Apologetics for the Masses #464 - OSAS Protestants Contradicting Each Other on YouTube

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Two Once Saved Always Saved Protestants Contradict Each Other; Yet, Somehow Still Agree?

General Comments

Hey folks,

If you might be interested in watching, here's the EWTN Bookmark I did with Doug Keck for A Blue Collar Answer to Protestantism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-ehaJQOMnA

And, here's the EWTN Live episode I did with Fr. Mitch Pacwa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7k8NW-9amw

Introduction

Okay, last newsletter I told you I would give you an example of how Protestants insert their private, fallible opinions into Scripture, also known as "eisegesis". In particular, I mentioned a couple of dialogues that I was having with Protestants who, while contradicting themselves in regard to their interpretations of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, nevertheless still end up with the same conclusion - the Prodigal Son definitely teaches Once Saved Always Saved (according to them). Well, actually, it was separate dialogues with 3 different Protestants and the internal contradictions of their scriptural interpretations. Yet, even though they interpret the same passages of Scripture in completely opposite ways, they still use those Scripture passages to arrive at the same conclusion - Once Saved Always Saved is true. It's very revealing.

Here's the background: There's a guy on YouTube who calls himself "thedreadedfreegracer". (The "dreaded" part of it comes from the fact that he wears his hair in dreadlocks.) Anyway, he posted this video on Once Saved Always Saved. (You can view that video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzNCOQH4NtQ.)

I didn't even bother watching the video. But, in the Comments section below the video, I did ask two of my "Questions Protestants Can't Answer" from A Blue Collar Answer to Protestantism. Those two questions are:

1) Was the Prodigal Son (Luke 15) "saved" before he left his father's house at the beginning of the parable?

2) Can an unbeliever be one of the branches of the vine that is Christ (John 15:2)?

Thedreadedfreegracer answered my questions. At least, the first round of my questions. Then, a little later on in the Comments section, another guy gets into it with me. His name is Steven Wiggins. He contradicts thedreadedfreegracer (although he didn't realize he was doing so) in regard to Question #2. Then, at the very same time, in a dialogue I was having in the Comments section of one of my "Questions Protestants Can't Answer" YouTube videos (#13), with a guy who goes by "gomezjkv," he ends up contradicting thedreadedfreegracer in regard to Question #1.

So, what I'm going to do this week, is simply put the conversations out there with minimal extra commentary from me, and let you see for yourselves how these Once Saved Always Saved Protestants contradict each other regarding the interpretation of this or that Bible passage, yet still end up with the same doctrinal conclusion from those Bible passages - Once Saved Always Saved. The illogic within Protestantism really never ceases to amaze me. Also, notice how the 2nd round of questions causes them some real issues.

Maybe make note of the fact that what you will read below shows how effective these simple little questions are at wreaking havoc with Protestant theology.

(By the way, in case it isn't immediately obvious, I'm CrimsonCatholic in these dialogues.)

Challenge/Response/Strategy

In the Comments Section of @dreadedfreegracer's Once Saved Always Saved YouTube Video

CrimsonCatholic
Two questions, from Scripture, that a "Once Saved Always Saved" believer cannot answer:

1) Was the Prodigal Son (Luke 15) "saved" before he left his father's house at the beginning of the parable?

2) Can an unbeliever be one of the branches of the vine that is Christ (John 15:2)?

thedreadedfreegracer777
1) Yes, as it states the father HAD two sons. This parable actually is in favor of the fact you can never lose your salvation. Showing that even when we fall off into sin we have a faithful father waiting for us to come back home.

2) No. An unbeliever is not one of the branches. To be a branch you have to be in Christ and as it states in verse 2 - every branch IN me.

@CrimsonCatholic
dreadedfreegracer777, You are correct on both answers, but, unfortunately for you, the correct answers contradict your belief in Once Saved Always Saved.

1) The Prodigal Son was indeed saved before he left his father's house. The "father" in the story is analogous, as you pointed out, to God, the Father. So, the son was saved while in his Father's house. He was, in salvation terms, "alive" while in his father's house. But, then he took his inheritance and squandered it on sinful living. He then repented and came back to his father. The problem for your theology is found in Luke 15:24, the Prodigal Son's father says, "For this, my son, was DEAD, and is alive AGAIN." In other words, he was alive, dead, and then alive AGAIN! In salvation terms, he was saved (alive), unsaved (dead), then saved again (alive again). He was saved. He lost his salvation through sin. Then repented, turned back to the father, and was saved again. Tell me how that fits with your dogma of Once Saved Always Saved? Why did the father say his son was dead and is alive AGAIN? Why didn't the father say, "For my son was alive, and is still alive?"

