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

[BobRyan]

I have to say that this thread has been pretty interesting to say the least. Here is a few things that I have learned about OSAS.

1) Even though this idea is only 100-150 years old it has already splintered into at least three differing concepts:
a-That Christians cannot sin.
b-That Christians cannot help but sin, but it really doesn't matter.
c-That Christians can sin, and do have to seek forgiveness, but the OSAS assurance is that God will not allow a Christian to die in the state of sin.

2) That there are at least two ways to handle backsliders:
a-That Christians who backslide and reject God after salvation, were not really saved to begin with.
b-That Christians who backslide and reject God after salvation, remained saved, and after death will end up in heaven.

3) There seems to be more emotional reasons to believe in OSAS than rational or Biblical ones.
4) That this view is by far the weakest view of soteriology, among Protestant churches, IMO. I think that the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Arminian views are much more difficult to debate against. I guess because these ideologies have had about 500 years of defending to get things tied together. Maybe 400 years from now if OSAS still exists, maybe then it will be a better argument for what Scripture says. Right now, it just doesn't have good explanations for those passages that outright reject OSAS.

interesting summation - however remember that it is pretty difficult to find a Calvinist that does not believe in OSAS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So then if they speak against wife-beating or spouse-cheating or porn or... do they say "not that you can stop this for even one second - but I would like you to think that as you do this - it is a bad thing"???

Is that all they are saying as they avoid Romans 11 and its warning to "you who stand by your faith"?

...

those Jews who in Paul's day - and today - died as rejecting Christ - were lost.

Paul never states that the Jews were in some odd "saved state" while willfully and knowingly rejecting Christ.

RATHER Paul says "IF they do not CONTINUE in UNBELIEF" they can be grafted in again. But only in that case.

Clearly OSAS does not survive these details in the Rom 11 text.

Originally Posted by squint

Indwelling sin is the continual presence of sin, of EVIL present.

Your insistence is not much different than that of the Roman catholic, that sin isn't really sin til we can see it with our eyes.

s
​

you did not answer the question. (again)

here it is again.

=======================

So then if they speak against wife-beating or spouse-cheating or porn or... do they say "not that you can stop this for even one second - but I would like you to think that as you do this - it is a bad thing"???

Is that all they are saying as they avoid Romans 11 and its warning to "you who stand by your faith"?
=======================

Do you mean wife-beating must continue no matter what for the saints?

Do you mean that wife-hating must replace wife-beating for the saints - no matter what?

Is that your "or else the gospel is not true" argument against Romans 6?

Good and evil transpires in the SAME LUMP. It is never an 'either or' situation.

Paul said evil was present with him when he did good.

That problem described in Romans 7 is fixed in the Romans 8 solution showing how victory over sinning is possible with the Holy Spirit and is not possible for the lost.

in any case what is your answer to the question you are avoiding?

Do you mean wife-beating must continue no matter what for the saints?

Do you mean that wife-hating must replace wife-beating for the saints - no matter what?

Is that your "or else the gospel is not true" argument against Romans 6?

And repeating the same old hack questions only shows that the respondent is not getting the picture.

Apparently questions that expose a flaw in your tradition are called "hack' when you don't have an answer??

Also as it pertains to Israel, I cite and stand on the FACT of Romans 11:25-32 which shows that ALL of Israel shall be saved, even unbelieving blinded

Because.... you think Paul is talking about re-incarnation of the Jews that die in unbelief claiming that in some future re-incarnation they may choose to no longer live in unbelief?

Because.. you suppose that while Paul says in Rom 11 "He is able to graft them in again IF they do not CONTINUE in unbelief" -- he did not really mean it? He really meant "ignore what I just said"??

He did not know what He was talking about just then?

He thought better of it later?

He was just kidding?

---------------------------------

Your answers seem to leave a lot of holes - open questions that you can only solve by ignoring them all and calling them some word like "hack".

