Do you support OSAS(once saved always saved)?

[Jethro Bodine]

...but if they are fleshly works they will be burned but we are saved yet so as by fire. 1 Cor 3: 15 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
I have a feeling that there will be ALOT of nuclear explosions that day, my pile included, but I am hoping for at least a few gems to remain.

Define what your 'pile' is.

I have the feeling you're not really understanding what Paul is saying there in 1 Corinthians 3.

But a lot of people, even though they are saved, will have nothing to show for it.

See, the problem is, you're defining the 'nothing to show for it' as one's obedience. But a disobedient faith, absent of works of righteousness, is the faith that can not save. A 'do nothing' faith is not a faith that barely gets us into the kingdom. It is a faith that will lock you out of the kingdom of God. Not because salvation is by works, but because saving faith is expressed in righteous work, like getting wet is the ultimate expression of a swim in the pool.

2 john 1:8 - Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
We work to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, for rewards, not for salvation.

The faith that saves is the faith that works. The faith that does not work is the faith that can not save.

Somehow this got to be understood in the church as a works gospel.

Today it is hard to discern between the saved and the unsaved and its natural for us to fall to "somethings wrong with just believing, there must be something else"...

The problem is that the church does not understand that the faith that justifies all by itself apart from works is also the faith that has works attached. Not attached for purposes of justifying the person who has them, but attached as the expected and obligatory outcome of having faith in God's gracious offer of forgiveness. In the same way that getting wet must be attached to the claim of swimming in the pool.

..."somethings wrong with eternal security".

There is nothing wrong with eternal security. What's wrong is thinking that means it's eternally yours by a one time act of believing no matter what can happen, or does happen after that. Instead of what the Bible teaches, that you have to have the faith that secures eternal security to the very end for it to secure that eternal security for you. You have the promise of eternal security as long as you believe. Your faith is what makes salvation secure.

A pastors goal should be to preach himself out of a job, not to keep people in chains and bondage so that he has a job.

How does that work? Explain. Just curious.

Not preaching about sin keeps people in bondage
Preaching only about sin keeps people in bondage
Preaching only about God's love keeps people in bondage
Preaching only about God's wrath keeps people in bondage
Not teaching people how to read and study the bible keeps people in bondage and so on and so forth. The entire book must be taught. It must be a well balanced meal.

A well balanced meal includes the truth that a one-time 'having faith' must endure to the end for it to save on the Day of Wrath, and (when the other side of the argument is being played) it apparently really is possible to no longer trust in, and show contempt for, the gracious gift of forgiveness God has given a person. The 'one-time' declaration of faith can not cover a person who abandons that one-time declaration of trust and faith in the blood of Christ.

 

[chessman]

A statement was made: "So pretty much, we are not really saved, but in the process of being saved which ultimately happens at death."

Evidenced by an analogy:
"Technically we're engaged and awaiting the wedding."

Clarified further:"We've entered into a covenant with God that will be brought to completion at the resurrection"

Questioned then affirmed, with 'some' Biblical support:

I do.

"...protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:5 NASB)

What we have now is a down payment ...

Emphasizing a portion of Peter's message concerning salvation (that is, when salvation is revealed [seen]) and using an ellipsis for Peter's other plain words which speak to OSAS:

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

The ... Is somewhat important, no?

Born again to "an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,"

If Peter thought our being born again was a 'process' toward salvation, our 'covenant' for salvation, our 'engagement' to be saved, our 'down payment' toward salvation, why would he use the plain language he does in the ellipsis part of this passage?

Why say it fades not?

Why say our salvation is kept in heaven, if he meant it was kept by us on Earth?

Why say it is by God's power the elect's salvation is kept [guarded even] if rather it's really kept by some other power (in us)?

So, reading all of 1 Peter 1:3-5, allowing for OSAS to be either true or false, is one better to conclude Peter is a supporter of OSAS because he says salvation is:

1: via Christ's resurrection [can't take that one back]
2: imperishable
3: undefiled
4: unfading
5: kept in Heaven
6: via the power of God
7: guarded
8: caused
9: according to His great mercy

Or is Peter a non-supporter of OSAS because:
1. he says: salvation is ready to be REVEALED in the last time?

I think Peter plainly supports OSAS. Yet he realizes it will not be revealed until later. The ... tells Peter's support of OSAS. The emphasized portion tells why our hope lives, yet waits to be revealed, sure:

We have a living hope because Christ lives, though unseen.

1 Peter 3-9 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again... obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

 

[Deborah13]

What do you think they are saying, that a continuing faith signifies that you are truly saved, or that a persevering faith establishes one's salvation?

The Colossians passage, because it speaks directly to what faith does (secures the work of Christ on your behalf), is way in favor of a persevering faith being that which keeps Christ's work acting on your behalf, instead of a persevering faith simply showing that Christ's work is really doing that for you. Can you see the difference?

I will just say this...
I believe that God forgives every sin, no matter what it is, if we are truly repentant. If one is not truly repentant of every sin then....
a Calvinist type of OSAS says that person was never saved.
Your type would say, that person lost their salvation.

Take your pick...it all comes out the same.

 

[Deborah13]

A statement was made: "So pretty much, we are not really saved, but in the process of being saved which ultimately happens at death."

Evidenced by an analogy:
"Technically we're engaged and awaiting the wedding."

Clarified further:"We've entered into a covenant with God that will be brought to completion at the resurrection"

Questioned then affirmed, with 'some' Biblical support:

Emphasizing a portion of Peter's message concerning salvation (that is, when salvation is revealed [seen]) and using an ellipsis for Peter's other plain words which speak to OSAS:

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

The ... Is somewhat important, no?

Born again to "an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,"

If Peter thought our being born again was a 'process' toward salvation, our 'covenant' for salvation, our 'engagement' to be saved, our 'down payment' toward salvation, why would he use the plain language he does in the ellipsis part of this passage?

Why say it fades not?

Why say our salvation is kept in heaven, if he meant it was kept by us on Earth?

Why say it is by God's power the elect's salvation is kept [guarded even] if rather it's really kept by some other power (in us)?

So, reading all of 1 Peter 1:3-5, allowing for OSAS to be either true or false, is one better to conclude Peter is a supporter of OSAS because he says salvation is:

1: via Christ's resurrection [can't take that one back]
2: imperishable
3: undefiled
4: unfading
5: kept in Heaven
6: via the power of God
7: guarded
8: caused
9: according to His great mercy

Or is Peter a non-supporter of OSAS because:
1. he says: salvation is ready to be REVEALED in the last time?

I think Peter plainly supports OSAS. Yet he realizes it will not be revealed until later. The ... tells Peter's support of OSAS. The emphasized portion tells why our hope lives, yet waits to be revealed, sure:

We have a living hope because Christ lives, though unseen.

1 Peter 3-9 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again... obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

I think that is probably the most powerful of all the scripture that supports God is the one who saves.

 

[veryberry]

Classic OSAS thinking.

Would you change what you said if I showed you in the Bible that you are exhorted to extend purposeful effort to prove you have the Holy Spirit in salvation in you?

I'd like to see your scripture

The problem is the church thinks this means you don't have to do anything. As if doing righteous works automatically equates to trying to be justified by those works. The thinking being that if we just kind of let them happen by themselves we can't be guilty of trying to be justified by those works.

We have a responsibility to show that we are indeed sheep and not goats. The person who doesn't do that has a faith that can not save him--a dead, inactive faith. Even though James plainly says this, the church will be quick to tell you it simply isn't true. The argument being, you are saved whether you do righteous things or not because salvation is so utterly all about what God did and not anything you do.

