Once saved always saved

[redleghunter]

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

You do realize there is no such doctrine as OSAS. That term is used by internet theologians who attribute eternal security with antinomianism. It’s a made up straw man theological term which is easily knocked down.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Indeed they were.

 

[redleghunter]

Baptism was still taking place at the time of Jesus regardless if it was Trinitarian Baptism or not.

They either received Trinitarian Christian baptism or not. Christ was yet to be Crucified. His own disciples were clueless of what His death and Resurrection meant until after the Resurrection when Judas was dead.

Give it up. The son of perdition was predestined to betray Christ to fulfill the Scriptures.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes.

How does that happen?

 

[Thess]

Jesus knew Judas was a devil and yet He chose him. Why?

You seem to know a lot. Are you curious, as in you don't know the answer, or are you testing me?

 

[Barney2.0]

How does that happen?

When one rejects Christ after accepting him.

 

[redleghunter]

When one rejects Christ after accepting him.

Have any examples from the NT?

 

[Barney2.0]

Have any examples from the NT?

Judas is perhaps the greatest example.

 

[bcbsr]

This does not wash with Augustine’s
On the Predestination of the Saints (Book I)

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)

The introductory has this:

That the predestinated are called by some certain calling peculiar to the elect, and that they have been elected before the foundation of the world; not because they were foreknown as men who would believe and would be holy, but in order that by means of that very election of gracethey might be such, etc.

And yet the same article states, "God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe in Him" So Augustine must have changed his position at some point.

Yes, going through wikipedia it says, "Prior to 396, Augustine believed that predestination was based on God's foreknowledge of whether individuals would believe, that God's grace was "a reward for human assent".[13] Later, in response to Pelagius, Augustine said that the sin of pride consists in assuming that "we are the ones who choose God or that God chooses us (in his foreknowledge) because of something worthy in us", and argued that it is God's grace that causes the individual act of faith."

Fact is, Augustine and Calvin are wrong. For if such is the case, then salvation is not by faith but by an arbitrary pre-birth election. Which is inconsistent with rhetoric the Bible uses concerning the gospel. As I said elsewhere Calvinists are hypocrites in this regards preaching the gospel. For they don't apply their "Calvinism" when it comes to answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

Now if a person claims to believe something but doesn't apply it, then they don't really believe it. Thus Calvinists generally don't actually believe Calvinism. The true Calvinists are called "Hyper-Calvinists". Hyper-Calvinism is applied Calvinism. The rest are mere arm-chair Calvinists.

 

[Danielwright2311]

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

If you always belive Jesus died for your sins and rose three days latter and belive Jesus is the son of God then you are always saved.

 

[redleghunter]

Judas is perhaps the greatest example.

Yet by his actions he proved he did not believe Christ.

 

[eleos1954]

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

By this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked (1 John 2:3–6).

When one accepts Jesus His Holy Spirt starts working in the believer and changes in behavior will/should occur that are more in line with His commandments. These changes are over the life-time of the person. We will stumble here and there. We will never be perfect in our earthly bodies.

When you have an abiding trust in Jesus, you can know that you are a child of God and that He will finish what He began in your life. “Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). How do we complete the race that we began when we first accepted the Savior? “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2).

We can have the assurance of salvation if we keep our eyes on Christ and hold fast to His Word. We can know that we have eternal life when we continue to walk in God’s ways by faith. But if we believe that once we accept Jesus we can turn away from Him (continue knowingly in our sins) and still be saved, we are swallowing an artificial gospel that could leave us with great disappointment.

God Bless.

 

[redleghunter]

And yet the same article states, "God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe in Him" So Augustine must have changed his position at some point.

Yes, going through wikipedia it says, "Prior to 396, Augustine believed that predestination was based on God's foreknowledge of whether individuals would believe, that God's grace was "a reward for human assent".[13] Later, in response to Pelagius, Augustine said that the sin of pride consists in assuming that "we are the ones who choose God or that God chooses us (in his foreknowledge) because of something worthy in us", and argued that it is God's grace that causes the individual act of faith."

Fact is, Augustine and Calvin are wrong. For if such is the case, then salvation is not by faith but by an arbitrary pre-birth election. Which is inconsistent with rhetoric the Bible uses concerning the gospel. As I said elsewhere Calvinists are hypocrites in this regards preaching the gospel. For they don't apply their "Calvinism" when it comes to answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

Now if a person claims to believe something but doesn't apply it, then they don't really believe it. Thus Calvinists generally don't actually believe Calvinism. The true Calvinists are called "Hyper-Calvinists". Hyper-Calvinism is applied Calvinism. The rest are mere arm-chair Calvinists.

If you do more than a key search and read through chapter 5 you will see Augustine is explaining his retraction of a previously held belief before he became a bishop. He spends 2.5 chapters explaining this.

In chapter 7 he explains he used to believe God chooses on the basis of man coming to belief or initial faith. Yet denies that claim in this work that even faith is a gift of Grace. He makes it quite clear God chooses and that human efforts or merit have no part in His election. It’s so painfully obvious.

It’s important to understand how these early theologians engaged in polemical speech. In such they usually frame the opposing view and then the logical consequences of such. Then dig in to refute the model.

Read it all. It’s a great work which the Reformers pointed to. As well as the Council or Orange.

 

[mark kennedy]

You had me till here

We can have the assurance of salvation if we keep our eyes on Christ and hold fast to His Word. We can know that we have eternal life when we continue to walk in God’s ways by faith. But if we believe that once we accept Jesus we can turn away from Him (continue knowingly in our sins) and still be saved, we are swallowing an artificial gospel that could leave us with great disappointment.

That turning away, which is actually falling away, is falling away from the faith. Committing a sin is not apostasy, you don't lose salvation because you sin, willingly or otherwise. When you sin, and I don't mean if, you are disciplined because God disciplines every child that comes to him.

God Bless.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

If you do more than a key search and read through chapter 5 you will see Augustine is explaining his retraction of a previously held belief before he became a bishop. He spends 2.5 chapters explaining this.

In chapter 7 he explains he used to believe God chooses on the basis of man coming to belief or initial faith. Yet denies that claim in this work that even faith is a gift of Grace. He makes it quite clear God chooses and that human efforts or merit have no part in His election. It’s so painfully obvious.

It’s important to understand how these early theologians engaged in polemical speech. In such they usually frame the opposing view and then the logical consequences of such. Then dig in to refute the model.

Read it all. It’s a great work which the Reformers pointed to. As well as the Council or Orange.

From the Council of Orange, Canon 6:

If anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).​

 

[Barney2.0]

Yet by his actions he proved he did not believe Christ.

I believe it’s more akin to apostasy rather then anything else.

 

[redleghunter]

Fact is, Augustine and Calvin are wrong. For if such is the case, then salvation is not by faith but by an arbitrary pre-birth election. Which is inconsistent with rhetoric the Bible uses concerning the gospel. As I said elsewhere Calvinists are hypocrites in this regards preaching the gospel. For they don't apply their "Calvinism" when it comes to answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

No what Augustine and Reformed theology look at are the doctrines of Grace and as such the Sovereignty of God. Neither view assumes humans are robots or puppets. If you read the work I posted to you, Augustine does an admirable job explaining what some see as a dichotomy. He operates from Romans 3:23 and then Romans 4-5 with regards to original sin as did Calvin and Luther. Based on his earlier discourses showing there is no good in us.

Augustine shows the two historic views one Pelagian and the other unmerited Grace. That one either believes there is some inherent human goodness or worth which leads one to believe God, or that God by His Grace provides the heart to believe (Ezekiel 36:26 and following).

So one either believes we have some inherent goodness to respond to God and that He adds to what we have, or we are truly dead in our sins and transgressions and God makes us alive in Christ (Ephesians 2). Pelagian or unmerited Grace. Unmerited Grace is indeed Biblical in both the OT and NT.

And again, preaching the Gospel to all souls is not a contradiction as I’ve pointed out several times. In Reformed theology “knowing the elect” is not the tenet of Election. Election is what God does not the evangelist. It is God Who chooses in His Divine Sovereignty and this is unmerited Grace. Augustine and Calvin and Luther expound on this Biblical principle.

So I’m still not seeing what you are demanding from Reformed theology.

Luther and Calvin nor Augustine believed we have no choice in accepting the Gospel message. They believed as the Bible clearly points out God gives us the heart of flesh from which we choose Him, repent and call upon the Name of Jesus Christ. The only other option is we choose God from a heart of stone. That’s not going to happen (Romans 3:23).

Therefore one either approaches this from the Pelagian view that we have some inate goodness which we then by our merits come to belief in Christ and then God’s Grace is added to or infused in us. Or the very faith which leads us to repentance and salvation is by the unmerited Grace of God. The very man who wrote Romans would recognize the latter and not the former.

Now if a person claims to believe something but doesn't apply it, then they don't really believe it. Thus Calvinists generally don't actually believe Calvinism. The true Calvinists are called "Hyper-Calvinists". Hyper-Calvinism is applied Calvinism. The rest are mere arm-chair Calvinists.

This is frankly hyperbolic rhetoric from an otherwise very intelligent and sound poster. Give it up.

 

[redleghunter]

You seem to know a lot. Are you curious, as in you don't know the answer, or are you testing me?

It’s an insightful question we should all explore.

Judas betraying Christ was to fulfill the Scriptures. In Matthew 26:24 Jesus said “far better for that man if he had never been born!".

Judas was predestined to betray Christ. Jesus indicted such by His own words.

Yet we have Christians who have issues believing God can choose Who He wants to save.

Or was Judas a one time deal predestination? If so why don’t more people address the “fairness” of Judas not even getting a fighting chance.

Things to ponder.

 

[mark kennedy]

It’s an insightful question we should all explore.

Judas betraying Christ was to fulfill the Scriptures. In Matthew 26:24 Jesus said “far better for that man if he had never been born!".

Judas was predestined to betray Christ. Jesus indicted such by His own words.

Yet we have Christians who have issues believing God can choose Who He wants to save.

Or was Judas a one time deal predestination? If so why don’t more people address the “fairness” of Judas not even getting a fighting chance.

Things to ponder.

Jesus knew Judas was not his friend when he called him:

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (John 6:70)
​

This is proven by the fact that he would later betray Jesus and the exact amount was prophesied (Matt. 26:9-10, Zechariah 11:12–13). It came as no surprise to God when Adam sinned or you got saved, nor was it any surprise that Judas betrayed Christ, it was predicted in fact.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe it’s more akin to apostasy rather then anything else.

Which I believe is a sage assessment. The question is was there a moment this apostate actually believed in the ministry of Christ as Christ preached and lived it? If the answer is "no" then we can readily show Judas was the branch which attached itself to Christ but produced no fruit. Meaning Christ never knew Him .