Do you support OSAS(once saved always saved)?

[Jethro Bodine]

and here

All you have to do is explain. The floor is yours.

And please let me know if anything is wrong with the addition of the words I added to your correct summation of the gospel.

 

[Deborah13]

By God's continually available grace, we keep our trust in Christ's substitutionary death, if that's what we want to do. Obviously, if you choose not to trust in Christ's death God's grace is not going to be available to you anymore to trust in it.



The matter is about whether or not we will choose to trust in that which God has graciously made able to be trusted in, and then to keep trusting in that which we know is true. We can believe if we want to. But what we may choose not to, also...particularly if our faith is weak. Somewhere along the line, soil #2 in Luke 8 decided to stop trusting. They believed for a while but then stopped. And they stopped in preference to the ways of the world. Read it.

Just because a person knows something is true doesn't mean they'll act in accordance to what is true. It's a choice.

Yes actions are a choice.

Some people can be confronted by the Holy Spirit and it takes four or five times before their Actions match what they already believe in their heart. Luckily for some of us, the Holy Spirit knows what we may not even know and He will not quench a smoking ember. Either before we our first surrender or after surrenders.

 

[jeff77]

I think someone who has the "head knowledge" really does believe Jesus died for their sins but they refuse to accept him as their savior. It could be because they don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle. There could be other reasons, that's the one I can think of.

 

[chessman]

Don't you see you're filtering the passage through the preconceived teaching about OSAS.

No, I don't see it.

How is it that you can't see he's plainly saying it is your faith that makes the promise secure?

Because Peter didn't say "it is your faith that makes the promise secure", you did.

The kingdom we await is permanent and forever

I know. Which is exactly why Peter used that fact to example how sure their salvation was.

And Jesus prayed that we join Him there:John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory ...

But getting back to Peter:
1 Peter 1:4 an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,

How is it that you can't see that Peter be talking bout an inheritance that's secure, not a kingdom that's permanent. they already knew Heaven was imperishable.

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

You sure?

John 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

 

[Deborah13]

I think someone who has the "head knowledge" really does believe Jesus died for their sins but they refuse to accept him as their savior. It could be because they don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle. There could be other reasons, that's the one I can think of.

I don't think 'head knowledge' is a working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jeff77]

I am against "head knowledge" believing as well. I am also highly against the sinners prayer. A "head knowledge" believer can, not believe. But one that believes with all their heart, The death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior is reality. The reality that 1+1=2 will always be so. Just like the Jesus died for my sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, will always be so. If you think that reality can change for you, then maybe your not believing? Be persuaded that it so.

the believer is a true believer below (to save confusion)

A Believer can fall into sin and God will chasten him to bring him back or even kill him. Is he still saved? If you say no, then I hope you are living a perfect life.
Baby Believers will be carnal, no question about it. And they died, they are saved. Baby believers however, are hard to discern from the lost. If there is no one to feed and guide the baby believer, then baby believer will always be a baby believer and die a baby believer. Take a baby(an actual baby) and don't feed and guide it and see how long it lives. It's our responsibility, to take that baby believer and guide and nourish it in the way it should go through the word of God. If this responsibility is not taken, then we are left with whats going on today. Apostasy.

Hi veryberry, I do believe and it is hard for me to imagine that I could ever stop believing. However I suppose it's possible because I have seen/heard of people who actually claim they once believed but no longer do.

What do you think happens in this case? Are they still saved even though they don't believe?

 

[jeff77]

I don't think 'head knowledge' is a working of the Holy Spirit.

Ok, when the Holy Spirit convicts someone of the one and only God, that to me is the head knowledge. There may be more to it than that, such as changing your ways and that is why someone may not accept the Holy Spirit.

 

[Butch5]

I think someone who has the "head knowledge" really does believe Jesus died for their sins but they refuse to accept him as their savior. It could be because they don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle. There could be other reasons, that's the one I can think of.

Hi Jeff,

Ok, but my question is what differentiates Head knowledge from heart knowledge. If I believe how do I know whether it's head knowledge or heart knowledge?

 

[jeff77]

Hi Jeff,

Ok, but my question is what differentiates Head knowledge from heart knowledge. If I believe how do I know whether it's head knowledge or heart knowledge?

The person's actions. For example, if they have a desire to share Jesus with other people and because of that desire you would see them witnessing. Changing the way you live by obeying God.

Someone with the head but not the heart knowledge would not show any fruits of the spirit.

 

[Deborah13]

Ok, when the Holy Spirit convicts someone of the one and only God, that to me is the head knowledge. There may be more to it than that, such as changing your ways and that is why someone may not accept the Holy Spirit.

Yup, it is hard for us to discern. That's the Holy Spirit's job, I think. Sometimes I think we can get ourselves all twisted up trying to put our finger on certain understanding. I can be really bad about that.

