The doctrine of “once saved always saved” has to be reconsidered or at least discussed. I know that this person was RC priest so you can argue that he was never saved. But suppose, this person was a Christian that professed to be saved by Christ and born again in the spirit. This type of act of free will would appear to contradict this later action.
I pray that this person would come to their senses.
The priest who abandoned Jesus is already dead; he knows the truth now...
I pray that this person would come to their senses.
There is but ONE God. . .He evidently didn’t believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Doesn’t apply here. This man turned his back on God and has chosen to worship Satan’s spawn. He has offended the Holy Spirit and has commuted the unpardonable sin
You can be a Christian, but not consecrated. They are otherwise known as CINO’s.
Not at all. Clearly this former 'priest' never actually was a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul warned of wolves being amongst the flock, and John warned of Christ deniers who would depart. This is no surprise. This fellow knows better now, but it is too late. There is now an impassible gulf between his current abode and Heaven.
1 John 2:18-19
[18] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
[19] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. …
(1) Roman Catholic
(2) Christ-professing non-Catholic
then implying that either could reject his/her profession.
First, the RCC dogma believes that one can receive salvation by baptism as an infant. No "free will" in that, is there? Furthermore, the RCC plan is to gain assent from the child's developing mind to further instruction, which supposedly secures the validity of the dogma. For most of these brainwashed children, it is impossible for them ever to consider that this process is invalid. Therefore they block out the gospel of abandoning their inherently sinful life by hearing and following the plan offered in the Bible. Their maintenance of security depends on obeying the rules of their religion, otherwise the endgame of reaching Heaven after physical death will not be realized. Consequentially, that person is never really saved, and is open to Satanic influence when he/she really looks at their religion closely with an open (but sinful) mind. And that's what happened to the writer of this article, if it is not just the figment of a troll's imagination. He allowed the appeal of Satan's Mohammedanism as compared to his Catholicism to break his Catechistic construct into pieces.
On the other hand, you propose that your reader suppose that the author was a professor of the Biblical doctrine of "being saved by Christ and born again in the spirit," an act of free will. FRiend, nowhere in the text of this article does the author claim having ever held that position. Nonetheless, it is possible for one to be led into making that kind of profession, yet actually never having possessed The God's free gift of salvation based on the exercise of one's free will in accepting the true Scriptural Gospel, and thus experiencing Spiritual rebirth into a new life, one of persistent, irreversible trust in the Person, Work, Word, and shed blood of the Biblical Jesus of Nazareth.
One outstanding modern example of such vulnerability is that of Charles Templeton (click here), the Canadian evangelist who introduced Billy Graham to the concept of mass evangelism. He blossomed as a "professor," engaged in theological studies and through them became an agnostic (definition = "I do not know"ism), and finally became an open atheistic rejector of The God and all His Bible stands for. Personally, I have seen just too many products of the Templeton/Graham/Bright methodology of evangelistic campaigns to have any confidence in the eternal value of that system. Actually, there is no real scriptural warrant for it.
And, yes, the person who wrote the above article, though having Romanist credentials, could never by Scriptural standards have possessed the salvation of God, nor the power of the Indwelling Spirit of Christ which He only gives the regenerated believer-disciple-priest and Friend of The Christ the ability to resist and overcome the advances of the Wicked One, with the sure certainty of Absolute Everlasting Life with Him.
And finally, the modern non-Catholic denominations, by virtue of their departure from the Gospel of Christ and endorsement of the "social gospel" (and its toleration of other religious systems), whilst still clinging to shreds of Catholic doctrines not shed in the Reformation, are still wide open to the venom of Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Africanistic blending, and all such crippling philosophies that will eventually destroy the Constitutional Government paradigm built by the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence and ratified the Constitution of the United States of America.
And "praying that this person" would reverse? Well, he's dead, so that effort will not be fruitful; but pray for others and be an open witness to the Christ of the Bible, personally recruiting disciples and leading them into spiritual life?
Yes!
My answer to this question, which in various forms, comes up from time to time, is that the person was NEVER saved in the first place. A REAL Christian would not do this, but if they did, and then repented, they could have been saved all along. An action like this, without repentance, is a clear indication that such a person was never saved in the first place. Only God knows for sure.
There is a special hell or special place in hell for guys like this. Deliberately misleading (teaching) people with blasphemy from a position of spiritual authority.
He may come to his senses, but he cannot leave Islam. It is not permitted.