Why do some denominations not believe in Once Saved, Always Saved?

[prodromos]

The majority of today's Christians trace their bishop lineages back to the Roman Church. Even EO.

How do you figure that about the EO? Antioch was established before Rome, as were most of the Churches in Asia Minor.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No.

Too bad you didn't keep reading. It tells us that they fell away because they followed a false gospel.

You mean like falling away from the faith by believing heresy. Exactly as I said?

Think about the consequences of rejecting the Biblical doctrine of eternal security for a moment. If we could really lose our salvation, then Hebrews 6:4-6 says that if we ever sin after being saved, we'll be lost forever with no way back, because the Lord would have to be crucified all over again to retrieve us. BTW, it only takes one sin to fall away, right? I mean, one sin before we're saved was enough to condemn us, so one sin after we're saved is enough to condemn us, right? Doesn't this make the New Covenant worse than the Old? Under the Old Covenant, the Israelites were condemned for their actions, but we'd be condemned for our thoughts.

Under the Old Covenant, under the law, the Israelites couldn't murder. We couldn't even be angry. They couldn't commit adultery. We couldn't even have a lustful thought. If you're right, then we lose our salvation by doing less in following the law than the Israelites did!

Is this really the Good News of Jesus Christ? Are these the riches of His Grace, that we have to live in fear of sinning? Are we saved by grace only to be placed under the constraints of an even more severely administered law?

And what of Romans 8:29-30, which says that God predestined those whom He foreknew to be conformed to the image of Christ. If we can lose our salvation and, thus, our conformity to the image of Christ, then does this mean that God's foreknowledge is wrong? That's open theism, which has historically been condemned as heresy by the Church.

How about Jude 24, which says that Christ is able to keep us from falling? If we can lose our salvation, does this mean that Christ is able to keep us from falling, but is merely unwilling? How is that consistent with the Biblical description of Christ?

What do you make of Colosians 3:1-4, which promises that if we have been save, we will appear with Christ in glory? It doesn't say "you might appear with Christ in glory, if you don't lose your salvation". It says "you will appear with Christ in glory". Done deal.

Philipians 1:6 promises us that if Christ has begun a good work in us, that He will finish it. How does He keep that promise if you believe you can lose your salvation?

How do you explain 1 Peter 1:23, which tells us that when we are born again, we are born of incorruptable seed? If we can lose our salvation, then this seed is corruptable and that promise is not true.

Like Colosians 3:1-4, 1 John 3:2 says that we are sons of God now and that when Christ appears, we will be like Him. There is no qualifier. There is no "...if we don't lose our salvation".

Titus 1:2 says that God has promised us eternal life and that He never breaks a promise.

In John 10:27-29, Jesus promises us that He has given us eternal life, that we will never perish, and that we are not only in His hands, but in the Father's hands. How is Jesus' promise in John 10:27-28 consistent with the idea that we can lose our salvation? Is Jesus really incompetent to keep those whom the Father has given Him?

John 5:24 says that if we are saved, we will not come into condemnation but will have eternal life? How can Jesus promise that we will not come into condemnation if He knows we can lose our salvation?

Romans 11:6 tells us that salvation is not by works. If we cannot be saved by works, then how can we lose our salvation by works?

John 14:16-17 tells us that when we are saved, the Holy Spirit indwells us forever. How can the Holy Spirit indwell in us forever if we lose our salvation? Since when does the Holy Spirit dwell in the unsaved?

Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 tells us that we are sealed unto the day of redemption. If we lose our salvation, then how can we still claim to be sealed?

1 Peter 1:4 says that our salvation is "imperishable, undefiled, and unfading". If our salvation is imperishable, how can we lose it? If our salvation is promised by God to be undefiled, how can we defile it?

I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your denial of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and its logical and Biblical consequences.

It's clear from all of this that you haven't bothered to understand my position.

If Scripture says, explicitly, that there are those who fall away, become apostate, cease being believing, do we accept what Scripture says or do we explain it away? It would seem that you would suggest we explain it away.

I'm not doubting our security in Christ. I'm not calling into question the indelible promises of God.

I'm saying that when Scripture speaks of the very real possibility of rejecting the faith, then it means the real possibility of rejecting the faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NorrinRadd]

Why do some denominations, such as the Church of God, not believe in Once Saved Always Saved, ...

As others have mentioned, "OSAS" is a minority view mostly associated with the Calvinist / Reformed tradition. It is generally not held by those groups that preceded the Reformation. Among Protestants, it is not held by Lutherans, nor by Wesleyans or other Arminians. Most Pentecostals and many Charismatics and other Evangelicals are more or less of Wesleyan or other Arminian heritage. I'm not sure of the view of Anglicans.

...
even though the Bible clearly outlines that salvation is eternal?

If we believed the Bible "clearly" taught OSAS, we would believe it.

That is, salvation is by grace through faith and it is something that cannot be taken from you.

