Refuting OSAS in jesus name

[Zanting]

Was that the Roman Catholic faith?

If you don't mind my asking - out of curiosity - is that your faith as well?

Yes he was, No I'm......not.

 

[Zanting]

I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out why anyone would think that this would be a good thing (departing from the faith)...

I've talked with free-willers before, and in most cases, when pressed, part of their definition of free will involves the ability to defy God. My question is, why would any Christian want to do that, and secondly, do you realize that defying God is what unsaved people do naturally?

We are talking about those who walk away from their faith. Defy, disobey, deny...it happens...unfortunately...today, as it did in Biblical times.

Just a couple of examples...one from the OT and one from the NT.

The story of Solomon discusses the consequences for disobedience.

Peter denied Jesus 3 times.

We all have freewill, saved or unsaved. We are not forced to do anything.

 

[Zanting]

It seems pointless in dragging up verses already stated that quite clearly define salvation.


I agree. As Marvin Knox pointed out...we see scripture differently.

I can see why it's far easier for a child to receive the truth than an adult, brings a lot more meaning to select passages in light of that too.

Yes, a child's mind is not cluttered with an adults worldliness, deception, and sin.

So, indeed, we come to Jesus, and become as new born babies. We grow and mature in our faith, learning more and more seeking His truth in fellowship, worship, prayer, daily Bible reading, praise, forgiveness, and thanksgiving.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Consider this passage:

1 Chron 10:13,14
13 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse.

It is clear why Saul died; for disobedience to the Lord. It's also clear who killed Saul; the Lord did. We know from 2 Sam that Saul fell on his own sword after being mortally wounded in battle, but that "randomly shot arrow" into the air was directly guided by God to hit Saul, which led him to commit suicide.

Now consider this very important passage:
1 Sam 28:8-19 is the account of why Saul died; for seeking a medium. He requested Samuel and it is clear from the account that it was Samuel, for the Bible says it was Samuel speaking and Saul's responses indicate that he knew who he was speaking to.

Now, consider what Samuel told Saul:
v.19 - “Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!”

Samuel wasn't merely telling Saul that he would die the next day. He was telling Saul that he would join Samuel "tomorrow.

The phrase "will be with me" is clearly a statement of where Saul would be the next day; with Samuel.

Those who would try to nullify the clear meaning here about unfaithful believers going to heaven will say that Samuel only meant that Saul would be in the grave with Samuel.

But that's a nutty explanation. Why would Samuel both to make that point? Because Samuel was in Paradise, not just his body in the grave. And he told Saul that Saul was going to join him.

These verses PROVE that even unfaithful and disobedient believers will go to heaven when they die.

 

[EmSw]

It means leaving the faith. No longer believing what they used to believe. Basically what apostasy is.

Let me get this correct. To be saved, a person must have faith. Do you not equate faith with salvation? Isn't that your view?

Now, leaving the faith, or that which saves a person, isn't necessary to stay saved, correct?

Something doesn't jive here. If faith saves, then leaving the faith is leaving salvation.

Rom 8:38 covers apostasy in the phrase "neither things present or things future…shall separate us from the love of Christ".

Also what Jesus said in John 10:28,29. The "no one" includes even the believe himself, as "no one" means "no person". And all believers are persons. So even the believe him/her self cannot separate themselves from God's hand.

So what separated Judas from God?

Judas believed in Jesus.

John 2:11 -
This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

In fact, we find being a disciple (that would include Judas) has conditions.

John 8:31 -
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine.

Was Judas not a disciple of Jesus? You can't be His disciple without believing in Him and continuing in His word.

So please tell us what separated Judas from God?

Jesus was teaching eternal security in those 2 verses.

Judas is rolling over in his grave!

 

[Zanting]

Consider this passage:

1 Chron 10:13,14
13 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse.

It is clear why Saul died; for disobedience to the Lord. It's also clear who killed Saul; the Lord did. We know from 2 Sam that Saul fell on his own sword after being mortally wounded in battle, but that "randomly shot arrow" into the air was directly guided by God to hit Saul, which led him to commit suicide.

Now consider this very important passage:
1 Sam 28:8-19 is the account of why Saul died; for seeking a medium. He requested Samuel and it is clear from the account that it was Samuel, for the Bible says it was Samuel speaking and Saul's responses indicate that he knew who he was speaking to.

Now, consider what Samuel told Saul:
v.19 - “Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!”

Samuel wasn't merely telling Saul that he would die the next day. He was telling Saul that he would join Samuel "tomorrow.

The phrase "will be with me" is clearly a statement of where Saul would be the next day; with Samuel.

Those who would try to nullify the clear meaning here about unfaithful believers going to heaven will say that Samuel only meant that Saul would be in the grave with Samuel.

But that's a nutty explanation. Why would Samuel both to make that point? Because Samuel was in Paradise, not just his body in the grave. And he told Saul that Saul was going to join him.

These verses PROVE that even unfaithful and disobedient believers will go to heaven when they die.