If "hack" is the answer to all difficult questions for your particular tradition - then surely you will admit that this does not fly in a sola-scriptura test of your tradition with the rest of us.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mercy1061]

Romans 11 does not make any mention at all about unbelieving Jews persecuting someone.

God is not an "unbelieving Jew"

if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Now you ae trying to build my argument falsely, then argue against me. I never said that G-d is an unbelieving jew. What I am saying is simple, the jews have persecuted the prophets since the beginning. I understand you argument, those who walk by faith are being warned not to become conceited. In fact Elijah was never conceited, but King Ahab and Jezebel excommunicated him from Israel and the church. A careful study about Elijah's life will reveal that to you. Romans 11 mentions Elijah, the life of Elijah may explain Romans 11.

 

[BobRyan]

Now you ae trying to build my argument falsely, then argue against me. I never said that G-d is an unbelieving jew. What I am saying is simple, the jews have persecuted the prophets since the beginning. I understand you argument, those who walk by faith are being warned not to become conceited. In fact Elijah was never conceited, but King Ahab and Jezebel excommunicated him from Israel and the church. A careful study about Elijah's life will reveal that to you.

I think we already knew that Ahab was wicked and that Elijah was never cut off by God for doing anything - but was faithful the entire time.

We all also know that many the unbelieving Jews of Paul's day died in unbelief - lost. And only a few like Paul stood faithful as did Elijah. Most were unfaithful and lost.

Elijah is not an example of an unfaithful Jew dying "saved anyway" and I think both sides agree.

Romans 11 mentions Elijah, the life of Elijah may explain Romans 11.

only to the extent that Ahab was lost just as the unbelieving Jews of Paul's day were lost.

And that Ahab persecuted the faithful Elijah just as Paul was persecuted.

And that as Paul said in Rom 11 only those who "do not continue in unbelief" could be recovered - whether in Elijah's day or Paul's day - or today.

No change in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[daviddub]

Consider the following statement:



Is that a statement of fact, or only a warning about the consequences of falling away so that you don't do it? You probably say it's the latter, but it's actually the former, even if you cannot get your mind around it. Those who are saved are those who endure. Those who do not endure are obviously not among the saved. It's a statement of fact.

I think this post is a great point for me to enter a consideration to both parties: [Albion;65850168], and [catholichomeschooler;65850206].

The scripture "He that endures to the end shall be saved," is argued as to whether he who endures to the end was saved already, or was he who does not endure to the end not saved already.

I am questioning both parties as to whether salvation is the beginning or the end of the process. Almost all learned people, that I've ever encountered, suppose salvation is the beginning of the process, but almost all quotes about being saved, and certainly such quotes by Jesus, indicate a future or potential salvation. That is, the quotes are almost all "shall be," "should be," "might be," "must be," and relatively very few "are" and "hath saved" and the likes.

Perhaps, according to scripture, far fewer people are actually saved than think it. The doctrine as taught today makes people, which have never known the way, settle down into a deep, dark, comfortable slumber, believing that they are saved from the very beginning. And worse, some believe that such salvation can never be lost. It is true that salvation from being saved can never be lost by one who remains asleep.

Those who know that the way is narrow, and the gate straight that "LEADS TO LIFE" know that working out salvation is with fear and trembling. To them who believe that they have passed through that way and gate already, and have never known the straightness and narrowness, nor the fear and trembling, to them fear and trembling is a doctrine to be believed, and it goes no further.

Consider:

Peter was yet unconverted AFTER Jesus resurrected, yet many say those facts (which he witnessed and believed) constitute the gospel. The demons believe, they would have published the facts themselves, yet Jesus silenced them. They knew who he was, and declared it to the sons of Sceva. We have no clear evidence that Peter was converted until Pentecost, which concludes the end of approximately three years of discipleship under the God/Man himself.