Some alleged Wesleyans hold to "saved by grace, kept by works." I kind of doubt this is true of knowledgeable Wesleyans. Arminians and Lutherans, who do not hold to OSAS, would nonetheless agree with your statement.

While I believe that grace covers such Christians and that they are genuinely saved for putting their faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, it must be somewhat troublesome to think that backsliding will result in you becoming detached from the Lord. It seems like it would hinder someone's growth in the Lord rather than promote obedience.

It is not troubling, because we don't believe that. We believe we are free to willfully reject Christ, not that we can "lose our grip," so to speak.

The thing is that God chooses us and we respond.

In Calvinist thought, the "response" is basically the artificial, programmed response of a robot. God "chooses" certain ones according to His own will, applies "Irresistible Grace" to cause them to be "regenerated," and this amounts to a reprogramming after which they "respond" in "faith."

In Arminian thought, God "chooses" us BECAUSE we responded. He either chooses us based on His foreknowledge of how we will eventually respond to the Gospel, or He chooses Christ, the Chosen One, and we are chosen "in Him" because we heard the Gospel, responded (received and believed), were born of God, and became joined to Christ.

He doesn't let go of us once we're a Child of God.

He also doesn't hold us in chains if we choose to leave, just as He did not hold Adam in chains.

Sometimes it seems like such denominations haven't viewed the Bible in its entire scope, interpreting. What is your take on this subject?

My take is that the OSAS groups are the ones that haven't viewed and properly interpreted the whole of Scripture. What did you expect?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Who saves? according to the Bible.

(This is the basic issue, not all the denominational he said/she said.)

 

[South Bound]

You mean like falling away from the faith by believing heresy. Exactly as I said?

It's clear from all of this that you haven't bothered to understand my position.

Remember, kids, when you have no argument, just demean and insult your opponent.

If Scripture says, explicitly, that there are those who fall away, become apostate, cease being believing, do we accept what Scripture says or do we explain it away? It would seem that you would suggest we explain it away.

So, you took one verse out of context in order to make up your own heretical doctrine and that's fine, but because I pointed out that the passage doesn't end with the verse you chose, that means I'm just trying to "explain it away"?

I'm not doubting our security in Christ. I'm not calling into question the indelible promises of God.

You just said the saved can lose their salvation.

I'm saying that when Scripture speaks of the very real possibility of rejecting the faith, then it means the real possibility of rejecting the faith.

If one rejects the faith, then, by definition, they weren't saved in the first place.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Remember, kids, when you have no argument, just demean and insult your opponent.

He did neither. He expressed his evaluation of the way the laundry list of verses you cited related to what he posted.

So, you took one verse out of context in order to make up your own heretical doctrine and that's fine, but because I pointed out that the passage doesn't end with the verse you chose, that means I'm just trying to "explain it away"?



You just said the saved can lose their salvation.

No, he didn't say one can "lose" one's salvation. Neither Lutherans nor Arminians believe that.

This sort of misunderstanding contributes to the perception that you did not bother to understand opposing positions.

If one rejects the faith, then, by definition, they weren't saved in the first place.

No, by CALVINIST definition if one rejects the faith, that one was never saved at all. In Lutheran and Arminian understanding, a genuinely saved person is free to abandon faith if that one so chooses.

This sort of misunderstanding contributes to the perception that you did not bother to understand opposing positions.

 

[South Bound]

Who saves? according to the Bible.

(This is the basic issue, not all the denominational he said/she said.)

Depends who you ask. The Arminian, or Finneyist, believes man initiates his own salvation. That all man has to do is just say a canned prayer and "accept Jesus as his personal savior". (And don't forget to have the piano player play some nice, soft, emotional music to get the audience good and primed before you tell them "...and now, with every head bowed and every eye closed...")

Whereas, the Reformed believer believes that the elect are chosen from before the foundation of the world, are called via the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, thus granted the ability to repent and receive Christ.

Reformed theology teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept by God.

Arminianism, or Finneyism, teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept, by man until he gets bored with it and decides to go off and try something else.

 

[ChetSinger]

Why do some denominations, such as the Church of God, not believe in Once Saved Always Saved, even though the Bible clearly outlines that salvation is eternal?...

Hello! As far as I can tell, OSAS originated with Calvin in the 16th century. Myself, I'd be skeptical of any doctrine that waited 1500 years before appearing.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Hello! As far as I can tell, OSAS originated with Calvin in the 16th century. Myself, I'd be skeptical of any doctrine that waited 1500 years before appearing.

Good point.
Even many Baptist groups (like the Free-Will Baptist) don't hold OSAS as their doctrine.

 

[prodromos]

Arminianism, or Finneyism, teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept, by man until he gets bored with it and decides to go off and try something else.

I don't follow either of those, but I can recognise a gross caricature when I see one. Aren't Christians supposed to keep themselves from bearing false witness?

 

[prodromos]

Good point.
Even many Baptist groups (like the Free-Will Baptist) don't hold OSAS as their doctrine.

