Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
Apparently questions that expose a flaw in your tradition are called "hack' when you don't have an answer??And repeating the same old hack questions only shows that the respondent is not getting the picture.
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?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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Those who fail to persevere will experience "forgiveness revoked" as Christ warns in Matt 18.
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
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?
Is that your "or else the gospel is not true" argument against Romans 6?
Apparently questions that expose a flaw in your tradition are called "hack' when you don't have an answer??
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?