We are under the new covenant. We do not deal directly with God, but through His Son. We talk to the Father through His Son who died for us. What you have outlined only "proves" you see scripture in a different light.

The Gospels are very clear about the significance of remaining in the faith until Jesus returns. It is also clear that in the last days, many will depart from the faith, which is abandoning your salvation. It is not taken away. It is not stolen. It is abandoned by one's own free will.

The Gospels are also very clear about this great apostasy in the last days, and a great revival. I most definitely see these things happening across the globe as we get closer to Jesus return. We are told to put on the full armor of Christ to protect us from deception, and to remain strong in our faith. For if we remain in the faith unto the end...we will be saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Let me get this correct. To be saved, a person must have faith.

Yes.

Do you not equate faith with salvation? Isn't that your view?

I believe what Scripture promises; that God will never leave us nor forsake us. And once a child of God, there are no verses that tell us that we lose that position. Further, mean meaning of eternal life is that it is eternal. And when God gives that gift, it is an eternal gift. Those who believe that salvation can be lost have a big problem with the meaning of eternal life. Being eternal, we cannot lose it. We have it eternally.

Now, leaving the faith, or that which saves a person, isn't necessary to stay saved, correct?

It isn't our faith that saves us. It is God who saves us. And He always keeps His promises. Jn 10:28,29 tells us that no one (no person, which would have to include yourself) can remove the believer from His hand. I believe that. There is no verse that gives any exceptions to that promise.

Something doesn't jive here. If faith saves, then leaving the faith is leaving salvation.

What doesn't jive is the mistake of thinking that it is our believing that saves. It is God who saves those who believe. This isn't just a semantics issue, but the very basis of who id doing the saving.

Do we save ourselves by our act of believing? No. God saves believers.

Because God is doing the saving, He is doing the keeping as well.

So what separated Judas from God?

No evidence that he ever believed. He was an opportunist. He thought Jesus would defeat the Romans and free the Jews, which is what most Jews were hoping for from the promised Messiah.

Judas believed in Jesus.

There is no evidence of that from Scriptue.

John 2:11 -
This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

John doesn't give us an account of all 12 disciples. So we can't say that all of them believed. And in John 2, how many disciples were mentioned by then? Ch 1 mentions only Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanial, and one un-named who was with Andrew in v.40.

In fact, we find being a disciple (that would include Judas) has conditions.

John 8:31 -
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine.

This verse is specific to the crowd He was speaking to, and John makes very clear that some in that crowd has just believed in Him as Messiah. This does not represent a blanket statement of all disciples.

Was Judas not a disciple of Jesus? You can't be His disciple without believing in Him and continuing in His word.

Judas was chosen (Jn 6:70) to fulfill prophecy. That doesn't mean he was saved.

[QUTOE]So please tell us what separated Judas from God?[/QUOTE]
Lack of faith. Ne never had it.

Judas is rolling over in his grave!

Really? How would one know that?

Interesting that there was no interaction with my previous post about king Saul who was told by Samuel that he would join Samuel the next day.

It is clear WHY Saul died, and by Whom. Yet, Samuel tells him that he will join Samuel tomorrow. Saul joined Samuel, and that doesn't mean "in the grave". That would be a very stupid comment from a believer who was in Paradise.

Samuel told Saul that he would be in Paradise WITH Samuel the next day.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We are under the new covenant. We do not deal directly with God, but through His Son. We talk to the Father through His Son who died for us. What you have outlined only "proves" you see scripture in a different light.

What does any of this have to do with what I posted?? It is clear HOW Saul died and WHY. Yet, Saul was going to join Samuel the next day in Paradise.

The Gospels are very clear about the significance of remaining in the faith until Jesus returns.

Yes, they are. But not to "maintain" one's salvation. That would mean that we basically are saving ourselves by our own act of belief. No. It is God who saves us. And He saves us based on the fact that we have believed. The use of the aorist tense proves that God doesn't require on-going faith in order for us to stay saved.

It is also clear that in the last days, many will depart from the faith, which is abandoning your salvation.

No it's not. Once saved, we are new creatures, forgiven, justified, saved, given eternal life (which means it lasts forever). There are no verses that indicate that God removes any of these.

In fact, eternal life, a gift of God (Rom 6:23) is also irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

It is not taken away. It is not stolen. It is abandoned by one's own free will.

One CANNOT obtain salvation by their own choice. It is God's plan and therefore CHOICE to save those who believe. We didn't make that choice, as in "Because I am believing in Your Son You MUST save me" kind of thing.

It is God's plan to save those who believe. And He keeps His promise.

So, because we aren't saved by free will, we cannot lose it by free will.

It isn't our choice anyway. God chose to save us. We didn't choose that. All we can to is receive the free gift of eternal life that He offers to us. And once received, that gift is IRREVOCABLE. That means we can't lose it, give it back, forfeit it, abandon it, etc.

