catechism and Vatican documents to go to while we get told the fifteenth variation of Sola Fide. [/quote]

They probably do believe in consequences in the afterlife. Many Prots believe in a painful experience for the elect while at the judgement seat of Christ, and that Heaven does not have the same reward for each saint.

IMO, Catholic soteriology is not easy to pin down.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1946561' date='Aug 11 2009, 09:30 PM']They probably do believe in consequences in the afterlife. Many Prots believe in a painful experience for the elect while at the judgement seat of Christ, and that Heaven does not have the same reward for each saint.[/quote]

Hmmmm. Not heard the idea of a painful experience at the judgment. Trying to think of Scripture support for such a thing and nothing is coming to mind.

When I've debate Protestants, the big thing is that Jesus died for all the sins and since he did that, there is no consequence as long as you accept Christ as personal Lord and Savior. The big thing for Protestants is that there is no consequence for sin as Jesus took care of it all on the cross plain and simple and actually Catholics get attacked for going to confessions since we are supposedly discrediting the blood Jesus shed on the cross.

[quote]IMO, Catholic soteriology is not easy to pin down.[/quote]

What exactly about it is confusing? Not professing to be a know-it-all in this area, I'm just curious what about it is confusing.


----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/nickelback/track/believe+it+or+not"]Nickelback - Believe It Or Not[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Paddington]

EagleEye,

If you have never asked a Prot about the judgement seat experience or about differences in heavenly rewards, then I recommend doing so. If you are already experienced in this area and have received dissatisfying answers, then I apologize.

Catholic soteriology confusing? Not exactly how I put it, but one example is that "submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation" brings up practical questions, for example an Eastern Catholic (or any Catholic) who doesn't fully submit and is yet in communion with the Pope. Another example is the necessity of reparations for sins (separate from prescribed penance), most obviously noticed in the sins of stealing and lying. Another example is one I have heard on EWTN, in which a co-host said that Prots (and other non-Catholics perhaps) who confess sins directly to God are forgiven as they confess in a piecemeal fashion. I don't know whether or not that is accurate, and so I can legitimately say that I find that "hard to pin down." I have no idea how good these examples are, but the smallest question may contain large truth.

Eagle, I apologize for not wanting to discuss too much. However, I will try to throw in if you want to hash out a couple more things. I see good in the way you dislike some practical difficulties of Protestantism. It just seems like a waste of space to agree when we could spend our time disagreeing.

It does seem to me that Catholic "e-pologetics" is sometimes thoughtless while being aggressive.
I hope the whole scene looks and feels different in 20 years or so. It should be more about knowing and justifying Catholicism and less about discrediting Protestantism or any other opinion for that matter.

Sincerely,
Paddington

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1946355' date='Aug 11 2009, 05:32 PM']"Once saved always saved" people can soundly justify their evil actions as they are going on personal interpretation and don't have an encompassing Church to guide them.[/quote]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1946373' date='Aug 11 2009, 05:43 PM']Sorry if I offended you, Louisville. Perhaps I should have said ". . . the Southern Baptist organization I belonged to" -- each person or pastor is ultimately his own authority. It has been some time since I was a Southern Baptist. All Protestantism is a 'man and his Bible, do-it-yourself' religion.[/quote]

Both of these are disingenuous statements. The former is an abuse of the OSAS position. No good pastor anywhere (or anyone with a lick of common sense or respect for law and order) would teach that evil actions are justifiable. I was never taught that by Baptist pastors and none of you all who attended Baptist churches were taught it either. It's fair to believe that Calvinism is not Scriptural, but to twist Calvinist teaching is unfair. What would you say to those who reject infant Baptism because they see it is as a "ticket to Heaven"? Once baptized, you can do whatever you want, right? Or we can do whatever we want, long as we go to Confession... is that right?

