Following your conscience and OSAS

Say a Protestant believes that it is impossible for them to lose their salvation, so that no matter what sins they commit or how many, they are going to heaven no ifs, ands or buts about it. They sincerely believe this with all their heart and let’s say this is all they were ever told about Christianity. Now b/c of this they don’t purposely go out and sin, but they do of course fall victim to temptation and are guilty of sinning throughout their lives.

Are they in severe danger of hell? Or are they exempt b/c they didn’t actually commit mortal sin since they didn’t realize that their actions would separate them from God.

What if, they had heard of competing theologies to OSAS but chose not to believe them b/c they wanted assurance of salvation and/or did not find them compelling? Are they more culpable?

Anyone outside the Church or believing heresy is in danger of hell. The other questions you state are judgement calls.

what if we replace the word “CHURCH” in your sentence with “JESUS CHRIST”?..i think it would be more appropriate to say. There is no way to salvation,…except through JESUS CHRIST.

The two statements do not contradict.

Link, I would say that they are more culpable for not listening or heeding a warning of the lack of infallible assurance of salvation.

Well it is true the, “Once saved always saved” say it has happened and their destination has arrived, they are going to heaven! They do not seem to consider God’s judgement of their lives here below. So I think they are in for a heck of surprise when they stand before the Lord and He considers whether their hearts pass the purification test.
Actually it could be a time for many of us to be shaking in our boots. We pray for mercy!
Peace, Carlan

Ah but Jesus says to obey the Church. One Church. how do you replace that?

Before we start cutting off our hands and feet and judging which of us sinners with logs in our eyes are in the most danger of hell, a few things to remember about conscience.

CCC 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

And even CAF apologist Michelle Arnold had this to say recently about an Episcopalian following his conscience, “you must respect his conscience about remaining an Episcopalian”.

But here for me is the big enchilada or the icing on the :cake: so to speak.

From CCC 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

Peace and His mercy to all as we strive to follow our consciences in good faith.

Matt, you always seem to skip the part of the CCC that shows your understanding is wrong. You and i have had this discussion countless times, still you choose to ignore it. A conscience must be properly formed, a person must seek to properly form his or her own conscience. We never stop learning truth. You on the other hand have decided after seeing and reading this particular section of the CCC that this is all you need.

The way you use the CCC could be described, and I do describe it as such, as cherry picking. You could relate it to the ten commandments like this, I need to obey the ones about my relationship with God, but not the rest. As long as I do not take other Gods, miss keeping holy the Sabath, or take the Lords name in vain; I’m good. I do the first three but I continue an affair with my wife’s sister, but I’ve got the first three!!!

No I don’t, I put lust and desire on a pedistal higher than God, so I have another God. It doesn’t work the way you use the CCC. If it is a guide, then use the guide, in it’s entirety! If you choose to use just what works for you, whats the point in that?:shrug:

I follow my saviour, who forms my conscience. I do not follow my conscience alone.

Here is the conplete message starting at 1776;

1790 you site, is only half, here is the rest. I’ll use red like you;

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

I put that last section in purple, for Lent and repentance.

No one can say if another person is in a state of mortal sin, we are not God. We can speculate, but that’s it. Every one of us is in danger of hell, we human beings have proven repeatedly that we are subject to sin and temptation. Culpability is the key word in someone who hears the Gospel of Jesus Christ and follows the wrong version. Does that person truly know the gospel? Does he know the truth, contrary to some beliefs there is something called absolute truth.

I do not believe “not knowing” an action separates from God is an excuse. We all know that adultery and murder are serious sin, if we choose to commit these acts, with full knowledge and intent, then yes we are in serious danger of hell.

To your last question if I understand it correctly, scripture says that to him who more is given, more is expected. So yes, a person who holds onto more of His truth, one who has more formation in that truth, is held to a higher standard. A priest or deacon for instance, is held to a higher responsibility by his training and the sacrament of holy orders. I know as a deacon i am held to a higher responsibility level, I am not better than anyone, but I have been given these duties to carry out.

I’m not sure if this answers all your questions, but my conscience tells me I’m on the right track!:thumbsup:

Lapey, I do not ignore/skip reading the parts of CCC you pick.

