Question for calvinists

[Acceptance]

Hi all,
I was reading a post, and someone made the comment that as a calvinist, they don't follow OSAS. Do all calvinists believe this way? I know people who are christian reformed (which is calvinist) who say they do follow OSAS. I am just completely confused, but would love clarification.
Thanks

 

[II Paradox II]

Hi all,
I was reading a post, and someone made the comment that as a calvinist, they don't follow OSAS. Do all calvinists believe this way? I know people who are christian reformed (which is calvinist) who say they do follow OSAS. I am just completely confused, but would love clarification.
Thanks

hmmm... that was probably me who said that.

basically the problem is that OSAS means lots of different things to different people. It's kind of like when you say that you are christian. As you've probably figured out, the term "christian" can have a very broad range of meanings, everything from conservative catholic to methodist to eastern orthodox to calvinist to quaker and so forth.

Now, to get back to the point... When I denied believing in OSAS, what I meant was I reject the notion that once one makes a profession of faith they are saved forever no matter what they do. The Calvinist position is that God infallibly elects certain people to salvation, but that this is only *fallibly* known in this life. So, if someone makes a profession of faith but they walk away or their works don't evidence their conversion, we would not presume they were saved. In distinction to this, there are people who teach that one can be saved and then fall away or not show evidence of salvation but yet still be saved. In the theological circles I run in this position is called OSAS (whereas the calvinist position is typically referred to as "perseverence of the saints").

To put it another way. for the calvinist, only God knows who is truly elect, and he does not loose these people. However, from man's point of view we can fall away and apostasize.

Personally, I find that most people don't like to be labelled as "OSAS" because it has become somewhat of a derisive term, like "fundamentalist".

anyways, that should help...

ken

 

[Acceptance]

Thanks Ken, yes it does help

 

[Foundthelight]

Calvin's view of predestination tends to fall apart without some form of OSAS. How can the elect of God fall away if they are predestined for heaven? If they could fall away the argument for predestination is not logically valid.

If one believes in total free choice OSAS fails. If we are free to choose, we are also free to turn away.

Most people seem to take a position in between. We are free to choose, but we have OSAS.

I personally tend to lean toward Calvin's definition

Ro 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

Ro 9:15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Ro 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Ro 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 

[Blackhawk]

hmmm... that was probably me who said that.

basically the problem is that OSAS means lots of different things to different people. It's kind of like when you say that you are christian. As you've probably figured out, the term "christian" can have a very broad range of meanings, everything from conservative catholic to methodist to eastern orthodox to calvinist to quaker and so forth.
Now, to get back to the point... When I denied believing in OSAS, what I meant was I reject the notion that once one makes a profession of faith they are saved forever no matter what they do. The Calvinist position is that God infallibly elects certain people to salvation, but that this is only *fallibly* known in this life. So, if someone makes a profession of faith but they walk away or their works don't evidence their conversion, we would not presume they were saved. In distinction to this, there are people who teach that one can be saved and then fall away or not show evidence of salvation but yet still be saved. In the theological circles I run in this position is called OSAS (whereas the calvinist position is typically referred to as "perseverence of the saints").

To put it another way. for the calvinist, only God knows who is truly elect, and he does not loose these people. However, from man's point of view we can fall away and apostasize.

Personally, I find that most people don't like to be labelled as "OSAS" because it has become somewhat of a derisive term, like "fundamentalist".

anyways, that should help...

ken

Good post. I like the perserverance of ths saints better but I think OSAS works eqally well if you take the words to mean what they say they do. If you are once saved you will always be saved.

I do not think that either the perserverance of the saints or OSAS should be used to explain why WE know someone is saved. We do not know who is or not even with what we feel is good works. I think it should be used more as an expression of God's faithfulness to his elect.

 

[II Paradox II]

-edited to add one more thing....

I do not think that either the perserverance of the saints or OSAS should be used to explain why WE know someone is saved. We do not know who is or not even with what we feel is good works. I think it should be used more as an expression of God's faithfulness to his elect.