The Gospels are also very clear about this great apostasy in the last days, and a great revival. I most definitely see these things happening across the globe as we get closer to Jesus return. We are told to put on the full armor of Christ to protect us from deception, and to remain strong in our faith. For if we remain in the faith unto the end...we will be saved.

Yes, there is a lot of apostasy. But nothing in Scripture that says that those who abandon the faith will lose their salvation.

I gave the example of a very obvious apostate; King Saul. Yet Samuel told him that he would join him the next day. That is the principle of OSAS. Saul was saved but a lousy believer, who failed miserably. And went to Paradise.

That is grace, btw. But those who think that salvation can be lost, etc, seem not to have a very firm grip on grace: what it is, what it means, etc.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yes he was, No I'm......not.

It's interesting that your friend was a R.C. and yet believed OSAS.

I always thought that because of the "mortal sins" doctrine R.C.'s were not OSAS.

Of course I've met quite a few R.C.'s over the years who didn't really believe what their church taught.

The same is true for various Protestants as well of course.

 

[Zanting]

What does any of this have to do with what I posted?? It is clear HOW Saul died and WHY. Yet, Saul was going to join Samuel the next day in Paradise.

Our salvation has everything to do with the New Covenant. Gods only begotten Son, Jesus is our Savior.


Yes, they are. But not to "maintain" one's salvation. That would mean that we basically are saving ourselves by our own act of belief. No. It is God who saves us. And He saves us based on the fact that we have believed. The use of the aorist tense proves that God doesn't require on-going faith in order for us to stay saved.

We are saved by the blood of the cross. Jesus is our Lord and Master. We come to the Father through Him. It is Jesus who redeems us once we repent from the sins of our past life. We are renewed, washed clean to begin a new life and turn away from our sinful ways. We place our faith in Jesus, and walk in His Spirit, and follow His lead. If not...what would be the purpose of choosing to be reborn, but to walk in the faith.

No it's not. Once saved, we are new creatures, forgiven, justified, saved, given eternal life (which means it lasts forever). There are no verses that indicate that God removes any of these.

I don't believe anyone said God removes anything. It is by our own free will, it is our choice, not His, to abandon our faith. God does not force us to do anything. Including living in the faith.

In fact, eternal life, a gift of God (Rom 6:23) is also irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

Eternal life can only be given to us by the Father. However, and again, this other passage is seen in a very different way then that of an OSAS believer which has been stated over and over again. I think we can move past arguing about what scripture means to OSAS believers, and those who are not.


One CANNOT obtain salvation by their own choice. It is God's plan and therefore CHOICE to save those who believe. We didn't make that choice, as in "Because I am believing in Your Son You MUST save me" kind of thing.

This...I'm sorry is just wrong. We come to Jesus by choice. We accept Him as our Savior by choice. We believe in Him by choice. We remain in our faith by choice. That is why He gave us free will.

It is God's plan to save those who believe. And He keeps His promise.

Correct and

So, because we aren't saved by free will, we cannot lose it by free will.
We don't have free will?

It isn't our choice anyway. God chose to save us. We didn't choose that. All we can to is receive the free gift of eternal life that He offers to us. And once received, that gift is IRREVOCABLE. That means we can't lose it, give it back, forfeit it, abandon it, etc.

This is repetitive...just saying...

Yes, there is a lot of apostasy. But nothing in Scripture that says that those who abandon the faith will lose their salvation.

Again, this is a different understanding of scripture and what the Bible teaches between these two beliefs of salvation. It's already been covered repetitively. Apostasy is what it is.

That is grace, btw. But those who think that salvation can be lost, etc, seem not to have a very firm grip on grace: what it is, what it means, etc.

Here I will allow another to define grace in all it's splendor and glory. I hope you will take a few moments and read it with an open heart.

God Bless

The True Meaning of Grace

BY WAYNE JACKSON

The concept of God’s “grace” is thrilling beyond words. It shines its brightest, however, against the backdrop of another aspect of our Creator’s nature — that of sacred wrath.

The most common Greek word for “wrath” is orge. The term occurs 36 times in the New Testament (cf. Romans 1:18; 2:5). Another expression denoting “wrath” is thymos (18 times; cf. Revelation 16:19; 19:15). Most scholars make some distinction between the terms. Some suggest that thymos is “boiling” anger, whereas orge reflects an “abiding and settled” state of mind. Perhaps the two terms in concert denote the intense and sustained disposition of God towards evil, and those who abandon themselves to it.

But “wrath,” as used of God, does not suggest an impulsive, emotional reaction, as the term frequently does with humans. Rather, divine wrath is the reflection of a deliberate and measured reaction of a perfectly holy Being toward sin — a response that is entirely consistent with the righteous nature of a loving God. Standing over against the starkness of sacred wrath, is the dazzling concept of “grace.”

Grace Defined
“Grace” derives from the Greek, charis. In secular Greek, charis was related to chairo, “to rejoice.” As far back as Homer it denoted “sweetness” or “attractiveness.” It came to signify “favor,” “goodwill,” and “lovingkindness” — especially as granted by a superior to an inferior.

In the New Testament, “grace” (156 times) takes on a special redemptive sense in which God makes available his favor on behalf of sinners, who actually do not deserve it.

There is tremendous emphasis in the New Testament upon the fact that human salvation is the result of Heaven’s grace. This beautiful truth should never be minimized. At the same time, it must not be perverted. Unfortunately, much too often those with only a superficial concept of “grace” have hijacked the term and foisted upon it a sense alien to scriptural teaching. Let us consider some of the precious Bible truths associated with the concept of salvation by grace.

Encompassing Grace
God’s grace has been offered to the entire human family. “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men . . .” (Titus 2:11). This cannot mean that every soul will be saved. Such a conclusion would contradict numerous other passages.

What this does suggest is that Heaven’s grace is potentially available to all who care to access it by means of the divine plan of redemption (cf. Romans 5:1; 6:3-4,17). This reality is in direct conflict with the Calvinistic notion that God, before the foundation of the world, chose only specific persons to be recipients of his grace.

The Grace/Knowledge Connection
The access to God’s grace is by means of an objective body of revelation. Paul noted: “For the grace of God hath appeared . . . instructing us . . .” (Titus 2:11-12). Christianity is a taught religion. Isaiah, speaking of the messianic age, exclaimed: “. . . he will teach us of his ways . . .” (2:3). Jesus himself declared: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me” (John 6:45).

God’s grace is not dispensed apart from an instruction that requires both understanding and obedience. In these days when there is a tendency to “stampede” folks into the church, with minimal comprehension of what they are doing, this is a crucial matter to emphasize.

Conditional Grace
The reception of God’s grace is conditional. Calvinism erroneously asserts that grace is bestowed unconditionally by the sovereign will of God. The Bible negates this concept.

The principle is illustrated by the example of Noah, who “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8); and yet, as the writer of Hebrews shows, the patriarch and his family were saved by preparing an ark in obedience to God’s instruction (11:7; cf. Genesis 6:22). Jehovah proffered the grace. Noah, by faith, obeyed the Lord, and so was blessed. While God extends grace, human beings must be willing to “receive” the favor (2 Corinthians 6:1).

Grace Is Not Earned
Grace excludes merit. We must constantly remind ourselves that humanity is not deserving of salvation. No one can “earn” pardon by works of human merit. If such were the case, we could boast regarding our redemption; however, that is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Even if one were able to perform everything God commands, he still must regard himself as an “unprofitable servant” (Luke 17:10). Jesus taught that our sins have put us head-over-heels in debt, and no person has the innate ability to liquidate that obligation (cf. Matthew 18:24-27).

When this concept is truly grasped, service to Almighty God will flow with a freshness and zeal that invigorates the soul. Doubtless a failure to fathom the true significance of grace is the reason many church members are spiritually lethargic.

Accessing Grace
Grace is accessed initially at the point of gospel obedience. It is shocking that so many sincere people are unaware of the fact that “grace” and “obedience” are not enemies. Paul affirmed that grace is accessed by faith (Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not, however, a faith void of loving response to God; it is a faith that acts (James 2:21-26).

Consider this fact. In Ephesians 2:8, the apostle states that one is “saved by grace through faith.” Later, in the same document, he says that sinners are “cleansed by the washing of water with the word” (5:26). “Saved” and “cleansed” represent the same idea. Further, scholars almost universally acknowledge that the “washing” is an allusion to baptism. It is clear, therefore, that the reception of grace, by means of the “faith” system, includes immersion in water.

Again, note that eternal life is the result of grace (cf. “grace of life,” 1 Peter 3:7, i.e., life resulting from grace). But one experiences that “life” when he is raised from the water of immersion (Romans 6:4). Heaven’s grace plan system includes obedience.

To express the matter another way, Christ “saves us, through the washing of regeneration [acknowledged to be a reference to baptism], and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Yet this is equivalent to being “justified by his grace” (v. 7). Obedience and grace do not stand in opposition to one another.

Continuing in Grace
The state of grace must be embraced continuously; otherwise one will fall from divine favor, and his initial reception of Heaven’s grace will have been “in vain” (2 Corinthians 6:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10).

It is incredible that many, who identify themselves with Christianity, should contend that it is impossible for the Christian to fall from God’s grace.

If one cannot fall out of grace, why did Paul urge his fellow-believers to “continue [present tense—sustained perseverance] in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43)? The Scriptures warn of certain Christians who attempted to revert to the Mosaic regime for salvation. As a result, they were “severed from Christ” and “fallen away from grace” (Galatians 3:26-27; 5:4).

Conclusion
Grace is a soul-thrilling concept; it must be deeply appreciated, but never manipulated or distorted.

 

[nobdysfool]

We are talking about those who walk away from their faith. Defy, disobey, deny...it happens...unfortunately...today, as it did in Biblical times.

OK, last time I looked in it seemed to be more about something else.

Just a couple of examples...one from the OT and one from the NT.

