OSAS does not survive the "sola scriptura" test. Now what?

[aiki]

"OSAS does not survive the "sola scriptura" test. Now what?"

"Now what"? Well, since OSAS does survive such a test very well, you ought to re-think your title.

And "yet" not one single verse saying that all who are born again will "persevere firm to the end" or that those who "fall from grace are saved anyway".

The Bible never uses the term "trinity" or "trinitarian" when describing God, either. The Bible also never uses the terms "omniscient," or "omnipresent," or "non-contingent" to describe Him, but these are all terms common to the Christian understanding of God.

As one who believes the Bible when it says that Christ's atoning work at Calvary was entirely sufficient for my redemption and that it is only on the basis of his imputed perfect righteousness that I gain acceptance by God (Romans 3:24; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:22-23; Romans 5:19, etc), I don't need verses that explicitly say "all who are born again will persevere to the end" or that "the born-again may fall from grace but remain saved." When I read that I am "accepted in the Beloved" (who is Christ) (Ephesians 1:6), I recognize that my acceptance with God is contingent upon the Beloved, not upon me. I am accepted by God solely upon my position in Christ, not upon my own righteousness. And so I read in Scripture:

Titus 3:5-7
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

My second birth was not dependent upon my works and, once accomplished, my second birth does not then become dependent upon them. To think that my salvation gained apart from my works is retained by good works is to hold to a one-step-removed works-salvation. Paul challenged this sort of thinking very directly:

Galatians 3:2-3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

They are if they are still born-again. If they have lost their salvation "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4... then they would no longer be saved.

"4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB

Here's some context to the verse:

Galatians 5:2-6
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

What follows verse 2 is a description of what Paul meant by "Christ will profit you nothing." Note, Paul does not say in verse 2 that Christ will forsake you (or vice versa), or undo one's second birth, only that Christ will not profit those Paul goes on to describe. Verse 2, then, limits how I read verse 4. Verse 4 in the King James reads,

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

This rendering of the verse agrees better, it seems to me, with verse 2 than the NASB version that says "you have been severed from Christ." The Greek primary particle, "apo" (ἀπό), certainly does not demand translation with "you have been severed." Other translations use less extreme (and, I think, more appropriate) terms like "separated," or "alienated," or "estranged" that don't strengthen a lose-your-salvation reading like "severed" does. One can be estranged, or alienated, or separated from one's family without having one's relationship to one's family entirely nullified or dissolved.

In any case, is salvation itself being discussed by Paul in this passage? Since in other places, Paul makes it very clear that salvation is works-independent (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 9:11; 2 Timothy 1:9), I must understand what he wrote to the Galatians within the confines of this fact. I can't, therefore, understand Paul to be saying in the passage from Galatians 5 that a truly born-again person can be un-born if they depend upon the law for their righteousness. What Paul was saying to the Galatians is that the spiritual benefit of Christ's imputed righteousness is made void - it does not profit - by the belief that one can be justified before God by obeying His commands. When cleaning the lawn of leaves, one cannot profit from owning a leaf rake if one does not think cleaning up leaves should be done with a leaf rake. But not using the rake one possesses in a beneficial way, in the way it was intended to be used, does not mean one does not any longer possess the rake. So, too, with salvation. Not using the righteousness in Christ that one obtains through faith in him in a spiritually profitable way does not mean one no longer possesses it.

What, then, of the phrase "fallen from grace"? Does it mean "lost your salvation"? I don't see how. One can fall from the benefits of God's grace without losing His grace entirely. See my rake analogy above.

For further reading on this matter see:

Eternally Secure In Christ | Christian Forums

 

[BobRyan]

"OSAS does not survive the "sola scriptura" test. Now what?"

"Now what"? Well, since OSAS does survive such a test very well, you ought to re-think your title.

The Bible never uses the term "trinity" or "trinitarian"

In the OP I do not make a singe remark of the form "OSAS as a term is not found in the Bible".

You are working on a wrong premise.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding

If they have lost their salvation "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4... then they would no longer be saved.

"4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB

you said

Here's some context to the verse:

Galatians 5:2-6
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

What follows verse 2 is a description of what Paul meant by "Christ will profit you nothing." Note, Paul does not say in verse 2 that Christ will forsake you (or vice versa), or undo one's second birth,

"severed from Christ,,,, you have fallen from grace."