Titus 3: 5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Our righteous works have nothing to do with salvation. James 2 has nothing to do with being justified before God. Why do I need to prove to you that I am saved? are you saving me? In order for me to have dead faith, I would indeed have to have faith. If I am not utilizing my faith to benefit others then my faith is indeed dead but I still have faith. But we are not saved by righteous works correct? we are saved by faith correct? Book of James also talks of rich people being damned. Can you think of a time when rich people will be damned? Paul never speaks of such.

OSAS says this means believers can't stop believing (when they are defending that side of the duplicitous OSAS argument). That is the implication they derive from the passage (implied because it doesn't actually say that in direct words). But they look right over plain, direct passages of scripture that warn us to not stop believing or else be cutoff from Christ. Passages that make it impossible that Christ was saying we can never stop believing and, therefore, we are saved 'one time for all time' no matter what.

But why don't you take the plain scriptures (more plain than the ones you post) "exactly for what they say" that say your unbelief after you have believed will separate you from Christ, and that you have to believe to the end to be saved by your faith, and if you don't you will be lost? That's the $64 question for the OSAS argument. OSAS requires that you believe implied understandings of scripture and ignore or rationalize away direct, plain words of scripture. I'm not doing it anymore.

Ok, the "plain scripture" that you present, which say "stay in the faith, walk in the faith, stand in the faith". When you are in sin are you in any of these? When you lust, are angry with out a cause, tell a white lie or big lie, fulfilling any fleshly desire, thinking evil thoughts, etc., etc. Are you in any one of those? You believe, and God gives everyman a measure of faith. That faith can increase and it can also decrease. Abraham believed God(Gen 15:6), but did Abraham ever not believe God?(Gen 17:17) But God is not slack on his promises...

I'm confused. I thought there was no power in all of heaven and earth that could destroy the hope of the OSAS saint?

I have enough words in mouth....

 

[Deborah13]

I'd like to see your scripture
Titus 3: 5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Our righteous works have nothing to do with salvation. James 2 has nothing to do with being justified before God. Why do I need to prove to you that I am saved? are you saving me? In order for me to have dead faith, I would indeed have to have faith. If I am not utilizing my faith to benefit others then my faith is indeed dead but I still have faith. But we are not saved by righteous works correct? we are saved by faith correct? Book of James also talks of rich people being damned. Can you think of a time when rich people will be damned? Paul never speaks of such.

Ok, the "plain scripture" that you present, which say "stay in the faith, walk in the faith, stand in the faith". When you are in sin are you in any of these? When you lust, are angry with out a cause, tell a white lie or big lie, fulfilling any fleshly desire, thinking evil thoughts, etc., etc. Are you in any one of those? You believe, and God gives everyman a measure of faith. That faith can increase and it can also decrease. Abraham believed God(Gen 15:6), but did Abraham ever not believe God?(Gen 17:17) But God is not slack on his promises...

I have enough words in mouth....

Whoa! I think this is the first time I have heard anyone point out that Abraham laughed. They are always quick to point out Sarah's lack of faith because she laughed while ignoring that Abraham did, too.

 

[jeff77]

I will just say this...
I believe that God forgives every sin, no matter what it is, if we are truly repentant. If one is not truly repentant of every sin then....
a Calvinist type of OSAS says that person was never saved.
Your type would say, that person lost their salvation.

Take your pick...it all comes out the same.

What about a 3rd type? A type that says one is not saved until the end? In that case neither OSAS or non-OSAS would fit because how can you lose something you never had to begin with and how can you lose something you won't receive until later. I lean towards non-OSAS but not exactly the way I have heard some people describe it. For example if a person sins one time that equals losing salvation and they need to be saved again.

 

[Deborah13]

What about a 3rd type? A type that says one is not saved until the end? In that case neither OSAS or non-OSAS would fit because how can you lose something you never had to begin with and how can you lose something you won't receive until later. I lean towards non-OSAS but not exactly the way I have heard some people describe it. For example if a person sins one time that equals losing salvation and they need to be saved again.

