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

[bottomofsandal]

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.

Awesome post bro !!!

Even self-harm...that is wonderfully said.



Returning one's salvation is self-harm

Unbelief or lukewarm belief is self-harm

Doubt, worry, anxiety about salvation are self-harm

Unpreparedness at the time of death is self-harm

 

[Erose]

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

Your question doesn't make much sense in light of what I wrote.

 

[squint]

Your question doesn't make much sense in light of what I wrote.

Rick was pointing to a basic difference in terms.

Many OSAS adherents believe in limited atonement, that being full atonement for all sins for believers only. The orthodox claim 'universal atonement' of sins for all mankind with the axiom that said atonement avails nothing.

 

[Erose]

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.

So it looks like this would be a good time to bring up a question that you seem to have no desire to answer, but I would like it answered: If me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the commandments?

 

[Erose]

Rick was pointing to a basic difference in terms.

Many OSAS adherents believe in limited atonement, that being full atonement for all sins for believers only. The orthodox claim 'universal atonement' of sins for all mankind with the axiom that said atonement avails nothing.

Considering that ISN'T the orthodox position, my question still stands. Perhaps he is like you who ignore what the orthodox position truly is, because the myth is easier to debate against than the reality.

 

[Erose]

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

Uh....no. Strawman, since that is a false accusation.

Anyway, if OSAS has been around since...what a billion years; as has been claimed; it shouldn't be a problem then finding someone who actually taught it before the mid-20th century. And if that someone taught it, perhaps you can find a religious body attached to Christ that actually believed it.

 

[squint]

Considering that ISN'T the orthodox position, my question still stands. Perhaps he is like you who ignore what the orthodox position truly is, because the myth is easier to debate against than the reality.

OSAS consider the sacrifice of Christ sufficient and entirely able.

You are welcome to define how orthodoxy considers it universally sufficient but unable to avail anything for 'whoever' might not make it.

 

[Erose]

Besides that I am still waiting for someone to explain Ezekiel 18 to me, in the OSAS understanding; or for that matter John 15, or Rev 1-3, or Gal 5, or Jam 2, or ...

The point is that this new understanding of Soteriology just doesn't jive with the teaching of the NT without first watering down or washing away a whole lot of Scripture.

 

[Erose]

OSAS consider the sacrifice of Christ sufficient and entirely able.

I disagree, I think OSAS does the direct opposite. It actually belittles Christ's sacrifice; because the mentality is that Jesus died for our sins, so now we all can paarrttyy, and do whatever we want, and forget that God abhors sin. He hates sin, and yet OSAS teaches that God now thinks its fine and dandy that His people sin. Yep, now that God allowed us to crucify His Son, due to our sins, He is just good to go, with sin now.

You are welcome to define how orthodoxy considers it universally sufficient but unable to avail anything for 'whoever' might not make it.

Already have quite a few times in this thread. You deciding to ignore those posts because they bust your myths don't eliminate those posts.

 

[Rick Otto]

Rick was pointing to a basic difference in terms.

Many OSAS adherents believe in limited atonement, that being full atonement for all sins for believers only. The orthodox claim 'universal atonement' of sins for all mankind with the axiom that said atonement avails nothing.

Thank you. Yes. And that is a "limited atonement" on it's own Catholic right, come to think of it.

 

[Rick Otto]

I disagree, I think OSAS does the direct opposite. It actually belittles Christ's sacrifice; because the mentality is that Jesus died for our sins, so now we all can paarrttyy, and do whatever we want, and forget that God abhors sin. He hates sin, and yet OSAS teaches that God now thinks its fine and dandy that His people sin. Yep, now that God allowed us to crucify His Son, due to our sins, He is just good to go, with sin now.


Already have quite a few times in this thread. You deciding to ignore those posts because they bust your myths don't eliminate those posts.

No sir, certainly we celebrate in gratitude, but to allege further is simply uncharitable, I would think.

 

[squint]

I disagree, I think OSAS does the direct opposite. It actually belittles Christ's sacrifice;

Sufficiency is belittlement? Unlikely. Nice try tho.

because the mentality is that Jesus died for our sins, so now we all can paarrttyy, and do whatever we want,

Perhaps that is what many would do without the 'threat?' Do you think God doesn't know that already?

and forget that God abhors sin. He hates sin,

Agreed. Nevertheless no believer can truthfully say they are sinless.

and yet OSAS teaches that God now thinks its fine and dandy that His people sin.

There seems to be some running joke with non-OSAS believers that they are in some vision quest to make themselves sinless.

