Why reject OSAS ? Because the Bible does not support it.? or..?

[BobRyan]

Virtually every other Protestant group because the vast majority of Protestants agree with Luther's findings and theologies that he made in the 1,500's a.k.a sola scriptura, sola fide, and Eternal Security.

Perhaps a "quote" will be useful just then when it comes to Martin Luther and Once Saved Always Saved.

from; Out There: Eternal Security/Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS)

Like “Faith Alone”, “Eternal Security” made its first appearance at the Reformation, being introduced by leaders such as Bucer and Calvin. Interestingly though, it was never taught by Luther:

So then we have this

“Through baptism these people threw out unbelief, had their unclean way of life washed away, and entered into a pure life of faith and love. Now they fall away into unbelief” – Martin Luther, Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22

Does everyone believe that what Luther did and said about Sola Scriptura makes him the absolute authority from then on, about every point of Christianity.

I was not claiming that.. and I am not making any negative claims about Martin Luther or Lutherans - I was just addressing the claim that was made where it was said that Luther believed in OSAS -- when in fact it does not appear from the documents that he did.

His thought and beliefs on the subject of Sola Scriptura does not make him an authority on OSAS nor doe it give him understanding on the subject,

The OP list of text evidence that OSAS is not support in the Bible - does not quote Luther.

 

[BobRyan]

neosrarwcc,

1. As I said before in post 32# the question is not whether one believes in eternal security or not.
Both Arminians and Calvinists both believe in Eternal Security.
Armininists believe in ES conditionally as far as having free will and having to cooperate with God’s requirements of works of obedience not works to merit.

2. Full Calvinists of the Reformed theology believe more in line with no free will but God’s sovereign choice.
This is why they pretty much ascribe to if you leave and never come back you were never saved in the first place.

In terms of "Assurance"

The basic Arminian belief is that you can know for certain you are saved today but you can't know for certain that 10 years from today you will continue to "persevere firm until the end".

3 and 5 point Calvinism can't even know that ... because it says that if you fail to persevere ten years from today then even what you think you know for certain today -- is not actually true.

 

[JIMINZ]

Perhaps a "quote" will be useful just then when it comes to Martin Luther and Once Saved Always Saved.



So then we have this

“Through baptism these people threw out unbelief, had their unclean way of life washed away, and entered into a pure life of faith and love. Now they fall away into unbelief” – Martin Luther, Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22



I was not claiming that.. I was just addressing the claim that was made about that Luther believed in OSAS and it does not appear to me that he in fact did.



The OP list of text evidence that OSAS is not support in the Bible - does not quote Luther.

Then I guess, there isn't a TRINITY either?

 

[BobRyan]

Idk how accurate this is but apparently, here's a chart explaining the Church's as a whole's beliefs on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura:

Three-in-ten U.S. Protestants believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura

I am aware of that quote from Luther but here's an article saying what Luther believed about Sola Fide and many of his teachings.

Martin Luther's Explanation of Faith, Faith Alone and Faith That Is Not Alone • EFCA

Luther believed that we were saved by faith alone but the faith that saves, is never alone. .

A lot of denominations will claim
faith alone
grace alone
test doctrine by scripture alone
Christ alone is our hope of salvation, is the savior of the world.

But not all will push inference into those statements to such an extreme and by extreme extension into OSAS .. .

Of course some will ... but also some won't

and none of those links address the texts in the OP that show "the problem" for OSAS when it comes to "sola scriptura" testing.

 

[BobRyan]

Then I guess, there isn't a TRINITY either?

??? why would that be??

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that so many "Christians" are leaving the faith only shows to me, that they never had saving faith to begin with, .

That statement appears on surface to be self-conflicted. Like saying "the fact that you pushed your maserati off a cliff after driving it for ten years --- shows me that you never owned a maserati".

You see that kind of statement a lot in Christian discussions - but it never really makes a lot of sense when you step back and look at it.

 

[JIMINZ]

??? why would that be??

The Belief in the TRinity is not explicitly spoken of in Scripture, there isn't any verses which speaks to or teaches about the subject, it is understood through a compilation of Scripture from different places, which when put together, form the basis of understanding (Belief) we now call the Trinity.

This is also true of OSAS, but not with the belief concerning Free Will.

 

[JIMINZ]

That statement appears on surface to be self-conflicted. Like saying "the fact that you pushed your maserati off a cliff after driving it for ten years --- shows me that you never owned a maserati".

You see that kind of statement a lot in Christian discussions - but it never really makes a lot of sense when you step back and look at it.

How about this then for the purpose of clarification of said statement.

The fact that so many people who call themselves "Christians" are leaving the faith only shows to me, that they never had saving faith to begin with, never had the Holy Spirit, and Eternal Security doesn't apply to them.

 

[BobRyan]

Then I guess, there isn't a TRINITY either?

??? why would that be??