 

[Butch5]

The person's actions. For example, if they have a desire to share Jesus with other people and because of that desire you would see them witnessing. Changing the way you live by obeying God.
Someone with the head but not the heart knowledge would not show any fruits of the spirit.

HI Jeff,

It's kind of a loaded question. My point in asking was to show that there is no difference, it's a false dichotomy. What you described is really the only answer to the question but it is the result of the belief not the difference between the two.

There isn't a head knowledge and a heart knowledge, these terms are created to address the difficulties of flawed theology. It's used primarily in two arguments, the "works" argument and the "OSAS" argument. In the OSAS argument the one how remains faithful and is ultimately saved is said to have heart knowledge and the one who turns away is said to have only head knowledge. However, as you pointed out the only way one can know is by their actions.

 

[jeff77]

HI Jeff,

It's kind of a loaded question. My point in asking was to show that there is no difference, it's a false dichotomy. What you described is really the only answer to the question but it is the result of the belief not the difference between the two.

There isn't a head knowledge and a heart knowledge, these terms are created to address the difficulties of flawed theology. It's used primarily in two arguments, the "works" argument and the "OSAS" argument. In the OSAS argument the one how remains faithful and is ultimately saved is said to have heart knowledge and the one who turns away is said to have only head knowledge. However, as you pointed out the only way one can know is by their actions.

Ok, I see those are just terms. Would you agree that everyone receives knowledge of God from the Holy Spirit and then it is up to that person what to do with it? That's what I believe anyway.

 

[Butch5]

Ok, I see those are just terms. Would you agree that everyone receives knowledge of God from the Holy Spirit and then it is up to that person what to do with it? That's what I believe anyway.

Yeah, John actually says that Christ give light (understanding) to every person coming into the world.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (Joh 1:9 KJV)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think someone who has the "head knowledge" really does believe Jesus died for their sins but they refuse to accept him as their savior. It could be because they don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle. There could be other reasons, that's the one I can think of.

I think that's exactly what happens.

It isn't that they don't know the gospel is true. God has shown them that. They simply don't want to put their trust in it, or can be easily dragged away if they do. But OSAS doens't make this distinction in weak and strong faith in that regard. It's always an either/or proposition. But the Bible speaks in terms of strong/weak faith, and the weak giving up their decision to trust Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because Peter didn't say "it is your faith that makes the promise secure", you did.

"5 who are protected by the power of God through faith..." (1 Peter 1:5 NASB)

Explain how this does not mean we have the protection of God's power making the promise of things to come secure through faith. Does the passage say it happens through some other way and I'm just missing it? Help me out here.

OSAS looks right past the 'through faith' part when insisting that salvation has nothing to do with the person having to persevere in the faith to gain what faith secures.

I know. Which is exactly why Peter used that fact to example how sure their salvation was.

1 Peter 1:4 an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,

How is it that you can't see that Peter be talking bout an inheritance that's secure, not a kingdom that's permanent. they already knew Heaven was imperishable.

You are not addressing the issue.

How does Peter saying the inheritance we wait for is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading mean the believing we do to secure that inheritance is also imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. Explain.

You sure?

John 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

God won't let us down. His Word is sure. The kingdom he promises to those who believe is as solid as Sears. But how and why does this mean we won't, and can never, let God down?

That's the one point that OSAS can't explain. OSAS takes the surely of God's promise and says the believing that secures that promise is also as sure as the kingdom itself (but also says if you lose your faith you're still saved). If that were true, why does the Bible exhort us to keep on believing, or else no longer have the work of Christ available to us to make us blameless before the Father? Explain.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes actions are a choice.

Some people can be confronted by the Holy Spirit and it takes four or five times before their Actions match what they already believe in their heart. Luckily for some of us, the Holy Spirit knows what we may not even know and He will not quench a smoking ember. Either before we our first surrender or after surrenders.

But the 'acting out' we're talking about here is believing.

God is the one who shows every person that the gospel is true. He testifies to that truth by the Holy Spirit. But only a few then choose to place their trust in that which God has graciously made known to them about the gospel.

And after a person trusts in the gospel, the Bible warns them to keep trusting, or else lose that which their trusting secures. But OSAS says both 1) you do not have to keep trusting to the very end, salvation having been secured by the one 'work' of believing done in the beginning, and 2) you can't stop believing. (Again, illustrating the duplicitous nature of the OSAS argument). I just want someone to reconcile this passage of scripture with that doctrine:

"22 ...He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard..." (Colossians 1: 22-23 NASB)

 

[chessman]

"5 who are protected by the power of God through faith..." (1 Peter 1:5 NASB)

Explain how this does not mean we have the protection of God's power making the promise of things to come secure through faith. Does the passage say it happens through some other way and I'm just missing it? Help me out here.