The story of Solomon discusses the consequences for disobedience.

Peter denied Jesus 3 times.

We all have freewill, saved or unsaved. We are not forced to do anything.

I guess maybe then what is meant by free will (and what is NOT meant by it) would be helpful.

I find it rather odd that those who are adamant about a libertarian or contra-causal free will define it, in part, as the ability to defy God.

That's what got us into this mess in the first place! It's not a good thing!

Yet if one tries to remove that from the equation, out comes the charges of "robots!" "coercion!" "fatalism!" and the like (all of which are not true, btw).

Do we make choices? Of course, every day, from little ones to big ones! Nobody in their right mind would deny that. And to the extent that there is nothing driving us toward or away from at least some of those choices, they are freely made, within the bounds of desire, preference and practicality.

Many of our choices don't happen in a vacuum, they are based on past experience or observed outcomes, and expected outcomes, so to that extent they are influenced by outside issues. And some choices are just not practical, and we don't choose them, not because we couldn't, but because we won't.

In all of that, there is no coercion, no forcing of anything.

I could say more, but let's start there.

 

[EmSw]

Yes.

I believe what Scripture promises; that God will never leave us nor forsake us. And once a child of God, there are no verses that tell us that we lose that position. Further, mean meaning of eternal life is that it is eternal. And when God gives that gift, it is an eternal gift. Those who believe that salvation can be lost have a big problem with the meaning of eternal life. Being eternal, we cannot lose it. We have it eternally.

Once we receive the inheritance of eternal life, I totally agree with you. Right now we have it by faith. Lose your faith, and you have no chance of inheriting eternal life.

It isn't our faith that saves us. It is God who saves us. And He always keeps His promises. Jn 10:28,29 tells us that no one (no person, which would have to include yourself) can remove the believer from His hand. I believe that. There is no verse that gives any exceptions to that promise.

If it isn't our faith which saves us, then why does God require faith to be saved?

Luke 7:50 -
And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Ephesians 2:8 -
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

I'm sorry FG2, no faith, no salvation. What kind of belief do you have which says it is not faith which saves us? Paul plainly says we are saved through faith; you say we aren't. You are building on a faulty foundation.

What doesn't jive is the mistake of thinking that it is our believing that saves. It is God who saves those who believe. This isn't just a semantics issue, but the very basis of who id doing the saving.

So, what is it, faith that saves, or no faith that saves?

Do we save ourselves by our act of believing? No. God saves believers.

Does believing, or faith save a man? If you say no, then are in the unorthodox group.

Because God is doing the saving, He is doing the keeping as well.

Because faith saves, then it is faith doing the keeping as well.

No evidence that he ever believed. He was an opportunist. He thought Jesus would defeat the Romans and free the Jews, which is what most Jews were hoping for from the promised Messiah.

You should write a book on Judas; you have a vivid imagination.

There is no evidence of that from Scriptue.

John doesn't give us an account of all 12 disciples. So we can't say that all of them believed. And in John 2, how many disciples were mentioned by then? Ch 1 mentions only Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanial, and one un-named who was with Andrew in v.40.

We do know the apostles had to be with Jesus beginning with the baptism of John.

Acts 1 -
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

We also know Jesus changed the water into wine after the baptism of John (John 1). So we do know Judas was present with Jesus from the baptism of John.

This verse is specific to the crowd He was speaking to, and John makes very clear that some in that crowd has just believed in Him as Messiah. This does not represent a blanket statement of all disciples.

John 3:16 was to a specific person, and not universal then; John 10:28 was to a specific group of Jews, and not universal then. Ephesians 1:3 was to a specific group, and not universal. This game will get you nowhere.

Judas was chosen (Jn 6:70) to fulfill prophecy. That doesn't mean he was saved.

Doesn't mean he didn't believe either.

So please tell us what separated Judas from God? Lack of faith. Ne never had it.

If it was a lack of faith that separated Judas from God, then we have to say it is a lack of faith which separates any man from God, which includes those who depart from faith.

Interesting that there was no interaction with my previous post about king Saul who was told by Samuel that he would join Samuel the next day.

So you think when Saul went to a woman with familiar spirits, she actually spoke with Samuel?

Anyway, this was spoken by 'Samuel' to Saul in verse 16, "Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?"

God had departed from Saul, and became his enemy. No God, no salvation.

It is clear WHY Saul died, and by Whom. Yet, Samuel tells him that he will join Samuel tomorrow. Saul joined Samuel, and that doesn't mean "in the grave". That would be a very stupid comment from a believer who was in Paradise.

Samuel told Saul that he would be in Paradise WITH Samuel the next day.

If this was a familiar spirit, and not Samuel, then Saul would not be in heaven.

 

[EmSw]

Consider this passage:

1 Chron 10:13,14
13 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse.

It is clear why Saul died; for disobedience to the Lord. It's also clear who killed Saul; the Lord did. We know from 2 Sam that Saul fell on his own sword after being mortally wounded in battle, but that "randomly shot arrow" into the air was directly guided by God to hit Saul, which led him to commit suicide.