If you want to make the argument that such is the way the Bible describes the "saved condition" you will have to work on more actual quotes that make the case. So far you are trying by "extreme inference" poured into the text "alone". Which is fine at some level but does not hold up to a sola scriptura test of such an idea.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

This rendering of the verse agrees better, it seems to me, with verse 2 than the NASB version that says "you have been severed from Christ." The Greek primary particle, "apo" (ἀπό), certainly does not demand translation with "you have been severed." Other translations use less extreme (and, I think, more appropriate) terms like "separated," or "alienated," or "estranged" that don't strengthen a lose-your-salvation reading like "severed" does.

Your argument that "separated from Christ" -- "Alienated from Christ" is within the Bible definition of "saved" is merely in the form of a hopeful supposition -- nothing in the Bible suggests that is how the saved condition can be defined.

If Christ provides no benefit to me - how "else" was I going to be accepted by the Father, filled with the Holy Spirit, forgiven of Sin - according to the Bible?

No such thing in the Bible form of the Gospel as: "saved apart from Christ" or "Saved without any benefit coming to you from Christ".

2 Cor 5 "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" is clearly arguing that alienated/separated is in fact the condition of the lost world. You are trying to rescue OSAS in Gal 5:4 by applying that same condition to the saved. The Bible does not support it.

You are using creative writing to suggest a distinction in terms but only end up with "a distinction without a difference" in the end.

====================================

Which is why I then ask if you were going to try out "the other option" for rescuing OSAS from Gal 5:4


IF on the other hand you want to make the point that someone never joined to Christ suddenly got "severed from Christ" -- you will need a much more substantive way to make that case.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I understood completely. Life is just to short and difficult to live and I just refuse to be involved with anyone who exhibits such an attitude as you did. Have a wonderful day.

As you wish.

But for those reading along, I do want to say this:

What attitude would that be?
Would you care to post what I said?
We were discussing how calvinists view the grace of God, not mainline Christians.
And, I said nothing with an "attitude" to anyone.

 

[Major1]

In the OP I do not make a singe remark of the form "OSAS as a term is not found in the Bible".

You are working on a wrong premise.

While I am nothing more than an old country boy, when I read your words of...………..

"And "yet" not one single verse saying that all who are born again will "persevere firm to the end" or that those who "fall from grace are saved anyway".

They are if they are still born-again. If they have lost their salvation "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4... then they would no longer be saved."

That gave me the impression you were certainly trying to say that you do not accept OSAS you just used different words.

But that is just me.

And even if you did not mean that, isn't it fun debating OSAS anyway???????

 

[Major1]

Regarding

If they have lost their salvation "severed from Christ" and "fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4... then they would no longer be saved.

"4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Gal 5:4 - NASB

you said



"severed from Christ,,,, you have fallen from grace."

If you want to make the argument that such is the way the Bible describes the "saved condition" you will have to work on more actual quotes that make the case. So far you are trying by "extreme inference" poured into the text "alone". Which is fine at some level but does not hold up to a sola scriptura test of such an idea.

IF on the other hand you want to make the point that someone never joined to Christ suddenly got "severed from Christ" -- you will need a much more substantive way to make that case.

Galatians 5:4 does not mean losing salvation.

It means that if anyone have trusted Christ and then goes down to the level of trying to live by the Law, they have fallen from grace.

"Falling from grace" is the doctrine of the Methodist denomination and practiced by the Presbyterians. But "Falling from Grace" does not mean falling into some open sin or carless conduct and by doing so some how foreiting your salvation so that you have to be saved over and over again.

It has no referrance to that at all and you my friend are working from a false premise.

Actually, with a little study you will be able to see that "Falling from Grace" is the opposite of "Once Saved Always Saved", although both phrases are unfortunate terminology.

 

[marineimaging]

Just think. If we have to keep the commandments to be saved, and stay redeemed, then the only person in heaven will be Jesus.

Do you mean that even Mother Theresa sinned now and then? Not so. Say it ain't so.

 

[aiki]

"severed from Christ,,,, you have fallen from grace."

If you want to make the argument that such is the way the Bible describes the "saved condition" you will have to work on more actual quotes that make the case.

You used Galatians 5:4 to assert that a person who is born-again can be un-born. I pointed out some good reasons from the passage in which the verse stands and from the verse itself why this isn't so. Your response here doesn't address any of what I've pointed out but merely deflects by demanding "more actual quotes that make the case." I don't see that I have to do any more than I've done to show that your reading of Galatians 5:4 isn't necessary or careful of what Paul wrote.

So far you are trying by "extreme inference" poured into the text "alone". Which is fine at some level but does not hold up to a sola scriptura test of such an idea.

??? Who says I have by "extreme inference poured into the text alone" made my case for my point of view? You? On what grounds? You've merely said that I have without showing that I have. Until you can show that my remarks are objectively as you've described them, all your response here does is offer your unsubstantiated opinion.

Your argument that "separated from Christ" -- "Alienated from Christ" is within the Bible definition of "saved" is merely in the form of a hopeful supposition -- nothing in the Bible suggests that is how the saved condition can be defined.

Again, you make undefended assertions here. As such, they are mere opinion. I gave you a perfectly reasonable analogy illustrating how one can be separated, or alienated, from Christ and still be one of his. You have not countered it with anything concrete and objective, only undefended assertions.

A great biblical example of what I've said is found in the parable of the Prodigal Son. No matter how physically separated from his father he was and alienated from his father by his evil living, the Prodigal Son was never not his father's son. Even if the son had died, he would still have been his father's son. Now, the fellowship between son and father was broken, it was dead, but their familial relationship was never - and could never be - in jeopardy.

If Christ provides no benefit to me - how "else" was I going to be accepted by the Father, filled with the Holy Spirit, forgiven of Sin - according to the Bible?

If you don't believe that you are fully justified by Christ's righteousness imputed to you, then you will be living in an attempt to make yourself justified before God - just like those who claim salvation depends upon one's good works. But living like one isn't justified by Christ's imputed righteousness doesn't necessarily mean one isn't justified any more than a filthy rich miser living in poverty means he is not filthy rich. It is entirely possible for one to live like a spiritual pauper despite being the inheritor, by a saving faith in Christ, of a spiritual Promised Land. What Paul writes to the Galatians in the first part of chapter 5 describes just such a situation.

No such thing in the Bible form of the Gospel as: "saved apart from Christ" or "Saved without any benefit coming to you from Christ".

I've not suggested anywhere that one can be saved apart from Christ. That's what you appear to be arguing for, not me. A born-again believer may not live out who they are in Christ and still be born-again. Paul wrote of such believers:

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;
3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

2 Cor 5 "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" is clearly arguing that alienated/separated is in fact the condition of the lost world. You are trying to rescue OSAS in Gal 5:4 by applying that same condition to the saved. The Bible does not support it.

Sorry, but merely making broad assertions without any supporting proof, like you do here, is just unfounded opinion. I am not obliged in any way to argue against your opinion, either of Scripture or my argument.

You are using creative writing to suggest a distinction in terms but only end up with "a distinction without a difference" in the end.

Once again, this is just opinion you're offering here. You can certainly say that I'm guilty of "creative writing" that is a nothing but a "distinction without a difference," but simply saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[Major1]

Do you mean that even Mother Theresa sinned now and then? Not so. Say it ain't so.

LOL!...….That is exactly what I am saying.

Every single human being to ever walk this earth is a dirty rotten sinner and had to accept the Lord Jesus Christ by faith in order to escape the judgment of God.

There is a hell and a heaven and only faith in Christ gets us to heaven. No works, No religion! Just FAITH in Christ.

It is just that simple!

 

[EmSw]

Correct! They rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.

Cut off from what?

 

[Bobber]

A great biblical example of what I've said is found in the parable of the Prodigal Son. No matter how physically separated from his father he was and alienated from his father by his evil living, the Prodigal Son was never not his father's son. Even if the son had died, he would still have been his father's son. Now, the fellowship between son and father was broken, it was dead, but their familial relationship was never - and could never be - in jeopardy.

Isn't you're reasoning here a little weak? In the verses just prior to the Prodigal son passage Jesus is giving similar illustrations. The Lord said, "In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Luke 15:10 Your opinion would be angels are rejoicing over someone excitedly who would make heaven their home regardless? Not a real stretch? And in the the Prodigal passage all we know about scripture is when dead is used it's as in dead in trespasses and sins, or in other words no spiritual life. And when he claims they were LOST....are you sure you want to claim they weren't truly lost? Again your opinion doesn't seem like a stretch?

For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. Luke 15:24

“ ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ ” Luke 15:31

 

[EmSw]

They were “cut off” because of “unbelief.”

I went through the OT, and actually sought to find why they were cut off. Not once did God say He cut off anyone for unbelief. Want to know why He cut people off?

It was for disobedience and wickedness. You can surely go look for yourself. If you find Him cutting anyone off for unbelief, please let me know.

Now I’m sure you understand that those verses speak about the nation of Israel. Read Paul’s hope regarding them.

It's the same hope God says for those who return to Him from their wickedness.

Do you understand what Grace is? No one has “merited” salvation. That’s the point.

Who doesn't know what grace is? It's the favor God gives those who humble themselves before Him.

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

 

[EmSw]

SIN!

God has not decided that these people will be lost. But at this point in history, they have rejected Christ, and God let them have their own way. But the blindness will be removed.

Romans 11:1...……
“God has not rejected his people, has he?. “Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.”

Paul was living proof that God has not abandoned his people.

Are you one who believes ALL Israel will be saved? If so, I take it you believe Judas was saved then?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You used Galatians 5:4 to assert that a person who is born-again can be un-born. I pointed out some good reasons from the passage in which the verse stands and from the verse itself why this isn't so. Your response here doesn't address any of what I've pointed out but merely deflects by demanding "more actual quotes that make the case." I don't see that I have to do any more than I've done to show that your reading of Galatians 5:4 isn't necessary or careful of what Paul wrote.



??? Who says I have by "extreme inference poured into the text alone" made my case for my point of view? You? On what grounds? You've merely said that I have without showing that I have. Until you can show that my remarks are objectively as you've described them, all your response here does is offer your unsubstantiated opinion.



Again, you make undefended assertions here. As such, they are mere opinion. I gave you a perfectly reasonable analogy illustrating how one can be separated, or alienated, from Christ and still be one of his. You have not countered it with anything concrete and objective, only undefended assertions.

A great biblical example of what I've said is found in the parable of the Prodigal Son. No matter how physically separated from his father he was and alienated from his father by his evil living, the Prodigal Son was never not his father's son. Even if the son had died, he would still have been his father's son. Now, the fellowship between son and father was broken, it was dead, but their familial relationship was never - and could never be - in jeopardy.



If you don't believe that you are fully justified by Christ's righteousness imputed to you, then you will be living in an attempt to make yourself justified before God - just like those who claim salvation depends upon one's good works. But living like one isn't justified by Christ's imputed righteousness doesn't necessarily mean one isn't justified any more than a filthy rich miser living in poverty means he is not filthy rich. It is entirely possible for one to live like a spiritual pauper despite being the inheritor, by a saving faith in Christ, of a spiritual Promised Land. What Paul writes to the Galatians in the first part of chapter 5 describes just such a situation.



I've not suggested anywhere that one can be saved apart from Christ. That's what you appear to be arguing for, not me. A born-again believer may not live out who they are in Christ and still be born-again. Paul wrote of such believers:

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;
3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?



Sorry, but merely making broad assertions without any supporting proof, like you do here, is just unfounded opinion. I am not obliged in any way to argue against your opinion, either of Scripture or my argument.



Once again, this is just opinion you're offering here. You can certainly say that I'm guilty of "creative writing" that is a nothing but a "distinction without a difference," but simply saying so doesn't make it so.

Regarding the Prodigal Son.
Luke 15:11-32

I hear this concept of losing fellowship but not losing salvation.
I'd like to see one verse in the entire N.T. that states this.
Men make up concepts such as losing fellowship because they find it difficult to believe that they could actually lose their salvation when it's all over the N.T. including in Jesus' own words.

But I'd like to address the Prodigal son. He asked for his inheritance so that he could LEAVE the home of his father.
He got 2/3 of the inheritance since he was the older son.
IF he had never gone back home, he would have received NOTHING ELSE. His father gave him all he owed him and nothing more was he to get even when his father died.

When the Prodigal son went back home his father said to rejoice because the son was DEAD and has COME TO LIFE AGAIN. He was LOST and has been FOUND.
Luke 15:24

Not only this, but the son realized he was not even WORTHY to be called a son anymore.
Luke 15:21

No matter how much man says OSAS is true, it cannot possibly be true since all the writers warn us to be careful to adhere to what we have learned. And what have we learned? What did Jesus teach?

Where does Jesus say to JUST believe and we will be saved?
He spent 3 1/2 years telling everyone how to behave and how to do good deeds in the name of God.

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Do you suppose you could have fellowship with the Holy Spirit if you abandon God and thus the Holy Spirit or if you return to a life of sin? How would the Holy Spirit be able to dwell together with either abandonment or a life of sin?

 

[amariselle]

I went through the OT, and actually sought to find why they were cut off. Not once did God say He cut off anyone for unbelief. Want to know why He cut people off?

I have no idea why you persist in trying to put yourself and everyone else back under the “Old Covenant”. One would think you’d be overjoyed that all of the Old Testament prophecies and promises have been fulfilled in Christ.

It was for disobedience and wickedness. You can surely go look for yourself. If you find Him cutting anyone off for unbelief, please let me know.

As I’m sure you are aware, we are not under the Old Covenant. (And the Old Covenant only ever pointed to Christ).

So, let us look at what is said in regard to those “cut off” under the “New Covenant”:

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear...- Romans 11:19-20

It's the same hope God says for those who return to Him from their wickedness.

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth - Romans 10:1-4

Who doesn't know what grace is? It's the favor God gives those who humble themselves before Him.

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Right, and it cannot be earned in any way, shape or form based on our own merits.

 

[aiki]

Isn't you're reasoning here a little weak? In the verses just prior to the Prodigal son passage Jesus is giving similar illustrations. The Lord said, "In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Luke 15:10

This statement by Jesus about rejoicing angels clearly refers to, and concludes, the Parable of the Lost Coin. The statement does not directly relate to the Parable of the Prodigal; there is no parallel remark made at the end of the Prodigal parable. It seems evident to me, then, that the point of the Lost Coin parable is not identical to the point(s) made by Jesus in his Prodigal Son parable. Why, then, should I think the verse you cited has any direct bearing on the Prodigal parable?

And in the the Prodigal passage all we know about scripture is when dead is used it's as in dead in trespasses and sins, or in other words no spiritual life.

You seem very sure about this. Why? I see the term "dead" used in a number of ways in the New Testament:

It is used figuratively.

Matthew 28:3-4
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

It is used literally.

John 11:14
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead."

It is even used in connection with non-biological things.

Hebrews 6:1
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

I don't see, then, that there is the reason you suggest for thinking that, when the father in the Prodigal parable says that his son was "dead," that he meant "dead in trespasses and sins." In fact, the father explains what he means:

Luke 15:32
32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.' "

How was the son lost? Lost in sin? Not in the context of the parable itself. The son was lost to his father, that is, separated - physically and in terms of direct interaction - from him. Did this make him not his father's son? No. As I said, the lostness and deadness of the Prodigal Son had to do with his fellowship with his father, not his relationship to him as his son. I don't see how I'm stretching for this reading at all...

 

[EmSw]

Isn't that exactly what the Word of God says??????

For a Christian to lose salvation, eternal life would have to be redefined. The Christian is promised to live forever. Does eternal not mean “eternal”?

Whether you or any other Christian is a part of eternal life or not, it will always be eternal. You are not the one who makes it eternal. Eternal life will always be eternal life.

You still don’t understand it was a rhetorical question asked to make a point, do you? Let me explain.

The point is this: those who say we must add works to Christ’s perfect and once for all sacrifice for sin are the ones saying Christ has failed. (This is the “willful sin” by the way - Hebrews 10:26-29)) If it is true that our “good works” and obedience are necessary for salvation, then Christ did not do enough to save us.

Oh, Jesus did everything perfectly, and it was enough to save us. He did not fail in the least, as you seem to think of me. It is man's failure if he is not saved.

Of course man has failed. That is precisely why we need the Saviour.

Who is to blame if man is not saved? Didn't Jesus do enough to save him?

He was making a point to a Jew who was under the Law and who claimed to have kept it perfectly, that he had not kept it at all. (He loved his money and material possessions) And this is the point that Jesus makes:

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. - Matthew 19:23-26

Where did you get that Jesus pointed out that he did not keep it at all? When the young man said he kept those from his youth up, Jesus did not tell him he was lying, or any other statement which indicates the young man didn't keep them.

I sure hope you aren't rich. If so, you can hardly enter the kingdom. Hopefully you can push a camel through the eye of a needle.

With men, it is impossible to be saved. However, Jesus gave the instructions and commandments by which we may be saved. These instructions and commandments are God's, thus making it possible for us to be saved.

You may want to consider the story of the Pharisee and the publican.

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. - Luke 18:9-14

Which one gave God the credit for all the good things he did? Which one simply cried out, "God have mercy on me, a sinner!" And which of the two went away justified?

I sure don't trust in myself for righteousness and I surely don't despise others, like some on this board I have seen.

So, tell me, is this the way for a man to be justified? Or, is there another way? I wonder how many 'OSAS believers' actually humble themselves before God like this man. How many actually ask for God to be merciful to them as a sinner.

The "much more involved in salvation" was completely accomplished by Christ, who by Himself purged our sins. It is finished. Many don't believe Him and they seek to add their own "righteous" works to what He has done.

If a man can be justified like the man above, what sins needed to be purged? What other things did Jesus need to accomplish? Was the man above just temporarily justified? Was it not a complete justification?

We also read in Luke 19 that salvation came to the house of Zacchaeus. What further things did Jesus need to do to save Zacchaeus? Was it not a completed salvation for Zacchaeus? Do you believe Zacchaeus was saved at that moment?

See above. You have missed the point Jesus was making. No one has kept the Law perfectly in thought, word and deed, from birth to death. And if one seeks to be justified by works, this is what is required. Only Christ has perfectly fulfilled the Law and only He can save.

Jesus never said to keep the law perfectly. That is made up by man. Where do you find a requirement of keeping the law perfectly?

 

[EmSw]

Good point. That's why we should not pluck out verses and try to apply them to a particular pet theology.

I was making the point if you want to pluck out "cut off" you have to explain "all saved."

Context matters.

I don't think all Israel will be saved. Judas is a perfect example.

I do believe those who disobeyed and were wicked were cut off, as find many times in the OT.

 

[EmSw]

Just think. If we have to keep the commandments to be saved, and stay redeemed, then the only person in heaven will be Jesus.

I am amazed at those who call Jesus Lord and Master, who do not want to keep His commandments. It's like His commandments are some kind of lethal disease.

Actually, a person's self does not want to keep His commandments; they want an easier way. They want it to where their desires are kept, and not have to rid themselves of evil in their heart. They do not want any kind of lord ruling in their lives.

 

[aiki]

egarding the Prodigal Son.
Luke 15:11-32

I hear this concept of losing fellowship but not losing salvation.
I'd like to see one verse in the entire N.T. that states this.
Men make up concepts such as losing fellowship because they find it difficult to believe that they could actually lose their salvation when it's all over the N.T. including in Jesus' own words.

Well, you see, I don't think it is "all over the N.T." as you say. And I've already explained why I don't think one can be saved-and-lost in an earlier post.

But I'd like to address the Prodigal son. He asked for his inheritance so that he could LEAVE the home of his father.
He got 2/3 of the inheritance since he was the older son.
IF he had never gone back home, he would have received NOTHING ELSE. His father gave him all he owed him and nothing more was he to get even when his father died.

But his father had given him something else: life. That is, the father was the progenitor of the Prodigal and as such inviolably his father. Remember, the son received an inheritance because he was his father's son.

When the Prodigal son went back home his father said to rejoice because the son was DEAD and has COME TO LIFE AGAIN. He was LOST and has been FOUND.
Luke 15:24

The father was clearly speaking of the character of his fellowship with his son. Quite obviously, the father knew his son had not actually, physically died, and the father was not giving a sermon on the saved-and-lost doctrine, so I don't see how the parable provides ground for thinking the father meant his son was spiritually dead.

Not only this, but the son realized he was not even WORTHY to be called a son anymore.
Luke 15:21

But as the parable illustrates, this has no bearing on whether or not one is a child to one's parent. In the end, the Prodigal went home to his father, not to a stranger.

No matter how much man says OSAS is true, it cannot possibly be true since all the writers warn us to be careful to adhere to what we have learned.

I don't agree. And as you've stated yourself here, you are guilty of a non sequitur.

Where does Jesus say to JUST believe and we will be saved?

John 3:14-18
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Do you suppose you could have fellowship with the Holy Spirit if you abandon God and thus the Holy Spirit or if you return to a life of sin? How would the Holy Spirit be able to dwell together with either abandonment or a life of sin?

It does not follow from the things I've espoused in this thread that I think that fellowship with the Holy Spirit is possible if one abandons God and returns to a life of sin. It is precisely my point that the parable of the Prodigal illustrates that such behaviour ends fellowship (but not a relationship) with God.

It is my belief that one in whom the Spirit truly dwells cannot go back into a life of habitual sin. Certainly, abandoning God is not the act of one who really knows Him and is indwelt by His Spirit.