If it took Peter about three years to be converted under Christ's living example, how long would it take many of us today, being taught by those who witness themselves to be no christs; those who by their own confession have not come to the fullness of the measure of the stature, and who themselves do not believe that such a thing is possible in this body, and are thus certainly not striving for it.


I assure you, that God will not do alone what he has commanded man to do, and God will not command man to do, what God will do alone.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I think this post is a great point for me to enter a consideration to both parties: [Albion;65850168], and [catholichomeschooler;65850206].

The scripture "He that endures to the end shall be saved," is argued as to whether he who endures to the end was saved already, or was he who does not endure to the end not saved already.

I am questioning both parties as to whether salvation is the beginning or the end of the process. Almost all learned people, that I've ever encountered, suppose salvation is the beginning of the process, but almost all quotes about being saved, and certainly such quotes by Jesus, indicate a future or potential salvation. That is, the quotes are almost all "shall be," "should be," "might be," "must be," and relatively very few "are" and "hath saved" and the likes.

That is true. However, I would be somewhat careful about including the words of Jesus, since the words He spoke on earth preceded His Atonement.

As for the other, in part it depends on how we relate salvation, justification, and sanctification.

Usually, at least in Evangelical thought, "salvation" and "justification" occur simultaneously, at the "beginning," so to speak, with "sanctification" being the process that continues until the "end." The tenses used in the NT do not support that in any unambiguous way. In regard to "saved," in some cases it is an "already happened" tense, sometimes in a "will eventually happen" tense, and sometimes in an ambiguous (in English, at least) "current" tense; offhand, I would concede that the latter two may be more common than the first. I think the same variety holds true in regard to "justify" (or "make righteous" or "declare righteous," etc.) and "sanctify" (or "make holy"), but in those cases I think the "already happened" tenses are somewhat more common.

Perhaps, according to scripture, far fewer people are actually saved than think it. The doctrine as taught today makes people, which have never known the way, settle down into a deep, dark, comfortable slumber, believing that they are saved from the very beginning. And worse, some believe that such salvation can never be lost. It is true that salvation from being saved can never be lost by one who remains asleep.

Those who know that the way is narrow, and the gate straight that "LEADS TO LIFE" know that working out salvation is with fear and trembling. To them who believe that they have passed through that way and gate already, and have never known the straightness and narrowness, nor the fear and trembling, to them fear and trembling is a doctrine to be believed, and it goes no further.

We all pick and choose. I choose the several passages that clearly teach I have already been saved, sanctified, justified; that I complete my salvation the same way I began it -- by believing what I heard. I choose the passages that invite me to find rest for my soul under the easy yoke and light burden. I choose to believe that perfect love casts out fear.

However, if you wish to live a life of trembling terror, have at it.

Consider:

Peter was yet unconverted AFTER Jesus resurrected, yet many say those facts (which he witnessed and believed) constitute the gospel.

Um, yeah. Paul, for one.

The demons believe, they would have published the facts themselves, yet Jesus silenced them.

Explain.

They knew who he was, and declared it to the sons of Sceva.

Sure. So what?

We have no clear evidence that Peter was converted until Pentecost, which concludes the end of approximately three years of discipleship under the God/Man himself.

Only if you ignore or explain away John 20:22, where Jesus reenacted Gen. 2:7, with a concomitant reference to Eze. 37:9 and His own earlier words in John 3. IOW, the normal understanding is that the disciples were reborn and "quickened," and indwelt by the Spirit then and there.

If it took Peter about three years to be converted under Christ's living example, how long would it take many of us today, being taught by those who witness themselves to be no christs; those who by their own confession have not come to the fullness of the measure of the stature, and who themselves do not believe that such a thing is possible in this body, and are thus certainly not striving for it.

Per John 7, it wouldn't have mattered if Peter studied under Jesus three days or thirty years instead of three years. He could not be reborn and quickened and indwelt by the Spirit until Jesus was glorified.

And if you're advocating some kind of sinless perfectionism, you're advocating something none of the authors of Scripture claimed to have achieved, and which several indicated we would not achieve in this life.

