Once Saved Always Saved: Fact or Fiction?

[Matthew Twentyfour]

even though I hold to the perseverance of the saints Romans 11 is an AWFUL passage to use and those using it should go and read it. It is NOT about personal salvation. Its about the nation of Israel and Jews COLLECTIVELY missing out (for the time being) on Messiah. Using it out of context is not rightly diving God's word.

Yes I agree with this very much. Even after explaining Romans 11:29, those people that willfully continue to use this verse in their support for OSAS should example their own salvation.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

 

[Butch5]

No I don't which is why it is mentioned and your claim there is none is just empty talk betrayed by the facts

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
1 john 3:9

"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him."
1 john 5:18

If you can't continue in sin how would you ever lose salvation? Further Jesus himself said no believer will be lost

"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."…
John 6

CLEAR.............AS..............DAY

I'd suggest further study of these passages and a reconciliation with the rest of Scripture. If you've been following what I've said, you'd know that I said the doctrine is supported with proof texts which is exactly what you've don here. Firstly, nothing you've posted says that salvation can't be lost, you simply "INFERRED" that from those passages just as I said. Every passage of Scripture was written within a certain context and pertains to what the author is addressing. To randomly pull a verse of Scripture from it's context and use it to support something the author isn't, is proof texting. Can show us where the Scriptures "TEACH" this idea that salvation can't be lost.

To claim a believer cannot sin shows a misunderstanding of what John is saying and run contrary to the rest of Scripture.
Using Jesus words about those who were given to him is to take the passage out of context. That statement was made in reference to certain group of people. It is not a blanket statement for all mankind. That is why context is important.

anyone that is being honest knows you are blowing smoke. Your are claiming something as fact without proving it as if it should be taken on your authority as fact. We have very few writers in the first and second century for you to claim to know what they all rejected. So honest people know its just special pleading on your part.

I could prove it by cutting and pasting the entire Bible and Ante Nicene writings, however, that wouldn't go over well. The fact is that this doctrine was rejected by the Church until the Reformation. Augustine is considered a great man by the Catholic church yet they still rejected his idea of "Perseverance of the Saints". As I said, anyone who is going to be intellectually honest has to ask themselves how this doctrine is Biblical when it was rejected by the Church for 1400 years. If there's any smoke blowing around here you should check for another source.

Origen is not the early church but 200+ years after it- Not an apostle , he never met one and did not write a single line of scripture. He lived in a post apostolic world which the apostles prophecied themselves would be marked with false teaching. Origen is interesting therefore for things but he carries no huge weight

So Origen lived in a world marked with false teachers but you, Luther, and Calvin, didn't? Seriously. That argument makes no sense. If corruption was a problem in Origens day at around 290 AD. how much worse it is AT 2000 AD.?

The bottom line is that one cannot produce evidence, at least among Christians, of this doctrine before Augustine. Therefore it cannot be traced back to the apostles. Even when it does appear among Christians it was rejected and still is by the church outside of Protestantism. So, the doctrine found it's way into the church via rebellion. What Give Luther's or Calvin's ideas any more validity that Joe Schmoe? Nothing. Calvin wasn't even a theologian. He simply read the Scriptures, filtered them through his own world view and came up with what he believed. There is no reason at that that one should accept Calvin's opinion over that of anyone else.

People think Luther and Calvin were these great theologians and had a deep grasp of the word of God. You have to wonder how someone could have a deep grasp of the word of God that think that it's OK to put those to death who disagree with your theology. Both Luther and Calvin were the reason people were killed. You won't find anything in the Scriptures that says to put to death those who disagree. No, Luther and Calvin were simply following the mother church in those actions. Did some good come from the Reformation, sure. But it wasn't this great return to the pristine faith that it's made out to be. It was just more of the same, church leaders imposing their will on the populous.

 

[JLB777]

The kingdom here is the kingdom promised to Israel, a literal piece of land prepared for Israel to rule and minister as priests from. I am not trying to get into a physical kingdom on earth but into the body of Christ. By the way, I am already there in Christ right now, in heaven - got there by believing I Cor. 15:1-5.

When Jesus Christ returns to earth at the end of the age, He will be seated on His throne of glory on the Day of Judgement

They will be those who will inherit the kingdom of God and those who don't.

Those who don't will be cast into the everlasting fires of hell.

Those who do inherit the kingdom of God will reign with Christ here on earth for 1000 years and forever be with Him.

On the Day of Judgement there are two groups of people, those who will be with the Lord and are blessed.

