Once saved always saved

[bcbsr]

A tissue of lies. Calvin didn't kill anybody, nor was he a magistrate.



He wasn't a "theologian," he was someone who thought that all of Scripture was false, that the Apostles were "knaves and blockheads," and that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a prostitute. I guess you can call those "differing views."

But it was the city authorities who executed him.



Another utter falsehood.

In fact, after a sentence of death had been passed, it was Calvin who requested that it be done by beheading, not burning. Calvin's request was refused by the Genevan government.

Actually John Calvin himself proudly admits he was culpable for the death of Servetus.

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident
Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.
"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him" John Calvin

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." John Calvin

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt." John Calvin

This is the man Calvinists uphold as their theological forefather.

For more on the Murder of Servetus see:

The Murder of Michael Servetus

 

[bcbsr]

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy otherwise known as an overgeneralization. Yes, there are SOME who went out from us but were never of us; i.e. not genuine believers as John pointed out. However, that does not automatically entail that ALL who depart were never of us. In fact in the same letter, John points out that those believers who practice sin are of the devil.
"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8-9).
"Little children" is term of endearment reserved exclusively for believers; not unbelievers. John warn believers that those who practice sin are of the devil. John warns believers that habitual sin leads to spiritual death.

While you referenced 1John 3:8,9 you only quoted verse 8. Verse 9 advocates Eternal Security.

"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:9,10

Typically anti-OSAS Christians postulate the if OSAS were true it would lead to people continuing to sin. But as you can see, those born of God have lost the ability to continue to sin and that due to the nature of regeneration. And verse 10 indicates that such is not simply a possible effect, but rather an inevitable effect, so much so that you can distinguish children of God from children of the devil based upon their characteristic behavior.

So as I point out many times in such debates, all those verses that anti-OSAS bring up which basically indicate that those who don't characteristically behave properly will go to hell, are resolved with the fact that no one born of God will behave in such a manner. Thus such verses can't be used to disprove OSAS. They can only be used to disprove Free Grace Theology, which is a different thing.

 

[Romansthruphilemon]

Before I watch an hour long video please tell me this. Does he rightly divide the salvations of the spirit soul and body in his application of scripture?

The video uses scripture to clearly show who the audience is for different parts of scripture.

Jesus in his earthly ministry is dealing with Israel, not the Church, the Body of Christ. This is clearly shown and how the doctrine differs from what Paul gave us is also clearly explained.

So the video concentrates on rightly dividing the word of truth. It's all truth but it wasn't all intended for the same audience.

In other videos I have seen them clearly show the difference between Spirit, Soul, and Body and how when we are saved we are still stuck with this flesh that still sins.

 

[salt-n-light]

Is once saved always saved biblical? Is it a false doctrine? Some say it’s false and some say it is true. What bothers me is some say that it leads to hell.
I know that we are saved by Chirst and nothing more. I do not think works are necessary. Some bible verses seem to be for and against once saved always saved. I’m trying to talk to my pastor about this because it’s hard to know what to trust at times. Here is a link of why I was asking.
Backsliding or Backslider GOD WANTS YOU BACK
ETERNAL SECURITY Doctrine and Grace is False

I'll give this scenario.

You're in the middle of the sea, and you crying for help. Someone heard you, decided to swim to you and give you a life jacket. Can you say you are saved? Yes. But can you say that you're guaranteed safe? Only if you follow the instructions of the person that is saving you. Once you are in the dry ground you are safe.

There are scenarios that you could have done something foolish, and you lose grip of the lifeguard, and you drown and die. The tide could still take you away. Point is you have that life jacket didn't negate the fact that you are still in the water and can still face danger. And what if I decided that even when I'm about to reach the shore, you wanted to run back into the water? Maybe you left a special necklace and wanted it back. It would be as if you were never saved.

This is how I view that argument. Those who have an ear, let him hear.

 

[Hillsage]

So you agree that obedience is required for eternal life? Yes or no?

For the body to live immortally perfect obedience to the Father is required.

Or, are you claiming that obedience is required for "perfection?"

Yes.

Are you sinless/perfect?

No! But like Paul I believe it is an attainable goal and “I press toward the mark for the prize .”

What are we required to "reach?"

The Bible says; “the image of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

What do you define as that "high calling?"

Same answer as above.

Your response has generated a few questions that require clarification.

I know. And I do appreciate you asking questions so that ‘you may understand’ where I’m coming from. Not that I even expect anyone to agree just because ‘I say’.

 

[Dave L]

Actually John Calvin himself proudly admits he was culpable for the death of Servetus.

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident
Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.
"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him" John Calvin

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." John Calvin

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt." John Calvin

This is the man Calvinists uphold as their theological forefather.

For more on the Murder of Servetus see:

The Murder of Michael Servetus

We must remember Augustine was the first "Calvinist" so to speak. So character assignation doesn't alleviate the truth in Calvin's theology.

 

[EJ M]

Judas technically was a baptized Christian as he would never have ever found a seat besides the disciples if he wasn’t. Jesus called him a devil because he knew of Judas’s eventual betrayal. Judas was called by Christ for a purpose and that purpose was that so all things may be fulfilled including his death at the cross. Nothing went wrong with the Baptism of Simon Magnus, something was wrong with the flesh not the Spirit.

I believe you are right, Judas even partook of communion with Jesus and the eleven and Jesus washed his feet also.

 

[EJ M]

It seems Calvin invented or re-invented OSAS to salve his conscience, Without doubt Calvin read
1 John 3:15.
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

I dearly hope Calvin repented before he stood in front of Jesus. (2 Cor 5:10)

 

[Dave L]

It seems Calvin invented OSAS to salve his conscience, Without doubt Calvin read I John 3:15.
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
I dearly hope Calvin repented before he stood in front of Jesus. II Cor 5:10

I don't know if Calvin is saved or not. But back in the day church and state were one, and treason resulted in weakening the state's official stand on religion. So I wonder if it would be more like any government executing traitors?

 

[EJ M]

I don't know if Calvin is saved or not. But back in the day church and state were one, and treason resulted in weakening the state's official stand on religion. So I wonder if it would be more like any government executing traitors?

Actually it's unlikely Calvin dirtied his hands with firewood or ropes, but no one who loves the truth will deny he is guilty of Servetus murder, although Calvin would call it execution.

Can any OSAS ers deny that those of us that believe Faith and obedience are necessary in a Christian's life for Jesus to take us to heaven, would have met Servetus fate if Calvin still had his way?
If fact, according to Calvin's theology, many of us posting the truth here would be executed, (murdered) if Calvin were still the judge.

 

[Dave L]

Actually it's unlikely Calvin dirtied his hands with firewood or ropes, but no one who loves the truth will deny he is guilty of Servetus murder, although Calvin would call it execution.

Can any OSAS ers deny that those of us that believe Faith and obedience are necessary in a Christian's life for Jesus to take us to heaven, would have met Servetus fate if Calvin still had his way?
If fact, according to Calvin's theology, many of us posting the truth here would be executed, (murdered) if Calvin were still the judge.

I don't know if God saved Calvin. He recycled truth from Augustine. But it broke the back of the RCC who also murdered many. I believe I would have been a victim too had I lived then. But through independent bible study I've gleaned truth from most of Christendom, including Calvin and Luther.

 

[bcbsr]

We must remember Augustine was the first "Calvinist" so to speak. So character assignation doesn't alleviate the truth in Calvin's theology.

Granted that Calvin gets must of his stuff from Augustine, who was wrong on many points. But concerning Elections Augustine differed from Calvin in that he believed election was based on God's foreknowledge of the person's merits whereas Calvin doesn't, which is kind of the subject at hand.

Wikipedia says of Augustine "He believed God's predestination was based on God's foreknowledge of every individual's merits"

So invoking Augustine is counter productive to your position.

 

[Hillsage]

The video uses scripture to clearly show who the audience is for different parts of scripture.

Jesus in his earthly ministry is dealing with Israel, not the Church, the Body of Christ. This is clearly shown and how the doctrine differs from what Paul gave us is also clearly explained.

So the video concentrates on rightly dividing the word of truth. It's all truth but it wasn't all intended for the same audience.

The problem with sin began in the garden and affects all equally. That the 'life' of God which has been available from the garden to today may have changed does not negate the availability of it in whatever 'age' we may study. Immortality was available in the Pre-NT age as well as post. Melchizedek had immorality. And Melchizedek was the context of the Hebrews 5 scripture presented by Oldmantook. Later in chapter 7 we even see that Melchizedek was still alive in the NT age.

HEB 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him;...8 Here tithes are received by mortal men; there, by one of whom it is testified that he (Melchizedek) lives.

In other videos I have seen them clearly show the difference between Spirit, Soul, and Body and how when we are saved we are still stuck with this flesh that still sins.

Yes we are stuck with the sin nature of "sinful flesh" just like Jesus came in "being made like unto his brethren in every respect."

ROM 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

But, as Paul said, we too should "crucify our flesh daily" and be led of the spirit. In doing so we will have immortal resurrection life now in this age, and eternal glorified life then.

 

[EJ M]

I don't know if God saved Calvin. He recycled truth from Augustine. But it broke the back of the RCC who also murdered many. I believe I would have been a victim too had I lived then. But through independent bible study I've gleaned truth from most of Christendom, including Calvin and Luther.

Truth.
What is also interesting to point out to all defenders of Calvin, is the Swiss Reformed Church, (founded by Zwingli,) who adhered to Calvin's OSAS theology repented of their slaughter.
They didn't try to whitewash their ugly history, they repented totally.
Can anyone here point out why Catholics and Protestants including Calvin hated and slaughtered Anabaptists and Jews?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e10f120/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.687ed0e2498e

 

[BCsenior]

Is once saved always saved biblical?

Perhaps this is better referred to as eternal security.
I will post a new thread with some of the best NT verses which warn about losing one's salvation.

 

[Dave L]

Granted that Calvin gets must of his stuff from Augustine, who was wrong on many points. But concerning Elections Augustine differed from Calvin in that he believed election was based on God's foreknowledge of the person's merits whereas Calvin doesn't, which is kind of the subject at hand.

Wikipedia says of Augustine "He believed God's predestination was based on God's foreknowledge of every individual's merits"

So invoking Augustine is counter productive to your position.

I'm not familiar with the details, but slight differences do not mean Luther and Calvin were not Augustinians.

 

[bcbsr]

I'm not familiar with the details, but slight differences do not mean Luther and Calvin were not Augustinians.

It does mean they were not Augustinians with regards to the issue of predestination.

 

[Oldmantook]

While you referenced 1John 3:8,9 you only quoted verse 8. Verse 9 advocates Eternal Security.

"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:9,10

Typically anti-OSAS Christians postulate the if OSAS were true it would lead to people continuing to sin. But as you can see, those born of God have lost the ability to continue to sin and that due to the nature of regeneration. And verse 10 indicates that such is not simply a possible effect, but rather an inevitable effect, so much so that you can distinguish children of God from children of the devil based upon their characteristic behavior.

So as I point out many times in such debates, all those verses that anti-OSAS bring up which basically indicate that those who don't characteristically behave properly will go to hell, are resolved with the fact that no one born of God will behave in such a manner. Thus such verses can't be used to disprove OSAS. They can only be used to disprove Free Grace Theology, which is a different thing.

Please explain exactly where in v.9 does it advocate eternal security? Pay attention to the Greek verb tenses. The word for "sin" in v.9 is "poiei" which is a present tense verb meaning sinning. It means continue to PRACTICE sin. It cannot mean does not sin. How can it mean that when 1 John 1:8,10 plainly states that no one is without sin? Are you without sin. Neither am I. Thus your claim of "those born of God have lost the ability to continue in sin" is false. We still occasionally sin IF we walk in the light. There are those believers who choose to walk in darkness and do not even have fellowship with God (1 Jn 1:6). There are those believers who practice sin and are of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). That is why if you are born of God, you will not continue to practice sin/habitually sin. But if you do, you will sow what you reap. That is what Paul warned of in Rom 8:13. Scripture interprets scripture. Warnings in Scripture are directed to believers - not unbelievers.

 

[Oldmantook]

For the body to live immortally perfect obedience to the Father is required.

If perfect obedience is required and that by definition requires no sin on our part, how can anyone live immortally since no one is without sin according to 1 Jn 3:8,10.

No! But like Paul I believe it is an attainable goal and “I press toward the mark for the prize .”

How can it be attainable since we all sin?

The Bible says; “the image of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

Yes that is the goal but does that mean sinless perfection?

I know. And I do appreciate you asking questions so that ‘you may understand’ where I’m coming from. Not that I even expect anyone to agree just because ‘I say’.

I agree. We agree based on Scripture - or at least are shared interpretation of Scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy otherwise known as an overgeneralization. Yes, there are SOME who went out from us but were never of us; i.e. not genuine believers as John pointed out. However, that does not automatically entail that ALL who depart were never of us. In fact in the same letter, John points out that those believers who practice sin are of the devil.
"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8-9).
"Little children" is term of endearment reserved exclusively for believers; not unbelievers. John warn believers that those who practice sin are of the devil. John warns believers that habitual sin leads to spiritual death.

Jesus never dealt in logical fallacies as the Divine Logos.