Michael Scaman
Active Member
Most of my beliefs about OSAS come from this massive blog that explains every single controversial verse, the other side's interpretation on those verses and the "correct" interpretation. It's huge, but every verse is there, and you can google the verse and "hischarisenough" if you just want to skip to a particular verse:
70 myths about losing salvation. Myth No: 1 Parable of the Sower Luke 8:13
If you want a nice summary, here is a very summarized video that summarizes the theme of OSAS (by the same author):
Summary:
1. The verse about "luke warm" people being spat out by Jesus in Revelations isn't referring to "zeal" because zeal is relative. If "hot" means "passion for Christ" then everyone is "luke warm" because relative to someone else, you're not hot. Furthermore the verse says that God finds "hot" or "cold" more acceptable than "luke warm" - so if hot means zeal - that means that someone who tries to be zealous ('luke warm') is less acceptable than someone who is a satanist? Doesn't make any sense.
Hot should be interpreted as those who believe in grace, and "Cold" should be interpreted as those who believe in the law. Because God finds both Hot and Cold acceptable - but not "luke warm" - ie. those who believe in grace AND the law (which implies that those who believe you are saved by grace, but can lose it by works are "luke warm").
2. "Acts of the Flesh" is not referring to sins, it is referring to trying to keep the law!! If interpreted in this way, it gives a whole new perspective on Gal 5:20. Please watch the video above to understand the interpretation in a very concise and understandable manner.
3. Verses that list sins that seem to imply that doing them will send you to hell (eg: 1 Cor 6:9) are not addressed to believers. For example, 1 Cor 6:9 is telling the Corinthians not to follow Romans who like to sue each other in court, because they do terrible sins that will send them to hell. If you read Corinthians in context, it's referring to believers who take each other to court like the Romans do.
The other verses that list sins that result in hell (eg. Revelations 21:8) are explained eloquently here: Does Major Sin Prove a Person Is Unsaved? Revelation 21:8
Another set of often quoted verses is the Sermon on the Mount, where "you can lose salvation if you sin" crowd says if you look at someone lustfully you will go to hell - but they forget the "pluck out your eye" and "chop off your hand" part - why aren't they plucking out their eye or chopping off their hand if you take "hell" literally? I think that verse is figurative - it is better to "chop your hand off than for your whole body to be burned in the cursed place where people used to sacrifice children which was called Gehenna aka Hell".
4. We know that Abraham was righteous by faith. Abraham clearly had sins that were listed elsewhere that seemed to imply you go to hell if you had them (eg Rev 21:8) - then how could Abraham who didn't know Jesus be saved? Because he was saved by grace, not by works. He didn't live a perfect life, but he believed in God. I find it hard to believe that you can lose salvation by having unrepented sins (eg lying), when Abraham was considered righteous by faith.
5. There are many verses (eg Eph 2: 8-9) which indicate that salvation is all God's doing, not ours so that no-one can boast. Believing you can lose salvation through a lack of works is functionally identical to believing you can only gain salvation through works: both allow man to pat themselves on the back and said "well God, I did this and gave this all to you, therefore I deserve heaven or deserve not to lose heaven". It treats the blood of Jesus like the blood of bulls and goats, rather than something that God alone did on the cross.
6. I believe that Genesis to Revelation is God's love story. It begins with Adam and Eve living in grace. Then they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and they became under "merit" - that is knowing right from wrong, and became ashamed because they knew they did not meet God's standard any more. And then Jesus came back to restore us back to our innocence and living under grace again. When Jesus died and rose again, and we accept his gift, we are adopted children. When we are children we sin, but like our own children - they do not lose their place in the family from sin. "Once adopted, always adopted". This is the overall theme of the Bible that I believe. If we can lose salvation through sin, then my view of God's perfect plan becomes marred, because it is a "method of salvation" that would result in a very low success rate. The Bible is clear that we need Jesus because few of us can get to heaven on merit - therefore few Christians can keep salvation on merit if we can lose salvation!
The OSAS side believes there are two types of forgiveness: judicial forgiveness (salvation); and parental forgiveness (for post salvation sins) where you lose favor with God but not salvation - similar to the children analogy. If human parents can forgive the atrocious sins of their children, how much greater is God's love for those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour?
7. The "strength" of the "you can lose salvation" crowd does not lie in the interpretation of Scripture (in my opinion) - it lies in these people who claim to have either died and been told by Jesus or an angel, or had a similar vision where they saw Christians in hell for their works or lack of works. While these visions are frightening, I find it hard to believe that we can be judged by visions (especially if they contradict the Word) - how can we be judged based on someone's vision? (what if we didn't watch it on youtube?). If we are earnestly seeking the true interpretation of Scripture, instead of trying to pigeon hole Scripture into our convenient belief boxes, can we be judged by God for having the wrong interpretation? This is the part I struggle with the most - if my interpretation is wrong, but I earnestly tried to follow what I believed to be the right interpretation of the Word, can I lose salvation if I sinned?
The visions are unanimous in their condemnation of most Christians. Apparently MOST Christians end up in hell in these visions. I think that if you can lose salvation through lying, or getting angry with someone ("murder"), or looking at someone lustfully, or being envious of your friend's new toy - then few Christians will end up in heaven. I find it difficult to believe that God would devise a method of salvation that is SO HARD. That's what my 6 year old son said when I was discussing this with my wife, he said "why does God make it so hard to get to heaven".
8. I personally feel that based on the arguments above that believing in a middle ground, that is: OSAS is generally true if someone is earnestly seeking after God is the truth. That is: you can lose salvation if you simply walk away; but if you try to obey God and fail, you do not lose salvation.
I am not saying I am correct, but that I want to know the truth. I have heard the OSAS side address the other side's arguments. I wouldn't mind someone who believes you can lose salvation address the OSAS' interpretation of these controversial verses. Thanks.
I prefer stating this as 'perseverance of the saints'
A person can go in one step from death to life and be sealed by the Holy Spirit for salvation
but 'he who endures to the end shall be saved' Jesus and 'without holiness no one will see the Lord' Hebrews
I think of it as those with saving faith will persevere and have desires, appetites, fruit in accordance with that
although they might stumble for times along the way. God disciplines those who are true children and corrects them actively. "you are protected by the power of God for a salvation to be revealed...' so says Peter
It isn't a doctrine meant to be overconfident about salvation despite no desire for God or hunger for truth or faith working in love. There are necessary fruits and the Colossians fruit of faith working in love goes back to the day they understood the grace of God in truth in Col 1:5,6
Upvote
0