I believe we’ve had this discussion countless times too. And again I just don’t understand for the life of me, Lapey, why the Church bothers to put for instance CCC 1776 in there, saying the conscience is where we are alone with God Whose voice echoes deep within our depths. Or CCC 1782. Or those words from CCC 1790, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” If it all just comes down to one must force their conscience to be in line with everything we, the Catholic Church, says.

In that case, Lapey, I see no freedom to listen to God’s voice deep within and to follow one’s conscience so as not to be condemned, unless one forces his or her conscience to confirm to somethihg one truly believes in good faith and good conscience it might not be telling him or her. :shrug:

So I don’t know about the 10 Commandments being smaller, but see, Lapey, it seems to me CCC could have been a bit smaller if the Church had just not bothered with the parts I pick to share with you and only had put in those you share with me. Though I’ve even read them before you shared. :thumbsup:

In any case God bless you, Lapey, as we each strive to the best of our understanding to follow our Savior our Lord Jesus. Amen and peace.

Matt, thats the difference, I don’t pick parts, I use the whole document. It is not designed to use as you do. Its just that simple. If you choose the one you use, it could be in direct opposition of another, unless they are understood to work together…does this register at all? Or is it you don’t want it to register?

Hi Deacon Lapey, exactly. I see them appearing to be in direct opposition to one another. So what registers with me is that they don’t seem to work together. Because to me it appears the Church could have simply skipped those parts I post about our secret core deep within where God’s voice echos. And freedom to make moral decisions in religious matters. And the part about how we must obey our conscience so as not to be condemned. If it simply comes down to obeying one’s conscience so as not to be condemned only if one forces their conscience into conforming to every Catholic teaching.

In any case Lapey, God bless us one and all along our journeys of faith and conscience. Those of us united in Him Who break down walls and Whom is far greater than any differences. And indeed all of His earthly children Whom He created, let us all embrace one another. :grouphug: In peace.

I’m pretty sure that God is a just God, and purgatory will be extra long for some people.

Thanks for the blessing and prayers. Please recognize something though, if you are truly hoping and praying for unity, why do you keep rejecting unity at every chance you get? Breaking down walls is not breaking apart what God has created, He, Jesus, has created His Church. He is in His Church, the Head, all graces flow through His Church. To reject His Church is to reject His grace in the sacraments and is to reject Him, who is Word become Flesh!

My prayer is for those who build walls to open your hearts and ask God to lead you in the truth, His truth, to form us in the truth of Jesus Christ.

Lapey, I do not reject unity. In fact I strive, though I am certain at times even I fail at it, to fully embrace the spirit of ecumenism.

Within Christianity I strive, again though I am certain even I fail at times, to fully embrace the unity we each have in Him as our Lord and Savior. My heart weeps as I unfortunately fear this ecumenical spirit is less prevalent in the Catholic Church today than it once was following the 2nd Vatican Council.

My prayer, Lapey, is for despite our faith differences, that God’s children everywhere in faith, and as Christians in faith await His 2nd coming, that we strive to build bridges together in peace. Peace be with you Lapey.

Peter used your wording on the day of Pentecost. So yes that would be another way to put it. From the Catholic point of view though the two are linked. To accept/follow the Church is to accept/follow Jesus, and to reject the Church is to reject Jesus. So the two are actually different ways of saying the same thing.

I’ve wondered things like this too.

For starters, obviously, “Once saved always saved” is not a Catholic belief, it is a Protestant belief. And different branches of Protestantism hold different beliefs.

To the Catholic Church, this belief is in the objective category of a heresy. Subjectively, though, if a sincere, goodhearted Protestant believed it, and this person was trying really hard to learn about the Bible and how to live a good life, he/she would be focusing on the right things and would hopefully live that good life. And that would be what counts when he/she meets God.

If on the other hand a person insincerely thinks “Cool! I’ve got a ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card now, I can go on with my sinful life business as usual and still get to Heaven,” that person is going to be in for a rude awakening.

There may be others who fall into a kind of grey area in between. They would be lukewarm Protestants. It’s really not good to be a lukewarm Protestant or a lukewarm Catholic or any other religion that tries to have a positive moral code.

I don’t agree with your description of OSAS thinking.
They believe God has pre-ordained who will and who won’t be saved
Nothing they can do will change that outcome
The person who claims salvations but later backslides into sin was never really saved
If a person was truely saved, they would sin no more.

Remember that it’s the Calvinists who believe in OSAS and not the Arminian Protestants.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit