I am dealing with a guy who believes in OSAS-once saved always saved need some help, tips on how to refute this doctrine

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation

many many passages in the bible that contradict OSAS

could someone please share some of the bible passages they might have come across also anymore info on how to hold my on will still be appreciated

does anyone ever feel like there just when they have conversations with people who believe different sorry i went off subject

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articl ... 0%99s-over

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... ways-saved

I promise you there are no questions which you are going to stumble upon regarding God or the Faith that the Church has not already dealt with. Get the Catechism and read it cover to cover. Get Catholicism for Dummies by Fr. Trigilio and read it cover to cover (this is a fantastic book, don't let the name throw you). Get a faithful Catholic Study Bible and read it cover to cover. Buy some good books on the Church Fathers. Its hard for someone to argue that the Church has changed or lost her way when you see the Fathers of the Church in the second century believed the same things we do now.

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Cat ... 485&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Catholicism-Dummi ... 1118077784
http://www.amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic ... 548&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Ea ... 0ZJYNJ8XOE
http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Fathers-Chur ... 84&sr=8-10


Study your faith! If you take the initiative and learn your faith, you will be fine.

did you check out my links...there were many of those bible verses in the explanations

check this whole section out

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html

yes i read both of them and im planning on reading them again and they did i just want as much info as i can get

H, D2M,

A few thoughts.

The first article Faithfulservant linked (http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp) does a good job of appreciating the differing mindset the OSAS proponent brings to the table. His point that such things need to be kept in mind lest the exercise devolve quickly into mere verse-slinging is a sound one.

I think the primary obstacle in the discussion is Evangelical tendency (most OSAS I've encountered are Evangelicals) to see Bible matters in "either/or" terms, rather than the "both/and" way Catholics tend to see things. While they will accept some decidely paradoxical, "both/and" things like the Trinity and the dual-nature of Jesus Christ, on most other issues their minds usually exhibit a "it must be one or the other" tendency. Thus, e.g., since Christ is "rock," then Peter can't be; since faith is said to save, then baptism can't be termed salvific; since faith is said to justifiy, then works can't relate in any sense to justification. And, as that article author notes, since salvation is often spoken in the past tense, the OSAS mind resists the idea that salvation at the same time can be said to be a present and future matter.

The upshot is that any verse that deals with faith and salvation they accept at face value as to themselves. And any verse that warns against complacency or grave sin, illustrates people falling away, or speaks to negative reprobation due to disobedience the OSAS person usually claims "that's speaking about non-believers" or "that's talking about people who possess a faith that isn't a 'true, saving faith.'" They have great difficulty accepting that Scripture can speak to them at once both in terms of confidence and joy and yet also of warning and exhortation. So they pick the former and dismiss the latter.

In trying to respond to that viewpoint, there are many verses to highlight. I'll pick two.

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal. 5:13-21

One must ask, who is the "you" Paul is warning here? Just suppposed "others," these nominal Christians or non-believers? No. Rather just earlier Paul says: "Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise." Gal. 4:28. Paul is warning the true believers.

12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. Phil. 2:12-13

This verse has been highlighted on this thread already, though I'd like to anticipate one reply you're likely to see. The OSAS person typically interprets "work out" in the sense of "showing forth" or "proving" an already-secured final salvation. But the underlying Greek here accords with the Catholic view.

The root of the Greek word translated as "work out" is katergazomai. Per one common lexicon (one often favored by Evangelicals) the word conveys the sense of:

1) to perform, accomplish, achieve
2) to work out i.e. to do that from which something results
a) of things: bring about, result in
3) to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing. Source

So Paul (who indeed speaks of the believer's salvation in coming to faith and baptism) here ALSO speaks of salvation in a yet-to-be-fully-realized, present/future sense. Paul thus praises them for their obedience (not just their faith), and exhorts them to persevere in that obedience. In that way, they will "do that from which the thing [salvation] results." And, consistent with the Catholic view of grace and works, Paul notes what is done for good is the result of "God who works in you." Our works are the product of God's enabling grace; not something of our own nature for which God "owes" us.

