Once saved always saved?

[OneFaith]

How do we know if we are saved? If we are saved then can we lose our salvation? If it's a teaching that is part of the Protestant reformation, then which reformer was responsible for this teaching?

[DavidObeid]

Hi OneFaith

I'll address the questions one at a time:

We know if we have been saved if we have:

1) God’s grace. Our Lord said “No one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.” (St. John 6:65)

2) Faith. Our Lord said “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (St. John 3:16)

3) Obedience. Our Lord tied together faith and obedience inextricably when he said “He who believes (Greek: pist-yoo’-o) in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey (Greek: ap-i-theh’-o) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” (St. John 3:36)

4) Baptism. Our Lord said that “He who believes and is baptised will be saved.” (St. Mark 16:16a) And “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (St. John 3:5)

5) Love of God and neighbour. In the encounter with the scribe in St. Mark 12, Our Lord said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (St. Mark 12:34b) Our Lord says this in response to the scribe saying “You are right… to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (St. Mark 12:32-33).

If we are saved we can lose our salvation. This is why we are told things like, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (St. Mark 13:13) amongst numerous other Scriptures that teach that salvation can be lost.

The doctrine of "once saved always saved" was a necessary logical consequence of the protestant invention of salvation by faith alone. Luther was the first proponent of this in the Protestant revolt, but I think it was Calvin who formalised the notion of once saved always saved.

[OneFaith]

Thank you for your response. That makes so much sense. So salvation is a process that we must continue to the end of our earthly life.
And yes, I heard Calvin formalised the notion of once saved always saved, but just wasn't 100% sure. Thanks

[Stephen Spiteri]

Recommended reading: "Once Saved, Always Saved?" by Jason Evert, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp

[Michael Canaris]

Two homilies whose doctrine I find godly and wholesome (http://acl.asn.au/the-thirty-nine-articles/) on this question (amongst other related ones) can be found respectively here (http://allsaintsgreenville.org/Faith/Homilies/Book1Homily3.dsp) and here (http://allsaintsgreenville.org/Faith/Homilies/Book2Homily4.dsp).

Regards,
Michael Canaris (http://canaris1.wordpress.com/).

[New Jack Swinger]

Recommended reading: "Once Saved, Always Saved?" by Jason Evert, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp

Great article!

[Stephen Spiteri]

I'll post this in the Blog section, but the "once saved, always saved" issue is also related to the Sola Fide ("faith alone") teaching that Protestants adherent to the doctrines of Luther believe in.

http://thespiritmagnus.blogspot.com/2009/08/sola-fide-bible-says-otherwise-so-why.html

[DavidObeid]

Two homilies whose doctrine I find godly and wholesome (http://acl.asn.au/the-thirty-nine-articles/) on this question (amongst other related ones) can be found respectively here (http://allsaintsgreenville.org/Faith/Homilies/Book1Homily3.dsp) and here (http://allsaintsgreenville.org/Faith/Homilies/Book2Homily4.dsp).

Regards,
Michael Canaris (http://canaris1.wordpress.com/).

Hi Michael,

I don't see why you link to the 39 Articles with the words "godly and wholesome". Would you like to start a new thread to discuss some of these?

[Michael Canaris]

I don't see why you link to the 39 Articles with the words "godly and wholesome".
Due to finding those aforesaid texts (which stand germane to this thread as an instance (fairly representative, for what it's worth) of what my magisterial reformers actually said in contradistinction to caricatures thereof) commended as such therein.


Would you like to start a new thread to discuss some of these?
When I get time, perhaps. Still, everything in its season...

[DavidObeid]

Due to finding those aforesaid texts (which stand germane to this thread as an instance (fairly representative, for what it's worth) of what my magisterial reformers actually said in contradistinction to caricatures thereof) commended as such therein.


With all respect Michael, there are so many versions of evangelicalism that it is just about impossible to caricature one view without accurately presenting another one. Anyhow, I look forward to a question on this in another thread when the season is right :)

[Michael Canaris]

Likewise, there are diverse phenomena purporting to come under your church's umbrella. For clarity of dialogue I surmise that in both cases sticking fairly close to representative samples may be advisable.

[DavidObeid]

Are their diverse phenomena purporting to come under the Church's umbrella on the issue of assurance of salvation? Or is that comment just a smoke screen?

[Matthew]

Likewise, there are diverse phenomena purporting to come under your church's umbrella.

It depends on what theologians call the "theological note" of a teaching. If a particular thesis is a dogma there is no variety, just correct understanding. Sometimes a particular idea may be just "the common teaching of theologians" in which case a person is not bound absolutely to accept and you will find a minority of theologians on the other side. These are issues the Church either cannot or in her wisdom has not decided to settle one way or the other.

[Michael Canaris]

Yes, consequent to divergent anthropologies (which were partly papered-over by Trent.)

[Michael Canaris]

It depends on what theologians call the "theological note" of a teaching. If a particular thesis is a dogma there is no variety, just correct understanding. Sometimes a particular idea may be just "the common teaching of theologians" in which case a person is not bound absolutely to accept and you will find a minority of theologians on the other side. These are issues the Church either cannot or in her wisdom has not decided to settle one way or the other.Something roughly analogous applies on my side of the fence.

[DavidObeid]

Something roughly analogous applies on my side of the fence.

Really? You guys have a magisterium that binds people in conscience?

[Michael Canaris]

We, like you, have formularies, polities and magistrates which correspond more to one another than either do to popular notions. Besides, plenty of people seem adept at untying Gordian Knots irrespective of where they apparently reside in the religious spectrum.

[Matthew]

Something roughly analogous applies on my side of the fence.

Nice. What paddock are you in?