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

[Erose]

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.

Do some research no this subject, and you will discover that it is only 100 to 150 years old.

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.

I agree, but there are those on this thread that have proposed both variations.

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

C is more acceptable, to me than the other two. Why? Because it doesn't forgo personal spiritual growth, which the other two do.

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 ?

I think it is extremely important for someone to understand how the process works. You have the wrong idea, it's like trying to get from LA to NY, with only a map of Europe to assist you.

 

[Erose]

Close.

A) you can't reject what you never possesssed

So how do you know that you have it?

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

Not my view, theirs; and I specifically asked that question, so my point remains.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Forgiveness is never revoked, just not forgiven.

Well said friend !

 

[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.

I can't find who posted all this, must be your pov of the pov ?

Is this your interpretation of what people have posted ?

Can you please help out and give some post numbers ?

 

[bottomofsandal]

Do some research no this subject, and you will discover that it is only 100 to 150 years old.

Research what exactly ?

The Bible says, "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world."

Depending on your creation pov, the subject is billions of years old

 

[GoingByzantine]

Blind Post, but...

1 John 3:4-9 (NKJV)

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

"Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor knows Him." - Sounds a lot like losing grace, or perhaps even when we think we know the Lord, and we sin, we really do not.

 

[Erose]

Research what exactly ?

The Bible says, "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world."

Depending on your creation pov, the subject is billions of years old

OSAS has no historical basis at all. The history of it can be found here:

Free Grace theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gibs]

At true repentance you are forgiven of sins of the past that you have repented of is true and valid.

But future sin must be dealt with, either refrain from sinning and find the Way that He has made or get down on your knees again.

But know this, returning to sin is a dangerous route to take, it leads to perdition, so it is best to get off that road and stay off!

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.

 

[BobRyan]

It has been pointed out that the tradition of OSAS does not survive even one of the texts listed on this thread at this post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7828521-53/#post65913382


A very simple and obvious example from that list is the forgiveness revoked example from Matt 18

Matt 18
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Forgiveness is never revoked, just not forgiven.

Until we read that scripture listed above.


Pointed list of questions for those not fearful of the text itself.

"According to the text"

Is God asking in Matt 18 that the fully forgiven do what they "cannot do" - can never do?? Can only do if they are infinite God?

Is God telling the fully forgiven in Matt 18 that he will revoke their forgiveness because they fail to do what only God can do and not even the saints are enabled to obey so they must have their forgiveness revoked?

Is that what the text says ??


Note the obvious detail "in the text" that the one "fully forgiven" then experiences "forgiveness revoked" and must pay the full -- original - debt.

Then note that Christ then extends that same result to the saved saints that are His disciples - the "fully forgiven".

Jesus Himself gave us the correlation

For those who object to this text in favor of their own OSAS tradition - please remember that I am not the author of the text -- I give all the credit to Jesus.

Note: To imagine salvation that means "not forgiven and paying your own debt" is to imagine "another gospel". If the saved have all of their forgiveness revoked and then must pay their own debt of sin in full - they will not survive it according to Matt 10:28. You don't come back from that according to the text.

The passage says the debt, the amount due, etc even the last penny...this speaks to finality.

Indeed. The lost sinner pays his full debt of sin in the lake of Fire mentioned in Rev 20.

In Luke 12:45-49 Christ said that some who go to hell pay with few stripes and others with many.

But all pay - and all will pay "in full".



When BoS responded to this point even he could not omit the forgiveness revoked detail.

the passage is not definite about losing salvation anyway. Rather sin will have to be paid for (as if Jesus did not pay the price) by torment or torture. Once the sin is paid for, salvation is regained. The passage says the debt, the amount due, etc even the last penny...this speaks to finality. IOW, salvation is never lost, just postponed until our account is flush with God.

Matthew 18:34New King James Version (NKJV)

34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

I responded with the following:

Even in your own account above this is "forgiveness revoked".

And even in your own account above you admit that the sinner in this case must repay his full debt of sin.

For non-Catholics inventing somthing like "purgatory" is not even an option.

And that only leaves one option - the fact that OSAS does not survive Matt 18.

So then we saw this response.

Never read that in a commentary..

Sounds like another version of The Lords prayer !!!

The details in the text of Matt 18 matter - even if they are inconvenient for the OSAS tradition.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Out of curiosity - where are all those in favor of OSAS?? We have 3 or 4 on this thread -- I was really expecting more would be on CF.

 

[Gibs]

Many return back into sin again, to the old wallowing and so among the lost again!

Hear Jesus here,

Re 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Note now in the next verse we have no excuse to continue in sin,

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.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Many return back into sin again, to the old wallowing and so among the lost again!

Hear Jesus here,

Re 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Note now in the next verse we have no excuse to continue in sin,

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.

