Unsaved?

I have some evangelical protestant friends who I discuss faith with. In a discussion about salvation, I asked them if they could be “unsaved,” using the example of a “saved” person committing murder. The question caught them off guard, but their response was that the person probably wasn’t really “saved” to begin with. This didn’t make sense to me, but I couldn’t think of a good way to try and point them in the right direction.
Any suggestions?

There are tons of verses in the NT, about being soil where the word first took root, then later withered and died, branches grafted in and later cut off, those who once tasted the heavenly gift and then rejected it, those who would refuse to remain in the faith, remain in Christ, live in the Spirit. Believers are continuously exhorted to be holy, be perfect, do good, feed the hungry, keep oil in their lamp, clothe the naked, be vigilant, strive, persevere, invest their talents, with the loss of the kingdom generally at stake.

Pretty common answer. I was told that I was never saved to begin with as I became a Catholic. After I thought about it, I realized that it completely refutes their once-saved, always-saved position.

Basically, if you can be fooled into thinking you are saved, then you can’t know if you are saved. Unless the now-unsaved person was a total hypocrite & knew he wasn’t saved, but told people he was. That wouldn’t fly with me because I truly thought I was “saved” from the age of 6 until 10 years later when I didn’t want to be a Christian any more. In the eyes of a teenager, non-Christians have a lot more fun!

From age 16 to 23, when I joined the Catholic Church, I would have been seen as a backslider, but not necessarily unsaved.

This is a very common argument Protestants use to try to circumvent the irrationality of the “once saved, always saved” position. The most striking thing about it is that if they genuinely believe that a person may have just “not been saved,” then it completely refutes the entire position because it shows that the concept of being “saved” is subjective, and that a person may not have “been saved” no matter how much they may have believed themselves to be.

To be honest, I am incapable of understanding how someone who professes to have read the Bible can hold the OSAS position, as Christ speaks frequently about people falling away, and the lukewarm (who, in Protestant circles would still have said the sinners prayer and accept Christ as their Lord and savior; the two criteria they cite for “being saved”) who will be spit out form the mouth of God due to their lukewarmness. St. Paul writes often about those who, once faithful, have now fallen away and as such have put themselves in a perilous spiritual position; and even write about how he is still “working out [his] salvation with fear and trembling.”

The OSAS position is completely unbilbical; so people who profess must resort to irrational justifications when the obvious flaws in the their logic are pointed out.

The OSAS position suggests that our free will was taken away at cavalry. Which essentially negates the GREATER GLORY OF GOD. With out mans free will, there is no Glory of God which would essentially undo everything Christ did.

It is also worthy to note, that Once Saved Always Saved is far from the only Protestant position on the possibility of loosing salvation.

Just to add a little to the above. If the OSAS position is true and if they are truly saved and cannot lose their salvation after that point, then as CatholicKnight expressed, this negates free will. Furthermore, if at this point they cannot sin by use of their free will, which would separate them from God, then they should be Perfect and incapable of sinning in any way, not just in major ways.

Therefor, this theology in a sense makes God (who dwells within them and abides in them), the author and doer of the sins that the OSAS person still commits.

In spite of this being logical, I’ve met only one person (an ex-Catholic) who believed he had never sinned from the moment he was saved. I thought it interesting that his wife refused to follow his lead in religion. He had started his own home church - she wasn’t involved in it, tho their daughters were.

Your position, and catholicknight’s also, is not correct, if I understood you properly.

You’re saying that free will is taken away because one believes himself to be saved with no chance of loosing that salvation.

How does that take away free will?

What OSAS protestants believe is that EVEN IF they sin, Jesus covers that sin, He died for all past, present and future sins and they are forgiven without even having to ask forgiveness because the forgiveness has already been given way back at the cross. It’s not that they believe they don’t sin.

Of course, not every protestant denomination believes this. Most believe one can loose their salvation for the reasons given by fhansen and prodglArchitect.

What could be clearer than 2 Peter 2:20-22?
“For after they have escaped the defilement of the world by the knowledge of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled…it has happened to them according to the prover-A Dog Returns To Its Vomit…”

Fran

That’s probably what most believe, but there is a small subset who believe that God will keep them from sinning.