Hello Mama Kidogo, nice to see you back

 

[squint]

Hello! As far as I can tell, OSAS originated with Calvin in the 16th century. Myself, I'd be skeptical of any doctrine that waited 1500 years before appearing.

I'm pretty sure everyone in the 'early churches' thought they were saved.

Might be salvation by reason includes might not be. In the might be saved sects they really don't know, because there is naturally perpetual doubt attached to their status.

s

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Depends who you ask. The Arminian, or Finneyist, believes man initiates his own salvation. That all man has to do is just say a canned prayer and "accept Jesus as his personal savior". (And don't forget to have the piano player play some nice, soft, emotional music to get the audience good and primed before you tell them "...and now, with every head bowed and every eye closed...")

Whereas, the Reformed believer believes that the elect are chosen from before the foundation of the world, are called via the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, thus granted the ability to repent and receive Christ.

Reformed theology teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept by God.

Arminianism, or Finneyism, teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept, by man until he gets bored with it and decides to go off and try something else.

That's not even close to accurate of what those theologies teach. While I do not hold them I was taught them from my youth in the Free-Will Baptist faith. I was always taught that God initiated salvation and that God completed salvation on the Cross.

What you posted would be even worse than OSAS.

 

[South Bound]

That's not even close to accurate of what those theologies teach.

I posted numerous verses of scripture in defense of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and the best you can do is "Nuh-uh".

So, really, why should I care what you have to say?

What you posted would be even worse than OSAS.

And by denying the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, you call Christ a liar.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'm pretty sure everyone in the 'early churches' thought they were saved.

Might be salvation by reason includes might not be. In the might be saved sects they really don't know, because there is naturally perpetual doubt attached to their status.

s

God being faithful is not questioned by the early Church. Man's faith is another kettle of fish.
We are instructed to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.....not with assurance and pride.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I posted numerous verses of scripture in defense of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and the best you can do is "Nuh-uh".

So, really, why should I care what you have to say?



And by denying the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, you call Christ a liar.

I did not call Christ a liar. I called your definition of two doctrines inaccurate.

 

[squint]

I posted numerous verses of scripture in defense of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and the best you can do is "Nuh-uh".

So, really, why should I care what you have to say?

And by denying the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, you call Christ a liar.

Oh come on now. That is not a logical or even reasonable observation.

I know many a fine believer who believes they can be drawn away from salvation. Perhaps they have reasons to worry?

I know a former meth addict who was saved in prison. He was a great guy before he got hooked. A great guy. Family man. Stable. Good worker. Responsible. But not saved. Whatever. He took a bad turn. One of the 'first hit hooked bad' types. And he lost everything. Job, home, family, prison. All in about 3 years.

So in prison he gets 'converted.' But he also believes he will go to hell if he doesn't behave. For him, he probably NEEDS to believe that to keep his demons at bay. So I don't pester him too much about it.

And for the record, he is worse now imho than he ever has been because he's now a hell monger. A 'believe exactly like me' guy or FRY. I actually think his demon took on a different persona myself and is now a religious poser. But it's probably better than stealing from your neighbors and family to support your drug habit.

s

 

[South Bound]

I did not call Christ a liar. I called your definition of two doctrines inaccurate.

You deny the Biblical doctrine eternal security. That is calling Christ a liar.

Did you miss your coffee this morning?
Read my post again. Then quote where I denied any scripture.

You have repeatedly denied the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.

I didn't address any scripture you posted

I know. You wouldn't dare do that, as you know they give evidence for the Biblical doctrine of eternal security.

I said in no uncertain terms you posted a falsehood about two doctrines held by those believing in free will. It wasn't even personal as I'm not of that mindset.

Actually, accusing me of posting falsehoods is pretty personal.

Oh come on now. That is not a logical or even reasonable observation.

You guys love to hurl insults, but I notice that not a one of you has addressed even one of the verses I cited.

I would consider your sight OK, but somewhat childish and simplistic.

Yeah, I think I'm going to go ahead and put you in the trash can of my ignore list where you belong.

 

[Erose]

I'm pretty sure everyone in the 'early churches' thought they were saved.

There is a huge difference between, knowing one's current relationship with God, and believing that they can never loose their salvation.

There are two questions I have to ask you to think about is this:

1) Is there anyone in heaven, who doesn't want to be there?

2) Do you believe human beings do not have the capacity to change their minds?

Might be salvation by reason includes might not be. In the might be saved sects they really don't know, because there is naturally perpetual doubt attached to their status.

Hum... Some (if not all) Gnostic groups did have a OSAS mentality as well.

 

[squint]

God being faithful is not questioned by the early Church. Man's faith is another kettle of fish.

Indeed. And faithful to what I might add...

We are instructed to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.....not with assurance and pride.

There is adequate cause for watchfulness that's for sure. I may have a different view on the why's behind that matter that is not to the detriment of the person however.

s