2) The branches of the vine are indeed Christians. They are saved. Yet, John 15:2 says that if the branches (the saved Christians) do not produce fruit (good works), then they will be cut off from the vine, taken away, cast forth as a branch, wither, and are cast into the fire (Hell) to be burned (verse 6). Please explain how that fits with Once Saved Always Saved? How can a believer be cut off from the vine of Christ and cast into Hell if Once Saved Always Saved is true?

thedreadedfreegracer777
CrimsonCatholic, let me ask you first how is one saved and how can they know they’re saved?

Also do you not believe Jesus gives eternal life?

My Comments
Notice what he did there? He didn't answer my follow up questions. Why? Because he can't! He answered both questions correctly and, in so doing, he inadvertently contradicted his Once Saved Always Saved theology. Through two simple questions, based on Scripture, he stepped right into a big theological conundrum. His answers show that he has an illogical theological belief.

CrimsonCatholic
I am happy to answer your questions. I will answer them directly and use a good bit of Scripture in doing so. I hope after I have done so, that you will give me the same courtesy and answer my questions directly and succinctly.

1) How is one saved?
- One is saved by being holy: Heb 12:14 - "...the holiness without which no one will see the Lord".

- One is saved by keeping the Commandments: Matt 19:17 - "If you would enter life, keep the Commandments."

- One is saved through Baptism: 1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and his family being 'saved through water'], now saves you." John 3:3-5, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Titus 3:4-5 - "He saved us...by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit."

- One is saved by his works: Rom 2:6-7 - "[God] will render to every man according to his works. To those who, by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." James 2:24 - "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."

- One is saved by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus: John 6:51-58 - "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life."

- One is saved by faith: Heb 11:6 - "Without faith, it is impossible to please Him." Mark 1:15 - “Repent and believe in the gospel.”

- One is saved by doing the will of God: Matt 7:21 - "Not everyone...shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father."
A good summary of all this is found in Gal 5:6 - "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." Faith WORKING THROUGH love is of avail.

- And all by the grace of God: Eph 2:8 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith..." Titus 3:7 - "So that we might be justified by His grace..."

To sum up: One is saved by the grace of God alone. The necessary response to God's free gift of salvation, however, is a response of faith and works (Eph 2:8-10). If we do not respond to God's free gift with faith and works (all done by the grace of God), then we become as the 3rd servant in the Parable of the Talents, and God takes back what He freely gave us because we did nothing with it.

2) How can they know they're saved? 1 John 2:3 - "By this we may be sure that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." 1 John 5:12 - "He who has the Son, has life; he who has not the Son of God, has not life."

3) Do you not believe Jesus gives eternal life? Yes I do. Do you not believe the Word of God that sin has consequences?

So, those are my answers to your questions. Now, please answer my questions. We'll start with that last one:

1) Do you not believe that sin has consequences for someone's eternal destiny?

2) The Parable of the Prodigal Son: Tell me how that fits with your dogma of Once Saved Always Saved? Why did the father say his son was dead and is alive AGAIN? Why didn't the father say, "For my son was alive, and is still alive?"

3) John 15:1-6: Please explain how that fits with Once Saved Always Saved? How can a believer be cut off from the vine of Christ and cast into Hell if Once Saved Always Saved is true?

4) One last question for you: Is it possible for a person to think they are saved, but not really be saved?

I look forward to your response.

My Comments
Answered his questions, directly, using the Bible, and then asked my questions...again. And, guess what? 9 days later I'm still waiting for a response. Surprise, surprise!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd Conversation

sparky11976
Amen!! God didn’t make the down payment and expect us to make monthly installments. [In response to @dreadedfreegracer’s Once Saved Always Saved video.]

The Dreaded Free Gracer
Couldn’t of said it better myself! God bless!

anabanana7599
This is one of the best comments about works I ever read!

jason8445I love that! Great analogy!

My Comments
Drinks all around, boys!

CrimsonCatholic
Actually, God does expect us to provide a return on what He has freely given us. In the Parable of the Talents, the two servants enter into the joy of their Master because they provided a return on what their master had given them. The third servant did nothing with what he had been given and is called out by his lord and thrown into the outer darkness.

In John 15:1-6, the branches (Christians) of the vine (Jesus Christ) are cut off and thrown into the fire (Hell) to be burned if they do not produce good fruit.

stevenwiggins6060
@CrimsonCatholic This is not about a loss of salvation: the discarded branches were never meaningfully part of the life of the vine in the first place (John 15:1–6). As He does often in this discourse, Jesus connects obedience to love. Those who truly love and "abide in" Him will naturally adhere to His teachings.

