Once Saved Always Saved - Why is it so hard?

[stuart lawrence]

As for dying to a law of righteousness:

Galatians 2:21
"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Paul was a Pharisee and obedience to the Law was the focus of the Pharisee religion for salvation. It's focus was not grace or salvation or mercy because you could be killed by capital punishment (according to the Old Law) instead of confessing your sins to Jesus (which is grace). Paul is also proposing that a person cannot be righteous in the old Pharisee way anymore. So when Paul says --- "if righteousness comes by the Law, Christ's death is in vain," --- he is speaking about Justification. Justification is what gets a person clean or forgiven of their sins when they first come to the faith (By asking Jesus to forgive them in being a sinner and in believing in Christ's death and resurrection for their salvation). Justification is also the means by which they can stay right with God by confessing their sins to Jesus, as well (See 1 John 2:1, 1 John 1:9). For we do not go out and do more good works in order to get clean or forgiven. Works are a part of the Sanctification process of the believer (Which is a different aspect of salvation that is a work of Christ or God done in you).

Galatians 2:20
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"

What is this faith in the Son of God?
It is the same faith that Jesus Christ taught us.
The faith that Jesus taught said,
If you love me, keep my commandments.
The faith that Paul teaches us is that what he had written should be regarded as the Lord's commandments.

Scripture has to be read in a balance with other verses like James 2:17, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 12:14, Titus 1:16, Acts 8:22, Philippians 2:12, Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 13:41-42, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 3:15.


...

And Paul is definitely not speaking solely of a justification apart from law concerning the moment you become a Christian, for he writes to christians continually telling them they are not under the law.
I'm sorry but your beliefs are far away from biblical truth. It I amazing how terribly faulty your doctrine is. Time and Time again you consistently contradict the plainly written word

 

[stuart lawrence]

For in the gospel a righteousness/ justification from God is revealed, a righteousness That Is by faith FROM FIRST TO LAST, just as it is written. The righteous will live by faith rom1:17


From first to last is the whole of your christian life, not just at the point of conversion!

 

[stuart lawrence]

Jesus died at Calvary for our sins, therefore he died for our transgressions of the law, therefore we are not under a law of righteousness

But as Jesus said:

Many after drinking the old wine dont want the new, for they say: The old is better

Luke5:39

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Romans 3:21 is in reference to the Law of Moses and not all law.

Romans 3:1 says,
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision."

Even in Romans 8:2 we see TWO laws mentioned.
A New Covenant Law and an Old Covenant Law.
This New Covenant Law sets us free from the Old Covenant Law.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus [i.e. A New Covenant Law] hath made me free from the law of sin and death [i.e. the Old Covenant Law]." (Romans 8:2).​

This makes sense because Jesus said he came not to abolish Law (Matthew 5:17) and Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

Note: Brackets in blue are my commentaries to the text.

Anyways, may God's goodness be upon everyone this fine new day that the Lord has made.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Righteousness by faith is not only having faith in the person of Jesus but it is having faith in everything He taught and commanded us to do, too. If not, then we are believing in another Jesus or I should say a mute (or silent) Jesus that does not exist with the Scriptures. For if you believed in a Jesus that told people to jump off bridges, that would be another Jesus. We believe by faith not only in Jesus but we believe or have faith in His words in what He desired us to do, too. Therein lies the difference in regards to having faith in Jesus. For when Peter failed to walk on the water, when Jesus said "Come" (in regards to Peter being welcome to come out on to the water to walk upon it) Jesus said it was Peter's lack of faith in doing so. He failed to take action as a result of a lack of trust in Jesus.

For not everyone who says unto Him Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that does the will of the Father.

Jesus said, why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not do what I say?

Jesus said depart from me you that work lawlessness.

James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

The author of Hebrews says without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

Paul says that there are those who deny Jesus by their works (Titus 1:16).


...

 

[stuart lawrence]

Romans 3:21 is in reference to the Law of Moses and not all law.

Romans 3:1 says,
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision."

Even in Romans 8:2 we see TWO laws mentioned.
A New Covenant Law and an Old Covenant Law.
This New Covenant Law sets us free from the Old Covenant Law.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus [i.e. A New Covenant Law] hath made me free from the law of sin and death [i.e. the Old Covenant Law]." (Romans 8:2).​

This makes sense because Jesus said he came not to abolish Law (Matthew 5:17) and Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

Note: Brackets in blue are my commentaries to the text.

Anyways, may God's goodness be upon everyone this fine new day that the Lord has made.


...

But now a righteousness APART from law has been made known.... Rom3:21

It doesn't say what you want it to say does it!

It Is proved it concerns all law of course by Paul giving thou shalt not covet as the example of why he had to die to a law of righteousness
You on the other hand have not one verse of scripture that states the only righteousness you have apart from law is the law of moses/ torah. Your belief I not biblical and again contradicts plain scripture concerning the subject
The law of the spirit of life I the fruits of the Spirit, against such things there is no law( gal5:23)

Of course Jesus did not abolish the heart of the law/ moral law.
But the laws comes in two parts. The law itself and the attached penalty for disobedience.
Only the penalty for transgression got removed. The laws itself remains intact, transferred from tablets of stone to tablets of human hearts( 2cor3:3)

 

[stuart lawrence]

Righteousness by faith is not only having faith in the person of Jesus but it is having faith in everything He taught and commanded us to do, too. If not, then we are believing in another Jesus or I should say a mute (or silent) Jesus that does not exist with the Scriptures. For if you believed in a Jesus that told people to jump off bridges, that would be another Jesus. We believe by faith not only in Jesus but we believe or have faith in His words in what He desired us to do, too. Therein lies the difference in regards to having faith in Jesus. For when Peter failed to walk on the water, when Jesus said "Come" (in regards to Peter being welcome to come out on to the water to walk upon it) Jesus said it was Peter's lack of faith in doing so. He failed to take action as a result of a lack of trust in Jesus.

For not everyone who says unto Him Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that does the will of the Father.

Jesus said, why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not do what I say?

Jesus said depart from me you that work lawlessness.

James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

The author of Hebrews says without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

Paul says that there are those who deny Jesus by their works (Titus 1:16).


...

Your justification / righteousness is faith in Christ, that is once again clearly stated I scripture. The law is on your heart if you have been born again, meaning you in your heart want to obey it.

You cannot earn your way to heaven by striving to be good enough, That is an affront to the cross of Christ.

Not having a righteousness of my own That comes from the law, but that which is through FAITH IN CHRIST, the righteousness that comes from God and I by faith
Phil3:9

 

[stuart lawrence]

God will reject works done with the view they are necessary to attain heaven.


God will accept works done out of love and gratitude for a free salvation.

The Pharisees works were rejected

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Laws cannot be transferred to a person's heart who justifies the idea that they can break the New Covenant Laws that lead unto the Second Death with the thinking they are saved (i.e. By their claim that they are sinners according to a false interpretation on 1 John 1:8 and Galatians 2:17 or by denying Matthew 13:41-42, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8). The idea of laws being transferred to the believer's heart is for those believers who actually obey God's Commands in the New Testament and who teach them. Jesus said a person shall be called great in the Kingdom of God who obeys and teaches His commands (Matthew 5:19). Paul says if any speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and they know nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). James says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). Is not sin itself or justifying a sin and still be saved type belief a matter of pride because it makes an allowance for evil (on some level) in God's good name?



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Pharisees did not keep God's laws. Jesus said that they would have heard Him and accepted Him if they did keep God's Word, but they didn't.

For Jesus said to the Pharisees,
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47).

This is a similar thing said in 1 John 3:10 by John,

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3:10).

Jesus says,
"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." (John 8:37).

So these Pharisees were desiring to sin (i.e. to murder Jesus) because Jesus's words had no place within them. For Jesus says, He that is of God hears God's words (John 8:47).

Jesus says,
43 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."
(John 8:43-44).

So we realize from this above passage that they could not understand Jesus's speech because they were doing the lusts of their father.

1 John 3:8 says he that commits sin is of the devil.
John 3:20 says all who do evil hate the light.

Anyone who wrongfully interprets 1 John 1:8 and Galatians 2:17 as saying we are always doing evil is justifying evil wrongfully in God's name. Yet, Jesus says we cannot even under His speech or words if we are to do the lusts of the devil (sin).

It's why Paul says,
If any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Note: There is nothing here about how the Pharisees problem was not having a desire to obey God's Word. The problem is that they did not obey God's Word.



...

 

[stuart lawrence]

Laws cannot be transferred to a person's heart who justifies the idea that they can break the New Covenant Laws that lead unto the Second Death with the thinking they are saved (i.e. By their claim that they are sinners according to a false interpretation on 1 John 1:8 and Galatians 2:17 or by denying Matthew 13:41-42, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8). The idea of laws being transferred to the believer's heart is for those believers who actually obey God's Commands in the New Testament and who teach them. Jesus said a person shall be called great in the Kingdom of God who obeys and teaches His commands (Matthew 5:19). Paul says if any speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness is proud and they know nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). James says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). Is not sin itself or justifying a sin and still be saved type belief a matter of pride because it makes an allowance for evil (on some level) in God's good name?



...

Yet you yourself commit sin and don't even try to obey all of Christs literal commands.

The above post us testament to preaching one thing and practicing another.

This is the trademark of those who preach a law of righteousness, ie the Pharisees
Enough said

 

[stuart lawrence]

The Pharisees did not keep God's laws. Jesus said that they would have heard Him and accepted Him if they did keep God's Word, but they didn't.

For Jesus said to the Pharisees,
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47).

This is a similar thing said in 1 John 3:10 by John,

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3:10).

Jesus says,
"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." (John 8:37).

So these Pharisees were desiring to sin (i.e. to murder Jesus) because Jesus's words had no place within them. For Jesus says, He that is of God hears God's words (John 8:47).

Jesus says,
43 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."
(John 8:43-44).

So we realize from this above passage that they could not understand Jesus's speech because they were doing the lusts of their father.

1 John 3:8 says he that commits sin is of the devil.
John 3:20 says all who do evil hate the light.

Anyone who wrongfully interprets 1 John 1:8 and Galatians 2:17 as saying we are always doing evil is justifying evil wrongfully in God's name. Yet, Jesus says we cannot even under His speech or words if we are to do the lusts of the devil (sin).

It's why Paul says,
If any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Note: There is nothing here about how the Pharisees problem was not having a desire to obey God's Word. The problem is that they did not obey God's Word.



...

The Pharisees did the lusts of their fathers for they neglected the love of God, as does everyone who earnestly seeks a law of righteousness. It brings corruption on the inside.
The love, mercy and compassion of God is ignored.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, "Justification" (Belief in Jesus as your Savior and belief in His death and resurrection and calling out to Him to forgive you) is not only how one gets "Initial Salvation" but it is how one continues in their walk with God in overcoming their sin (Thru the process of "Sanctification" - which is God doing the good work thru you).

For example: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). We are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness thru confessing our sins when we stumble on occasion until we overcome sin in this life by God's power. We get clean thru going to Jesus. We also always continue to believe and give thanks for His unspeakable gift of salvation thru out our life, as well.

So Justification and Sanctification continue together thru out a believer's entire life until Glorification (Which is when the believer is taken home to be with Christ). However, it is soley Justification when a person first comes to the faith, though. But all three aspects such as Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification deal with salvation; And all three of these are ultimately works of God moving in you with your free will cooperation.


...

 

[stuart lawrence]

Also, "Justification" (Belief in Jesus as your Savior and belief in His death and resurrection and calling out to Him to forgive you) is not only how one gets "Initial Salvation" but it is how one continues in their walk with God in overcoming their sin (Thru the process of "Sanctification" - which is God doing the good work thru you).

For example: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). We are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness thru confessing our sins when we stumble on occasion until we overcome sin in this life by God's power. We get clean thru going to Jesus. We also always continue to believe and give thanks for His unspeakable gift of salvation thru out our life, as well.

So Justification and Sanctification continue together thru out a believer's entire life until Glorification (Which is when the believer is taken home to be with Christ). However, it is soley Justification when a person first comes to the faith, though. But all three aspects such as Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification deal with salvation; And all three of these are ultimately works of God moving in you with your free will cooperation.


...

According to the bible, overcoming sin is by dying to a law of righteousness. Something you firmly reject

 

[supescritter]

Hi Jason, first I want to say thank-you for your patience in addressing my concerns and doubts.

Acts 17:30 commands all men to repent.

1 John 3:23 commands us to believe in Jesus Christ.

Did you not depend upon your own effort to reach out to Jesus to save you in the first place? Does not one have to act to be saved by Jesus initially? Is that also an effort of righteousness or merit on their part? Did not a believer (who has truly accepted Christ) act in accordance with the above two commands?

I don't find this a strong argument. OSAS believers believe that if a Christian believes in the death and resurrection of Christ and accept him as Lord and Savior, then they are saved. They are saved by 'faith' by the Biblical definition. Accepting a gift is submission. There are plenty of people who reject gifts out of pride, but accepting it is submission to the one who is giving it, because it is admitting that you are in a position of want and need. Works on the other hand infers an obligation .

Romans 4:4 presents one of the stronger verses supporting OSAS:
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

When you do good works, you ARE obliging God to save you by them. Sure you are obeying His word, but so is a worker who is obeying his boss. Verse 5 is clearly talking about a person who isn't performing any works whatsoever but merely trusting God for his righteousness.

Acts 17:30 commands all men to repent.
Also, Jesus said we can do nothing without Him (John 15:5). This means that you literally cannot obey all of God's Word without Jesus working thru you to do it. For there is none good but God. Jesus is the One who does the "good work" thru you and it is not yourself doing a good work all by your own power alone. If Jesus lives in you, then good fruit will be evident in your life and not bad fruit. It's why Paul says we are to prove Jesus Christ is in us us unless we be reprobate. Proving in how we know Jesus or not is explained to us in 1 John 2:3-6. Please read this passage carefully in prayer.

This is a disconnect in definitions, and I think everyone in this thread must realize this. OSAS believers believe that obeying God's word is works. Period. But here you are saying that in a way obeying God is NOT works for the Christian because Jesus is the one working through you. If you truly believe this, then that is the reason why there will be no conclusion to this discussion, because having the same definition of "works" is critical to understanding all the contentious verses.

I agree that Jesus gives the power to do works, but works is works. Even if your boss gives you all the tools to do a good job, you are still owed wages for doing work. By virtue of the key argument of 'conditional salvation' that you go to hell if you don't do certain works, that completes the definition that 'works' is 'works' even by the Biblical definition: 'CS' belief necessitates that some commandments must have the "or else you'll go to hell" tacked on to the end of it.

The two greatest commandments "love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself" cannot be performed by a Christian for the sole purpose of pleasing God, and by CS definition must be at least in part be performed to avoid hell.

There are no short cuts. It takes baby steps. A believer has to many times grow. Perfect love casts out fear; And a believer learns to truly love God by their upright walk with Him. For the alternative is a justification of doing evil in God's name. So there is really no other choice. Grow in the knowledge of God about His love thru the faith and in walking with Him, or do evil in His name. The first one sounds better to me.

Not true. Many (and not all) OSAS Proponent's motivation is not to obey God's commands (which is sin) (See 1 John 3:4). How so? Well, many of them have mocked others who seek to focus on obeying God's commands. I have seen it happen time and time again. A person cannot mention a few words in their post or create a thread on the New Testament Commands as a part of a Bible study without being attacked. They believe they will always be in sin according to 1 John 1:8 and Galatians 2:17. This is not obedience but disobedience.

This seems to be a key argument of 'CS' proponents: that OSAS proponents promote sin. First of all, no-one promotes sin, second of all it is a red herring argument. Just because allowing a believer to choose to obey God allows them to choose not to obey God, does not mean it promotes sin. OSAS proponents promote living a holy life, but the difference is in the motivation. You were not "mocked" (just using your words) for being holy, you were "mocked" for trying to be holy to earn your way to heaven as opposed to trying to be holy because you wanted to please God (as the sole reason).

The holiest people I know are Christians who don't believe in conditional salvation, they have a great and genuine love that makes you feel like you're walking with Jesus - there is something to be said about people who are Godly solely because they love Jesus and they want to. Also the most unholiest people on earth are also those who believe in obedience to their scripture (eg. ISIS) - obedience is not necessarily love either, especially if there is a hell condition attached to disobedience.

I had previously stated that Romans 11:21 was a strong case supporting conditional salvation, but I have since found this article:
Do the Cut off Olive Branches of Romans 11 Definitively Prove that Salvation Can be Lost? | Monergism
.. which I believe to be a better interpretation. I think it is better, because Paul talks about Israel as a branch, therefore he must be referring to Gentiles as a branch also, not individuals as branches.

(I'm not saying I have made up my mind - I am still searching. This is a very very difficult subject, and again, I really appreciate your patience. I am not trying to convince you, but trying to ensure we fully explore each interpretation of contentious verses. Thanks)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, in some cases, certain OSAS Proponents will falsely accuse the Conditional Salvationist of sin when they do not even know their life and say they are not keeping all of God's laws or commands. What the OSAS Proponent does not realize (or what they reject) is that there are sins unto death and sins not unto death (1 John 5:16-18). Sins unto death are sins that lead to the Second Death or the Lake of Fire such as murder, hate, adultery, idolatry, theft, and coveting. Sins not unto death are sins like refusing to be baptized in this life (1 Peter 3:21), causing divisions and boasting within each other (1 Corinthians 3:1-15), and hidden or secret faults (Psalms 19:12).

When Jesus was saying to the Pharisees that they could not understand his speech because they did not keep His Word, Jesus was talking about serious sins that lead unto death and not minor transgressions. For Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23).

However, what the OSAS Proponent strives to accuse the Conditional Salvationist, they themselves openly admit they will not keep God's laws at some point in the future because it is their human nature to sin (Which is not a Scriptural teaching).


...

 

[stuart lawrence]

Also, in some cases, certain OSAS Proponents will falsely accuse the Conditional Salvationist of sin when they do not even know their life and say they are not keeping all of God's laws or commands. What the OSAS Proponent does not realize (or what they reject) is that there are sins unto death and sins not unto death (1 John 5:16-18). Sins unto death are sins that lead to the Second Death or the Lake of Fire such as murder, hate, adultery, idolatry, theft, and coveting. Sins not unto death are sins like refusing to be baptized in this life (1 Peter 3:21), causing divisions and boasting within each other (1 Corinthians 3:1-15), and hidden or secret faults (Psalms 19:12).

When Jesus was saying to the Pharisees that they could not understand his speech because they did not keep His Word, Jesus was talking about serious sins that lead unto death and not minor transgressions. For Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23).

However, what the OSAS Proponent strives to accuse the Conditional Salvationist, they themselves openly admit they will not keep God's laws at some point in the future because it is their human nature to sin (Which is not a Scriptural teaching).


...

You have been given many opportunities to state you obey every literal command of Christ and refused to state you do obey them all. At least you were honest.
You yourself have admitted you commit sin.
The passmark to be righteous under the law is 100% perfect obedience, nothing short of that will do. If you understood scripture you would know that

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi Jason, first I want to say thank-you for your patience in addressing my concerns and doubts.

I don't find this a strong argument. OSAS believers that if a Christian believes in the death and resurrection of Christ and accept him as Lord and Savior, then they are saved. They are saved by 'faith' by the Biblical definition. Accepting a gift is submission.

How would you define work?
Is not a work something you do?

So how is the work of faith in accepting Christ by way of prayer any different than say the work of praying for those who despitefully use you? There is no difference. Both are works of faith and involve belief in God's Word in order for us to act. You yourself said that accepting a gift is submission (Which is an action of some kind). Did you do nothing to accept that gift? I am going to have to say you did do something. You did not just sit on your couch one day watching TV and you were just zapped into God's kingdom without some kind of action on your part. You had to ask Jesus to forgive you by prayer and believe He was your Savior and believe that He died and was risen again on your behalf. When Paul says we are saved by grace without works in Ephesians 2:8-9, he is saying that we do not come to the faith doing a whole bunch of things in order to get that gift. The work of salvation is done by the Lord ultimately both in Justification and in Sanctification. We are initially saved by repenting of our sin and accepting Jesus and what He has done for us. This is Justification; And Justification continues on alongside Sanctification (Which is also another work of God done in you).