To that I'd say read chessman 's post #882. And believe Peter.

 

[jeff77]

To that I'd say read chessman 's post #882. And believe Peter.

Yeah, I read chessman's post. I think it's a great post along with many others on the last several pages. There is a lot of post in such a short time. Perhaps I am over-analyzing a little. What I think is that after you become saved, your focus should not be about keeping your salvation. When you do sin you should repent because you sinned against your heavenly father. You should feel bad about what you have done to Him, not what you may have done to your salvation. Kind of like you wouldn't want your children to only be sorry for something they did wrong because they may lose a priviledge. You want them to be sorry because they hurt you. (All the you's I just typed are not directed at anyone by the way)

 

[veryberry]

See, the problem is, you're defining the 'nothing to show for it' as one's obedience. But a disobedient faith, absent of works of righteousness, is the faith that can not save. A 'do nothing' faith is not a faith that barely gets us into the kingdom. It is a faith that will lock you out of the kingdom of God. Not because salvation is by works, but because saving faith is expressed in righteous work, like getting wet is the ultimate expression of a swim in the pool.



The faith that saves is the faith that works. The faith that does not work is the faith that can not save.

Somehow this got to be understood in the church as a works gospel.



The problem is that the church does not understand that the faith that justifies all by itself apart from works is also the faith that has works attached. Not attached for purposes of justifying the person who has them, but attached as the expected and obligatory outcome of having faith in God's gracious offer of forgiveness. In the same way that getting wet must be attached to the claim of swimming in the pool.

There really is no difference between a "faith producing works" then a "faith + works" . In both cases, if you see someone who says they have faith and has nothing that you can tell to show for it, then your assumption is that they are not saved. They are both designed to put people in bondage. Because if you confront a person that says they have faith about their none works, then that person has in their mind that they have to do works or their not saved. Its the same either way you look at it. If you want to see fruitful faith, Teach them the WHOLE word of God. Teach them how to study the word of God for themselves. Keep "must have works" out of it and let God do his job and you will start to see fruitful works. If the person is unwilling, then move on and let God deal with it. If you are doing that great! Keep it up! If you are not, then you are part of the very problem that you despise.

There is nothing wrong with eternal security. What's wrong is thinking that means it's eternally yours by a one time act of believing no matter what can happen, or does happen after that. Instead of what the Bible teaches, that you have to have the faith that secures eternal security to the very end for it to secure that eternal security for you. You have the promise of eternal security as long as you believe. Your faith is what makes salvation secure.

Its a gift not a debt....

How does that work? Explain. Just curious.

A pastor should strive to teach the whole word of God producing in people leaving the church starting their own ministries. If a pastor preached truthfully, accurately, and rightfully dividing the word of God, then their would be a lot less big churches, and a lot more smaller churches.

A well balanced meal includes the truth that a one-time 'having faith' must endure to the end for it to save on the Day of Wrath, and (when the other side of the argument is being played) it apparently really is possible to no longer trust in, and show contempt for, the gracious gift of forgiveness God has given a person. The 'one-time' declaration of faith can not cover a person who abandons that one-time declaration of trust and faith in the blood of Christ.

We are not appointed to wrath....A one time event is all that is required. 1 Corinthians is a perfect example of what is going on today. They were carnal. They were still drinking milk. They were in sin. Their doctrine was all messed up, yet Paul still thought they were saved. Did he stand back and say "oh, all you bunch of unsaved devils. You're not saved and going to hell." No. He went and taught them.....Something that needs to be done TODAY.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Whoa! I think this is the first time I have heard anyone point out that Abraham laughed. They are always quick to point out Sarah's lack of faith because she laughed while ignoring that Abraham did, too.

You'll hate me for this, lol, but actually it is God himself who pointed out Sarah's laughing.