Did I ever say it (salvation) wasn't through faith? No. But if there's any explanation needed, it's right there in the passage.

To illustrate: God could die, me not know it, and I could keep on having faith in Him/Jesus. Then where would I be? Up the creek without a paddle, that's where. Good thing He's protecting me, faith or no faith and He's not dead. You talk like God is helpless to do anything about His children's faith. I know better.

Explain how the saved are protected by the power of God if it's their faith and their faith alone that "protects" them. How does that make any sense of Peter's point?

What's up with Peter saying they are protected by God's power, if we have our own powers of protection? Who needs God then? God could be dead and our faith could still be saving us.

I think it's cool God uses faith in Him for our salvation. I don't even subtract man's will/choice in that coolness. Nor do I see where Scripture does. 1 Peter 1 being an example.

I suppose if He had said it is through circumcision we are saved, that's His choice to make. I'd go with it.

But He didn't. Ever. He went the born again approach(yes via faith) thank God, my Father.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

IB a son 2.
I have an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven

Sure, it's through faith. It could have been through circumcision, or daily prayers, or tithing.

The point is (Peter's point is), my being born again is guarded by God's power, not mine. It's already an inheritance that's imperishable. That has to be Peter's point, else he wouldn't have made it.

Did you reconsider your input that Peter meant Heaven was imperishable, or are you still going with that take?

Don't get me wrong. I see your argument. And I see salvation is through faith. But it's called salvation for a reason. We are saved. Even non-OSAS people us this term. They don't go around saying I'm waiting on salvation because I'm engaged to be saved. They say I AM saved.

But the reason I didn't emphasize "through faith" was not because I don't agree that salvation is through faith, nor do I think you do, but that was not in question.

The root of this whole issue/topic is about our faithful God(father) not how faithful men(sons of His) are.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Did I ever say it (salvation) wasn't through faith? No. But if there's any explanation needed, it's right there in the passage.

To illustrate: God could die, me not know it, and I could keep on having faith in Him/Jesus. Then where would I be? Up the creek without a paddle, that's where. Good thing He's protecting me, faith or no faith and He's not dead. You talk like God is helpless to do anything about His children's faith. I know better.

Explain how the saved are protected by the power of God if it's their faith and their faith alone that "protects" them. How does that make any sense of Peter's point?

What's up with Peter saying they are protected by God's power, if we have our own powers of protection? Who needs God then? God could be dead and our faith could still be saving us.

I think it's cool God uses faith in Him for our salvation. I don't even subtract man's will/choice in that coolness. Nor do I see where Scripture does. 1 Peter 1 being an example.

I suppose if He had said it is through circumcision we are saved, that's His choice to make. I'd go with it.

But He didn't. Ever. He went the born again approach(yes via faith) thank God, my Father.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

IB a son 2.
I have an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven

Sure, it's through faith. It could have been through circumcision, or daily prayers, or tithing.

The point is (Peter's point is), my being born again is guarded by God's power, not mine. It's already an inheritance that's imperishable. That has to be Peter's point, else he wouldn't have made it.

Did you reconsider your input that Peter meant Heaven was imperishable, or are you still going with that take?

Don't get me wrong. I see your argument. And I see salvation is through faith. But it's called salvation for a reason. We are saved. Even non-OSAS people us this term. They don't go around saying I'm waiting on salvation because I'm engaged to be saved. They say I AM saved.

But the reason I didn't emphasize "through faith" was not because I don't agree that salvation is through faith, nor do I think you do, but that was not in question.

The root of this whole issue/topic is about our faithful God(father) not how faithful men(sons of His) are.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why not?

 

[chessman]

I just want someone to reconcile this passage of scripture with that doctrine:

"22 ...He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard..." (Colossians 1: 22-23 NASB)

If there's anything in verses 22-23 that supports non-OSAS, I'm missing it.

Since (if indeed) God knows all things, why in the world would He reconcile a sinner, present him holy and blameless, and all only to later blame him? God does know all things (indeed He does), it's not an "if" that's conceivable Biblically.

I've pointed this fact out to you in the past. There's a very good reason (a Greek reason) all modern translations say "if indeed", not just "if". I'm told the form of the verb and grammar in this particular text actually shows Paul had assurance indeed they would, in fact, continue to have steadfast hope(his point).

Even if you don't buy that, It's quite conceivable, that Paul recognized some readers in the church at Colossae were in fact not holding fast to the hope of the firm gospel (the firm faith) which they heard from him. I know saved people like that.

Explain? Do you think "moved away from the hope" means to become unsaved?
If it does, why would Paul not say it?

I think he means "moved away from the hope". IOW, to be less hopeful, less steadfast, less sure. As opposed to the steadfastness of the Gospel itself. How does that mean less saved?

 

[chessman]

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why not?

I answered the one about the 1Peter Scripture.