There are plenty of people who reject gifts out of pride, but accepting it is submission to the one who is giving it, because it is admitting that you are in a position of want and need. Works on the other hand infers an obligation.

Are we not all obligated to repent and believe in Jesus?
For again God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
Jesus also commands us to believe in Him (1 John 3:23).

Romans 4:4 presents one of the stronger verses supporting OSAS:
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Paul here is talking about Initial Salvation and or how we are ultimately saved. This is evident because Paul is talking about circumcision in Romans 3:1.

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?" (Romans 3:1).

The Jews were trying to get Christians to circumcise themselves in order to claim that they were right with God. So Romans 4 is in context of not going back to the Old Law and he is talking about Initial Salvation (or Ultimate Salvation).

In other words, if one seeks to be circumcised obeying the Old Law so as to have salvation they are trusting in a work to save them. The Pharisees made salvation into a system of works alone without grace or salvation ultimately being in Jesus Christ (Thereby making into a system of obligation without a Savior or mercy). For if one sins, how does one get clean? Thru circumcision? No. One gets clean by going to Jesus and confessing their sins to Him (See 1 John 2:1, 1 John 1:9). There is no lifting of heavy weights and or cutting into your flesh and or doing backflips into a ring of fire with poodles biting your fingertips. There is nothing elaborate or fancy going on here. Jesus is the One who ultimately saves us. Our trust and belief in Him is our foundation. Our going to Him if we stumble is the foundation. Not works. That is the point Paul is making.

For Paul is talking about Justification (Initial Salvation and or Ultimate Salvation) and he is condemning Man Directed Works in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5. James is talking about God Directed Works done thru you (By your free will cooperation) in the Process of Sanctification in James 1:21-22, and James 2:17-26. For how do you explain the words of James? Do you just write them off and ignore them? This is where you need to have an answer and a balanced approach to Scripture.

When you do good works, you ARE obliging God to save you by them. Sure you are obeying His word, but so is a worker who is obeying his boss. Verse 5 is clearly talking about a person who isn't performing any works whatsoever but merely trusting God for his righteousness.

So you believe you can refuse to help the poor in this life and trust in Jesus and still be saved? But it is written...

41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did itnot to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:41-46).

In other words, you have to believe this passage in addition to believing Romans 4. You have to reconcile the two of them and you cannot ignore the one in favor over the other.

Besides, if you were to read the whole chapter of Romans 4, you would see this part that says,

21 "And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
(Romans 4:21-22).

Abraham's faith was what made him able to perform and THIS kind of faith was imputed to him as righteousness. Faith + works. A true faith.
For James says, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18). It's why faith without works is dead being alone (James 2:17).

This is a disconnect in definitions, and I think everyone in this thread must realize this. OSAS believers believe that obeying God's word is works. Period. But here you are saying that in a way obeying God is NOT works for the Christian because Jesus is the one working through you. If you truly believe this, then that is the reason why there will be no conclusion to this discussion, because having the same definition of "works" is critical to understanding all the contentious verses.

However people interpret things is up to them, but it would not change what is in God's Word. God's Word talks about two different kings of works.

#1. Man Directed Works and Works Alone Salvationism (of which Paul condemns).

#2. God Directed Works Done Thru the Believer (of which James and Paul both talk about).​

I agree that Jesus gives the power to do works, but works is works. Even if your boss gives you all the tools to do a good job, you are still owed wages for doing work. By virtue of the key argument of 'conditional salvation' that you go to hell if you don't do certain works, that completes the definition that 'works' is 'works' even by the Biblical definition: 'CS' belief necessitates that some commandments must have the "or else you'll go to hell" tacked on to the end of it.

