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

[FenderTL5]

LOL
In every other language there is a singular you and a plural you.
..We should have another word.

How's about Y'ALL?!

Y'all is plural, always.

 

[Bobber]

Questions to the OP:

What sins are serious enough to cause a loss of salvation?

I wouldn't think there's any one sin that could cause one to lose salvation. If over a long period of time someone keeps neglecting God, not fellowshipping with him and not even having a clue of his will or seeking to know it yes one who was once saved could possibly lose it.

If one of those salvation nullifying sins is committed and salvation lost, can salvation ever be re-obtained?

I've talked in the post above about your concept of nullifying sins but can Salvation be re-obtained?
Read the story of the Prodigal Son. Luke 15 He was a Son, and a member of the family but came back to the Father, and the Father received him gladly.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm bumping this because it really should be read by all who are thinking of becoming calvinist believers, or joining a reformed church. Basically, it's saying that God can give a tiny amount of grace to some, just enough to make them THINK they're saved, but really they are not. Like a tease!:

It was originally posted by @Mark_Sam

from Calvin's Institutes (Book III, Chapter II, Section 11):


I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved. [...]

But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use.

Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. [...]

Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.


Which in a sense renders the whole "assurance of salvation"
thing moot, at least in John Calvin's theology. How do you know that you're not just a reprobate victim to evanescent grace? Granted, I've never heard Calvinist preachers preach on evanescent grace, but it is still the legacy of Calvin.

 

[Athanasius377]

LOL
In the rules it says not to use "you".
What are we supposed to use???
In every other language there is a singular you and a plural you.
tu
voi

usted
vosotros

English:
you
you !!

Yeah. We should have another word.

How's about Y'ALL?!

You can say you and y'all like the water tower a few miles from my house.

 

[amariselle]

I'm bumping this because it really should be read by all who are thinking of becoming calvinist believers, or joining a reformed church. Basically, it's saying that God can give a tiny amount of grace to some, just enough to make them THINK they're saved, but really they are not. Like a tease!:

It was originally posted by @Mark_Sam

from Calvin's Institutes (Book III, Chapter II, Section 11):


I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved. [...]

But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use.

Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. [...]

Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.


Which in a sense renders the whole "assurance of salvation"
thing moot, at least in John Calvin's theology. How do you know that you're not just a reprobate victim to evanescent grace? Granted, I've never heard Calvinist preachers preach on evanescent grace, but it is still the legacy of Calvin.

One should not simply assume that all those who are “OSAS” or who believe in “eternal security” are Calvinist or thinking of becoming Calvinist.

Ultimately, we should follow no man or woman, only God.

 

[FenderTL5]

One should not simply assume that all those who are “OSAS” or who believe in “eternal security” are Calvinist or thinking of becoming Calvinist.

Ultimately, we should follow no man or woman, only God.

That thought likely comes from the fact that OSAS aka Perseverance of the Saints (PoS) and Eternal Security has it origins in Calvin.
There's some reference to quotes from Saint Augustine if Hippo that allude to the principle but it's not anything Augustine would have taught.
So you may not be Reformed nor Calvinist but on this, you'd be accepting his precept on PoS.

 

[amariselle]

That thought likely comes from the fact that OSAS aka Perseverance of the Saints (PoS) and Eternal Security has it origins in Calvin.
There's some reference to quotes from Saint Augustine if Hippo that allude to the principle but it's not anything Augustine would have taught.
So you may not be Reformed nor Calvinist but on this, you'd be accepting his precept on PoS.

Perhaps it came to be referred to as “OSAS” with Calvin, but actually it does not originate with him.

I personally have never followed Calvin or read any significant amount of his writings (and I happen to disagree strongly with the 5 points of Calvinism), but “eternal security” is clearly taught in Scripture, so, that’s all that I need to know. (God saves to the “uttermost” and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of redemption.)

I simply trust that Jesus Christ truly did enough to save me and keep me saved, that He did not fail, His grace is sufficient for me and I rest in Him.

 

[FenderTL5]

Perhaps it came to be referred to as “OSAS” with Calvin..

Calvin referred to the doctrine as Perseverance of the Saints. I could be wrong but I think it was the Baptists that afterwards coined the term OSAS (wiki article on the topic).
ASIDE, I am Eastern Orthodox now but I grew up in the Independent Baptist and later Southern Baptists traditions. So I'm very familiar with the teaching. Charles Stanley's book 'Eternal Security' is stil lin my library.

 

[EmSw]

I see you have again missed the point. Oh well.

You are the one who asked if Jesus failed. I pointed out it wasn't Him, but man.

Who exactly was Jesus speaking to in Matthew 19:16-26 and what was the point He was making?

He was speaking to whomever wanted to enter life. His point was how important His commandments were.

I never said Jesus failed. You have missed the point of those questions.

Although you did ask if He failed.

No one is “making it to heaven” on their own merit, works, obedience to the Law, or “righteousness.”

I'm not talking about a man's merit. A man does these things from God. Are you trying to merit something when talking about Jesus?

And Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Exactly. Every word He says is the Truth, including, 'if you want to enter life, keep the commandments'. Many here do not think these words are the truth. Do you?

Anyone who says that we need to add our works to be saved or stay saved is really saying that what Christ did was not enough.

People need to understand that.

Not true. Anyone who says all it takes is faith alone, need to understand so much more is involved in salvation. As I said above, do you believe every word Jesus spoke is the truth? If so, then, 'if you want to enter life, keep the commandments' is the truth. Do you believe these words are the truth?

 

[EmSw]

“Not believing anymore”? No. They never believed. Those who believe are not “cut off”, they are saved and secure. (Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.)

How were they the natural branches if they never believed? Did not the root support them?

Nope. It’s about those Jews who never believed (rejected their Messiah) being “cut off” and how if they came to believe, they would be “grafted back in.”

Grafted BACK IN? Really? Think about that for a while.

It’s all about faith and not even a little bit about works or behaving well enough to merit salvation. (Which is impossible).

Are you trying to merit salvation by your believing? Sure sounds like it to me.

 

[EmSw]

The same chapter 11 of Romans verse 26 says thus:

and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

So who is cut off if all Israel will be saved?

Really? Will Judas be saved? Will all the Jews in Paul's time be saved who did not believe?

 

[EmSw]

LOL
In the rules it says not to use "you".
What are we supposed to use???
In every other language there is a singular you and a plural you.
tu
voi

usted
vosotros

English:
you
you !!

Yeah. We should have another word.

How's about Y'ALL?!

In Texas, "ya'll" is perfectly acceptable.

 

[InterestedApologist]

I wouldn't think there's any one sin that could cause one to lose salvation. If over a long period of time someone keeps neglecting God, not fellowshipping with him and not even having a clue of his will or seeking to know it yes one who was once saved could possibly lose it.

Thank you for responding to my post. The Armenian position on the loss of salvation is somewhat confusing to me. Among Armenians, there also seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding how or why someone loses one’s salvation. Some believe there are categories of sin that result in the loss of salvation while other sins are unintentional and have no impact on salvation whatsoever. Some say it is unconfessed sin. Some say it is failure to attend church. Some say a span of time without regular prayer and Bible reading will lead to the loss of salvation. Other than agreeing that salvation can be lost, the Armenian position seems very ambiguous on this.

I've talked in the post above about your concept of nullifying sins but can Salvation be re-obtained?
Read the story of the Prodigal Son. Luke 15 He was a Son, and a member of the family but came back to the Father, and the Father received him gladly.

Thank God for His grace. I love the story of the Prodigal Son. Having said that, is there ever a point in time during the story that the son ceases to be a son? In the story, the son deliberately sins for an extended period of time. He has squandered his inheritance. The son acknowledges that he is unworthy to be called a son. Yet, the father (God) welcomes him back and places him in a high position as though nothing was ever changed. The father is even shown to be carefully watching for the son in hope of his return. The story seems a stark contrast when measured against most of the loss of salvation proof texts offered in this thread.

If you wouldn’t mind, I would also like to hear your thought on the other three questions I posed in my original post.

 

[amariselle]

Calvin referred to the doctrine as Perseverance of the Saints. I could be wrong but I think it was the Baptists that afterwards coined the term OSAS (wiki article on the topic).
ASIDE, I am Eastern Orthodox now but I grew up in the Independent Baptist and later Southern Baptists traditions. So I'm very familiar with the teaching. Charles Stanley's book 'Eternal Security' is stil lin my library.

I actually have no idea specifically where it came from. In regard to Calvin’s view of “the elect” (saints), I disagree.

I don’t believe that God either “predestined” most for hell because that is all He created them for, nor do I believe He simply “passed over” them in favour of His “elect”.

I believe God has complete foreknowledge of all things, and that the “good news” of salvation is for all people, for God so loved the world.

 

[amariselle]

How were they the natural branches if they never believed? Did not the root support them?

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

Grafted BACK IN? Really? Think about that for a while.

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

Are you trying to merit salvation by your believing? Sure sounds like it to me.

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

 

[Major1]

Was His chosen people, Israel not saved? How did He not spare them?

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.

 

[Major1]

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



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



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

Correct! They rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[FenderTL5]

I actually have no idea specifically where it came from..

I snipped your quote there for two reasons; first, I have no desire to wade into the Calvin vs Arminius debate. I see both views as two sides of the same errant coin. You may differ.
However, it was trying to reconcile those views that was one step (of many) that directed me toward Orthodoxy and why I tend to read all of the threads on the topic.

Second reason I snipped, and in fact this was originally in the previous post but I deleted before posting. If this thread shows anything it is that there is plenty of scriptural support for OSAS as well as the opposing view. Both views are scriptural. For that matter, lots of erroneous teachings can be gleaned from the pages of scripture standing by itself.
I think it's important to not only know the scriptural foundation of a teaching but the context from which it came as well as the history of where and when it came from. Again, you may differ.
My desire is not to debate the merits/challenges of either view.
I do find the centuries old, ongoing debate on this issue fascinating. I think it's resolved when two things are realized; one, they're both wrong and two that's because of the doctrinal development that took place in the west, moreso by those who used Augustine's words than Augustine himself.. but going back to the snipped quote; it requires research where the teaching came from.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You can say you and y'all like the water tower a few miles from my house.

I can't see the link !
Not allowed in my country...
Uffa.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I snipped your quote there for two reasons; first, I have no desire to wade into the Calvin vs Arminius debate. I see both views as two sides of the same errant coin. You may differ.
However, it was trying to reconcile those views that was one (of many) steps that directed me toward Orthodoxy and why I tend to read all of the threads on the topic.

Second reason I snipped, and in fact this was originally in the previous post but I deleted before posting. If this thread shows anything it is that there is plenty of scriptural support for OSAS as well as the opposing view. Both views are scriptural. For that matter, lots of erroneous teachings cab be gleaned from the pages of scripture standing by itself.
I think it's important to not only know the scriptural foundation of a teaching but the context from which it came as well as the history of where and when it came from. Again, you may differ.
My desire is not to debate the merits/challenges of either view.
I do find the centuries old, ongoing debate on this issue fascinating. I think it's resolved when two things are realized; one, they're both wrong and two that's because of the doctrinal development that took place in the west, moreso by those who used Augustine's words than Augustine himself.. but going back to the snipped quote; it requires research where the teaching came from.

I agree with the above.
I'm told I'm an arminian; if I were forced to choose, it would have to be that since, at least, it doesn't change the nature of God.

I don't know too much about arminianism. Would you be willing to tell me what you don't agree about it?
Just to clarify -- I'm very much against calvinism and I do not believe in eternal security -- I DO believe that God requires obedience and that we're to do our best.

If you don't care to answer -- it's OK.