Hello,

The book of acts contains many sermons given to potential converts.  In none of these sermons was there ever a promise that the listener would go to heaven.  When Peter used the term saved he was referring to this evil generation.  Being saved meant receiving the HG.  

As a side note when John/Jesus used the term eternal life in the garden he defines it as knowing God and not going to heaven.  Eternal life therefore would also mean receiving the HG.

No I am saying free will is NOT taken away from us. I said WITH OUT mans free will there is NO GLORY.

Life, is about the GREATER GLORY OF GOD manifested through the DEATH AND RESURRECTION of the LORD and the redemption of fallen man.

There is NO GLORY with OUT mans FREE WILL. We all still have it and so ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED is a false teaching. It is not based in TRUTH.

Where does the narrow road bring you?

Fran

I was answering to post no. 7 which made an incorrect statement to which I replied.

I understand you now.

Apologies and I’m happy you corrected me for our readers sake.

Fran

Yeah, I left out the word OUT and had a mod make that correction. :thumbsup:

:wink:

FOR HN160

You’re saying that free will is taken away because one believes himself to be saved with no chance of loosing that salvation.

How does that take away free will?

What OSAS protestants believe is that EVEN IF they sin, Jesus covers that sin, He died for all past, present and future sins and they are forgiven without even having to ask forgiveness because the forgiveness has already been given way back at the cross. It’s not that they believe they don’t sin.

Of course, not every protestant denomination believes this. Most believe one can loose their salvation for the reasons given by fhansen and prodglArchitect.

**The only way that you can loose your salvation is to walk away from your baptism. One baptism is all that one needs. Christ chose us, we did did not choose Him.
**
What could be clearer than 2 Peter 2:20-22?
“For after they have escaped the defilement of the world by the knowledge of The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled…it has happened to them according to the prover-A Dog Returns To Its Vomit…”

Fran

Hi hn160,

I’m glad you agree with me , but you added a paragraph to what I originally said - the highlighted one above -

I’m not too happy you did that since you’re adding something I might not even agree with!

For instance, I totally agree with the first part of your sentence.
The second part is a bit too Calvinistic for me and I never would phrase anything like that.

Maybe you don’t kinow how to work the quote thingy - it took me over a month.

Just for the readers, I don’t want them thinking God picks us in some Calvinistic type way.

God bless you
Fran


The underlined phrase above is what makes me respond in the manner that I did in Post #7.

Essentially the idea is that if they were truly saved, they would not have committed that sin in the first place and not that despite that sin, they are still saved because Christ covers all their sins. There is a big difference between the two.

And in saying that once a person is truly saved, they no longer commit sin is essentially taking away their freedom to sin, thus no longer having free will. Therefor the logical conclusion is that if they still do sin in ANY way, either they were not truly saved in the first place or that God is now the author of their sin. In either case, this version of OSAS cannot be true because it either denies free will or makes God the author of their sin.

The truth takes a road between OSAS and earning salvation by works. The gospel is a covenant between God and man. As we progress in the gospel and receive priesthood ordinances we progress in a covenant relationship with God. As part of that relationship we may repent and be covered again by his grace. This requires commitment on our part and continued mercy from the Lord on his.

Our initial entrance begins this road but we must continue down it. We must dedicate ourselves thus receiving grace for grace. Through the power of the priesthood and our willingness to obey we can ultimately receive the more sure word of prophecy being sealed up unto eternal life. In such a state, the seal can only be broken by denying the Holy Ghost or committing murder. Those who have been so sealed and fall away cannot be renewed by repentance for they have partaken of the heavenly gift and knowing the truth have chosen to deny him (Heb 6:4-6).

You’re talking about backsliding. You could repent and return to God after backsliding.
If you reject the H.S. or H.G. you have commited the unpardonable sin. This is the only unpardonable sin. I think Hebrews is probably talking about someone who was never saved to begin with.

It’s late here and I don’t have time, but I’d like to know how you think murder cannot be forgiven. You’re going to give me the verse on how anyone who does this and some other things is damned. Maybe you’ll go back to the value of blood in Genesis: Cain, Lamech. I’ll leave it to you to find it.

What I’d like you to do is explain this conflict. How could the bible plainly state that verse and/or concept on the one hand and then also say that the only unpardonable sin is the rejection of the H.S.

What’s your understanding of this?

Fran

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