Once saved always saved?

[Iosias]

Chapter XVII

Of the Perseverance of the Saints

I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]


[1] PHI 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: fo

 

[Simon_Templar]

There are a couple of versions of OSAS, and some are worse than others, but all are false and contradict scripture.

*not my intention to rile people up, but the above is my honest opinion*

 

[Miss Shelby]

Arguing with OSAS adherents is pointless because they simply dismiss the passages refuting it as not pertaining to salvation. They won't accept reality, what can you do?

 

[Lisa0315]

Hold on Miss Shelby...I am OSAS, and I can give you Scripture as to why. However, I prefer to show OSAS when compared to Catholic doctrine...

Catholics see salvation as a journey in which at the end of that journey one is saved.

OSAS believers simply have faith that when the journey is completed, God will finish the work that He has begun in us. We do not believe that God can fail at a task that He has begun.

Taken in that context, do you understand now how OSAS is sound doctrine?

Lisa

 

[Miss Shelby]

I don't see it as sound doctrine because you place all emphasis on God's sovriegnity and ignore that He himself gives humans a responsibility. These are two parallels that carry divine truth. Yes, God has an elect he will bring each one to full glory, BUT it's clear that there are believers who fell away and insodoing placed salvation in great peril. And when the Lord speaks of the dangers of falling away, he does not mince words. He wouldn't use such strong terminology if there wasn't a great deal at stake. What do you make of those passages? Wait, don't tell me, they don't pertain to the believer, right?

 

[Lisa0315]

I don't see it as sound doctrine because you place all emphasis on God's sovriegnity and ignore that He himself gives humans a responsibility. These are two parallels that carry divine truth. Yes, God has an elect he will bring each one to full glory, BUT it's clear that there are believers who fell away and insodoing placed salvation in great peril. And when the Lord speaks of the dangers of falling away, he does not mince words. He wouldn't use such strong terminology if there wasn't a great deal at stake. What do you make of those passages? Wait, don't tell me, they don't pertain to the believer, right?

No, but as one who fell away for 23 years, I do believe in God's purpose of bringing that believer back in line with His will.

While you may think that OSAS puts too much emphasis on God's Sovereignty, I think that believing one can lose their salvation is placing too much emphasis on the works of man. Man does nothing to earn salvation so how can he do anything to lose it?

Lisa

 

[Miss Shelby]

No, but as one who fell away for 23 years, I do believe in God's purpose of bringing that believer back in line with His will.

While you may think that OSAS puts too much emphasis on God's Sovereignty, I think that believing one can lose their salvation is placing too much emphasis on the works of man. Man does nothing to earn salvation so how can he do anything to lose it?

Lisa

Why would the Lord waste his breath and the breath of his apostles by giving such stern warnings as perservere to the end, dead branches will be cut off and thrown into the fire, buffet their bodies lest after they've preached to others they fall themselves? Why on earth would he describe a believers faith as a 'shipwreck' after they have tossed away God's gift? What is it? Is it faith, or is it a shipwreck? Can it be both?

No, we cannot lose our salvation as long as we're cooperating with God's grace, but we can forsake it. It's all over in the Bible. If he's not referring to believers, who on earth is he referring to?

 

[Lisa0315]

Why would the Lord waste his breath and the breath of his apostles by giving such stern warnings as perservere to the end, dead branches will be cut off and thrown into the fire, buffet their bodies lest after they've preached to others they fall themselves? Why on earth would he describe a believers faith as a 'shipwreck' after they have tossed away God's gift? What is it? Is it faith, or is it a shipwreck? Can it be both?

No, we cannot lose our salvation as long as we're cooperating with God's grace, but we can forsake it. It's all over in the Bible. If he's not referring to believers, who on earth is he referring to?

I don't know. I will have to admit that this is a belief governed mostly by being "taught" this way. It is also based on my own experience.

It just seems to me that if one is saved, then, there is just something on the inside that cannot be tossed aside, at least not unto death.

