Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Once Saved Always Saved ?


Recommended Posts

Posted

Yes, I have heard of it. It seemed to be the teaching that I heard the most out in WV. They called it "Eternal Security". And they always sited John 10:29.

 

It is essentially easy believeism. Though that was always denied. Say a prayer and you can never lose your salvation. "All you have to do is believe and accept Jesus in to your heart and you are saved".

 

One could just as easily claim Latter-day Christians prefer "difficult believism" and call it "Eternal Insecurity".  

 

When I chose to believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient for eternal life (highest and ONLY salvation), at that moment I began to think differently about doctrines I had been taught as truth as a Latter-day Saint Christian. I recall so many arguments with the OSAS crowd while out on splits and thinking and saying the same things noted here, but when you are born again you think differently because you have eternal life within you.

 

Those who have been born again cannot be un-born friends, and there IS a logical, rational explanation for every verse presented here. 

Posted

Basically...

In Restoration (Mormon) teaching there are 3 "Levels" of the Kingdom of God. All whom Jesus created will be saved from spiritual death into one of the three levels, except those who have tasted personally of the glory of God and than denied it. Those in the "bottom" two "levels" are saved, but don't receive of a fullness of all that the Father has awaiting the righteous. Those in the highest "level" (or Celestial Kingdom) are exalted- meaning they inherit all the blessings of the Father and progress further in their light and knowledge.

 

If you haven't already, might consider reading Elder Dallin H. Oaks "Have You Been Saved?" (Ensign, May 1998)...

Posted

Basically...

In Restoration (Mormon) teaching there are 3 "Levels" of the Kingdom of God. All whom Jesus created will be saved from spiritual death into one of the three levels, except those who have tasted personally of the glory of God and than denied it. Those in the "bottom" two "levels" are saved, but don't receive of a fullness of all that the Father has awaiting the righteous. Those in the highest "level" (or Celestial Kingdom) are exalted- meaning they inherit all the blessings of the Father and progress further in their light and knowledge.

Thank you. :)

Posted (edited)

Trusting that the chair will hold you so that you sit in it, is the type of faith that the Bible uses.

So the chair is to Christ as sitting is to trusting alone in what he did to save you?

Edited by Sp0ckrates
Posted (edited)

    FormerLDS welcome back !, I am a former Methodist/ Fundamentalist Independant Baptist now Orthodox LDS. FIB Churches Doctrine on Eternal Security do not go back to True O.T/ N.T/ post True Biblical and Orthodox Salvation/Soteriological Doctrine from our Lights. Thank you for sharing,

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7.

Edited by Anakin7
Posted
Not that our ancient friends have never been wrong (world is flat, sun revolves around earth, etc), but I too connect "believe" with true obedience, and I am not a FIB, so cannot speak for them.

 

Consider Roman 4:5  "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

 

Interesting how works are diametrically opposed of belief and faith...  (verse 2 seems to have interesting implications for the ever-popular James 2 "works" argument as well)

Posted

If you haven't already, might consider reading Elder Dallin H. Oaks "Have You Been Saved?" (Ensign, May 1998)...

Why should I consider reading it? What are the points you believe are relevant in my case?

Posted

Yes, you are still "saved", as all are "saved":

 

 

Will you be exalted? Not likely.

 

Not "saved" as is meant by the protestants who espouse OSAS.

Posted

    Former thank you for your reply, yes at times they got temporal ideas wrong but those who heard it directly or from someone 1 step from someone who knew an Apostle of Jesus the chances are the doctrine is correct. Were you ever FIB ?. What denomination do you worship now ?. Thank you.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

Posted

Not "saved" as is meant by the protestants who espouse OSAS.

It is important that we are clear on definitions.

Posted

So the chair is to Christ as sitting is to trusting alone in what he did to save you?

 

Yes. When it says, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It means you trust him completely. Not yourself, not the church, not anyone else. You trust in him alone for your salvation. 

Posted (edited)

    See link to my post # 32 in regards to Believing in Jesus Christ to Be Saved.

 

    In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                 Anakin7

Edited by Anakin7
Posted (edited)

No, it doesn't.

 

Let's say I am totally and wonderfully converted.  I am saved.  Several years later, I fall away and decide to rob banks.

 

Am I still saved?  After all, I was saved once.....so, if OSAS, then I can rob banks without any worries because I was saved once......

 

In that case, the once saved always saved crowd will say that you weren't "really saved" to begin with.

 

There may be some truth to that ... if you think about it.

 

 

By the way, one of the best Bible teachers around from the Evangelical perspective is John MacArthur.  (I know I'm Mormon, but I live in Texas ... so that's all I've got.  Obviously we have our disagreements, but I agree with him 85% of the time.)

 

Here is his view on "election".

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-273/The-Doctrine-of-Election-Part-1

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-273/The-Doctrine-of-Election-Part-1

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-274/The-Doctrine-of-Election-Part-2

 

 

Obviously, if he believed the idea of a pre-mortal existence, he would be a lot better off in trying to explain things.

 

-Stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
Posted

 

Not that our ancient friends have never been wrong (world is flat, sun revolves around earth, etc), but I too connect "believe" with true obedience, and I am not a FIB, so cannot speak for them.
 
Consider Roman 4:5  "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
 
Interesting how works are diametrically opposed of belief and faith...  (verse 2 seems to have interesting implications for the ever-popular James 2 "works" argument as well)

 

 

It isn't that simple when it comes to Romans 4:5.  The "works" being referred to are the "works of the Law" (ie the Law of Moses).  The question was, what about non-Jews, who were not under the law of Moses (ie, not circumcised) ... can they be saved outside the Law?  Yes.