 

[bottomofsandal]

I have to say that this thread has been pretty interesting to say the least. Here is a few things that I have learned about OSAS.

1) Even though this idea is only 100-150 years old it has already splintered into at least three differing concepts:
a-That Christians cannot sin.
b-That Christians cannot help but sin, but it really doesn't matter.
c-That Christians can sin, and do have to seek forgiveness, but the OSAS assurance is that God will not allow a Christian to die in the state of sin.

2) That there are at least two ways to handle backsliders:
a-That Christians who backslide and reject God after salvation, were not really saved to begin with.
b-That Christians who backslide and reject God after salvation, remained saved, and after death will end up in heaven.

3) There seems to be more emotional reasons to believe in OSAS than rational or Biblical ones.
4) That this view is by far the weakest view of soteriology, among Protestant churches, IMO. I think that the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Arminian views are much more difficult to debate against. I guess because these ideologies have had about 500 years of defending to get things tied together. Maybe 400 years from now if OSAS still exists, maybe then it will be a better argument for what Scripture says. Right now, it just doesn't have good explanations for those passages that outright reject OSAS.

Platitudes and aphorisms don't address the topic bro.

Let me throw out a few one-liners about ANTI-OSASers:



1) they seem to want to trust themselves as much as they trust God. God may have been a part of salvation, but they have a mighty big role in keeping. God gave me this cool broken toy and I must fix it.


2) some appear to not trust the promises of God. God said it, but I better add to perfect, plus the fleshly ego needs to be involved in order to feel good.


3) who is trying to cast doubt ? Who want man to be anxious and in bondage ? Who constantly is working to keep man in bondage to unbelief ? Not God.


4) if a man can lose his salvation on earth, then why not in Heaven ?


5) will God change His mind about our salvation in Heaven ? The anti pov demands this to be a consideration. Since God initiated, God can undo. Since God birthed us in The Kingdom, God can UNbirth us. Since God called us, He simply disconnects us.


6) what kind of God is God ? The anti God is not merciful, not forgiving, not loving. The anti God sounds moody all the time and needs to be kept happy much like a pagan god who needs to be kept in a good mood.

 

[bottomofsandal]

I have to say that this thread has been pretty interesting to say the least. Here is a few things that I have learned about OSAS.

1) Even though this idea is only 100-150 years old it has already splintered into at least three differing concepts:
a-That Christians cannot sin.
b-That Christians cannot help but sin, but it really doesn't matter.
c-That Christians can sin, and do have to seek forgiveness, but the OSAS assurance is that God will not allow a Christian to die in the state of sin.

Yeah, this new idea...just like the earth revolving around the sun is fairly new to the RCC ? Come on bro. These fatuous comments are unbecoming.


A and B are nonsense. Sinless perfection pov is delusional to us plain old sinners, while the sin like the devil crowd reminds us of Bill Clinton. Neither one has any place in this dialogue.


You have agreed with a C-like comment earlier in the thread.



It remains odd why some Christians insist on telling other Christians that the salvation God has given them is faulty, defective, and fragile. This delicate salvation can only be kept alive and preserved by man's skill and determination ?

 

[rockytopva]

I think the metaphor of the seven churches solves this one...

I think that all churches have their issues... I believe the churches as seven...

1.Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions. Few issues within the martyred church.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages. The Spirit of the Nicolaitanes is basically a barbaric spirit.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart. There were protestants who were just as bad as the Catholics they rebelled from.
6.Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love. "Never more go out..." This is a problem with Philadelphian churches, they are in and out of revival.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Non-Denominational - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing? From hot ---> lukewarm ---> cold? We must watch the teachings on materialism.

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. - Revelation 3:5

So the eternal security lies to him who overcomes. In which if you overcome your name will not be blotted out of the book of life.