Now consider this very important passage:
1 Sam 28:8-19 is the account of why Saul died; for seeking a medium. He requested Samuel and it is clear from the account that it was Samuel, for the Bible says it was Samuel speaking and Saul's responses indicate that he knew who he was speaking to.

Now, consider what Samuel told Saul:
v.19 - “Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!”

Samuel wasn't merely telling Saul that he would die the next day. He was telling Saul that he would join Samuel "tomorrow.

The phrase "will be with me" is clearly a statement of where Saul would be the next day; with Samuel.

Those who would try to nullify the clear meaning here about unfaithful believers going to heaven will say that Samuel only meant that Saul would be in the grave with Samuel.

But that's a nutty explanation. Why would Samuel both to make that point? Because Samuel was in Paradise, not just his body in the grave. And he told Saul that Saul was going to join him.

These verses PROVE that even unfaithful and disobedient believers will go to heaven when they die.

Actually in verse 16, it says the Lord departed from Saul and is now his enemy.

1 Samuel 28:16 -
Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?

 

[Zanting]

It's interesting that your friend was a R.C. and yet believed OSAS.

I always thought that because of the "mortal sins" doctrine R.C.'s were not OSAS.

Of course I've met quite a few R.C.'s over the years who didn't really believe what their church taught.

The same is true for various Protestants as well of course.

He was an alter boy in his youth. I'm can only assume that confession is viewed by some at least, as one of those slippery slopes. He obviously believes, as he says, that he can sin all week as long as he goes to confession, and does what the Priest tells him to do and he is absolved. I assume he also has some kind of fascination with the Mafia.

Actually, most Catholics I have met place great value on their opportunity to go to confession. However, only 2 have proclaimed it's value for them quite like he did. There was only one other Catholic I met that was of the same mind and also didn't refrain from sin in her life.

OSAS never came up. Nor do I know one way or the other whether that was relevant to what they believed. However, I am just guessing, of course, that if they did believe OSAS, they wouldn't even bother with confession. I'm basing that guess just because of the mindset they held about confession. For them, they had confession, and that made everything ok, no matter what they did.

I am aware that not all Catholics use confession in this way, probably most do not, and most probably would consider those who do as abusing such a privilege, if not completely perverting it's purpose. But for these two, it was their security blanket...so to speak. For them, that is what confession was intended for.

Beliefs can get distorted, perverted or abused in any denomination I am sure. Perspective has a great deal to do with how one believes. I don't think I know of any Christian who agree about everything.

After all, world wide estimates of the number of Christian denominations range from 21,000 to 43,000, depending on where the estimate came from. Amazing really with only one God and ? of Bibles. Although the majority have emerged from the KJV and it's multiple revised versions, and the Septuagint. Ethiopian Christians, and perhaps others may use the 81 books of the broader Ethiopian Bible. But still, even at the lowest estimate, is a lot of different Christian views world wide.

 

[EmSw]

Grace Defined
“Grace” derives from the Greek, charis. In secular Greek, charis was related to chairo, “to rejoice.” As far back as Homer it denoted “sweetness” or “attractiveness.” It came to signify “favor,” “goodwill,” and “lovingkindness” — especially as granted by a superior to an inferior.

In the New Testament, “grace” (156 times) takes on a special redemptive sense in which God makes available his favor on behalf of sinners, who actually do not deserve it.

There is tremendous emphasis in the New Testament upon the fact that human salvation is the result of Heaven’s grace. This beautiful truth should never be minimized. At the same time, it must not be perverted. Unfortunately, much too often those with only a superficial concept of “grace” have hijacked the term and foisted upon it a sense alien to scriptural teaching. Let us consider some of the precious Bible truths associated with the concept of salvation by grace.

Encompassing Grace
God’s grace has been offered to the entire human family. “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men . . .” (Titus 2:11). This cannot mean that every soul will be saved. Such a conclusion would contradict numerous other passages.

What this does suggest is that Heaven’s grace is potentially available to all who care to access it by means of the divine plan of redemption (cf. Romans 5:1; 6:3-4,17). This reality is in direct conflict with the Calvinistic notion that God, before the foundation of the world, chose only specific persons to be recipients of his grace.

The Grace/Knowledge Connection
The access to God’s grace is by means of an objective body of revelation. Paul noted: “For the grace of God hath appeared . . . instructing us . . .” (Titus 2:11-12). Christianity is a taught religion. Isaiah, speaking of the messianic age, exclaimed: “. . . he will teach us of his ways . . .” (2:3). Jesus himself declared: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me” (John 6:45).

God’s grace is not dispensed apart from an instruction that requires both understanding and obedience. In these days when there is a tendency to “stampede” folks into the church, with minimal comprehension of what they are doing, this is a crucial matter to emphasize.

Conditional Grace
The reception of God’s grace is conditional. Calvinism erroneously asserts that grace is bestowed unconditionally by the sovereign will of God. The Bible negates this concept.