This is what the Bible says about Abraham:

"19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb;20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform." (Romans 4: NASB)

But it's interesting to hear preachers talk about Abraham's lack of faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think that is probably the most powerful of all the scripture that supports God is the one who saves.

Do you think that non-OSAS says God is not the one who saves, or are you making an unrelated observation?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yeah, I read chessman's post. I think it's a great post along with many others on the last several pages. There is a lot of post in such a short time. Perhaps I am over-analyzing a little. What I think is that after you become saved, your focus should not be about keeping your salvation. When you do sin you should repent because you sinned against your heavenly father. You should feel bad about what you have done to Him, not what you may have done to your salvation. Kind of like you wouldn't want your children to only be sorry for something they did wrong because they may lose a priviledge. You want them to be sorry because they hurt you. (All the you's I just typed are not directed at anyone by the way)

I don't think I can continue to talk to people who continually hear the non-OSAS argument as being 'you are saved by your righteous work' even when you explain to them it is not.

May I ask, what is going on inside of you that makes you hear non-OSAS as a works gospel? Non-OSAS says the faith that justified you all by itself apart from works must conintue to the very end for that justification to continue. Can you understand that argument? I'm not asking if you agree with it. I'm asking if you can understand the argument. And if you do understand it, explain how a person can continue to be justified even if they don't want to be justified anymore and no longer trust in that justification, and go back to their old lifestyle.

 

[Deborah13]

Do you think that non-OSAS says God is not the one who saves, or are you making an unrelated observation?

Unrelated.

 

[Deborah13]

You'll hate me for this, lol, but actually it is God himself who pointed out Sarah's laughing.

This is what the Bible says about Abraham:

"19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb;20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform." (Romans 4: NASB)

But it's interesting to hear preachers talk about Abraham's lack of faith.

Of coarse God pointed it out. Abraham was right there with Him laughing but Sarah thought God wouldn't know, she was in the tent, if I remember correctly, eavesdropping. Opps..

 

[veryberry]

You'll hate me for this, lol, but actually it is God himself who pointed out Sarah's laughing.

This is what the Bible says about Abraham:

"19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb;20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform." (Romans 4: NASB)

But it's interesting to hear preachers talk about Abraham's lack of faith.

Romans 4:8 - Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[Deborah13]

Yeah, I read chessman's post. I think it's a great post along with many others on the last several pages. There is a lot of post in such a short time. Perhaps I am over-analyzing a little. What I think is that after you become saved, your focus should not be about keeping your salvation. When you do sin you should repent because you sinned against your heavenly father. You should feel bad about what you have done to Him, not what you may have done to your salvation. Kind of like you wouldn't want your children to only be sorry for something they did wrong because they may lose a priviledge. You want them to be sorry because they hurt you. (All the you's I just typed are not directed at anyone by the way)

Jeff, this is exactly how I feel about it, too.
I remember many many years ago, I had to give one of my kids a spanking. It was awful! I get tears just thinking about it. I sent him to his room and I sat down and cried. One of the girls saw me and she went and told him. He came to me and put his arms around me and said please don't cry, I know you love me.
I don't want to break my Father heart.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Emphasizing a portion of Peter's message concerning salvation (that is, when salvation is revealed [seen]) and using an ellipsis for Peter's other plain words which speak to OSAS:

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

The ... Is somewhat important, no?

Don't you see you're filtering the passage through the preconceived teaching about OSAS. IOW, you're understanding them according to what you were taught instead of what they actually are NOT saying.

Born again to "an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,"

If Peter thought our being born again was a 'process' toward salvation, our 'covenant' for salvation, our 'engagement' to be saved, our 'down payment' toward salvation, why would he use the plain language he does in the ellipsis part of this passage?

How is it that you can't see he's plainly saying it is your faith that makes the promise secure? You didn't even underline it but chose to stop on the part about "by God's power are being guarded " just before it as if the 'through faith' part has no bearing on being guarded at all. Is this too high of an observation for anyone to grasp that they can't comment on it?

