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

[Albion]

Albion,

1. The status is the state of obedient living that you are being and doing.

2. Conditional means we have to cooperate by free will choice and works of obedience that are requirements of God.

Well then, you have a different point of view.

 

[sdowney717]

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.



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$"

The left the faith (actually departed the church of the faithful) because they had no root, and when troubles came they got blown away by the storm that beat upon their sand that they had built their faith upon..

First off those who depart the faith, the Lord says He never knew them, and they built their house on unstable sand.
Matthew 7:22-27 New King James Version (NKJV)
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Build on the Rock
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

 

[sdowney717]

Your faith must be founded on the Rock which is Christ. For it is He who keeps you by the power of God through faith for salvation.

If your faith is founded on a false Christ, false God, false prophets, your own self, your own private understanding, then your headed for disaster. As in Hellfire.

 

[JIMINZ]

1. Calvin had many things right and I don’t believe every Calvinist believes in a license to sin or that they are going to hell.
So I am not totally against Calvinism.

Calvin had Some things right, he clearly missed the boat with his beliefs and understandings on Predestination and the Elect, placing them as the core of his Doctrine.

Everything else after that was hinged on those beliefs, the core of his Doctrine itself was skewed from the beginning.

Your comment about being a license to sin, does nothing but expose your ignorance on the subject of Sin and a Believers Freedom from Sin.

John said if we sin we have an advocate with the father who is the propitiation for our sins and also the worlds sins.

John also said.

1 Jn. 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I believe we are overcomers and can live free from sin just as much as I believe I can sin.

1 Jn. 3:6
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 Jn. 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

It is clear at this point, you don't know what you have been freed from, or how.

 

[JIMINZ]

Then Paul continues in that same message to say Do not let sin reign in your life and warns them that they are a servant of the master whom they obey indicating they can either choose to serve God or they can choose to sin and serve satan.

“Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:12-16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Maybe you should read that over and over until you understand just what it is you have read.

Because, what you have said it means isn't it.

 

[JIMINZ]

When the jailer asked Paul & Silas what he must do to be saved Paul told him to believe. If the jailer had no free will to choose then Paul’s response should’ve been don’t worry about if, if you are chosen by God you will be saved and if you are not then there’s nothing you can do to be saved.

Don't look now but, your ignorance is showing.
Do you really believe what you just said?....Really?

 

[jerry kelso]

Calvin had Some things right, he clearly missed the boat with his beliefs and understandings on Predestination and the Elect, placing them as the core of his Doctrine.

Everything else after that was hinged on those beliefs, the core of his Doctrine itself was skewed from the beginning.

Your comment about being a license to sin, does nothing but expose your ignorance on the subject of Sin and a Believers Freedom from Sin.




John also said.

1 Jn. 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.



1 Jn. 3:6
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 Jn. 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

It is clear at this point, you don't know what you have been freed from, or how.

jiminz,

1. There were people in Paul’s day that thought about license to sin in Romans 6 when he said should we sin that grace may abound more.
I’ve talked to calvinists who didn’t mind sinning because they felt it would bring more glory to God.
I do believe you have jumped the gun to say I am ignorant about the subject of sin.

2. About the freedom from sin I have said that I believe in being an overcomes and just as much as I believe a Christian can sin I believe they can live free from sin.
I used to work that used 1 John to prove they had no possibility to sin once they got saved. Are you in this camp. If you are, then you do not understand context.
Let me know what you believe. Jerry Kelso

 

[GingerBeer]

THIS Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world and THEN will the end come

That must have happened by now. And if it is construed to mean that absolutely every living person on Earth must hear or hear and understand the gospel of the kingdom as precondition for the end to come then it will never happen as long as there are infants on the planet.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe you should read that over and over until you understand just what it is you have read.

Because, what you have said it means isn't it.

Perhaps you could explain Romans 6:12-16 verse by verse then to help me understand your interpretation?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Don't look now but, your ignorance is showing.
Do you really believe what you just said?....Really?

By all means please enlighten me on why Jesus and the apostles told people to believe if they haven’t the capability to choose whether or not they will believe. That is assuming you believe in the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace?

 

[aiki]

1. I never claim that the fact that the Bible refutes OSAS means the Bible is in favor of "works salvation"... did you add that?

If one wants to hold that one's conduct is crucial to one's salvation, then one is not just espousing a saved-and-lost doctrine, but a works-salvation one, too. Is this you?