The Belief in the TRinity is not explicitly spoken of in Scripture, there isn't any verses which speaks to or teaches about the subject, it is understood through a compilation of Scripture from different places, which when put together, form the basis of understanding (Belief) we now call the Trinity.

This is also true of OSAS, but not with the belief concerning Free Will.

The trinity is found in scripture in this form

I. "One God" Deut 6:4 "The LORD (YHWH) your God is ONE"
II. In THREE Persons. Matt 28:19
"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of
1. the Father
2. and the Son
3. and the Holy Spirit,

As you say - OSAS is not found in scripture.

But the OP goes farther than that - the OP provides texts of scripture showing that OSAS does not survive the "sola scriptura" method when those texts are included for they make statements that negate the very core principle in OSAS

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that so many "Christians" are leaving the faith only shows to me, that they never had saving faith to begin with, .

That statement appears on surface to be self-conflicted. Like saying "the fact that you pushed your maserati off a cliff after driving it for ten years --- shows me that you never owned a maserati".

You see that kind of statement a lot in Christian discussions - but it never really makes a lot of sense when you step back and look at it.

How about this then for the purpose of clarification of said statement.

The fact that so many people who call themselves "Christians" are leaving the faith only shows to me, that they never had saving faith to begin with, never had the Holy Spirit, and Eternal Security doesn't apply to them.

The problem is not what they call themselves the problem is your statement "leaving the faith" - if they "left" then by definition BEFORE they Left they had not LEFT. Which turns your statement into "they left the faith to prove that they never left the faith since they never had the faith to then leave" which again - does not make a lot of sense.

But given the POV that OSAS is not what we find in scripture THEN 'the fact that they LEFT the faith is PROOF that once having the faith one can then LEAVE" - the very core of the non-OSAS claim.

It is like saying "the fact that you gave that 100$ away to that other guy is the proof that you never had 100$"

 

[jerry kelso]

Does everyone believe that what Luther did and said about Sola Scriptura makes him the absolute authority from then on, about every point of Christianity.

His thought and beliefs on the subject of Sola Scriptura does not make him an authority on OSAS nor doe it give him understanding on the subject, he still had his Catholic Prejudices against it, having been a Priest.

Luther did not want to leave the Catholic Church he wanted it to stop is practice of indulgences, he remained a Catholic at heart, even with his new
Denomination.

Lutheranism, is nothing more than Catholic Lite.

jiminz,

1. Some may think he is the absolute authority and some won’t.
Most just use him as an authority because they have the same belief and he defeated the impact of Calvinism hold on the culture who were oppressed in many ways by that belief and Calvin himself.

2. Luther has been said to be anti Semitic and Calvin was a law keeper who was legalistic and even didn’t believe in missionary work and put Servitus to death because he was against Calvinism.
The point is that personal flaws doesn’t make people an authority on the word.
It doesn’t mean they can’t be more of an authority on some subjects and not on others.

3. To understand Calvin and Luther is to understand the roles that Catholicism and Luther’s new found doctrine on the culture of that day.
The Catholic Church was the state religion.
Luther’s sole scriptura was at odds with the Catholic Church of who Calvin was connected heavily with.
In short, Calvin and Luther were sort of like Saul of Tarsus who kept the Old Covenant law blameless so he thought he was pleasing God to get rid of the New Covenant Christians.
Muslims think the same train of thought with the infidel.

4. Luther understood the New Covenant was in and the Old was abolished at Calvary. To believe in Judaism according to Moses because overall as a nation they are still backslidden, and one could not be saved by the law they were preaching a false doctrine as in Paul’s message to the Galatians.
I believed he went a little bit too far. I don’t believe there is a New Testament doctrine that tells us to go to the extreme that both Luther and Calvin did no matter if they were doctrinally right.

5. Today there are Jews who try to convert Gentiles into Judaism or even into the Messianic church.
There are also Gentiles trying to convert Jews into the Christian Church.
I believe this is not scriptural.
Messianic congregations who are New Covenant Christians don’t have to abandon their being Jewish culturally and vice versa with Christians.
If they choose to do that is fine as long as they are New Covenant believers.
Both Jews and Gentiles are in the church. Read Paul’s mystery of the church in Ephesians 2:14-15; 3:3-6.

6. I do understand the similarities and differences between the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines so I believe I understand your Catholic lite comment. Jerry Kelso

 

[JIMINZ]

??? why would that be??



The trinity is found in scripture in this form

I. "One God" Deut 6:4 "The LORD (YHWH) your God is ONE"
II. In THREE Persons. Matt 28:19
"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of
1. the Father
2. and the Son
3. and the Holy Spirit,

As you say - OSAS is not found in scripture.

But the OP goes farther than that - the OP provides texts of scripture showing that OSAS does not survive the "sola scriptura" method when those texts are included for they make statements that negate the very core principle in OSAS

When the Sola Scriptura Method is implemented, does it use all of the Criteria available to it, or is it selective in it's scope of understanding and therefore limiting the possibility of a deeper (fuller) understanding?