The principle is illustrated by the example of Noah, who “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8); and yet, as the writer of Hebrews shows, the patriarch and his family were saved by preparing an ark in obedience to God’s instruction (11:7; cf. Genesis 6:22). Jehovah proffered the grace. Noah, by faith, obeyed the Lord, and so was blessed. While God extends grace, human beings must be willing to “receive” the favor (2 Corinthians 6:1).

Grace Is Not Earned
Grace excludes merit. We must constantly remind ourselves that humanity is not deserving of salvation. No one can “earn” pardon by works of human merit. If such were the case, we could boast regarding our redemption; however, that is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Even if one were able to perform everything God commands, he still must regard himself as an “unprofitable servant” (Luke 17:10). Jesus taught that our sins have put us head-over-heels in debt, and no person has the innate ability to liquidate that obligation (cf. Matthew 18:24-27).

When this concept is truly grasped, service to Almighty God will flow with a freshness and zeal that invigorates the soul. Doubtless a failure to fathom the true significance of grace is the reason many church members are spiritually lethargic.

Accessing Grace
Grace is accessed initially at the point of gospel obedience. It is shocking that so many sincere people are unaware of the fact that “grace” and “obedience” are not enemies. Paul affirmed that grace is accessed by faith (Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not, however, a faith void of loving response to God; it is a faith that acts (James 2:21-26).

Consider this fact. In Ephesians 2:8, the apostle states that one is “saved by grace through faith.” Later, in the same document, he says that sinners are “cleansed by the washing of water with the word” (5:26). “Saved” and “cleansed” represent the same idea. Further, scholars almost universally acknowledge that the “washing” is an allusion to baptism. It is clear, therefore, that the reception of grace, by means of the “faith” system, includes immersion in water.

Again, note that eternal life is the result of grace (cf. “grace of life,” 1 Peter 3:7, i.e., life resulting from grace). But one experiences that “life” when he is raised from the water of immersion (Romans 6:4). Heaven’s grace plan system includes obedience.

To express the matter another way, Christ “saves us, through the washing of regeneration [acknowledged to be a reference to baptism], and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Yet this is equivalent to being “justified by his grace” (v. 7). Obedience and grace do not stand in opposition to one another.

Continuing in Grace
The state of grace must be embraced continuously; otherwise one will fall from divine favor, and his initial reception of Heaven’s grace will have been “in vain” (2 Corinthians 6:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10).

It is incredible that many, who identify themselves with Christianity, should contend that it is impossible for the Christian to fall from God’s grace.

If one cannot fall out of grace, why did Paul urge his fellow-believers to “continue [present tense—sustained perseverance] in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43)? The Scriptures warn of certain Christians who attempted to revert to the Mosaic regime for salvation. As a result, they were “severed from Christ” and “fallen away from grace” (Galatians 3:26-27; 5:4).

Conclusion
Grace is a soul-thrilling concept; it must be deeply appreciated, but never manipulated or distorted.

I might this, grace is given to the humble.

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.

 

[Brother Chris]

Don't you know what it is to have faith in Jesus means ?

Jesus was the word that became flesh
He is the word of God
To believe in him would mean to believe in every word of the bible not just Romans

Sin no more
Obey every commandment
Pick up your cross

If you really believe the you should know you can

That happens after one has been converted and saved and possesses eternal life. It's called SANCTIFICATION and NOT "do these things to earn eternal life."

 

[Viren]

Does believing, or faith save a man? If you say no, then are in the unorthodox group.

Pistis is the Greek word for faith in the Bible. It is also the word translated as belief and trust. So belief, faith and trust can be used interchangeably.

 

[Zanting]

OK, last time I looked in it seemed to be more about something else.

The OP is about OSAS as a false doctrine. Free will came up along with scripture viewed differently by both sides of the issue.

I guess maybe then what is meant by free will (and what is NOT meant by it) would be helpful.

I find it rather odd that those who are adamant about a libertarian or contra-causal free will define it, in part, as the ability to defy God.

That's what got us into this mess in the first place! It's not a good thing!

Perhaps.

I'll give you my definition... free will means we are free to choose, decide, determine etc. anything and everything we do each and every day, and in our life overall. For the most part, and I hope for most of us, our choices remain within the given laws of the country we reside in.

Yet if one tries to remove that from the equation, out comes the charges of "robots!" "coercion!" "fatalism!" and the like (all of which are not true, btw).

Some view it that way...yes. Others have a very different attitude and approach when it comes to differences of opinion about anything for that matter. This behavior among people is not a Christian phenomenon. It is human behavior when dealing with conflict. Some are much more aggressive and make it more of a personal attack, then others. Some are really good at sticking to the message and not the messenger.

Do we make choices? Of course, every day, from little ones to big ones! Nobody in their right mind would deny that. And to the extent that there is nothing driving us toward or away from at least some of those choices, they are freely made, within the bounds of desire, preference and practicality.