 

[BobRyan]

The scripture "He that endures to the end shall be saved," is argued as to whether he who endures to the end was saved already, or was he who does not endure to the end not saved already.

I am questioning both parties as to whether salvation is the beginning or the end of the process. Almost all learned people, that I've ever encountered, suppose salvation is the beginning of the process, but almost all quotes about being saved, and certainly such quotes by Jesus, indicate a future or potential salvation. That is, the quotes are almost all "shall be," "should be," "might be," "must be," and relatively very few "are" and "hath saved" and the likes.

Perhaps, according to scripture, far fewer people are actually saved than think it.

True. It is both -- having been saved in the past we are to persevere and so in the end will be saved. Those who fail to persevere will experience "forgiveness revoked" as Christ warns in Matt 18.

1 Cor 9 Paul says "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified"

As for Peter going around in Matt 10 casting out demons and healing the sick by the power of the Holy Spirit - then in MAtt 17 on the mount of transfiguration with Jesus, Moses and Elijah -- and yet not saved... I don't buy that. Jesus declares them saved except for one in John 17.

In fact at the last supper Peter said "wash my whole body" in full baptism full conversion - and Christ said he did not need it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You cannot fail to persevere in being an Olympic champion if you were never in the Olympics -- if you never were one to start with.

Failure to persevere in something -- is to have it and then to lose it. - by definition.

Some goofy traditions try out nonsensical sayings as a solution to their problem and then try to blame those sayings on the Bible - as if the Bible had said it.

The fact is "forgiveness revoked" is taught in Matt 18 and OSAS does not survive it.

 

[bottomofsandal]

2) That there are at least two ways to handle backsliders:
a-That Christians who backslide and reject God after salvation, were not really saved to begin with.
b-That Christians who backslide and reject God after salvation, remained saved, and after death will end up in heaven.

Close.


A) you can't reject what you never possesssed

B) reject is in error, try and replace with " sin"

 

[bottomofsandal]

Those who fail to persevere will experience "forgiveness revoked" as Christ warns in Matt 18.

Never read that in a commentary..

Sounds like another version of The Lords prayer !!!



I cannot decipher if this a re-invention of God or simply a misunderstanding about what real forgiveness is in God's eyes ? Are we also to revoke our forgiveness as well ? You will need to elucidate this new teaching.



Kinda changes the whole flavor of what Jesus said on the cross:

"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do"

Just kidding !!! I revoke My forgiveness you dummies !

 

[mercy1061]

I think we already knew that Ahab was wicked and that Elijah was never cut off by God for doing anything - but was faithful the entire time.

We all also know that many the unbelieving Jews of Paul's day died in unbelief - lost. And only a few like Paul stood faithful as did Elijah. Most were unfaithful and lost.

Elijah is not an example of an unfaithful Jew dying "saved anyway" and I think both sides agree.



only to the extent that Ahab was lost just as the unbelieving Jews of Paul's day were lost.

And that Ahab persecuted the faithful Elijah just as Paul was persecuted.

And that as Paul said in Rom 11 only those who "do not continue in unbelief" could be recovered - whether in Elijah's day or Paul's day - or today.

No change in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

Pharisee Shaul begins this chapter establishing that G-d has not rejected his people! G-d is not doing the rejecting, King Ahab and Jezebel, the church have rejected Elijah. Just like you keep rejecting what I am saying, constantly misinterpreting what I am saying but G-d has not rejected me.

 

[squint]

That problem described in Romans 7 is fixed in the Romans 8 solution showing how victory over sinning is possible with the Holy Spirit and is not possible for the lost.

Reigning over sin is not being sinless nor is it reigning to lie and say we have no sin.

in any case what is your answer to the question you are avoiding?

Do you mean wife-beating must continue no matter what for the saints?

The shortsightedness being repeatedly demonstrated in repeating the above is that you view sin primarily as an external action.

Paul presents sin as something that indwelt his flesh, and the presence of EVIL that was with him. This does not mean when one is not sinning they are sinless.