Now if we can only get the apostate Jews of today to believe that
Unfortunately, they do not read Revelation......sigh

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
JESUS VS THE OC JEWISH RULERS

John 19:
11 Jesus answered "not thou are having any authority over except it being given to thee from above.
Because of this, the one giving Me up to thee greater Sin is having".
41 Jesus said to them "if blind ye were, not ever ye had sin.
Now yet, ye are saying that 'we are seeing', the Sin of ye is remaining".

Reve 6:16
And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks 'be falling upon us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb


.

 

[Rick Otto]

OSAS is actually a minority view amongst Christians. It is not accepted by the vast majority of Christians around the world, so the better question would be, why do some Christians believe OSAS?

For me it has to do with the integrity of meaning and definition of terms.
If I'm saved, I'm safe, not vulnerable even to self harm.
Telling me I'm saved but can still end up in bell is a mixed message.
Plus, the popularity of an idea is cause for suspicion.

 

[squint]

For me it has to do with the integrity of meaning and definition of terms.
If I'm saved, I'm safe, not vulnerable even to self harm.
Telling me I'm saved but can still end up in bell is a mixed message.
Plus, the popularity of an idea is cause for suspicion.

Bell may not be as bad as hell.

IT's interesting to hear how many think the basis of their salvation is in their status of being a supposed non-sinner.

 

[Albion]

OSAS is actually a minority view amongst Christians. It is not accepted by the vast majority of Christians around the world, so the better question would be, why do some Christians believe OSAS?

For me it has to do with the integrity of meaning and definition of terms.
If I'm saved, I'm safe, not vulnerable even to self harm.
Telling me I'm saved but can still end up in bell is a mixed message.
Plus, the popularity of an idea is cause for suspicion.

I get your point, Rick, and it's a good one. But of course that majority referred to by prodomos bases its beliefs on traditions. The most obvious answer to the question is that those who believe in 'OSAS' are members of the churches that look to the Bible for guidance on such things and it only. Bible ->OSAS

 

[Rick Otto]

Research what exactly ?

The Bible says, "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world."

Depending on your creation pov, the subject is billions of years old

Surprising objection since Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallability only go back to the mid 1800s.

 

[Rick Otto]

It has been pointed out that the tradition of OSAS does not survive even one of the texts listed on this thread at this post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7828521-53/#post65913382


A very simple and obvious example from that list is the forgiveness revoked example from Matt 18

Matt 18
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.



Until we read that scripture listed above.


Pointed list of questions for those not fearful of the text itself.

"According to the text"

Is God asking in Matt 18 that the fully forgiven do what they "cannot do" - can never do?? Can only do if they are infinite God?

Is God telling the fully forgiven in Matt 18 that he will revoke their forgiveness because they fail to do what only God can do and not even the saints are enabled to obey so they must have their forgiveness revoked?

Is that what the text says ??


Note the obvious detail "in the text" that the one "fully forgiven" then experiences "forgiveness revoked" and must pay the full -- original - debt.

Then note that Christ then extends that same result to the saved saints that are His disciples - the "fully forgiven".

Jesus Himself gave us the correlation

For those who object to this text in favor of their own OSAS tradition - please remember that I am not the author of the text -- I give all the credit to Jesus.

Note: To imagine salvation that means "not forgiven and paying your own debt" is to imagine "another gospel". If the saved have all of their forgiveness revoked and then must pay their own debt of sin in full - they will not survive it according to Matt 10:28. You don't come back from that according to the text.




Indeed. The lost sinner pays his full debt of sin in the lake of Fire mentioned in Rev 20.

In Luke 12:45-49 Christ said that some who go to hell pay with few stripes and others with many.

But all pay - and all will pay "in full".



When BoS responded to this point even he could not omit the forgiveness revoked detail.



I responded with the following:





So then we saw this response.




The details in the text of Matt 18 matter - even if they are inconvenient for the OSAS tradition.


in Christ,

Bob

That revocation was a new judgement imposed on the new unforgiveness, not a revocation per se.

 

[Erose]

For me it has to do with the integrity of meaning and definition of terms.
If I'm saved, I'm safe, not vulnerable even to self harm.
Telling me I'm saved but can still end up in bell is a mixed message.
Plus, the popularity of an idea is cause for suspicion.

That is the reason why the phrase "I am saved" or "Are you saved?" Is not used in those faith traditions. It provides the false understanding that you have pointed out so well.

 

[Rick Otto]

That is the reason why the phrase "I am saved" or "Are you saved?" Is not used in those faith traditions. It provides the false understanding that you have pointed out so well.

False as in my sins are paid for, but I can still have to pay for them?

 

[Albion]

That is the reason why the phrase "I am saved" or "Are you saved?" Is not used in those faith traditions.

That's pretty obvious. If a person belongs to a church that says you have to earn your salvation after you've accepted Christ, it wouldn't even make sense to think in terms of having been saved. That's still up in the air until the moment of death, regardless of what Jesus taught to the contrary.