Lisa

 

[Simon_Templar]

Hold on Miss Shelby...I am OSAS, and I can give you Scripture as to why. However, I prefer to show OSAS when compared to Catholic doctrine...

Catholics see salvation as a journey in which at the end of that journey one is saved.

OSAS believers simply have faith that when the journey is completed, God will finish the work that He has begun in us. We do not believe that God can fail at a task that He has begun.

Taken in that context, do you understand now how OSAS is sound doctrine?

Lisa

the problem is not that I don't understand OSAS, the problem is I disagree with it.

it relies upon a subtly twisted view of our relationship with God, as well as a incomplete understanding of sin and redemption.

Logically a calvinist predistination view will hold up as reasonably internally consistant.
OSAS appart from calvinism is a logical mess.

For example, you say that OSAS is based on the idea that God will not fail, can not fail.
If this is true then you must necessarily admit one of the following

#1 All people are saved
#2 God does not desire to save all people

Because, IF God desires to save all people, and he can not fail, then all people must be saved.
If all people are not saved, then either God has failed, or God did not desire to save them in the first place.

Therefore, in order to believe this doctrine, if you are not a universalist, you must begin from the assumption that God does not desire to save all people.

The problem here is that this view relies on a false dichotemy. If we persist in faith, or if we reject faith is not dependant upon God's success or failure because of the fact that he has enabled us to choose. The very fact that we are created in his image and likeness requires us to be creatures which have will.

If you are going to believe that God does not desire the salvation of all people, then you have to explain away not only the multiple passages in scripture which explicitly speak about the danger of losing salvation, but also the scriptures which speak of God's desire to save all people, and his love of all people, and the purpose of Christ sacrifice being for all people.
Then you must construct an image of God who purposely makes people for no other purpose than to destroy them and try to construe that as love, and try to reconcile that image of God with the image of God presented by scripture.

Now, any good calvinist would know that all people have sinned and therefore are deserving of judgement, thus God's mercy that any are saved, and any who aren't simply are getting what they deserve.

Yet, at this point you run into the problem that moral culpability requires choice. There can be no moral culpability if there is no choice. God could destroy the righteous without blame if he so desired because everything belongs to him and he has total rights over it. Just as I would over my property, and especially anything I make myself.
Yet no one can justly be called a sinner, or wicked, or justly condemned by law if they had no choice in their actions.
There is often an attempt to create a sort of half and half situation where people have a choice to do evil, but no choice to do good. This is, in the first place, inaccurate to scripture, and in the second place empty semantics.
Scripture states that it is impossible to please God without faith, and anything that is not of faith is sin. Thus if a person can not have faith, they are automatically sinning. Thus disallowing someone faith is the same as forcing them to sin.
Such a person can not be blamed for being a sinner. Certainly they could be punnished, and destroyed by God as he has the right to do such to anyone simply because they are his property.
Yet, to force someone to sin, to utterly compell them and then to turn and then to condemn them for it would be like a child playing with his GI JOES making the toy do something, then saying "How dare you, you villain!"
Would the child have the right to do this? certainly. Does that fit with the image that scripture presents us of God? or justice?

 

[Lisa0315]

the problem is not that I don't understand OSAS, the problem is I disagree with it.

it relies upon a subtly twisted view of our relationship with God, as well as a incomplete understanding of sin and redemption.

Logically a calvinist predistination view will hold up as reasonably internally consistant.
OSAS appart from calvinism is a logical mess.

For example, you say that OSAS is based on the idea that God will not fail, can not fail.
If this is true then you must necessarily admit one of the following

#1 All people are saved
#2 God does not desire to save all people

Because, IF God desires to save all people, and he can not fail, then all people must be saved.
If all people are not saved, then either God has failed, or God did not desire to save them in the first place.

Therefore, in order to believe this doctrine, if you are not a universalist, you must begin from the assumption that God does not desire to save all people.