The state of being a sinner is perpetual. All mankind lives in the 'state of sin' regardless of their beliefs.

Is that your "or else the gospel is not true" argument against Romans 6?

I've never resorted to that ridiculous retort. In most cases it doesn't make sense or connect to the subject matter.

Apparently questions that expose a flaw in your tradition are called "hack' when you don't have an answer??

Some think by repeating questions that have been answered the answer is going to change.

Because.... you think Paul is talking about re-incarnation of the Jews that die in unbelief claiming that in some future re-incarnation they may choose to no longer live in unbelief?

Reincarnation? Seriously? Have you ever heard the term resurrection? It's er, ah, one of those vitally critical components of the Gospel.

Because.. you suppose that while Paul says in Rom 11 "He is able to graft them in again IF they do not CONTINUE in unbelief" -- he did not really mean it? He really meant "ignore what I just said"??

He did not know what He was talking about just then?

He thought better of it later?

Obviously that is remedied in resurrection. Those Jews of Paul's day died in unbelief as enemies of the Gospel.

But they ALL shall be resurrected.

And by all means spare me the repeated questions. If you are not catching on to positions other than your own and can't understand positions if they don't fit your supposedly perfect mold then theology may not be your thing.

s

 

[rockytopva]

I met a woman at work who engages in sex outside of marriage all the time. I cornered her with scripture on this in which she, being a Baptist, asked, "Are you trying to threaten my salvation?"

Well, I have better things to do than to argue with a Baptist so I left it at that. I, simply, am not brave enough a man to put my souls security in the teachings of some little whimp by the name of John Calvin.

 

[squint]

I met a woman at work who engages in sex outside of marriage all the time. I cornered her with scripture on this in which she, being a Baptist, asked, "Are you trying to threaten my salvation?"

Well, I have better things to do than to argue with a Baptist so I left it at that. I, simply, am not brave enough a man to put my souls security in the teachings of some little whimp by the name of John Calvin.

People who are slaves of sin are controlled by devils.

What did you expect to hear? They don't give up their territory easily nor do they reveal their hiding place to the person they enslave, that being 'within' them.

s

 

[Erose]

Platitudes and aphorisms don't address the topic bro.

Let me throw out a few one-liners about ANTI-OSASers:



1) they seem to want to trust themselves as much as they trust God. God may have been a part of salvation, but they have a mighty big role in keeping. God gave me this cool broken toy and I must fix it.


2) some appear to not trust the promises of God. God said it, but I better add to perfect, plus the fleshly ego needs to be involved in order to feel good.


3) who is trying to cast doubt ? Who want man to be anxious and in bondage ? Who constantly is working to keep man in bondage to unbelief ? Not God.


4) if a man can lose his salvation on earth, then why not in Heaven ?


5) will God change His mind about our salvation in Heaven ? The anti pov demands this to be a consideration. Since God initiated, God can undo. Since God birthed us in The Kingdom, God can UNbirth us. Since God called us, He simply disconnects us.


6) what kind of God is God ? The anti God is not merciful, not forgiving, not loving. The anti God sounds moody all the time and needs to be kept happy much like a pagan god who needs to be kept in a good mood.

The points I provided came from the posters on this thread, I did not make them up, nor did I pull them off of some anti-OSAS website. So what I have learned is that there are different shades of this concept among those who adhere to it.

 

[mercy1061]

You cannot fail to persevere in being an Olympic champion if you were never in the Olympics -- if you never were one to start with.

Failure to persevere in something -- is to have it and then to lose it. - by definition.

Some goofy traditions try out nonsensical sayings as a solution to their problem and then try to blame those sayings on the Bible - as if the Bible had said it.

The fact is "forgiveness revoked" is taught in Matt 18 and OSAS does not survive it.

Forgiveness is never revoked, just not forgiven.

 

[Gibs]

Peter lays it out sharp and easy to comprehend in short words,

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.