Um. No. That's not it. Jesus does not just give you the power alone to do a particular good work, it would be JESUS living in you that would be doing the good work THRU you. Jesus works THRU you (by your free will cooperation of course). Jesus said we can do nothing without Him (John 15:5). The elders had cast their crowns down before Jesus. Paul gives credit to the grace of God within Him that caused him to labor and not himself in 1 Corinthians 15:10.

The two greatest commandments "love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself" cannot be performed by Christian for the sole purpose of pleasing God, and by CS definition must be at least in part be performed to avoid hell.

Again, you are making a false accusation. Conditional Salvationists are also grateful to Jesus for the love that He had for us when He died upon the cross. This love is a motivator, as well. Also, when somebody properly understands the true view on the Lake of Fire and hell, they will understand that it is not an endless torture chamber that seeks to punish people beyond what their crimes call for. The wicked will perish. So that is a huge game changer if people were to know the truth. So please stop saying "fear of hell" is the sole purpose for the Conditional Salvationist when that is simply not true.

This seems to be a key argument of 'CS' proponents: that OSAS proponents promote sin. First of all, no-one promotes sin, second of all it is a red herring argument. Just because allowing a believer to choose to obey God allows them to choose not to obey God, does not mean it promotes sin. OSAS proponents promote living a holy life, but the difference is in the motivation. You were not "mocked" (just using your words) for being holy, you were "mocked" for trying to be holy to earn your way to heaven as opposed to trying to be holy because you wanted to please God (as the sole reason).

This is not true. I have talked to OSAS proponents who believe they can mow down a crowd of people with a machine gun with the thinking they are saved. However, if you were to listen to their OSAS message at church, is no different sounding than the OSAS message given by those who believe you must generally live a holy life. But the problem is that if you were to push even those who proclaim that they must live holy, and ask them what they think about 1 John 1:8 and Galatians 2:17, they will admit that they are also sinners.

Now, I want you to stop and think about this for a moment, if they are claiming to be sinners, then they are not saints. There is no such thing as a sinning saint. There is no such thing as a good villian or a bad good guy. If you do evil, you are evil. It's how you tell the good guys from the bad guys. Condoning evil or sin on any level makes one the villian of the story and not the hero. For it is how we can understand what morality is. Without a set standard of morality to hold to, one is free to do whatever they want. OSAS Proponents will say that you are saved no matter what or regardless of what you do. But then they backpedal and say things like, "Oh well, now wait a minute .... that does not mean you can murder, rape, get drunk, etc." And I will reply, "Really? Then that does not mean you are saved regardless of what you can do then."

The holiest people I know are Christians who don't believe in conditional salvation, they have a great and genuine love that makes you feel like you're walking with Jesus.

...

You are not God to know all of a person's life or thoughts. Trust God's Word and not people or some church.

I had previously stated that Romans 11:21 was a strong case supporting conditional salvation, but I have since found this article:
Do the Cut off Olive Branches of Romans 11 Definitively Prove that Salvation Can be Lost? | Monergism
.. which I believe to be a better interpretation. I think it is better, because Paul talks about Israel as a branch, therefore he must be referring to Gentiles as a branch also, not individuals as branches.

No. Nations are made of individuals. Paul was not talking to some mindless creature like entity called a nation in his letter to the Romans. What good what that do? Paul was talking to us. He was telling us that we can be cut off just as the Jews can be cut off. For people or individuals is what makes up a nation. Without individuals, there would be no nation.

(I'm not saying I have made up my mind - I am still searching. This is a very very difficult subject, and again, I really appreciate your patience. I am not trying to convince you, but trying to ensure we fully explore each interpretation of contentious verses. Thanks)

You are most welcome and I will ask you again to pray to God and do not stop praying to Him so as to show you the truth on this matter with Scripture. In fact, stop right now and ask Him to show you the truth on this matter. I know He will not steer you wrong if you are honest in seeking the truth instead of preferring to see what we want to see.


...

 

[Sammy-San]

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.

 

[supescritter]

41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did itnot to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:41-46).

I will not address everything you've written as I need to meditate on them. I will address some off the bat however. The first one is above:

There are several verses that seem to imply doing them will send you to hell. But I notice that at the end of these verses is almost always tacked on something like "but the righteous into life eternal" - OSAS believers believe that these verses mean "by the way, you think you're righteous, you're not because all these stuff that most people do are sinful too. But accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior will make you righteous in spite of those things"

Another thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a difference in the verses that say what you must do to be saved, and the verses that indicate that you go to hell for certain sins. The verses that say how you must be saved clearly indicate that salvation comes by faith alone. The verses that indicate you to go to hell seem to say that certain works send you to hell.

The two seem to be contradictory in message. OSAS believers address this contradiction by interpreting that the verses that indicate you go to hell are talking about non-Christians and are to emphasize that everyone is condemned because everyone is a sinner which is why you cannot depend on your own righteousness (because the standard for holiness is impossible for man). CS believers address the contradiction by interpreting the verses about hell talk about post-acceptance Christian living (aka 'sanctification').

However people interpret things is up to them, but it would not change what is in God's Word. God's Word talks about two different kings of works.

#1. Man Directed Works and Works Alone Salvationism (of which Paul condemns).

#2. God Directed Works Done Thru the Believer (of which James and Paul both talk about).​

I don't see that this is clearly defined. You are making a very strong conclusion about something that I see as an assumption. The "God Directed Works" in the NT don't read much differently from the "Man Directed Works" (and I don't know how you can conclusively make this distinction since both come from the Bible), except that "God directed works" are much much harder to follow because Jesus said that the mere thought of sin condemns you. The "God directed works" as you have labelled them are much much harder to follow than the OT because thought-crime condemns us all.

OSAS believers believe that the point Jesus was making about thought-crime is that NO MAN can achieve God's standard for holiness, which is why we need Jesus. It was not to imply that after salvation, we are to feel condemned every second of the day because our thoughts betray us.

I am struggling to understand why God will supposedly take away the burden of the Mosaic law only to give us "God directed works" that are substantially harder to follow and are therefore a greater burden. Outward works are much much easier to achieve than being perfect in thought. You have implied before that you think that thought-perfection is in fact easier to follow than OT laws, but I assure you 99% of people find it much more difficult.

Um. No. That's not it. Jesus does not just give you the power alone to do a particular good work, it would be JESUS living in you that would be doing the good work THRU you. Jesus works THRU you (by your free will cooperation of course). Jesus said we can do nothing without Him (John 15:5). The elders had cast their crowns down before Jesus. Paul gives credit to the grace of God within Him that caused him to labor and not himself in 1 Corinthians 15:10.

This is another difference in definition. OSAS believers believe the "Jesus is doing the good work through you" is meaning that (for example), you can preach till you're blue in the face, but it is Jesus who will convict men's hearts about their need for salvation - it is the work of the Holy Spirit that will convict men. OSAS believers do not believe that "Jesus is doing the good work through you" means that when you attempt to stop sinning, it is actually Jesus that is doing it on your behalf.

Again, you are making a false accusation. Conditional Salvationists are also grateful to Jesus for the love that He had for us when He died upon the cross. This love is a motivator, as well. Also, when somebody properly understands the true view on the Lake of Fire and hell, they will understand that it is not an endless torture chamber that seeks to punish people beyond what their crimes call for. The wicked will perish. So that is a huge game changer if people were to know the truth. So please stop saying "fear of hell" is the sole purpose for the Conditional Salvationist when that is simply not true.

I never said "fear of hell" is the sole purpose of the CS believer for obedience. I said "to please God" is the sole purpose for the OSAS believer to obey God, and that the CS believer is at least in part motivated by a "fear of hell". If you look at what I wrote, I clearly stated "at least in part".

To put the greatest punishment as a motivator for not sinning necessitates that at the back of a Christian's mind, his motivation for obeying God can never be solely to please God. That perfection that I believed God created: that he created a means for us to live in relation with him based purely on pleasing him without any fear of hell will be robbed from me if I accept CS theology. A fact is a fact. I am not saying that CS is false, I am just saying it how it is. Accepting CS theology means I have to accept that my motivations for obedience to God is no longer purely because I want to please him. It will turn from a Godly marriage where divorce is not an option, to a secular marriage where disobedience to a spouse results in total abandonment.