The problem here is that this view relies on a false dichotemy. If we persist in faith, or if we reject faith is not dependant upon God's success or failure because of the fact that he has enabled us to choose. The very fact that we are created in his image and likeness requires us to be creatures which have will.

If you are going to believe that God does not desire the salvation of all people, then you have to explain away not only the multiple passages in scripture which explicitly speak about the danger of losing salvation, but also the scriptures which speak of God's desire to save all people, and his love of all people, and the purpose of Christ sacrifice being for all people.
Then you must construct an image of God who purposely makes people for no other purpose than to destroy them and try to construe that as love, and try to reconcile that image of God with the image of God presented by scripture.

Now, any good calvinist would know that all people have sinned and therefore are deserving of judgement, thus God's mercy that any are saved, and any who aren't simply are getting what they deserve.

Yet, at this point you run into the problem that moral culpability requires choice. There can be no moral culpability if there is no choice. God could destroy the righteous without blame if he so desired because everything belongs to him and he has total rights over it. Just as I would over my property, and especially anything I make myself.
Yet no one can justly be called a sinner, or wicked, or justly condemned by law if they had no choice in their actions.
There is often an attempt to create a sort of half and half situation where people have a choice to do evil, but no choice to do good. This is, in the first place, inaccurate to scripture, and in the second place empty semantics.
Scripture states that it is impossible to please God without faith, and anything that is not of faith is sin. Thus if a person can not have faith, they are automatically sinning. Thus disallowing someone faith is the same as forcing them to sin.
Such a person can not be blamed for being a sinner. Certainly they could be punnished, and destroyed by God as he has the right to do such to anyone simply because they are his property.
Yet, to force someone to sin, to utterly compell them and then to turn and then to condemn them for it would be like a child playing with his GI JOES making the toy do something, then saying "How dare you, you villain!"
Would the child have the right to do this? certainly. Does that fit with the image that scripture presents us of God? or justice?

Can you give me an example of one person who was on fire for God, who fell away, and never returned? If you can, then, my answer would be that he was never saved to begin with.

I think the fundamental problem is that OSAS believe salvation occurs in a moment whereas, Catholics believe that it is a journey.

Lisa

 

[Miss Shelby]

Did Judas return? Did the shallow soiled believers return? Did the believers who made a shipwreck of their faith return? What about the man whom Jesus loved who walked away from Jesus in Mark, when Jesus asked him to give up everything and follow him? Did he return? These people left and there isn't an account that any of them returned.

The Church teaches it's a journey because that's what it is. Paul describes salvation in the past present and future. The NT is written in the present tense because faith is to remain in the present tense.

 

[Lisa0315]

Did Judas return? Did the shallow soiled believers return? Did the believers who made a shipwreck of their faith return? What about the man whom Jesus loved who walked away from Jesus in Mark, when Jesus asked him to give up everything and follow him? Did he return? These people left and there isn't an account that any of them returned.

There is no proof that they were ever saved either.

Judas was a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Shallow Soil means that the gospel was taught and received, but it did not take root.
I am not familiar with the Shipwrecked believers. Give me some scripture on that one.
The rich man was never saved because he did not give up everything to follow Christ.

Not all that hear the gospel are saved. Not all that follow Christ for a time are saved. Those that ARE saved will endure until the end. They may fall away for a time, but they will return. Even Peter fell away for a brief time, but was immediately convicted of it.

I tell people that I do not know if I was saved at age five or not. I know that I am now, and I do have eternal assurance. There is nothing that can remove me from my Father's hands, no more than anything I can do puts me in His hands to begin with.

Even Catholic doctrine states that grace must abound in order for faith to generate, correct? Where there is grace, it is abundant. It has no end. If I have the faith of a grain of mustard, then, I will have grace abundant.

Lisa

 

[Miss Shelby]

There is no proof that they were ever saved either.

the believers that made a shipwreck of their faith? Why was it called faith if in fact, it wasn't faith? 1 Timothy 1:19.