2. "Forgiveness revoked" does show the saved and then lost condition since the lost are not forgiven... by definition.

But is the story of the Unforgiving Servant supposed to parallel the condition of a saved person who becomes lost? I don't think so. There is far more to salvation than being merely forgiven of a debt. None of the other things central to the Gospel are offered by Christ in the parable. Most importantly, he says absolutely nothing about his role as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, or the need for his listeners to recognize him as their Saviour. No, it seems pretty evident to me that Jesus was speaking in a very Old Covenant way to his audience and not intending any direct parallel to the matter of salvation.

as Paul reminds us "the GOSPEL was preached to Abraham" -- OT Gal 3:8 and "there is only ONE Gospel" Gal 1:6-9

The full Gospel? Not according to Paul:

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

This is hardly the sum total of the Gospel, but merely a hint of what God would do through Christ. Paul's remark here does nothing as far as I can see to sustain the idea that Christ's Unforgiving Servant parable was meant to convey a saved-and-lost doctrine.

Heb 4 "the Gospel was preached to us just as it was to THEM also" Heb 4:2

There are variant readings of this verse that have spurred significant debate. At the very least, "the Gospel that was preached to them" refers to what had been already discussed at length by the writer of Hebrews: entering into rest by faith. The "rest" of the Israelites, however, was not the rest of the New Testament, post-Calvary believer. It is slippery manipulation of Scripture, then, to make out like there is some direct equivalency between the "Gospel" the Israelites heard and the Gospel preached to the lost in the New Testament. What "Gospel" the Israelites heard was quite unlike the Christ-centered Gospel that is the "power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes."

The OT prophets saw "the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow"
1 Pet 1:10-11 10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

1 Peter 1:12
12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.

For they all 1 Cor 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

This is not speaking of salvation or the post-Calvary Gospel. Paul is saying no more in this verse than what he points out in Colossians 1:

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Christ, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, supernaturally provided water and manna to the Israelites.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward

Here Moses is said to have comprehended some of the truth concerning the Messiah. Does the writer of Hebrews say that Moses, therefore, understood the Gospel as we do and/or that Moses was a born-again child of God? No.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

And so? Your purpose in citing these verses/passages is not entirely clear to me. Does this verse state that Noah was a born-again, Gospel believing saint? No. Did he even understand that he had "become heir of the righteousness which is by faith" (whatever the writer of Hebrews means)? The writer of Hebrews doesn't say.

New Covenant in the OLD testament - Jer 31:31-33 - UNCHANGED in the NT Heb 8:6-12.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 is not the Gospel, that's for sure. No mention of Christ, or the cross, or repentance, or any of the primary truths of the Gospel we find in the New Testament. And Jeremiah's prophecy does not offer the New Covenant to those to whom Jeremiah first prophesied what he did in verses 31-33. How, then, is this passage pertinent to my comments?

Jesus said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world and THEN will the end come" Matt 24.

Jesus did not say "I am preaching the wrong Gospel - do not listen to what I teach about forgiveness".

No, Jesus didn't say this. Has someone asserted that he had? I haven't. I pointed out to GingerBeer that Jesus himself said that he purposefully obscured the truth through parables.

As far as I can tell, all that you've offered in response to my last post is largely a deflection of the things I pointed out. Certainly, you have not offered any clear defeaters of my points concerning the scriptural validity of OSAS.

 

[aiki]

By their fruits you shall know them. The claim is not "Saved by works" the claim is that having been saved by grace one can choose so as to lose salvation. You are talking about how to get saved - but OSAS is about the idea of staying saved and how that happens.

Which I cover extensively in the links in the first post I made to this thread.

Hence all the warning in that quote above about losing salvation, forgiveness revoked..etc

Which verses, I pointed out, do not actually threaten the loss of salvation.

1. "Ceased to believe" is not found in Romans 11.

Did I say that this exact phrase was found in Romans 11? No. But we do read:

Romans 11:20
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith.

Romans 11:23
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

2. Instead "impossible to be cut off" Paul says -- indeed possible so "fear".

Romans 11:29
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

"seems to suggest" is a great example of "inference alone"

No, it is merely a modest way of making an assertion.

-- when the explicit statement in the text is the opposite -- "to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off."

Rom 2 - it is the "goodness of God that leads you to repentance" -- to continue in His kindness is to continue in that spirit of repenting/turning from sin.