Part of what makes the idea difficult to understand is that sometimes OSAS is used to describe God's election and His view of our salvation, sometimes it's used to describe how *we* know whether we are saved or not and sometimes it is used to describe both. In the first sense, there are many theologians in the history of the church who have believed in OSAS. In one of my favorite quotes from Ludwig Ott, many Catholics even believe in this sense (of course, they also have different conceptions of sin and grace, but many still share the belief that en toto, those who are saved were chosen by God and infallibly led to a state of final perseverence which leads them to heaven):

"[size=-1]The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory)."
[/size][size=-1]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM[/size]
[size=-1]
and

"[/size][size=-1]The resolve of Predestination, as an act of the divine knowledge and will, is as immutable as the Divine Essence itself. The number of those who are registered in the Book of Life (Phil 4:3, Rev 17:8; cf. Lk 10:20) is formally and materially fixed, that is, God knows and determines with infallible certainty in advance, how many and which men will be saved . . ."
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM

In the second sense, that of knowing who actually is saved in this life, OSAS typically would not be used to describe calvinism as we would hold that if someone does fall away or shows no works, they probably haven't been saved.

ken

- added comment: one more sense in which OSAS can be used is to make a distinction between catholics and protestants over the issue of being in a "state of grace". Presumably, the thomists and others listed above could affirm both that one who is saved is saved infallibly on the basis of God's elective decree while still acknowledging that one could fall in and out of a state of grace. However, they would still be infallibly led to a state of final perseverence if they are elect, even if they are not always in a state of grace throughout their life. This would differ from most protestant conceptions of predestination which would posit that the elect are constantly in a "state of grace" so to speak, until death.
[/size]

 

[Acceptance]

The following is for clarification only (it is not intended as a debate of any sort, but there was reference to what Catholics believe about salvation, and I mearly want to clarify it):

Catholics believe that once someone believes in Jesus as the Lord, "they are sealed with the promised holy Spirit, which is the first installment of our" salvation.(Eph 1:13-14) It is at this moment, Catholics believe that one is saved (Rom.8:24, Eph. 2:5-8), but they also believe that after that moment of realization, they are still being saved (1 Cor 1:8, 2 Cor 2:15, Phil 2:12) and they hope that they will be saved (Rom 5:9-10, 1 Cor 3:12-15).


Thanks you all for your responses, they're very interesting and helpful in understanding the faith.

 

[II Paradox II]

The following is for clarification only (it is not intended as a debate of any sort, but there was reference to what Catholics believe about salvation, and I mearly want to clarify it):

btw - just so you know it, my reference was to Thomistic theology in general, not neccessarily the formal teaching of the church itself. As you probably know, they never definitively ruled on whether Thomas was correct in his assessments or not.

Thanks for the clarification as well, I didn't want to explain the whole issue of Catholic dcotrine with regard to assurance of salvation and remaining in a state of grace so I just mentioned offhand that their doctrines of sin and grace were different even if they did have some similarities when it comes to election and final perseverence.

ken

 

[ThatOneGuy]

I really should read Calvin directly someday. Let's see if I can put what I'm thinking into words...

Before birth, some men are destined for salvation (Rom. 8:29)

At and from birth, all men, including those men destined for salvation, inherit a slavery to sin (Rom. 5:19)

At some point, those men destined for salvation are called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8:30)


Maybe OSAS should be restated as IPAS, or If Predestined Always Saved?

*shrug*

/p

 

[BBAS 64]

I really should read Calvin directly someday. Let's see if I can put what I'm thinking into words...

Before birth, some men are destined for salvation (Rom. 8:29)

At and from birth, all men, including those men destined for salvation, inherit a slavery to sin (Rom. 5:19)

At some point, those men destined for salvation are called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8:30)


Maybe OSAS should be restated as IPAS, or If Predestined Always Saved?

*shrug*

/p

That works I think , The phases that are used to classify this biblical doctrine seem to me unable to tell the whole story.

IMHO.

BBAS