Questions on Calvinism and Apostasy

[Bob Moore]

I don't think so, Bob.

Seems to me that most non-Calvinists who believe in OSAS see it that "I said a prayer and was truely repentant; therefore God won't let me fall." These folks still see faith as preceding regeneration.

You are right. Lot's of people think that. But they are dead wrong about it. Regeneration preceeds faith for the patently simple reason that those who are dead have no ability to revive themselves. And the idea that just being repentant and saying a prayer guarantees eternal salvation is laughable. I have seen it happen time and again that attritive repentance is mistaken for contritive, and false assurance built upon it.

Perseverance is more like "God changed me first and then I chose Him, and God never fails!!"

That is effectual calling, not perserverance. But perserverance will always follow the effectual call. In effect OSAS is a natural consequence of the call, therefore I say that they are the same because you can not have one without the other.

The idea of regeneration preceding faith is essential for an acurate view of perseverance.

Yessir.

 

[Bob Moore]

First Bob Moore says this,

Prior to God's effectual call man can not possess saving faith because he is spiritually dead in sins and trespasses. Therefore, before a man can express genuine faith in any way God has already saved him. In other words, faith follows salvation. It does not precede it.

Then Bob Moore says this,

Excellent. Too many people think that saving faith automatically carries with it a complete (more or less) understanding of it's nature.

Are you saying that after God gives a person saving faith they still might not believe the gospel?

-jonas

God forbid! How did you get that idea out of what I said? Let me put it another way. Possession of saving faith does not carry with it a complete theological understanding of the nature of faith. If it did we would not be commanded to "Study to show thyself approved".

 

[jonas3]

God forbid! How did you get that idea out of what I said? Let me put it another way. Possession of saving faith does not carry with it a complete theological understanding of the nature of faith. If it did we would not be commanded to "Study to show thyself approved".

I apologize for misrepresenting you. So you do believe that a person with saving faith believes the gospel. That's good. Now, could you define what a "complete theological understanding of the nature of faith" entails? I'm trying to figure out what you mean when you say this. It's very vague. What are you trying to say that a person who has saving faith might not understand exactly in regards to that faith?

-jonas

 

[Bob Moore]

I apologize for misrepresenting you.

No need to apologize for a simple misunderstanding.

So you do believe that a person with saving faith believes the gospel. That's good. Now, could you define what a "complete theological understanding of the nature of faith" entails? I'm trying to figure out what you mean when you say this. It's very vague. What are you trying to say that a person who has saving faith might not understand exactly in regards to that faith?

-jonas

All I mean is that at the instant of salvation, when a lost sinner receives the gift of saving faith, he will not have detailed knowledge of the in's and out's of grace. He will believe the Gospel absolutely, but that is just the start of his journey. For example, he probably will know nothing about the idea of the first Adam and the last Adam. That knowledge comes from diligent study. It is analogous to signing up for a course of instruction at a school. The new Christian is a true freshman with much to learn.