And, no, each person is not their own authority. All Protestants appeal to the same, single authority: Sacred Scripture. I agree that it's incomplete and leads to confusion and some level of trusting a person's interpretation, but the good Protestant theologians and pastors allow themselves to be guided by orthodox believers who went before us. It simply isn't fair to them to say they are their own authority. How do you feel when a Protestant claims the pope is always infallible? That claim is the same kind of twisted un-truth that you're making. Let's stick with the truth and talk about what Protestantism actually is, instead of what you've made it to be in your head.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1946781' date='Aug 12 2009, 01:36 AM']It does seem to me that Catholic "e-pologetics" is sometimes thoughtless while being aggressive.
I hope the whole scene looks and feels different in 20 years or so. It should be more about knowing and justifying Catholicism and less about discrediting Protestantism or any other opinion for that matter.[/quote]

I agree with you here. That's why I love reading G.K. Chesterston. Have you read any of his apologetic books?

[Paddington]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1946919' date='Aug 12 2009, 11:04 AM']I agree with you here. That's why I love reading G.K. Chesterston. Have you read any of his apologetic books?[/quote]

I read Everlasting Man a few years ago and Orthodoxy about 10 years ago.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1946917' date='Aug 12 2009, 08:59 AM']Both of these are disingenuous statements. The former is an abuse of the OSAS position. No good pastor anywhere (or anyone with a lick of common sense or respect for law and order) would teach that evil actions are justifiable. I was never taught that by Baptist pastors and none of you all who attended Baptist churches were taught it either.[/quote]

OSAS deals with the [color="#0000FF"][b][i]eternal[/i][/b][/color] -- not the temporal -- conseqences of sin.


[quote]It's fair to believe that Calvinism is not Scriptural, but to twist Calvinist teaching is unfair.[/quote]

QUOTE:
Perseverance of the saints
From Theopedia

Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation. It doesn't mean that a person who is truly saved will never lose faith or backslide at any time. But that they will ultimately persevere in faith (inspite of failures) such as not to lose their salvation.

The doctrine of perseverance is rooted in God's unconditional election and predestination. That is, since God is the One who chose and predestined the elect to salvation, therefore the elect will be saved. They might turn away from faith and give appearance of losing their salvation, but if they really are elect they will repent and ultimately return to faith, because God is the One ensuring their salvation.

This doctrine is also closely related to the doctrine of justification and adoption. Because God is the One who justifies the elect, no one can bring any condemnation on them. In the same way because those who truly believe in Christ are adopted as God's sons, they cannot be condemned to eternal punishment (although subject to God's loving discipline as a Father).

See Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 17.
END QUOTE

[quote]What would you say to those who reject infant Baptism because they see it is as a "ticket to Heaven"? Once baptized, you can do whatever you want, right? Or we can do whatever we want, long as we go to Confession... is that right?[/quote]

I would say that neither of these is taught by the Catholic Church.

[quote]And, no, each person is not their own authority. All Protestants appeal to the same, single authority: Sacred Scripture. I agree that it's incomplete and leads to confusion and some level of trusting a person's interpretation, but the good Protestant theologians and pastors allow themselves to be guided by orthodox believers who went before us. It simply isn't fair to them to say they are their own authority. How do you feel when a Protestant claims the pope is always infallible? That claim is the same kind of twisted un-truth that you're making. Let's stick with the truth and talk about what Protestantism actually is, instead of what you've made it to be in your head.[/quote]

As I said, the ultimate authority in Protestantism is a man and his Bible.

Peace be with you, Katholikos

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1947040' date='Aug 12 2009, 02:53 PM']OSAS deals with the [color="#0000FF"][b][i]eternal[/i][/b][/color] -- not the temporal -- conseqences of sin.[/quote]

Of course.



[quote name='Katholikos' post='1947040' date='Aug 12 2009, 02:53 PM']QUOTE:
Perseverance of the saints
From Theopedia

Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation. It doesn't mean that a person who is truly saved will never lose faith or backslide at any time. But that they will ultimately persevere in faith (inspite of failures) such as not to lose their salvation.