Why say it fades not?

The kingdom we await is permanent and forever and indestructible ("lay up treasures for yourself where..."). But it is an unfading kingdom and glory that is conditioned on the continuance of faith.

Why say our salvation is kept in heaven, if he meant it was kept by us on Earth?

Shouldn't you be asking Peter that? That's what the passage plainly says. Why are you questioning me about that as if it's a made up part of non-OSAS?

The only heaven we have right now on earth is the Holy Spirit. Paul describes it as a down payment of earnest for the rest of all the glory and goodness of God that isn't here, but is in heaven. It is required that we continue in the faith we started out with to continue in the promise of that which the Holy Spirit guarantees which is waiting for us in a different place.

Why say it is by God's power the elect's salvation is kept [guarded even] if rather it's really kept by some other power (in us)?

Faith is the power through which we trust.

You prolly can't understand that because the church fails to make the distinction between the gracious gift of faith (the ability to know something you can't see is true) and the believing/trusting that one then has to do to secure that which faith has revealed to us to be true. If necessary, are you willing to read that through slowly and often enough to honestly understand the argument?

So, reading all of 1 Peter 1:3-5, allowing for OSAS to be either true or false, is one better to conclude Peter is a supporter of OSAS because he says salvation is:

1: via Christ's resurrection [can't take that one back]

But you can take back your trust in Christ's resurrection.

2: imperishable

The kingdom is imperishable, not your believing, your trusting.

3: undefiled
4: unfading
5: kept in Heaven

These are qualities of the kingdom we believe for, not qualities of the believing that secures the kingdom.

6: via the power of God

How does that mean we will always use the power of God (the supernatural ability to know the gospel we can not see is true) to believe and trust in the gospel? Do you understand the question?

7: guarded
8: caused

By your believing. But if you can't see the difference between the power of faith, and a person putting their trust and belief in what faith reveals to them, then you won't get this.

9: according to His great mercy

The gift of faith is God's gracious enablement to believe in the merciful work of Christ. How does salvation according to those things mean we can never choose not to continue to trust in those things? Explain....if you can understand what I'm asking.

Or is Peter a non-supporter of OSAS because:
1. he says: salvation is ready to be REVEALED in the last time?

He plainly says we are waiting for that which faith (believing) secures. How does that mean we 1) still have all that faith secures even if we stop believing, and 2) it's impossible to lose it? You just think it means that because instead of letting the scriptures say, or not say, what they do, you're reading them through the lens of OSAS.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Romans 4:8 - Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Even to the man who believes, but then denies Christ? Not according to my Bible.

How can anyone teach this to God's church and then think they've been doing God's work in making sure they hear the truth?

Trusting in Christ's sacrifice which is always before the Father is how sin is not imputed to a person. Stop trusting and believing in Christ's sacrifice and it no longer can act on your behalf to rescue you from the guilt of your sin. Do you want to argue the point?

 

[jeff77]

I don't think I can continue to talk to people who continually hear the non-OSAS argument as being 'you are saved by your righteous work' even when you explain to them it is not.

May I ask, what is going on inside of you that makes you hear non-OSAS as a works gospel? Non-OSAS says the faith that justified you all by itself apart from works must conintue to the very end for that justification to continue. Can you understand that argument? I'm not asking if you agree with it. I'm asking if you can understand the argument. And if you do understand it, explain how a person can continue to be justified even if they don't want to be justified anymore and no longer trust in that justification, and go back to their old lifestyle.

I completely understand that non-OSAS is not a works gospel. I lean towards non-OSAS because of Matthew 7:21-23. I agree with you that the church is teaching a false message about salvation. They are kind of saying "Just believe (as in the head knowledge) say a prayer and you got your ticket to heaven, nothing else required". Why do you think I assumed Non-OSAS is a works gospel?