'Once saved, always saved'. Really?!

[TomUK]

Could anyone direct me to a balanced look at this doctrine. I personally don't accept it, and don't think that Catholics or Orthodox do (though don't quote me there), but the only research material i seem to be able to find is written in the past 10 years by some minister in a 10000 strong american 'church'. Any help? :)

[RobNJ]

Could anyone direct me to a balanced look at this doctrine. I personally don't accept it, and don't think that Catholics or Orthodox do (though don't quote me there), but the only research material i seem to be able to find is written in the past 10 years by some minister in a 10000 strong american 'church'. Any help? :)
Actually.. it's just John Calvin's Perseverence of The Saints( the "P" in TULIP) packaged for people who don't trust any doctrine that sounds older than Elvis (probably Costello). While I look for some of my Calvinist links,, you could try the reformed forum, to doors up from here...;) I can't remember if they have any "5 points of Calvinism" stickies

[Wiffey]

Could anyone direct me to a balanced look at this doctrine. I personally don't accept it, and don't think that Catholics or Orthodox do (though don't quote me there), but the only research material i seem to be able to find is written in the past 10 years by some minister in a 10000 strong american 'church'. Any help? :)
Neither Orthodox or Catholics ascribe to "OSAS". Even St.Paul had to work out his salvation "with fear and trembling". I think "OSAS" is a very spiritually dangerous doctrine, because it leads to complacency.




Wiffey

[CSMR]

The difference between believing and disbelieving in "Once saved always saved" is subtle I think. There are related expressions "eternal security" and "perseverence of the saints".
Behind the OSAS belief there is the view that salvation is something done in the past (predestination) or outside this world which a person cannot alter. If a person cannot alter it, he canot do something that will make him lose it. Moreover God is not fickle to give and retract salvation, even if that is considered a meaningful possibility.

Catholics don't believe in this separation between acts of the world and acts of God. Their idea is I think that one can believe in God one day, receive the sacraments in a good spirit, lead a relatively moral and religious life, but then let evil get the upper hand, commit terrible sins, defy the church which tells you not to do this, and cease to believe in God. The choices that are made here have eternal repercussions and can alter salvation. Being saved is for the individual only something in the future, and one can be in a fit state to be saved today and tomorrow not in such a state - where one is at the end of life is what counts.

The OSAS view on the other hand is that true faith is something given by God through which God grants the grace of justification, not a temporary justification but an unconditional promise of being deemed good by God in the last judgement. True faith given by God is preserved by God - God is faithful. A faith that is not preserved is not true faith, just like a faith that does not result in "works".

This docrine is a key belief of Calvinism. I would have expected Lutherans also to believe in this because of my impression that Luther taught that faith conveys the unconditional promise of God; however it seems that the Augsburg confession is against it: "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost." I will check on this in the Lutheran forum sometime.

I tentatively accept "Once saved always saved" but there is very likely something deep that I am missing.

[Bulldog]

Myself and my Anglican church are Calvinist..so if you have any questions on preserverence, feel free to ask! :)

[ps139]

Anglican Calvinists?? Well, you learn something new every day!

[Bulldog]

:D

There are some of us out there!

[PaladinValer]

Not many Calvinistic Anglicans, and allow me to explain why:

1. No one liked it when the Calvinists made inroads into the Anglican Church. It was a major cause of a bloody little fight in which a tyrant named Oliver Cromwell forced himself to the English thrown (putting to death the king, mind you) and forcing only strict Calvinist theology into the Church and to the people. Needless to say, no one was happy; the laity or the clergy now bound to what they considered practically heresy
2. Eventually, Cromwell, although declaring the new government a republic, made himself "Lord Chancelor," making him roughly the new king, in order to enforce his new policies. When the usurper finally died, the people were tired of it, and invited a new king. The Anglican Church then began a healing process that eventually ridded itself of Calvinism. In addition, although the Church of England "officially kept" to the 39 Articles of Religion, in reality, most priests didn't like a lot of them and really only pay them lip service. Even today, you won't find even those Anglican priests in England privy to Calvinism, remembering of all the provinces of the Church the agony their country and Church suffered under Cromwell.

Polycarp once made an excellent post when this forum was new pointing out how even those "Calvinistic" articles themselves seem to warn against following them. I hope he pops up and explains it, because his post would do a lot better than any of mine would.

[ps139]

Bulldog how is the weather over there in Egypt? :D

[Bulldog]

According to my CF weather forecast, Cairo is mostly sunny and 63 degrees :D

[CSMR]

Not many Calvinistic Anglicans, and allow me to explain why:
A curious interpretation of history, which can be judged by the truth of its conclusion: I think you will find a good number of Calvinistic Anglicans. I am not one, but in my experience Calvinism is a very strong influence in the church. The 39 articles while influenced by Calvinism is not in itself Calvinist but protestant.
Polycarp once made an excellent post when this forum was new pointing out how even those "Calvinistic" articles themselves seem to warn against following them. I hope he pops up and explains it, because his post would do a lot better than any of mine would.
They say that councils have erred. They make no claim to be infallible; they claim to be true.