The doctrine of perseverance is rooted in God's unconditional election and predestination. That is, since God is the One who chose and predestined the elect to salvation, therefore the elect will be saved. They might turn away from faith and give appearance of losing their salvation, but if they really are elect they will repent and ultimately return to faith, because God is the One ensuring their salvation.

This doctrine is also closely related to the doctrine of justification and adoption. Because God is the One who justifies the elect, no one can bring any condemnation on them. In the same way because those who truly believe in Christ are adopted as God's sons, they cannot be condemned to eternal punishment (although subject to God's loving discipline as a Father).

See Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 17.
END QUOTE[/quote]

I don't understand what point you're getting at. Yes, Calvinists believe the elect will be saved regardless of their faults and sins, but you're ignoring everything they also teach about modeling one's life after Christ, repenting from sin, bearing the fruits of the Spirit, etc. You need to evaluate Calvinism as a whole rather than taking a single teaching out of its context.

If you believe Catholicism is the most logical position, why use bad logic against Calvinism?

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1947040' date='Aug 12 2009, 02:53 PM']I would say that neither of these is taught by the Catholic Church.[/quote]

And the alleged consequences of OSAS are not taught by Calvinism.

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1947040' date='Aug 12 2009, 02:53 PM']As I said, the ultimate authority in Protestantism is a man and his Bible.[/quote]

Their sole authority is Scripture, which is precisely why there are so many contradictory views within Protestantism. Why present them as believing things they do not profess? This only creates more confusion, and in an actual debate, sets up an all-too-easy rebuttal for them. Besides, it isn't ethical to knowingly misrepresent another person's beliefs.

Edited August 12, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1946781' date='Aug 12 2009, 12:36 AM']EagleEye,

If you have never asked a Prot about the judgement seat experience or about differences in heavenly rewards, then I recommend doing so. If you are already experienced in this area and have received dissatisfying answers, then I apologize.

Catholic soteriology confusing? Not exactly how I put it, but one example is that "submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation" brings up practical questions, for example an Eastern Catholic (or any Catholic) who doesn't fully submit and is yet in communion with the Pope. Another example is the necessity of reparations for sins (separate from prescribed penance), most obviously noticed in the sins of stealing and lying. Another example is one I have heard on EWTN, in which a co-host said that Prots (and other non-Catholics perhaps) who confess sins directly to God are forgiven as they confess in a piecemeal fashion. I don't know whether or not that is accurate, and so I can legitimately say that I find that "hard to pin down." I have no idea how good these examples are, but the smallest question may contain large truth.

Eagle, I apologize for not wanting to discuss too much. However, I will try to throw in if you want to hash out a couple more things. I see good in the way you dislike some practical difficulties of Protestantism. It just seems like a waste of space to agree when we could spend our time disagreeing.

It does seem to me that Catholic "e-pologetics" is sometimes thoughtless while being aggressive.
I hope the whole scene looks and feels different in 20 years or so. It should be more about knowing and justifying Catholicism and less about discrediting Protestantism or any other opinion for that matter.

Sincerely,
Paddington[/quote]

Paddington,

I am not sure the questions concerning Catholic soteriology are that complicated as I am not readily familiar with them. Really not sure if they are legit puzzle questions. May very well have a quick explanation to them. I do know the Catholic church actually has official stuff written down while their is no official list for Protestant doctrines.

While I agree that knowing more about Catholicism is more important than discrediting another religion, do realize that subject matter such as this thread deal strictly with OSAS and therefore there will be more comments directly commenting on OSAS than not.

Also, being a life-long Church going Catholic, I can count on one hand how many times other religions have been brought up. While not all Protestant denominations discredit the Catholic Church during their services, I know many do. One of them is my aunt's church where my grandma tried to go out of being kind to her daughter but was shocked and repulsed by the anti-Catholic talk there. That is not everywhere I know however you have to admit that a lot more anti-Catholic attacks happen than anti-non-Catholic-attacks.