What I am saying is there are Scripture which have always been used to describe OSAS that don't in you mind stand up to muster, what if there were other which have not been use and take a completely different tack on the issue?

 

[jerry kelso]

In terms of "Assurance"

The basic Arminian belief is that you can know for certain you are saved today but you can't know for certain that 10 years from today you will continue to "persevere firm until the end".

3 and 5 point Calvinism can't even know that ... because it says that if you fail to persevere ten years from today then even what you think you know for certain today -- is not actually true.

bob Ryan,

1. Arminianism believes in assurance and overcoming to stay in the faith.
Assurance is more in being faithful. Perseverance is the result of being faithful.
Apostates can know if they are not living for God or not. Even the Jewish leaders who apostasized in Jesus day knew they were not living right. At the same time God can sear their conscience to where they might not know.

2. The Church of Christ believe they cannot be certain at all till the end. This is part of the reason they believe in performing works so much.

3. Reformed Calvinists that believe in the T-U-L-I-P are certain of their assurance. If their doctrine is wrong and they ended up failing to persevere they wouldn’t know because of tunnel vision. So I believe we agree. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Could you possibly find better wording for your post, it does sound sort of contradictory.



What makes you so positive it's an evil Doctrine?

jiminz,

1. It’s evil if it is used as a license to sin and live carnal or if you blame God for your sin or make God responsible for you sinning.
It could be considered evil if it teaches a defeated life instead of an overcoming life.
It could also be considered evil if teaches God is a respect or of persons by believing that God elects some and damns others.
It’s evil if it is guilty of these things which takes advantage of God’s sovereignty and holy character and righteous judgements.
It is evil if it leads to false perseverance.
It is evil if it believes grace is irresistible for they believe they can’t help but sin in many circles.
It is evil to teach limited atonement when Christ died for the whole world and his will is to see all men saved. Jerry Kelso

 

[Albion]

Here are some of the verses that affirm OSAS but which I have been reading on this thread do not exist--

17 Bible verses about Eternal Security

 

[JIMINZ]

jiminz,

1. It’s evil if it is used as a license to sin and live carnal or if you blame God for your sin or make God responsible for you sinning.
It could be considered evil if it teaches a defeated life instead of an overcoming life.
It could also be considered evil if teaches God is a respect or of persons by believing that God elects some and damns others.
It’s evil if it is guilty of these things which takes advantage of God’s sovereignty and holy character and righteous judgements.
It is evil if it leads to false perseverance.
It is evil if it believes grace is irresistible for they believe they can’t help but sin in many circles.
It is evil to teach limited atonement when Christ died for the whole world and his will is to see all men saved. Jerry Kelso

More than anything else it just sounds like you totally against Calvinism.

It's only evil if those who object to it use that kind of logic to speak against it.

Are you under the impression that Christians are looking for ways to sin?

How about sinning, confessing, repenting, sinning, confessing, repenting,
sinning, confessing, repenting, HMMMMM sound familiar?

Do you have a License too?

All I hear you saying is I completely do not understand OSAS I just don't like it, maybe because I can't trust myself if I did believe in it, I would use it as a license to sin myself.

With what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you.

 

[GingerBeer]

More than anything else it just sounds like you totally against Calvinism.

Is that a bad thing?

I know that your reply was to another person's post but I wondered if it is a bad thing to oppose Calvinism. So is it? Like a sin or something?

 

[JIMINZ]

Is that a bad thing?

I know that your reply was to another person's post but I wondered if it is a bad thing to oppose Calvinism. So is it? Like a sin or something?

Why no it isn't particularly, but I'm sure you could misconstrue it to be if you wanted to.

His answer was almost totally against Calvinism and not OSAS, his disdain for Calvinism shone through his lack of understanding on the subject of OSAS that was the thrust of my answer to him.

My self, I find that Calvin was mistaken in a whole bunch of things because of his misunderstanding of who the Elect were, and after that it was all down hill from there.

So just in case you were wondering, No I am not a Calvinist, although some would venture to say I hold some Calvinist beliefs, they actually are not because, I never heard of the man until I began coming on forums like this one. about 6 yrs ago.

As a flower I really never liked Tulips anyway.

 

[GingerBeer]

His answer was almost totally against Calvinism and not OSAS

What's the difference between OSAS and Calvinism, do you think?

I have met some people - mainly Baptists and Independent church people - who like OSAS but not John Calvin's theology. Where does OSAS come from if not from Calvinism?

 

[Albion]

It does come from Calvinism, but when we say "Calvinism" we are of course implying all sorts of things that are associated with that variety of Protestant Christianity; and OSAS--which is better called "Eternal Security" or "Perseverance of the saints"--is just one small part of it all.

For that matter, it's only 1/5 of the famous TULIP explanation dealing with the who and how of salvation, not to mention all the other distinctives of Calvinism.