Those who are not with the Lord and are cursed.

All the nations, is a reference to all ethnic groups...

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:31-34

Those who are cursed and will not be with the Lord, will be banished to the lake of fire with the Devil and his angels.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

If you don't want to be with the Lord, then why did you become a Christian???


17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
1 Thessalonians 4:17-7


JLB

 

[Butch5]

You can't really wax lyrical about how Luther and Calvin were influenced by the Catholics, and imply this is what helped to bring them into error, and then use the Catholic Church's judgement (who were the church for 1400 years) on OSAS being heresy as a basis for saying why Luther and Calvin were wrong. Origen is also not the best source - remember, he did teach the pre-existence of souls (and was a universalist).

My used of the Catholic church is simply an historical fact. I believe they have much wrong in their theology, however, the truth seeker still must ask why the doctrine was rejected for 1400 years if in fact it was Biblical. but even more importantly, the church wasn't Roman Catholic for all of those 1400 years. The Roman Catholic church didn't begin until the union with the State around 325 AD. Prior to that you had independent congregations and they rejected the idea of OSAS.

Regarding Origen, he's not the only source. I posted his words because I'm out of town and didn't have access to some of my software in order to bring up other writers. However, other writers could be cited.

Regarding his beliefs, Origen speculated about quite a bit. One has to separate his speculations from his beliefs.

 

[MikeEnders]

My answer is YES - if by 'saved' you mean 'justified'. However, if you mean 'sanctified' or 'saved from sin' the answer is NO. Obviously, if you're in sin you're not exactly being saved from it!

If it insults us that people remain justified even if they indulge in horrible sins"

So umm you can not be saved in regard to sin but justified? So kind of saved and lost at the same time? Sorry but people are making up things left and right in this thread. Imagination is more what this thread is about now than it is the Bible

This wasn't addressed to me, but I think it'll be fun to answer it anyway. Yes, someone who was a devout Christian and who later fell away will be ushered directly into heaven, but with no reward. As 1 Cor 3:15 says, "he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

That passage says no such thing. We are just in full makeup a scripture mode. It says our work and ministry for Christ will be evaluated not a thing about "falling away, living in sin or no longer walking with Christ.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Still waiting for the verse that backs this false claim up.

Romans 11:29 does not contain any such phrase.

No scripture in the bible states "eternal life is irrevocable".

This is quite a tired defense. Since Paul had already defined very clearly what God's gifts are prior to Rom 11:29, there was no need to repeat himself. So when he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable, we KNOW that he was referring to what he had already defined as God's gifts. Duh.

1:11 spiritual gifts are irrevocable
3:24 and 5:15-17 justification is irrevocable
6:23 eternal life is irrevocable

No one has yet proven that Paul meant anything other than what he already defined as God's gifts. And no one has shown that Paul didn't mean justification and eternal life in 11:29.

So your challenge is phony.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Salvation will be realized or not at the end of the age, when we hear these words:

The Bible is very clear about having salvation NOW, WHEN we believe in Christ. Jesus said that clearly in Jn 5:24.

‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34

Those that will not inherit the kingdom will hear these words:

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 25:41

Those that do not inherit the kingdom of God will be cast into the everlasting fires.

To inherit the kingdom is far different than simply entering the kingdom. A bit of discernment easily grasps this difference.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Completely False!

Here is what Romans 11:29 says.

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:29

The context of what Paul is teaching here is the calling to those branches which were "broken off" from the Covenant Relationship, because of unbelief, still continue to be called to Salvation.


JLB

If this claim is true, please point to the verse that defines any of what has been noted as a "gift".

The fact is, no one can, because Paul DIDN'T define any of this as a gift. And only the insecurity crowd would even think to ignore or reject what Paul DID define as God's gifts, because that refutes their view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OSAS is between the lines of Scripture, and laced in it's essence

Really? Paul was very clear about what he defined as gifts of God:
1:11 spiritual gifts
3:24 and 5:15-17 justification
6:23 eternal life

Then he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in 11:29. That is NOT between the lines.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The question was:

Can a "saved" person continually indulge in any and all those
sins and remain saved?

The only appropriate answers are a "yes" or a "no."

And you "yes" or "no" answer is:
"Only until God disciplines him so severely that he either stops, or God takes him home.
I didn't ask another question. Please quit trying to second guess me."

So you avoided answering the question with a "yes" or a "no."

Sorry you missed my YES answer.

If I understand you, you are saying that a person can intentionally and continually participate in the most heinous sins imaginable and, as long as he was "saved" at some earlier time, when he dies he goes straight to heaven.

How about let's remove those silly quotes around saved. If one is saved, then he is saved. Not "saved". Seems your sensibilities are offended by one of God's children doing such things. So it seems that your view is that such a child of God, deserves to lose his salvation. Is that it?

Do you have any idea what grace is all about?

Following that puerile illogic, we can expect someone who was a devout Christian in his youth, but who later "fell away", to be ushered directly into heaven when he died. That would include Adolf Hitler.

Brilliant, exegesis.

Did Hitler ever believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life?

When one grasps the utter magnitude of God's limitless grace, one does not come up with these kinds of questions or examples.

Did Christ die for ALL sins, or only the less offensive (to some) sins?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Still no phrase "eternal life" in Romans 11:29
JLB

Such persistence demonstrates a complete failure to see with one's eyes. Paul defined eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23 so had no need to repeat himself in 11:29. btw, the word is in the plural in 11:29, so we can add justification, which was also defined as a gift of God in 5:15-17.

 

[JLB777]

No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
1 john 3:9

1 John also says -

If we confess our sins...
He is faithful to forgive.


8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10

If we say we have no sin, we are lying.


JLB

 

[MikeEnders]

I'd suggest further study of these passages and a reconciliation with the rest of Scripture

I'd suggest you deal with the texts I gave you which are part of God's word rather than picking and choosing what suits you

To claim a believer cannot sin shows a misunderstanding of what John is saying and run contrary to the rest of Scripture.

Earth to Butch!. I made no claim. I quoted you the apostle John. you are being TOTALLY ridiculous. Go argue that the Bible shows a misunderstanding of itself. It, not me, says a born again person cannot sin. The greek tense indicates continuos action as in constantly practicing sin non stop. A real believer will stop repent, maybe fall down and get back up over and over again but they don't just say okay...I am going to go on sinning now forever and ever - why? because the experience of salvation means something , it changes you and makes you unhappy in a state of continuous sin. At some point a believer drops to his knees and repents even if he does so over and over again.

THis is not contrary to any other scripture. Stop playing around with God's word because it contradicts your own ideas.

Using Jesus words about those who were given to him is to take the passage out of context. That statement was made in reference to certain group of people. It is not a blanket statement for all mankind. That is why context is important.

Of course its made for a certain group and the certain group are all those who have been given to Christ by God. Theres no context issue. the meaning is clear within its context. you just don't like what the scripture says and want to run away from it. People ought to base their theology on what the Bible says but some people in this thread try to wave away what whole passages say so they can let their theology dictate what the Bible is saying.

I could prove it by cutting and pasting the entire Bible and Ante Nicene writings, however, that wouldn't go over well. The fact is that this doctrine was rejected by the Church until the Reformation.

You would prove nothing while you run away for what God's word say, Nicen writings are hundreds of years after the first century church. You are not getting basic common sense. You cannot claim to know what you do not know and claiming you do is distortion and fabrication. We don;t have much writings from the early church so claiming the church rejected the teaching is just make believe land to claim you know.

Quoting Origen, Augustine and Luther means nothing. they are not scripture and that leaves hundreds of years before them. now please get busy and explains these texts USING SCRIPTURE not blathering to show why they don't mean exactly what they say. Blathering and theologizing doesn't make verses go away

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
1 john 3:9

"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him."
1 john 5:18

If you can't continue in sin how would you ever lose salvation? Further Jesus himself said no believer will be lost

"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."…
John 6

CLEAR.............AS..............DAY

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"This assumes your definition of "believe" is correct."

No sigh.....it assumes that Jesus idea is correct when he says

"27"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.28"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?…"
Luke 14:27

This isn't about believing but about obedience. We receive salvation by grace through faith. We receive rewards through obedience.

Why don't you actually read the Gospels before you make up more junk? The context is the salvation of your soul

Interesting opinion. But only that.

license and permission are not even the same thing

Then please explain the difference, professor.

We could go back and forth more but its obvious you don't even know what grace is ....you just pervert the meaning. Its like those that say you don't even need to believe in Christ because they say that would be a "work".

Don't add idiot views to mine, ok? Believing is not a work. And as to grace, please provide your understanding of it, just so I have a better handle on where you're coming from. I'll ignore your snark for now, as I wait for your definition. Then we'll see who knows what.