An ongoing, humble walk with God is required, lest the salvation once attained be lost.

Good luck.

Brian

I find it helpful to make sure that the person you are speaking with understands that this is NOT a Catholic versus Protestant issue. The Free Will Baptists (founded in 1727) and the General Baptists (founded about 1824) both believe that Christians can lose their salvation. I like to focus on these two groups because their on-line statements of faith both cite no less than 14 Bible passages to support their belief.

Source: OSAS? No... and take it up with the Baptists

just wanted to thank everyone for their information so far i really appreciate it

As an evangelical who believes in OSAS, I'd suggest asking him this question:

"Suppose someone 'gets saved' (or whatever term he's prefer here). Now suppose he goes out and lives like the devil the rest of his life. Suppose that he eventually rejects his faith and dies a militant, Dawkins loving atheist. Where will he spend eternity?"

If he is true OSAS, he'll say heaven. But the chances are he'll balk and say, "Well, that would just prove he was never saved to begin with." If the former, I can't help you refute it, because that's my own position. I can tell you it will be harder, because few people hold to that without being distinctly aware of the nature of the debate. If the latter, you can inform them that what they really believe in is called the Final Perseverance of the Saints.

The idea of FPS is that, once you are saved, God will guarantee your perseverance in faith and works until the end. Thus, if you fall away, it was proof that you were never really saved, since God only preserves the elect. But on that view, you can show him that you don't need to refute his position. If fact, you would get a lot further by showing him that the two of you really hold the same basic position. You both agree that if a person "gets saved" but then lives a terrible life, then they will go to Hell (or, at least, they have no basis for any assurance of going to Heaven!). I encourage you to do a point-by-point comparison of FPS with the Church's beliefs on the matter. You will find more in common than not!

Now, if you really one to trip him up, once you get him to agree that you both hold essentially the same position, then challenge his view of assurance. Protestants--and evangelicals in particular--of the OSAS stripe make a big deal out of assurance. The problem is that anyone who holds to FPS cannot have logical assurance (since they may prove to be non-elect by someday falling away!). The best they can have is moral assurance, which is--as I have been told--the essence of the Catholic doctrine of assurance. Upon agreement there, you'll have him on grounds much, much more comfortable for further theological discussion about the grounds for that moral assurance.

Hi, Jac,

You raise some good points. Though this topic is a minefield of potential semantic confusion, so I'll add some further comments.



How you can hold to that position in light of the many verse of Scripture that warn against "falling away," "turning away from the faith," and the dire consequences of severe disobedience, I don't know. But perhaps that's a question for later, as I don't want to move this too far away from D2M's discussion with the other person.



If this is termed the "final perseverence of the elect," it would find strong support in the Augustinian Catholic tradition. The potential confusion lies in the words "once you are saved." As noted above, for Catholics, salvation (with reference to the individual) entails the entirety of one's life in Christ. "Once" suggests a bit too much the mere point-in-time view of salvation Catholics don't espouse.



Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. That may depend whether the person holds to the "Eternal Security" position of the individual believer's subjective certainty of his/her final end. If his position is that he "knows with certainty" he is one of the "saved" who will be granted the grace of final perserverence, then his position stands in need of refutation. If his position is more "if I am one of the irrevocably saved (elect), then God will necessarily afford to me the grace to persevere; but I can have at best a moral certainty of my status," then perhaps there's essential agreement.



Maybe this will be true with this person, but in my experience with Evangelicals, it's a dual-view world. Either the person is saved and will go to Heaven. Or if the person later proves to live a decidely un-christian life or abandons the faith, "he was never saved to begin with." I'm hard-pressed to think of an Evangelical I've known who subscribes to this "middle" position of being "saved" in a real, not just illusory, sense, but who then ends up "not saved." The problem usually lies in their narrow definition of "saved,' which sees salvation exclusively as a moment-in-time event with full eschatological import.