No one is saved until they get to heaven. But these people WERE believers. The shallow soiled believers believed for a time.

By every indication, Judas was a follower of Christ. The seeds of doubt may have been sown in his mind, and he fell away.

We cannot judge whether or not people are 'saved'-- that's an end result we won't know til we get to heaven. But we can look at their behaviors and get an indication.

 

[Simon_Templar]

There is no proof that they were ever saved either.

Judas was a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Shallow Soil means that the gospel was taught and received, but it did not take root.
I am not familiar with the Shipwrecked believers. Give me some scripture on that one.
The rich man was never saved because he did not give up everything to follow Christ.

Not all that hear the gospel are saved. Not all that follow Christ for a time are saved. Those that ARE saved will endure until the end. They may fall away for a time, but they will return. Even Peter fell away for a brief time, but was immediately convicted of it.

I tell people that I do not know if I was saved at age five or not. I know that I am now, and I do have eternal assurance. There is nothing that can remove me from my Father's hands, no more than anything I can do puts me in His hands to begin with.

Even Catholic doctrine states that grace must abound in order for faith to generate, correct? Where there is grace, it is abundant. It has no end. If I have the faith of a grain of mustard, then, I will have grace abundant.

Lisa

The parable of the sower, is in my opinion, a fairly obvious example, but it is also an example of how people read their view into scripture.

When Jesus explains the parable he says that the word is received with joy by those who are represented by the rocky soil, but the word doesn't take root in them, so when trials come, they quickly fall away.
You argue that because the word did not take root, they were never saved. I would say that because they received the word, and because Jesus said they fell away, they were. You can't fall away from something you never were.
Even beyond that, however, the next group of people, receive the word, and it takes root, but it is gradually strangled out by the weeds and thorns and so it does not bear fruit.
So, if you want to argue that these people were never saved, you must then argue that only those who bear fruit are in fact saved.
the problem is that bearing fruit comes at the end, not the beginning. If no one is saved until they bear fruit, then salvation does not begin when a person makes a decision for christ, or at baptism, etc, but rather only when they have yielded fruit.

If you insist on believing that salvation is a single moment in time, the only possible conclusion from scripture is that no one is saved until they bear fruit.

I would argue that salvation biblically is a moment in time, and it is a process, and it is a moment in the future as well.

This is how scripture represents salvation, it is in three tenses, past, present and future.. you have been saved, you are being saved, and you will be saved. These three correspond to the three parts of the human being.. the spirit, soul and body.

The spirit is saved when a person is born again. The soul is in an ongoing process of being saved. The body will only be saved when it is finally resurrected in glory.

this is why scripture makes it clear that those who call upon the name of the Lord ARE saved before they ever bear fruit. HOWEVER, it also makes clear that those who do not persevere to the end, and who do not bear fruit, will not be saved in the end.
This is why people's names can be blotted out of the book of life.

 

[Lisa0315]

The parable of the sower, is in my opinion, a fairly obvious example, but it is also an example of how people read their view into scripture.

When Jesus explains the parable he says that the word is received with joy by those who are represented by the rocky soil, but the word doesn't take root in them, so when trials come, they quickly fall away.
You argue that because the word did not take root, they were never saved. I would say that because they received the word, and because Jesus said they fell away, they were. You can't fall away from something you never were.
Even beyond that, however, the next group of people, receive the word, and it takes root, but it is gradually strangled out by the weeds and thorns and so it does not bear fruit.
So, if you want to argue that these people were never saved, you must then argue that only those who bear fruit are in fact saved.
the problem is that bearing fruit comes at the end, not the beginning. If no one is saved until they bear fruit, then salvation does not begin when a person makes a decision for christ, or at baptism, etc, but rather only when they have yielded fruit.

If you insist on believing that salvation is a single moment in time, the only possible conclusion from scripture is that no one is saved until they bear fruit.