You as a Catholic are taught works based Salvation, ignoring or not reading on your own Ephesians 2:8,9, "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast".

CrimsonCatholic
"The discarded branches were never meaningfully part of the life of the vine in the first place?" Really?! Where does it say that? Isn't that just your personal, fallible interpretation of that verse? Or, do you have an extra verse or two in your Bible that says that? Please tell me how can one be a branch of the vine (Christ) if one isn't a believer? Furthermore, Jesus says of the discarded branches, "every branch of MINE that bears no fruit" is taken away. That's referring to Christians. Besides, @dreadedfreegracer said in one of his posts that "to be a branch, you have to be in Christ". So, you obviously disagree with him on that, right?

My Comments
See how the 2 Once Saved Always Saved guys contradict each other in regard to John 15:1-6 and being a branch of the vine? Yes, the branches are Christians. No, the branches aren't Christians. See how @stevenwiggins6060 essentially adds words to that passage via his own private, fallible interpretation? This would be funny if it wasn't so spiritually debilitating for these Protestants.

CrimsonCatholic
@stevenwiggins6060, You obviously know little to nothing about the Catholic Faith. I have never been taught, nor has the Church ever taught, a "works based Salvation". If you can find anything in the official teaching of the Catholic Church (which you can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that says "salvation is based on our works," or that the Catholic Church teaches a "works based salvation," or that we "are saved by our works," I will pay you $1000! It is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that nothing we do before we receive the free gift of God's saving grace - whether faith or works - saves us.

Ephesians 2:8-9 fits perfectly with Catholic teaching. We are indeed saved by grace, through faith. Catholics agree with that passage - and every passage of Scripture - 100%! But, are you aware that Paul, who wrote Eph 2:8-9, also wrote Eph 2:10? "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Question: If we don't do the good works that God has prepared for us to walk in, are we still saved?

Question: Romans 2:6-7, says that God will render to every man according to his works, or his faith? And, that passage also says that every man "who by patience in well-doing seeks for glory and honor and immortality," God will give him...what?

My Comments|
9 days and counting...still no reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Conversation - From Questions Protestants Can't Answer #13 - Was the prodigal son saved before he left?

@gomezjkv
The prodigal son was not saved before he left his fathers house. Neither was he saved after returning to his fathers house. No one is saved because they repent from their sins. Anyone can repent from their sins… they don’t even have to believe that God exists to repent from their sins. Salvation was not available to anyone until after Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. In my opinion Jesus was teaching the Mosaic Law. The reason why I believe this is because the Mosaic covenant was the covenant that was in affect when Jesus was conducting His earthly ministry. Luke 15 is about rejoicing after finding something that was lost. The shepherd with a lost sheep, the woman with a lost coin and the father with a lost son. But the emphasis is on the rejoicing, not on how or why the “thing” was lost. The prodigal son suffered the consequences of violating the law (Deut. 28). It is the New Covenant that provides the opportunity for salvation and it is the restoration of the Holy Spirit that was lost in Adam that saves. In my opinion. God bless.

CrimsonCatholic
The father in this parable is representative of God the Father. So, what your saying is that an unbeliever can be in God the Father's house? How is that possible if they don't believe in God or they don't believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior?

@gomezjkv
Yes, that is one way to view this parable. However, consider this. Luke 15 is all about finding what was lost. The shepherd who goes out to find a lost sheep, the woman who seeks and seeks until she finds her missing coin. The parable of the prodigal was not about the New Covenant but about the Old. Jesus had not yet brought about the New which would come through His death, burial and resurrection. The world was still under the Mosaic Covenant which the scribes and Pharisees were completely devoted to. Yes, the prodigal sinned against his father but it was the other son, who represents the scribes and Pharisees, that is the subject. The other son never “sinned” against his father but his heart was far from him. All he cared about was getting blessings in his flesh for “obeying” his father. The point of Christ’s parable was to point out the hypocrisy of the religious. The parable has nothing to do with salvation. This is not about obtaining eternal life. The Mosaic Covenant says nothing about obtaining eternal life with God through keeping the commandments. Nothing that even suggests such a thing. The Pharisees would have viewed both the prodigal and his father as sinners who did not keep the law. Just as the other son condemns his father for accepting a sinner ( as Jesus received sinners) regardless of the prodigals apparent repentance. What do you think? God bless.

CrimsonCatholic
You think the parable is really all about the son who stayed with the father? What an absolutely ridiculous interpretation! Tell me, is that an infallible interpretation of the parable, or is that your private, fallible interpretation of that parable? By the way, where does the Bible say that the other son's heart was "far" from the father? Maybe your Bible has some verses in it that mine doesn't.