My experience with Evangelicals of that sort is that true logic rarely comes into play. "Assurance" is primarily subjectively ascertained and buttressed, as I noted earlier, by a healthy dose of selective verse sampling. The illustrations of persons, be it in Scripture or present life, who fall away are always relegated to the "never were saved to begin with" category. They cannot entertain that possibility as to themselves; they cannot hold as simultaneously applicable to themselves Scriptural verses that, one on the hand, speak of the joy of salvation and Jesus's great mercy, and on the other hand, admonish against apostasy, grave sin, and spiritual indolence. That both can be true is an assertion they find "illogical."

Brian

If you are correct - that one cannot have logical assurance if one rejects OSAS - ISTM that the logical thing to do is to reject that view of assurance.

I believe that OSAS is unbiblical. If that means I also gave to reject logical assurance, so be it. Why is that so important?

I agree with a lot of what you said there, Brian. A few comments:


Agreed. But these are just the kinds of issues that become a distraction if you try to have them first. The Augustinian view and FPS have so much in common that FPS advocates don't realize. If you play your cards right, you can even get them to agree with you on the nature of salvation being something of a process (and they'll end up happily doing so, even if they "translate" it into their own terminology)


This is precisely why I said a conversation should be had regarding assurance. I am convinced that the FPS advocate cannot have certain knowledge of his salvation. Many of them claim they do, but they're just being irrational. The FPS advocate, to be internally consistent, must adopt your second statement in the quoted paragraph.


Well there are Evangelicals who believe you can lose your salvation--Arminians, they are called. Specifically, where they disagree with the final perseverance of the saints, they hold to what is called Conditional Security. So you really have three distinct ideas:

1. The Final Perseverance of the saints
2. Eternal Security
3. Conditional Security

FPS holds that the elect are guaranteed to be preserved in faith and good works until the end of their lives. The problem, of course, is that you can't know you are elect since you could always fall away later, proving you weren't really elect! So, at best, you can have moral assurance.

Eternal Security holds truly OSAS. Once you are saved, your eternal destiny is secure no matter what you do or do not do. As such, you can have absolute, logical certainty of assurance contingent only on two issues: 1 - the correctness of your theology (that is, that you are correct that ES is true, which you obviously believe if you hold it); and 2 - the reliability of Jesus' claim to save all who believe in Him. So the ES advocate says rightly that his certainly is absolute insofar as he is convinced his theology is correct and that Jesus really can do what He claims. It is, of course, logically possible that he is wrong and that Jesus can not do what He claims, but that--for obvious reasons--doesn't enter into the discussion.

Conditional Security holds that a person may be truly in a state of salvation (whatever that means for them) and then subsequently lose that state. If they die in a "saved" state, they will go to heaven. If they die in a fallen state, they go to Hell. How one falls from grace varies among CS advocates, but generally, it is due to either gross sin or the rejection of faith. As such, CS allows, at best, for moral certainty of assurance.

Now, my point is simple enough. FPS and CS have this in common - if you die an apostate, you go to Hell. Catholics, I gather, would tend to agree. As such, the FPS, CS, and Catholic have a very important piece of common ground to dialogue from. We ES people are just off in our own little world.


I've found that to be true as well, but I've found that some are willing to listen to good reasoning, too. The trick is just to demand that they prove that they know they are one of the elect. Consider the following syllogism:

1. All the elect will persevere until the end
2. I am elect
3. I will persevere until the end

On FPS, this is logically true. (1) is the theology itself. But how do I know (2) is true? I don't! The most I can say is if I am elect I will persevere until the end. I can say I think I am. I hope I am. I am morally certain I am. I cannot say that I know I am.

I've found the approach to be effective with more than a few. I suspect the OPer would have similar success. If not (s)he would at least be able to show strong consistency between the Church's beliefs and the OSAS advocate, which just removes one more barrier to conversion.

edit:

Let's table the discussion on why I think ES is true. I don't want to derail the thread. If you want my take on James 2:14ff, Heb 6:4-6; and Heb 10:26-31, see my blog, which I haven't updated in forever, haha.

FPS advocates would insist they are in the OSAS family, and strictly speaking, they are. But practically speaking, FPS is a worthless doctrine for just the reasons we've already said. But anyway, you are right. If one rejects OSAS (including FPS), one must reject the possibility of logical certainty of assurance. Further, one is rationally bound to do so if one accepts FPS.


It may not be to you. That's fine. But it makes for an interesting argument . . . is it a modus ponens or a modus tollen:

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation
2. ES is true
3. Thus one can have logical certainty of salvation

OR

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation
2. One cannot have logical certainty of salvation
3. ES is not true

Hmm . . .

edit: as for people like me who think that logical certainty is biblical, we use the same forms above and substitute ES with FPS (or Catholicism or Arminianism or whatever) and negate the predicate. Thus

"If Catholicism is true, one cannot have logical certainty of salvation" (etc)

So one way to boil down the issue is to decide whether or not, biblically speaking, logical certainty is possible. The interesting thing to me about this approach is that you can't use your preexisting theology (ES, FPS, EC, Cath., etc.) to prove your interpretation, lest you beg the question!

But obviously the people who hold to OSAS don't think so. By their understanding, the passages you say contradict OSAS do no such thing, and it does you no good to appeal to the authority of the Church in interpretation, for if the person you are dealing with accepted that, they wouldn't be OSAS advocates in the first place.


Only the FPS brand of OSAS, and I just think Catholics do themselves a disservice when they try to disprove FPS. You're much better off showing that you have more in common than not, since both views are essentially Augustinian. The ES brand, however, does not hold to unconditional election.


That's not true.


As I said originally, that argument holds no weight for the OSAS advocate. If he put any stock in the authority of councils, he would be Catholic and it would be a moot question.


I don't even understand what you are talking about here. Can you restate?


Again, this would only apply to the FPS brand of the OSAS crowd. Second, they would just point you to Rom. 9:6-29 (esp 19-21)

In short, you present a great case as to why a Catholic shouldn't accept OSAS. Slam dunk. No contest. But since no OSAS advocates are Catholic (at least, they're not if they understand their faith at all), I don't know that the arguments help refute it at all . . . ISTM that if this is going to be your approach, a better tack would be to prove Catholicism true, and then say "Since if Catholicism is true then OSAS is false, and we've proven Catholicism is true, we've therefore proven OSAS is false."

And if they admitted that some verses teach you can lose your salvation, they would agree with you. But they don't. In fact, they'll make the same claim you did, only they'll say that some verses cannot be reconciled with those passages that clearly state OSAS!


I've talked about this extensively elsewhere . . . I think this thread. Or maybe this one. The former is a continuation of the latter, and I don't really want to take the time and reread the to find out where in the thread it is.

Anyway, ES folk are true OSASers. The moment you are saved, you're saved and there's nothing you can do about it. You can go on to become a militant atheist, and you'll still spend eternity in heaven. The theology around or ability to trust Christ and how that relates to the sovereignty of God is a separate matter. Related. But separate.


No it isn't. Look in to the difference in infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism.

-------------------------------


On the contrary, the only people who would fall into that view are people who profess the doctrine of limited atonement. MOST Evangelicals hold to unlimited atonement and believe that God's grace is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. They believe God grants prevenient grace to all people, and that people either choose to accept or reject that. Those who accept it (on the popular theology) receive the efficacious grace of salvation.

It makes no sense to say to them that God doesn't waste His time giving efficacious grace to those He knows will not accept Him or who will fall away in the end, because those people, most Evangelicals will assert, are not really saved at all, and efficacious grace is, by definition, that which saved. So to they're ears, all you are saying is "God won't waste His time saving those He won't save." And to that, you get a big, fat "DUH!"