Many of our choices don't happen in a vacuum, they are based on past experience or observed outcomes, and expected outcomes, so to that extent they are influenced by outside issues. And some choices are just not practical, and we don't choose them, not because we couldn't, but because we won't.

In all of that, there is no coercion, no forcing of anything.


For the most part this is true, and I agree. Yet there have been many situations in my life where I have had to make choices that were forced. I've just recently been forced to make choices I would rather not have had to make. It happens when alternatives are rejected.

 

[nobdysfool]

OK, last time I looked in it seemed to be more about something else.

The OP is about OSAS as a false doctrine. Free will came up along with scripture viewed differently by both sides of the issue.

I knew what the OP was about, and I weighed in on that quite extensively. I was gone for a couple of days without computer access, and the conversations seems to have shifted.

I guess maybe then what is meant by free will (and what is NOT meant by it) would be helpful.

I find it rather odd that those who are adamant about a libertarian or contra-causal free will define it, in part, as the ability to defy God.

That's what got us into this mess in the first place! It's not a good thing!

Perhaps.

I'll give you my definition... free will means we are free to choose, decide, determine etc. anything and everything we do each and every day, and in our life overall. For the most part, and I hope for most of us, our choices remain within the given laws of the country we reside in.

There are always some limits on free will choices. We cannot choose what is impossible, i.e. flying without mechanical means of some sort, or walking through walls, etc. We cannot choose to do what is physically impossible to do, and most people, knowing that would not attempt it. I don't really think it's possible to love what we hate, or hate what we love.

I am of the opinion that free will choices, at their very base, are based on desire: To gain pleasure, or to avoid pain. There are nuances of those two basic points, to be sure. Sometimes the choice is between greater or lesser degrees of those two points. Given the ability to do so, we will choose lesser pain and greater pleasure, even if the range of choices are weighted toward one or the other. Basic human nature.

Yet if one tries to remove that from the equation, out comes the charges of "robots!" "coercion!" "fatalism!" and the like (all of which are not true, btw).

Some view it that way...yes. Others have a very different attitude and approach when it comes to differences of opinion about anything for that matter. This behavior among people is not a Christian phenomenon. It is human behavior when dealing with conflict. Some are much more aggressive and make it more of a personal attack, then others. Some are really good at sticking to the message and not the messenger.

I've seen a lot of that combative reaction as well. It's almost always for a secondary reason, sometimes hidden, sometimes not.

Do we make choices? Of course, every day, from little ones to big ones! Nobody in their right mind would deny that. And to the extent that there is nothing driving us toward or away from at least some of those choices, they are freely made, within the bounds of desire, preference and practicality.

Many of our choices don't happen in a vacuum, they are based on past experience or observed outcomes, and expected outcomes, so to that extent they are influenced by outside issues. And some choices are just not practical, and we don't choose them, not because we couldn't, but because we won't.

In all of that, there is no coercion, no forcing of anything.

For the most part this is true, and I agree. Yet there have been many situations in my life where I have had to make choices that were forced. I've just recently been forced to make choices I would rather not have had to make. It happens when alternatives are rejected.

Goes back to my point that many, if not most, choices are not made in a vacuum. Actions have consequences. Choices have outcomes. Sometimes those consequences exert powerful influence on subsequent choices, and to that extent could be viewed as being forced to make certain choices.

 

[Zanting]

I knew what the OP was about, and I weighed in on that quite extensively. I was gone for a couple of days without computer access, and the conversations seems to have shifted.

I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing. That was not my intent.


There are always some limits on free will choices. We cannot choose what is impossible, i.e. flying without mechanical means of some sort, or walking through walls, etc. We cannot choose to do what is physically impossible to do, and most people, knowing that would not attempt it. I don't really think it's possible to love what we hate, or hate what we love.

Would be nice though...if we could fly just by stepping into the breeze. Sure would make the price of flying go down, no airport security...and no more doors...I could live with that....

Indeed, what is physically impossible doesn't enter into the arena of free will.

I am of the opinion that free will choices, at their very base, are based on desire: To gain pleasure, or to avoid pain. There are nuances of those two basic points, to be sure. Sometimes the choice is between greater or lesser degrees of those two points. Given the ability to do so, we will choose lesser pain and greater pleasure, even if the range of choices are weighted toward one or the other. Basic human nature.

I would agree with that.

I've seen a lot of that combative reaction as well. It's almost always for a secondary reason, sometimes hidden, sometimes not.

In general people have good days and bad days that affects their mood and responses. It certainly happens to me, but I do try to pull back when I know I'm getting too emotional. It can be a challenge...there is a natural tendency in all of us to fight back when we feel personally attacked.

Goes back to my point that many, if not most, choices are not made in a vacuum. Actions have consequences. Choices have outcomes. Sometimes those consequences exert powerful influence on subsequent choices, and to that extent could be viewed as being forced to make certain choices.

That's also true, I wear a sweater when it's cool,...choices are conditional to circumstance.

But perhaps we have strayed from the topic.

May I ask you your view of free will in relation to one's salvation?