I would argue that salvation biblically is a moment in time, and it is a process, and it is a moment in the future as well.

This is how scripture represents salvation, it is in three tenses, past, present and future.. you have been saved, you are being saved, and you will be saved. These three correspond to the three parts of the human being.. the spirit, soul and body.

The spirit is saved when a person is born again. The soul is in an ongoing process of being saved. The body will only be saved when it is finally resurrected in glory.

this is why scripture makes it clear that those who call upon the name of the Lord ARE saved before they ever bear fruit. HOWEVER, it also makes clear that those who do not persevere to the end, and who do not bear fruit, will not be saved in the end.
This is why people's names can be blotted out of the book of life.

Well, I will admit again that my belief is based on lifelong teaching and my own personal experience.

Here is the thing: From age 13 to March 15, 2004, there was not a day that went by when the Lord was not calling me back. I even felt under a "curse" so to speak. I did not believe that this was because I was unsaved, but rather because I was! God chastises those who belong to Him. If we belong to Him, we cannot unbelong.

Again, how do you see salvation as something that we can undo if we have no power of ourselves to be saved to begin with?

Lisa

 

[Ariela]

Believing you are saved and you cannot reject it, so that does this mean as you're shooting up the bank with an Ak-47 shouting "hallelujah to God!" you will be saved? Give me a break. That is sin, and sin unrepented of means you are NOT saved. Repentence is not works, by the way.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Well, I will admit again that my belief is based on lifelong teaching and my own personal experience.

Here is the thing: From age 13 to March 15, 2004, there was not a day that went by when the Lord was not calling me back. I even felt under a "curse" so to speak. I did not believe that this was because I was unsaved, but rather because I was! God chastises those who belong to Him. If we belong to Him, we cannot unbelong.

Again, how do you see salvation as something that we can undo if we have no power of ourselves to be saved to begin with?

Lisa

When Adam was created, he lived in fellowship with God. God was the source, and Adam the partaker. God was his source of life, of virtue, goodness, knowledge, character, everything.

We, being the image and likeness of God have a limited capability to exist on our own, apart from God, to will on our own apart from God, to know on our own apart from God.
That is what Adam and Eve chose which constituted their fall. They chose to be apart from God.

In so doing they were cut off from the source of life, goodness, virtue etc.

We have shadows of those things because we are the image and likeness of God. Yet we in our unregenerate state can draw only on what we have within ourselves because we are cut off from the source, God.

In the west we have primarily focused on the attonement as "legal justification" or "penal substitution". The idea there is that because we broke the law, we are all under sentence of death. Thats true.

However, the fact is that law came long after sin and death already existed. We are under sentence of death, but we are also, already dead. Adam and Eve died the day they sinned, and we their descendants have been born in death ever since.

So the attonement Jesus accomplished must not only satisfy the law and its penalty on our behalf, which it does. It must also make a way for us to be reconnected to God as the source so that we, once again, can partake of his life, his goodness etc.

This idea is captured very well in a fancy theological doctrine called "recapitulation". CS Lewis summed it up pretty well in the chronicles of Narnia when he said that "death began working backwards".
Jesus Christ, is in essense, a reversal of the fall and all of its results. All who are in him are being transformed back to what God intended us to be. That process will be complete when we are resurrected in glory and revealed as the sons of God (see romans chapter 8).

We, through Christ, are no longer subject to law or the penalty of law. However, long before the law, sin brought death and seperation from God. James comments on this fact in his epistle, desire gives birth to sin and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

He is writing that to believers. Un-believers are already dead in sin.

Now, I agree that God pursues people. He has been refered to as the hound of heaven because of that fact.
Some would argue that if a believer falls away they can never come back, and many would paint a picture in which it is very easy to fall away. I don't think either of those are true.