Yep, now that God allowed us to crucify His Son, due to our sins, He is just good to go, with sin now.

The fact of 'having' sin doesn't change. Some believers may think that by following certain exercises or rituals they are for some fleeting moment sinless, but that is largely conjecture. Orthodoxy is not in the business of selling sinlessness positions if I recall.

Already have quite a few times in this thread. You deciding to ignore those posts because they bust your myths don't eliminate those posts.

You make a lot of assumptions and pass them off as legitimate observations.

For example you cite Ezekiel 18 thinking that proves believers who are subsequently in unbelief will be eternally burned alive when in fact there is nothing of the sort therein.

Most OSAS believers understand that believers can be blinded by the god of this world in this present life, but that does not equate to their automatic eternal torture nor does it mean God in Christ left or abandoned them.

Non-OSAS are also fond of using arguments such as God never left them but the believer left and they think that makes sense when it doesn't.

Moses did not enter the promised land because of unbelief. No one in their right mind will conclude that Moses will be in hell because of unbelief.

s

 

[Albion]

I disagree, I think OSAS does the direct opposite. It actually belittles Christ's sacrifice; because the mentality is that Jesus died for our sins, so now we all can paarrttyy,

You are aware that that is not part of OSAS, and not part of the theology of any church that believes in Eternal Security, so what do you think will be gained by poisoning the discussion by making up such nonsense?

 

[Erose]

You are aware that that is not part of OSAS, and not part of the theology of any church that believes in Eternal Security, so what do you think will be gained by poisoning the discussion by making up such nonsense?

If me keeping the Commandments is earning my way into heaven, then what is it for you to keep the commandments?

 

[Erose]

No sir, certainly we celebrate in gratitude, but to allege further is simply uncharitable, I would think.

Uncharitable like asserting something about someone else's faith that isn't true? Uncharitable like that maybe?

 

[NorrinRadd]

You are aware that that is not part of OSAS, and not part of the theology of any church that believes in Eternal Security, so what do you think will be gained by poisoning the discussion by making up such nonsense?

Probably about as much as is gained by claiming that those who don't believe in OSAS derive our theology from places other than Scripture, that we believe we can "lose" salvation, that the Atonement was actually powerless, etc.

 

[Rick Otto]

And that's not being called into question.

The question is whether it is possible to deliberately turn away from the faith, to become apostate.

The Scriptures are clear that it is possible. Why speak about those who will fall away from the faith by turning to heresy (1 Timothy 4:1) if nobody can fall away from the faith?

-CryptoLutheran

Empty professors fall away. The sheep get lost, then found

 

[Erose]

Sufficiency is belittlement? Unlikely. Nice try tho.

Unlikely? Oh no most likely.

Perhaps that is what many would do without the 'threat?' Do you think God doesn't know that already?

Thanks for proving my point.

There seems to be some running joke with non-OSAS believers that they are in some vision quest to make themselves sinless.

So we should try to avoid sin then? Thanks for proving my point.

The fact of 'having' sin doesn't change. Some believers may think that by following certain exercises or rituals they are for some fleeting moment sinless, but that is largely conjecture. Orthodoxy is not in the business of selling sinlessness positions if I recall.

So keep on sinning. Got it!

You make a lot of assumptions and pass them off as legitimate observations.

But you keep verifying my assumptions, and I can only thank you for it.

For example you cite Ezekiel 18 thinking that proves believers who are subsequently in unbelief will be eternally burned alive when in fact there is nothing of the sort therein.

Take it you still haven't read that chapter yet.

Most OSAS believers understand that believers can be blinded by the god of this world in this present life, but that does not equate to their automatic eternal torture nor does it mean God in Christ left or abandoned them.

Got it. Once saved, move on to whatever and still be saved in the end. So if someone gets saved, and becomes a Satan worshipper is he still saved?

Non-OSAS are also fond of using arguments such as God never left them but the believer left and they think that makes sense when it doesn't.

Makes complete sense. A relationship is never one-sided.

Moses did not enter the promised land because of unbelief. No one in their right mind will conclude that Moses will be in hell because of unbelief.

s [/QUOTE] Did he enter the promise land though?

 

[Erose]

Empty professors fall away. The sheep get lost, then found

So if someone gets saved and becomes a Satan-worshipper and dies during the height of a black mass is he still saved?

 

[Albion]

Probably about as much as is gained by claiming that those who don't believe in OSAS derive our theology from places other than Scripture, that we believe we can "lose" salvation, that the Atonement was actually powerless, etc.

Christians who reject OSAS do NOT think they can lose their salvation? Have you been asleep during the whole of these discussions?