This doesn't really deal with the rationale I offered for my view which is well-anchored to Scripture. It's at best a facile, superficial deflection of my comments.

Like driving up hill until your car reaches the outer planets of our solar system.. is theoretical and not a practical discussion point.

Deflective and dismissive.

We can see that you use the terms of "inference" to get to an extreme inference negating the direct statement in the text.

We can see that this is what you want to assert even though it isn't so.

 

[JIMINZ]

I believe a Christian can sin I believe they can live free from sin.

Like I said you don't understand How or Why.

If you are, then you do not understand context.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

 

[JIMINZ]

When the jailer asked Paul & Silas what he must do to be saved Paul told him to believe. If the jailer had no free will to choose then Paul’s response should’ve been don’t worry about if, if you are chosen by God you will be saved and if you are not then there’s nothing you can do to be saved.

You don't understand what I said.

2 Tim. 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So then, if neither of these beliefs (Free Will - Sola Scripuura) cannot be supported by the Bible (Sola Scriptura) then neither one of them can be a Doctrine, no matter how many people my believe in it, if it is not in the Bible it cannot be supported by it.

The Scripture determines the Criteria required for some belief to become a Doctrine, if there is no Scripture which can support such a belief, then said belief cannot become a Doctrine according to Scripture.

Read the verse above again, the Scripture given about said belief is the criteria which makes it profitable to become a Doctrine.

What is it you actually have free will to do?.....Choose what color socks to ware?

That is not what the ability to choose is all about, it's not a here and now Temporal, Physical ability to choose, sure you have the ability to Choose, choose all day long, Choose whatever you want to eat, where to go, how long to stay there, that Free Will is only found in DOMINION, do you understand what that is?

There and only there is your so called Free Will ever able to be applied.

 

[JIMINZ]

By all means please enlighten me on why Jesus and the apostles told people to believe if they haven’t the capability to choose whether or not they will believe. That is assuming you believe in the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace?

Do you have a specific example of what your speaking about, both Jesus and the Apostles one for each?

 

[JIMINZ]

1. There were people in Paul’s day that thought about license to sin in Romans 6 when he said should we sin that grace may abound more.

It was a Rhetorical question, do you really think he was asking a question which he wanted an answer to?

Paul understood who his audience was and he knew what they knew.

I’ve talked to calvinists who didn’t mind sinning because they felt it would bring more glory to God.

If that is what you have found, then don't you understand those people would fall into the category of a Tare?

There are any number of people running around using the title Christian, that do not in any way, shape or form demonstrate the Fruit of the Spirit.

If they are making statements like the one you describe, I seriously doubt they ever were Born Again, not matter what the might call themselves.

It's always those kinds of people who meet people like you, who take to heart what they say, believing everyone who would believe such a thing are all the same, that is how Satan works, both to discredit God, His Believers, and the Beliefs of Christians in general.

 

[JIMINZ]

1. The status is the state of obedient living that you are being and doing.

2. Conditional means we have to cooperate by free will choice and works of obedience that are requirements of God.

Don't just make statements without verification, you say things in such a way that sounds like you have some sort of proof which backs up your Statement but never produce it.

Let's see it.

 

[Ricky M]

It has always surprised me how much energy we are willing to put into a debate that really won't affect any of us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You don't understand what I said.

2 Tim. 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So then, if neither of these beliefs (Free Will - Sola Scripuura) cannot be supported by the Bible (Sola Scriptura) then neither one of them can be a Doctrine, no matter how many people my believe in it, if it is not in the Bible it cannot be supported by it.

The Scripture determines the Criteria required for some belief to become a Doctrine, if there is no Scripture which can support such a belief, then said belief cannot become a Doctrine according to Scripture.

Read the verse above again, the Scripture given about said belief is the criteria which makes it profitable to become a Doctrine.

What is it you actually have free will to do?.....Choose what color socks to ware?

That is not what the ability to choose is all about, it's not a here and now Temporal, Physical ability to choose, sure you have the ability to Choose, choose all day long, Choose whatever you want to eat, where to go, how long to stay there, that Free Will is only found in DOMINION, do you understand what that is?

There and only there is your so called Free Will ever able to be applied.

If free will is not supported by the scriptures why is it that we have a choice whether or not to repent and believe?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you have a specific example of what your speaking about, both Jesus and the Apostles one for each?

Here’s a few examples.

“"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14:1‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“[ And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭8:37‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭16:31‬ ‭NASB‬‬