In one sense it is easy to fall away, in another it isn't. Sin hardens the heart, and deception draws us away, so if we are not careful, those things can cause us to drift away as Paul says in hebrews. However, God doesn't just give up on people. As Jesus said in the parable of the sheep, the shephard leaves the flock and goes out hunting for the one that wandered off.

the New Testament is full of warnings to avoid falling away, drifting away, departing from the faith, being deceived, making a shipwreck of your faith etc.. any teaching that teaches people to essentially ignore those warnings or rationalizes them away is unwise.

 

[Iosias]

When are we saved? This is the issue and I believe that the Scriptural answer is that the elect are saved from before the foundation of the world. Hence it is wrong to say that the elect are at any time unsaved as such.

 

[Lisa0315]

When Adam was created, he lived in fellowship with God. God was the source, and Adam the partaker. God was his source of life, of virtue, goodness, knowledge, character, everything.

We, being the image and likeness of God have a limited capability to exist on our own, apart from God, to will on our own apart from God, to know on our own apart from God.
That is what Adam and Eve chose which constituted their fall. They chose to be apart from God.

In so doing they were cut off from the source of life, goodness, virtue etc.

We have shadows of those things because we are the image and likeness of God. Yet we in our unregenerate state can draw only on what we have within ourselves because we are cut off from the source, God.

In the west we have primarily focused on the attonement as "legal justification" or "penal substitution". The idea there is that because we broke the law, we are all under sentence of death. Thats true.

However, the fact is that law came long after sin and death already existed. We are under sentence of death, but we are also, already dead. Adam and Eve died the day they sinned, and we their descendants have been born in death ever since.

So the attonement Jesus accomplished must not only satisfy the law and its penalty on our behalf, which it does. It must also make a way for us to be reconnected to God as the source so that we, once again, can partake of his life, his goodness etc.

This idea is captured very well in a fancy theological doctrine called "recapitulation". CS Lewis summed it up pretty well in the chronicles of Narnia when he said that "death began working backwards".
Jesus Christ, is in essense, a reversal of the fall and all of its results. All who are in him are being transformed back to what God intended us to be. That process will be complete when we are resurrected in glory and revealed as the sons of God (see romans chapter 8).

We, through Christ, are no longer subject to law or the penalty of law. However, long before the law, sin brought death and seperation from God. James comments on this fact in his epistle, desire gives birth to sin and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

He is writing that to believers. Un-believers are already dead in sin.

Now, I agree that God pursues people. He has been refered to as the hound of heaven because of that fact.
Some would argue that if a believer falls away they can never come back, and many would paint a picture in which it is very easy to fall away. I don't think either of those are true.

In one sense it is easy to fall away, in another it isn't. Sin hardens the heart, and deception draws us away, so if we are not careful, those things can cause us to drift away as Paul says in hebrews. However, God doesn't just give up on people. As Jesus said in the parable of the sheep, the shephard leaves the flock and goes out hunting for the one that wandered off.

the New Testament is full of warnings to avoid falling away, drifting away, departing from the faith, being deceived, making a shipwreck of your faith etc.. any teaching that teaches people to essentially ignore those warnings or rationalizes them away is unwise.

Warnings of falling away does not equate hellfire. It does indicate that life is going to be one long chastisement until the person returns to God. This is what happened to me.

Losing one's salvation in my opinion is a man-made doctrine by which the church controlled the believer.

Now, I have said something very hard to swallow, I realize. So, I will say this.

If I am wrong, then, I have erred in a very bad way and may have led others to error.

If you are wrong, then, the worst error you have made is to remind people to be faithful.

So, in the end, when I have a doctrine in dispute, I look towards which error would be the worst. In my opinion, if OSAS is error, then, our error would be worse than yours.

So, I hold that it is highly possible that OSAS is incorrect. However, it is difficult for me to give that belief up due to my own personal experience.

So, let me leave it at that until I have studied this doctrine. I admit that I have relied on teachings of my church rather than my own study and revelation by The Holy Spirit.

Lisa

 

[Iosias]

Brethren, give this and this a read