And, according to the Word of Gomez, "The parable has nothing to do with salvation." Really?! So, the son being "dead" and then "alive again" is talking about him being physically dead and then coming back to life...again? Or is it talking about him being spiritually dead and then being spiritually alive..."again"?

By the way, the "emphasis" in Luke 15 is indeed on rejoicing, but rejoicing over what was once yours, then was lost, then was found again. The woman had the coin...it was hers. She lost it. Then it was found again. The sheep was in the sheepfold. It was the shepherd's. Then it was lost...no longer in the sheepfold. Then it was found again and brought back into the sheepfold. The son was alive in his father's house. Then he left...he was lost. He was "dead" to the father. But then he came back and he was alive "again". Not "still alive," but alive, dead, then alive again.

Sorry, but once saved always saved is absolutely obliterated by Luke 15. And, no, Jesus is not talking about the Mosaic Law in Luke 15, He is talking about the New Covenant. He says it Himself in Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were preached until John [the Baptist], since then the good news of the Kingdom of God is preached." The Word of Gomez says Jesus was preaching about the Mosaic Law. The Word of God says Jesus was preaching about the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Which should I believe, the Word of Gomez, or the Word of God? Which are you going to believe? So, again, sorry, but your interpretation fails given what the Scriptures actually say.

My Comments
First, see how he contradicts thedreadedfreegracer in regard to the Prodigal Son being saved/not saved when he was in his father's house at the beginning of the parable. Second, don't ever let anyone tell you that Jesus was talking about the Old Law during the 3 years of His ministry. Over and over again in the New Testament it says Jesus was preaching the Gospel, not the Law. (In fact, I think I might do the next newsletter on that very topic.)

@gomezjkv
Yes. The reason I believe that is because Jesus was addressing the Pharisees by telling this parable (Luk 15:2-3). That is who Jesus is addressing. The Pharisees would have had the same attitude toward the prodigal and his father that the other son had. I believe that his heart was far from his father because the hearts of the Pharisees was far from God. They were obedient for what God promised they would receive for keeping His law, which were blessings in their flesh.

Salvation was not yet being offered to humanity at this time. Christ had to first die, be buried and then, and this is the most important part, resurrect. The people of Israel would consider someone as being dead who departed from the nation, as the prodigal did, but salvation in this context is not available. Jesus did not teach the New Covenant, He taught the Old because that was the Covenant that was in effect. I can only think of two times where Jesus makes allusions to the New and that was His conversation with Nicodemus and with the Samaritan woman at the well. Thank you for your response. God bless.

CrimsonCatholic
You are correct in that the New Covenant had not yet been instituted; however, that in no way means Jesus wasn't talking about salvation under the New Covenant, which would have been instituted not too long after He spoke those words in Luke 15. To say that only 2 instances of what Jesus said in the gospels is meant for Christians is yet another absolutely ridiculous interpretation - private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation - you are making.

And, again, Luke 16 tells us - directly - that your interpretation is indeed absolutely wrong. Luke 16:16 tells us that after John the Baptist, which would be, essentially, all of Jesus' ministry, the prophets and the law were no longer preached. That the Kingdom of God was being preached by Jesus. How do you respond to that?!

gomezjkv
I don’t need to respond to that because Jesus does in 16:17. That it’s easier for Heaven and earth to pass then for one tittle of the law to fall. Jesus taught the Mosaic Law. He could not use the New Covenant because it had not yet been established in His blood. He had to suffer die and rise again before it would be imposed.

CrimsonCatholic
In Luke 16:16, Jesus says that "the law and the prophets were until John"...the Baptist. Jesus goes on to say that "since then," since John, the "good news of the Kingdom of God" is preached. That's the Word of God.

But, what you're saying - what the Word of Gomez is saying - is that what Jesus "REALLY" said, is that the law and the prophets were still being preached, by Him, since John. In other words, Jesus contradicts what He said in verse 16, with what He said in verse 17, right?

Furthermore, when the Word of God says that Jesus went about all of Galilee preaching the "good news" and preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" - or just preaching "the gospel" - and preaching "the good news of the Kingdom of God" and preaching "the word" and preaching "the gospel of God," that all of those terms mean that He was actually just preaching the Mosaic Law, right? Is that what the Word of Gomez teaches?

My Comments
This folks is a perfect example of Protestant eisegesis. Protestants having a pre-set belief, bringing that belief to Scripture, and then twisting the Scripture to fit their belief instead of fitting their belief to Scripture. These interpretations he's coming up with are absolutely ridiculous, but, absolutely necessary in order to save his precious Protestant theology. Once again, Protestants do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Rather, they believe in Sola My Personal Fallible Interpretation of Scriptura. Make that clear to them...over and over and over again.

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter