OSAS--Tough passages explained

[GreenEyedLady]

This is GEL'S 1000th post! Any I have twins..that pretty good for just 5 months!!!!
WHOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO
Anyway..I thought i would put it here!
Now...where is my blue ribbon?? No blue ribbon huh?
How bout ahhhh a trophey....Na KC gave me enough of those....
I know! I get a big fat NOTHING!!!
That;s ok....
OK...Im being stupid now....How bout a crown???
HASHAHHAHHAHAH
GEL

 

[LouisBooth]

"But isn't that what "once saved, always saved" implies? "

Nope. You are a new creation and naturally you want to please God, not displease him. If you truely love basketball you're gonna want to spend a lot of time doing, watching and reading about it. You're not going to say, wow..I love basketball, then never think about it again.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I second that motion louis!
GEL

 

[Caedmon]

This is what I'm saying. By interpreting the phrase, "once saved, always saved", purely textually, it appears, from the outside, as though it says that once someone is saved, they will always be saved, regardless of what transpires in one's life. There is no clause in the short statement of "once saved, always saved" that specifies that one is expected to act righteously from the time of regeneration to the time of death. "Perseverance of the Saints", on the other hand, conveys the message more Scripturally, more accurately. "Saved" implies a single event, whereas "Perseverance" implies a process, which better describes sanctification.

 

[eldermike]

How you view "tough passages" depends on your doctrine.

You have to establish or adopt a body of faith.
You view of Jesus
Your view of scripture
Your view of the cross
other matters of faith

Depending on how we adopt or develope these is how you will see scripture.

My suggestion to anyone is that they write down issue of faith and then resolve them one at a time using scripture. Then apply this as an overall doctrine to any scripture they read.

I am a firm beleiver in OSAS. It comes from a solid rock foundation of faiths. The Bible is without error, literal, historical, contempoary and profethic. Jesus is God. Jesus died for our sins. All that beleive are saved. None will be handed back over to the enemy, He lost. With this body of faiths I am secure in my study that I will not be taken in one direction and then another.

If I read scripture that can lead to some other conclusion I am protected by doctrine, that is what it's for, it's very purpose. So I say to myself, what is this scripture trying to say to me?. The truth of what it's saying comes from applying it to itself (doctrine). The HS will lead you as long as you don't go off course by not having your faith built on a rock solid foundation of faiths. Faith in God, scripture, the cross, the promise of everlasting life.

This method is scriptural...Paul said scripture was profitable for this use...the key is you have to be grounded by faith, not floating around trying to find the truth,,you have it.

Blessings

 

[LouisBooth]

"There is no clause in the short statement of "once saved, always saved" that specifies that one is expected to act righteously from the time of regeneration to the time of death"

Umm...so what? Just because the "title" of the belief doesn't show the details you're saying its wrong? Umm...if I say well the word "bible or scripture" says nothing about salvation in the title, therefore its wrong..what kinda crazy logic is that?

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by VOW
To Andrew:

Don't dismiss the Pope so lightly, either, for he is from a long, long line of Apostolic Succession, dating back to Peter.

And I do watch very carefully what I post.

Peace be with you,
~VOW

I know this is off topic and I apologize. But I am curious how the Catholic church came up with the theory that "the long line of succession dates back to Peter."

There is NO RECORD in the Bible that apostle Peter led the church AFTER Jesus died. On the contrary, what appears as their leader was apostle James who presided over a meeting (Acts 15:13) to settle the issue of circumcision (Acts 15: 1-12) and GAVE a FINAL decision (Acts 15:19).

Is there any other Biblical proof to show that apostle Peter SUCCEEDED apostle James as PRESIDING officer of the church at Jerusalem and become the FIRST POPE?

Ed

 

[Ben johnson]

If I read scripture that can lead to some other conclusion (other than "OSAS) I am protected by doctrine, that is what it's for, its very purpose. So I say to myself, what is this scripture trying to say to me?. The truth of what it's saying comes from applying it to itself (doctrine). The HS will lead you as long as you don't go off course by not having your faith built on a rock solid foundation of faiths. Faith in God, Scripture, the Cross, the promise of everlasting life.

What does this mean? You say "faith in Scripture", but you also say "If I read Scripture that can lead to some other conclusion, I am protected by doctrine"; which is more pure, which is more reliable---Scripture, or doctrine?

The Holy Spirit does lead people, but we still have many different denominations---therefore man must be capable of falibility, prone to false doctrine.

The Bible is without error, literal, historical, contemporary and prophethic.

I agree. But can the same be said of "doctrine"?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"There is no clause in the short statement of "once saved, always saved" that specifies that one is expected to act righteously from the time of regeneration to the time of death"

Umm...so what? Just because the "title" of the belief doesn't show the details you're saying its wrong? Umm...if I say well the word "bible or scripture" says nothing about salvation in the title, therefore its wrong..what kinda crazy logic is that?

It's the same "kinda crazy logic" that makes the distinction between the Real Presence and Remembrance. OSAS and PotS are the titles of doctrines, concerning one aspect of the nature of salvation. Bible is the name used for a collection of books('biblia' in Greek), and "Sola Scriptura" is a doctrine associated with it by most Protestants, concerning the nonrecognition of Sacred Tradition.

OSAS and PotS are, I'm sure you'll agree, much more narrow topics than the immensely broad content presented by the terms of "bible or scripture". OSAS and PotS concern individual doctrines, whereas the Bible and Scripture, for most Protestants and Reformers at least, concern the entirety of the Christian Faith. There is a bit of difference here, is there not?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew

That's not what OSAS believers are saying at all! (bolded part). If one is truly saved, he can't LIVE IN sin.

So, once you are "saved" in your 7000 member church, you no longer sin, huh?

 

[Andrew]

sOuljah:

read properly pls: the verse doesnt say we dont sin. it says we dont LIVE IN sin. there's a big difference.

IOW if a person says he's a Christian but sins like there's no tomorow without any guilty feelings, or thinks its ok to do so, he aint saved to begin with.

But when you are truly saved, when you do sin, you feel horrible and frustrated abt it.

ie you can't go on living in it, you'd wish you cld overcome that sin.

so a lamb may fall into the pig sty but he wont enjoy playing there. a pig however, would. so you must decide, are Christians lambs or pigs? and you dont transform from one to another day in day out.

 

[pax]

Originally posted by edpobre
I know this is off topic and I apologize. But I am curious how the Catholic church came up with the theory that "the long line of succession dates back to Peter."

There is NO RECORD in the Bible that apostle Peter led the church AFTER Jesus died. On the contrary, what appears as their leader was apostle James who presided over a meeting (Acts 15:13) to settle the issue of circumcision (Acts 15: 1-12) and GAVE a FINAL decision (Acts 15:19).

Is there any other Biblical proof to show that apostle Peter SUCCEEDED apostle James as PRESIDING officer of the church at Jerusalem and become the FIRST POPE?

Ed

The Catholic Church didn't "come up" with the doctrine, it was revealed by Christ through Scripture and Tradition. In Matthew, we see:

16
11Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The other Apostles were given the powers to bind and loose later, but they were not given the keys to the kingdom as Peter was.

Later we see in John 21:15-9

15
8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16
He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
18
11 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."
19
He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."

In the Acts of the Apostles 1:15-26 Peter is the one who initiates the election of a successor for Judas:

15
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16
"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
17
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
18
He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. 7
19
This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood.
20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.'
21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

More information on the Papacy can be found @ the Catholic Answers website: Peter and the Papacy

Pax Vobiscum

 

[pax]

Some of the links on this page may also be of some help:

http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew

IOW if a person says he's a Christian but sins like there's no tomorow without any guilty feelings, or thinks its ok to do so, he aint saved to begin with.

So...what is the point of feeling guilty?

If you are saved at some point in time, then you are good to go forever. That is OSAS, don't backpedal from this fact.

You are saying that as long as you "feel" bad about sinning, that you are forgiven, right? This makes no logical sense, because you are always saved. If you feel bad, you are basically repenting, right? This is what the Catholic Church teaches...repentance.

Or maybe you are saying that if you don't feel bad, then you were never really saved...hmmmm, but who is to say how bad you have to "feel?" Feelings are subjective and can't be quanitfied, so how can you say whether someone was really saved in the first place.

There is no guarentee of salvation, and to teach that there is, is simply dangerous.

 

[isshinwhat]

I've never understood how you can know you are saved without a doubt, but later be found to never been "truly saved." Wouldn't even those who weren't "truly saved" have felt they had assurance of salvation?

Since even saved people sin, how would you ever know if you were truly saved or just fooling yourself? Could someone explain that to me, please?

Neal

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by s0uljah


There is no guarentee of salvation, and to teach that there is, is simply dangerous.

What's dangerous is to say that the death of Christ is not enough to settle the issue once and for all.

I have a few questions to ask you:

Do you agree that when you become a Christian, your sin nature is crucified with Christ? I hope you say yes, because it's in the Bible. Do you believe that a Christian is a new creation, and that the old has passed away? I hope so, because it says it in the Bible. If you believe both of these things, how is it possible that you could "lose your salvation"? If that were the case, that would mean that upon the moment you lose your salvation, the Holy Spirit leaves you and the sin nature comes back to life. How is that possible? Consider the ramifications of that scenario. What that says is that Christ's death wasn't powerful enough to "really" crucify the sin nature, just powerful enough to "mostly crucify" the sin nature, leavuing it with a few breaths left, so that it can one day nurse its way back to health and kick out the Holy Spirit. In effect, that is saying that the Sin Nature can be more powerful than the Holy Spirit, which is a very dangerous position.

How do you get around the following verse:

[ROMANS 11:29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

What does that mean? It means that a person can't suddenly decide to "repent of (give up)" the gifts and calling of God.

some translations say:

[ROMANS 11:29] For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

 

[pax]

Here are some highlights from an article at Catholic Answers (Click on the link for the full article, otherwise just look at the quotes below)

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

"To deny the assurance of salvation would be to deny Christ’s perfect redemption," argues Ewin, and this is something he can say only because he confuses the redemption that Christ accomplished for us objectively with our individual appropriation of that redemption. The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross—Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2)—but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contigent on our response.

Certainly, Christ did die on the cross once for all and has entered into the holy place in heaven to appear before God on our behalf. Christ has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born "saved," with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God, after having left his family.

Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore


Do you agree that when you become a Christian, your sin nature is crucified with Christ? I hope you say yes, because it's in the Bible. Do you believe that a Christian is a new creation, and that the old has passed away? I hope so, because it says it in the Bible. If you believe both of these things, how is it possible that you could "lose your salvation"? If that were the case, that would mean that upon the moment you lose your salvation, the Holy Spirit leaves you and the sin nature comes back to life. How is that possible? Consider the ramifications of that scenario. What that says is that Christ's death wasn't powerful enough to "really" crucify the sin nature, just powerful enough to "mostly crucify" the sin nature, leavuing it with a few breaths left, so that it can one day nurse its way back to health and kick out the Holy Spirit. In effect, that is saying that the Sin Nature can be more powerful than the Holy Spirit, which is a very dangerous position.

How do you get around the following verse:

[ROMANS 11:29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

What does that mean? It means that a person can't suddenly decide to "repent of (give up)" the gifts and calling of God.

some translations say:

[ROMANS 11:29] For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

Christ's death made it possible for our sins to be forgiven, not to forgive them in advance.

This is the fundamental difference in our beliefs, and without agreeing on that point, further discussion will go nowhere.

OSAS implies that sins don't matter, as long as you believe in Christ.

I don't understand how someone could say that what we do here doesn't matter, just because we believe in Christ. Else, why would He even bother teaching about sin, etc...He would have just done his mission, and that would be it. He wouldn't have even needed to teach anything!

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

5 out of 5 demons know the Christ is Lord

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by s0uljah


Christ's death made it possible for our sins to be forgiven, not to forgive them in advance.
This is the fundamental difference in our beliefs, and without agreeing on that point, further discussion will go nowhere.
OSAS implies that sins don't matter, as long as you believe in Christ.
I don't understand how someone could say that what we do here doesn't matter, just because we believe in Christ. Else, why would He even bother teaching about sin, etc...He would have just done his mission, and that would be it. He wouldn't have even needed to teach anything!

5 out of 5 demons know the Christ is Lord

Christ's death made it possible for our sins to be forgiven, not to forgive them in advance.

You're right. We don't agree on that. Christ's work on the cross was once and for all. That's what "It is finished" is all about. That gift is freely available to all. When you become a Christian, all your sins -past, present and future- are forgiven.



[Hebrews 8:12]
And I will forgive their wrongdoings,
and I will never again remember their sins.

[Hebrews 10:12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

OSAS implies that sins don't matter, as long as you believe in Christ. I don't understand how someone could say that what we do here doesn't matter, just because we believe in Christ.

Non OSASers often make this claim about OSASers, which quite frankly is not true. We don't believe that sin doesn't matter. We just believe that if there was nothing we can do to earn our way to Heaven, then there is nothing we can do after we become a Christian to reverse the decision and cast us back into Hell. But it's not as if OSASers want to commit sin, or condone it at all.

In fact, those of us who believe that Christians are new creations and that the sin nature has been crucified in Christians, and that our new nature is the nature of Christ; we believe that a Christian is impowered by the Holy Spirit for righteous living - this is the righteousness of God, not of our own works. When we become Christians, we are freed from the effects and power of sin and death. As a Christian saved by Grace, I know that my new nature - my new spirit- which is the nature and Holy Spirit of Christ- yearns to do the Lord's will, and to walk in the Spirit. As a Christian saved by grace, I know that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

I ask again: How is it possible, that once you are a new creation, once the sin nature is crucified and has passed away, how is it possible for a person to "stop being a new creation", and go back to be being an old creation, and have the Holy Spirit be kicked out and have the sin nature resurrected?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

In fact, those of us who believe that Christians are new creations and that the sin nature has been crucified in Christians, and that our new nature is the nature of Christ; we believe that a Christian is impowered by the Holy Spirit for righteous living - this is the righteousness of God, not of our own works. When we become Christians, we are freed from the effects and power of sin and death. As a Christian saved by Grace, I know that my new nature - my new spirit- which is the nature and Holy Spirit of Christ- yearns to do the Lord's will, and to walk in the Spirit. As a Christian saved by grace, I know that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

So a one-time Christian can never commit a horrible act? How about Adolph Hitler, is he saved? Or do you take the stance of "those people were never saved in the first place?"

I ask again: How is it possible, that once you are a new creation, once the sin nature is crucified and has passed away, how is it possible for a person to "stop being a new creation", and go back to be being an old creation, and have the Holy Spirit be kicked out and have the sin nature resurrected?

Well, how is it possible that you can commit a sin if you are "of the nature of Christ?" Or do you not sin? Of course you do, so you still "live in" sin. Since you sin, were you never saved in the first place?

P.S.

I don't want to come across the wrong way to you, I am just pointing out the illogical nature of the OSAS stance. If I offend you, I apologize in advance.