Many non-Catholics live off of anti-Catholic talk and precious few Catholics live off of anti-Protestant talk. Walk into a thousand Christian churches and see how much Rome is brought up and walk in a thousand Catholic Churches, and listen to how many homilies are anti-Protestant dribble. You will find a stark difference.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1946917' date='Aug 12 2009, 09:59 AM']Both of these are disingenuous statements. The former is an abuse of the OSAS position. No good pastor anywhere (or anyone with a lick of common sense or respect for law and order) would teach that evil actions are justifiable. I was never taught that by Baptist pastors and none of you all who attended Baptist churches were taught it either. It's fair to believe that Calvinism is not Scriptural, but to twist Calvinist teaching is unfair. What would you say to those who reject infant Baptism because they see it is as a "ticket to Heaven"? Once baptized, you can do whatever you want, right? Or we can do whatever we want, long as we go to Confession... is that right?

And, no, each person is not their own authority. All Protestants appeal to the same, single authority: Sacred Scripture. I agree that it's incomplete and leads to confusion and some level of trusting a person's interpretation, but the good Protestant theologians and pastors allow themselves to be guided by orthodox believers who went before us. It simply isn't fair to them to say they are their own authority.[/quote]


With all due to respect, I have yet to find a Protestant with the same beliefs as the founder of Protestantism. The beliefs Luther had and the beliefs a large majority of Protestants have these days are fairly different. Why the difference? Who decided that difference? Sacred Scripture or did somebody decid that Sacred Scripture said something different? Sacred Scripture is a record. We look at the record and come up with what it means. Sacred Scripture doesn't say that it is self-interpreting. Even then that would self-defeating.


[quote]How do you feel when a Protestant claims the pope is always infallible? That claim is the same kind of twisted un-truth that you're making. Let's stick with the truth and talk about what Protestantism actually is, instead of what you've made it to be in your head.[/quote]

I would say the Protestant is not going to the source for info and is ignoring the official Catholic Church documents on the matter. Of course Catholics can't go to the one source of Protestantism as each source is each person with their Bible. It doesn't go both ways. I would ask you what Protestantism actually is and have you define their doctrines but then the next person would move your wording around and change it slightly and I would have an official source to prove them wrong. It would be your words against the others.


Pax.


----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/martin+odonnell+%26+michael+salvatori/track/unyielding"]Martin O'Donnell & Michael Salvatori - Unyielding[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1947237' date='Aug 12 2009, 04:32 PM']...I don't understand what point you're getting at. Yes, Calvinists believe the elect will be saved regardless of their faults and sins, but you're ignoring everything they also teach about modeling one's life after Christ, repenting from sin, bearing the fruits of the Spirit, etc. ....[/quote]

No point in doing so. Sure you can be good......but honestly they teach faith alone and then all of a sudden works matter. Is that contradicting?


[quote]....Their sole authority is Scripture, which is precisely why there are so many contradictory views within Protestantism. Why present them as believing things they do not profess? This only creates more confusion, and in an actual debate, sets up an all-too-easy rebuttal for them. Besides, it isn't ethical to knowingly misrepresent another person's beliefs.[/quote]

If their only authority really was Sacred Scripture in of itself, they wouldn't disagree so much......right?

[Paddington]

Eagle,

You are like me in the way that you haven't read and understood every Council, Encyclical, Catechism, Code of Canon Law and Saint statement associated with approved miracles.

I do realize the thread is about OSAS, but as somebody old enough to have varicose veins, I made an aside that could benefit you. If you treat your own religion like a self-confirming personality treats himself, then you miss out on learning about your own religion.

Then you get into that thing about tallying polemics from Protestant and Catholic sermons. You are definitely right about that if you isolate the Baptists.

The professional anti-Catholics thing is interesting. I wonder how many there are (often the same ones pop up) and how much of their time is devoted to anti-Catholicism.

Sincerely,
Paddington