 

Abraham was not under the law of Moses, yet Abraham exercised great faith in God.  IF God had commanded Abraham to live a certain law, Abraham would have done it.  Even when asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, he would have done it.  So, Abraham did not actually have to perform those works, or obey the law of Moses, but still Abraham was counted as righteous due to his true and obedient faith. 

 

Likewise, in the context of Paul, there were many non-Jews and the question was, do they have to live the law of Moses in order to be justified?  Answer: No.  They will be justified by the true faith, which leads to obedience, in the things that God asks them to do.

 

-Stephen

Posted

It is a cross between gnosticism (know the prayer and be saved) and sorcery (say the magic incantation and achieve immortality). We have come full circle.

Yea, cheap grace.  All you have to do is "blab it, and grab it," or "name it, and claim it."  The Epistle of James is written specifically to deal with that nonsense.

Posted

Here are Joseph Smith's words on the matter: 

 

Here is the doctrin of Election that the world have quarreled so much about, but they do not know any thing about it, The doctin that the Pryspeterians & Methodist have quarreled so much about once in grace always in grace, or falling away from grace I will say a word about, they are both wrong, truth takes a road between them both. for while the Presbyterian says once in grace you cannot fall the Methodist says you can have grace to day, fall from it to morrow, next day have grace again & so follow it, but the doctrin of the scriptures & the spirit of Elijah would show them both fals & take a road between them both for according to the scriptures if a man has received the good word of God & tasted of the powers of the world to come if they shall fall away it is impossible to renew them again, seeing they have Crucified the son of God afresh & put him to an open frame shame, so their is a possibility of falling away you could not be renewed again, & the power of Elijah Cannot seal against this sin, for this is a reserve made in the seals & power of the priesthood. (Wilford Woodruff Diary, 10 March 1844, Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, spelling and punctuation in the original) 

Posted

In that case, the once saved always saved crowd will say that you weren't "really saved" to begin with.

 

Yes...they do.  Because to say otherwise destroys their point.  But who are they to judge?  Saved is saved.  The fact you fell away does not mean you were never "saved".

 

There may be some truth to that ... if you think about it.

 

I disagree.  To agree means that once you are saved, you lose agency.

 

 

By the way, one of the best Bible teachers around from the Evangelical perspective is John MacArthur.  (I know I'm Mormon, but I live in Texas ... so that's all I've got.  Obviously we have our disagreements, but I agree with him 85% of the time.)

 

I am Mormon.  I also live in Texas.

 

 

 

 

Posted

One could just as easily claim Latter-day Christians prefer "difficult believism" and call it "Eternal Insecurity".  

Go a head this is called a straw man.

 

Eternal security is something that some Christens belief in. And easy believism is not my words. That came about from talking to other Christians that claims that Eternal Security is easy believism. I just happen to use it because I think it fits in some cases.

Posted

 

I didn't say any different, thus I put "similar"...

But it does appear to teach that upon reaching some level you can pretty much do everything except murder and you will inherit all blessings of the Celestial order.

Maybe Rock and Connie fall in that category? ;) (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Even though it is in our scriptures, we don't believe it as a church and I'm glad about that. The problem with teaching "once saved (via temple sealing to spouse) you are always saved", is it puts the individual in a position to save themselves through their works and thus have no further need for the Savior. If you DO certain things you will be saved. This is a problem that exists in D&C 132 (among many others) but also contributes to the confusion about the balance between Faith and Works.

Posted

Even though it is in our scriptures, we don't believe it as a church and I'm glad about that. The problem with teaching "once saved (via temple sealing to spouse) you are always saved", is it puts the individual in a position to save themselves through their works and thus have no further need for the Savior. If you DO certain things you will be saved. This is a problem that exists in D&C 132 (among many others) but also contributes to the confusion about the balance between Faith and Works.

 

Ok

1. We DO believe it as a Church - D&C 132 is canon.

2. It is not "once saved via temple sealing".  That verse refers to a much higher level than every sealed couple, it refers to a couple who have received their higher ordinances.

3. It is not referring to salvation but to exaltation.  Salvation is given through the Savior to all who accept him as Lord and exercise faith in him.  Exaltation is one of the potential conditions of those who received salvation and is directly related to choices made here, as is a lack of exaltation.

Posted

Ok

1. We DO believe it as a Church - D&C 132 is canon.

2. It is not "once saved via temple sealing".  That verse refers to a much higher level than every sealed couple, it refers to a couple who have received their higher ordinances.

3. It is not referring to salvation but to exaltation.  Salvation is given through the Savior to all who accept him as Lord and exercise faith in him.  Exaltation is one of the potential conditions of those who received salvation and is directly related to choices made here, as is a lack of exaltation.

You're assuming it refers to higher ordinances, eg the second annointing, but that's not what it says.

 

Yes, exaltation is a step beyond salvation which makes the D&C 132 statement even more troubling.

Posted

    Former thank you for your reply, yes at times they got temporal ideas wrong but those who heard it directly or from someone 1 step from someone who knew an Apostle of Jesus the chances are the doctrine is correct. Were you ever FIB ?. What denomination do you worship now ?. Thank you.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

 

I attend a Baptist Church, but am not Fundamental.  Not that I disagree with their doctrine, motives, gospel, etc.  Just personal preference and convictions.  :)

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...