I've discussed this subject with Jac at length and I can assure you he is not missing the point. They will simply answer you back that those who you say have been saved were actually not saved at all and were not part of the elect to begin with. This is why Jac rightly argues that unless one believes in FG-OSAS (absolute, unconditional assurance no matter what happens afterwords) then one simply does not believe in OSAS since at the heart of OSAS is absolute assurance. But if absolute assurance can turn out to be false then it's no assurance at all.

There really are two basic positions to consider wrt OSAS, the Catholic postion (no OSAS, moral assurance) and FG-OSAS (absolute assurance no matter what). Anything in between is a watered-down version of one or the other. If you want to refute their version of OSAS then hit them with that (then come back and argue with Jac who holds to the only logical version of OSAS ).

Why? I'm not arguing in favor of OSAS in this thread. You're moving the goal posts. Do you really think that OSAS advocates, whether of the watered down FPS type or the genuine ES/FG type don't have interpretations that don't contradict OSAS? Obviously, you will disagree with those interpretations, but it's no secret that they exist and that people hold to it.

So, again, the issue at hand is how you interpret those passages. So I emphasize my point. If they agreed that those passages contradict OSAS, you're argument would work. But they don't think those passages contradict OSAS as they interpret them (rightly or wrongly) differently than you do. As such, the argument you are making doesn't work.


No, it isn't the same way as saying that at all. In Supralapsarianism, God actively predestines some to Hell. In Infra/Sub-lapsarianism, God passes over the reprobate, which leaves them in their condemned state. That is not at all the same thing as predestination to Hell. The former view is formally condemned by the Church as a heresy (Predestinarianism), because if God actively predestined people to Hell then that denies His universal salvific will.

You can, of course, disagree with the Church if you like. On this, I think she got it exactly right.


What Byblos said.

Of course I don't have a problem offering such interpretations. My point is that it's just a needless distraction. You made a bad argument. You said:

The problem with the OSAS crowd is twofold and maybe more imo, first off it is expressly contradicted in scripture.

But that is obviously not the problem. Or, if it is, it does no good in debate to say that, because OSAS advocates disagree with you. If I said to you, "The problem with Catholicism is twofold and maybe more imo, first off it is expressly contradicted in scripture" you would immediately object. It's no secret that Protestants think Catholicism contradicts Scripture, and vice versa. That assertion is just an assertion. If you had said something like, "One of the most basic problems with OSAS for me is that I don't see how it can be reconciled with Heb. 6:4-6" then you would have had a good and true statement.

As to my own views, if you're curious about them, I've linked to my blog and said in this thread start there. And if you want to have a separate debate about whether or not I am correct then feel free to either start a thread about the verse you think I am mishandling it or find a thread I've defended one of my own views, resurrect it, and we'll discuss it there.

To bring this back to the OP, rather than having a debate with people about what verses mean, show them--when possible--that, regardless of their interpretation, they're really saying the same thing as the Church, and point out that the Church says it better and more clearly. It freaks FPS advocates out to find out that they have what is functionally the same view on "eternal security" as Catholics. More effective and more fun . . . besides, when you debate the interpretation of, say, Heb 6:4, you are playing on their terms. That's just bad apologetics. They all get particular training in interpreting those "difficult passages." All you do when you have that debate is further solidify them in their position.


You make me feel bad here. I hate to be the one to bust your bubble . . . it is unfortunately true that the vast majority of the time we cannot look at people we disagree with and give them a one or two line dismissal. Unfortunately, most people--especially when talking about thinkers who have provided culture shaping intellectual paradigms--are not stupid and have quite a bit of nuance in their thought.

I know it's easier to think of them all as stupid, but that's virtually always not the case.

Of course, this is one of the reasons I made my initial point. Much better to show the FPS styled OSAS folk that he's just a watered down Catholic and doesn't even realize it.


Would you prefer I just copy/paste what he said? I would have said the same thing. Just trying to save us both some time. But if you don't want to interact with the answers provided to your questions, well . . . that's fine by me, too.