 

[FreeGrace2]

lol, I did not support your post by that. Participation with shows our walking in and living in the spirit in Christ. If we are not in this participation we are in darkness not light. This partisipation with Christ only comes through being in the Light. And to be in the Light is salvation. It is called the light of life/

no to be in fellowship with Jesus Christ is to be in the light of life, and if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ cleanesth us from all sin. This participation in the Light is salvation and only when we are in this light does the blood of Jesus Christ cleanse us from all sin. If we are not in this fellowship in the Light of life in Christ the blood of Jesus Christ does not cleanse us from all sin, and so we have no salvation in Christ then.

Rather than just more "back and forth", please explain the difference between relationship and fellowship, and give an example of each. At this point, it seems you have no idea.

 

[MikeEnders]

1 John also says -

If we confess our sins...
He is faithful to forgive.

Yep and there it is not continuos tense in the greek in the passage so the one passage offsets the other strategy does not work. Christians can and do siin but I john teaches they cannot non stop keep sinning with no break of repentance. Sinning is not living in sin forever. two different things entirely.

 

[JLB777]

Such persistence demonstrates a complete failure to see with one's eyes. Paul defined eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23 so had no need to repeat himself in 11:29. btw, the word is in the plural in 11:29, so we can add justification, which was also defined as a gift of God in 5:15-17.

The word eternal life does not appear in Romans 11:29.

The calling to those who were in fact broken off, is still available.

Are you trying now to teach that those who were broken off through unbelief, will have have eternal life ?

Please show me in the scriptures where "unbelievers" are promised eternal life?

The branch that does not remain in the Vine, has no source of Life to sustain it.

Those that were broken off in Romans 11 have been broken off from the SOURCE of eternal life.

Unless you have a scripture that shows me you have eternal life APART from Jesus Christ, then your doctrine is unbiblical.

JLB

 

[MikeEnders]

I said this:
"This assumes your definition of "believe" is correct."

This isn't about believing but about obedience. We receive salvation by grace through faith. We receive rewards through obedience.

You tried that before and it flops because in other Gospels it makes it clear its about the soul perishing not rewards. No matter how much you try your twisting passages doesn't line up with the text. You just keep twisting to try and make it match.

 

[FreeGrace2]

1) gifts etc are irrevocable from God's perspective. People still have the freedom to walk away.

What we are free to walk away from does not include salvation. We didn't save ourselves and we can't unsave ourselves. And no Scripture supports the idea that we can make a choice to rid ourselves of our salvation.

2) disagree with your assertion that the gift of eternal life is immutable.

I never said immutable. The Bible says irrevocable.

3) I still say a contract requires two parties. are you saying that once a person is saved God takes complete control and allows that person no free choice or will?

First, did you or anyone else sign a contract with God when you believed in Christ? No. Believing in Christ is NOT a contract in ANY sense of the word. And that isn't supported by Scripture. Let's stick with Scripture.

Second, God has been and always will be in complete control of our salvation. It is His plan, btw. The free choice only has to do with whether we are going to "consent and obey" or "refuse and rebel" per Isa 1:19-20. There are consequences for both. And that is God's plan.

Jesus said 'He that endures to the end shall be saved'. Implication is that some people quit, and will not be saved.

Before we imply anything, let' look at the context. The context is the Tribulation only. And the question is, saved from what? Context is king.

4) King Saul openly rebelled against God to the point where he asks Samuel to 'pray to the Lord your God', i.e. He's not my God anymore. I can't believe God would take someone who so openly rejected Him, and allowed same in His Kingdom.

So you calling Samuel a liar, then?? I showed what Samuel told Saul about the "next day", that Saul would join Samuel. So, where would Samuel be the next day? Paradise.

Demas was a fellow laborer with Paul, yet he abandoned the ministry for his love of the things of this world. I can't believe we can all be Demas' and love the world after we get saved, and still expect God to allow us in heaven.

Believe it or not, the Bible is clear about our eternal security, regardless of how much we may fail. Grace covers more than we can fail. But it seems that is not believed by the insecurity camp.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Every statement comes in a certain context.

In this case it is in a letter where Paul is addressing a situation concerning the Jew's election.

But - so what?

While talking about these things, God tells us that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

Find out what things are gifts and you will know what is irrevocable.

The scriptures tell us that salvation is a gift.

Therefore salvation is not revocable.

"Context" has nothing to do with it.

Well said, Marvin. I would only add that in the context of the epistle to the Romans, Paul had already defined what he meant by gift so when we get to 11:29, we know exactly what he meant. Context is always king.