Do you support OSAS(once saved always saved)?

[MarkT]

Why do you support OSAS or why do you not support it?
I support it and this is why.
Once saved always saved?"

Answer: Once a person is saved are they always saved? When people come to know Christ as their Savior, they are brought into a relationship with God that guarantees their salvation as eternally secure. Numerous passages of Scripture declare this fact.

(a) Romans 8:30 declares, "And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified." This verse tells us that from the moment God chooses us, it is as if we are glorified in His presence in heaven. There is nothing that can prevent a believer from one day being glorified because God has already purposed it in heaven. Once a person is justified, his salvation is guaranteed - he is as secure as if he is already glorified in heaven.

(b) Paul asks two crucial questions in Romans 8:33-34 "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us." Who will bring a charge against God's elect? No one will, because Christ is our advocate. Who will condemn us? No one will, because Christ, the One who died for us, is the one who condemns. We have both the advocate and judge as our Savior.

(c) Believers are born again (regenerated) when they believe (John 3:3; Titus 3:5). For a Christian to lose his salvation, he would have to be un-regenerated. The Bible gives no evidence that the new birth can be taken away.

(d) The Holy Spirit indwells all believers (John 14:17; Romans 8:9) and baptizes all believers into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). For a believer to become unsaved, he would have to be "un-indwelt" and detached from the Body of Christ.

(e) John 3:15 states that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life." If you believe in Christ today and have eternal life, but lose it tomorrow, then it was never "eternal" at all. Hence if you lose your salvation, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be in error.

(f) For the most conclusive argument, Scripture says it best itself, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39). Remember the same God who saved you is the same God who will keep you. Once we are saved we are always saved. Our salvation is most definitely eternally secure!

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/once-saved-always-saved.html#ixzz2uGeYFy2o

The day of the Lord has not yet arrived. So to say once a person is saved they are always saved doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The day will come when men will be saved. But it will not happen before the day.

OK, the Father promised Jesus he would give him men. And he has - those he predestined. OK, in a manner of speaking, speaking to the elect, I could say you were made for mercy and salvation. I could say you were called from the beginning. Which is true. But the day of the Lord has not yet arrived. It is more correct to say we shall be saved or we are confident we will be saved or we are being saved. But to say we have been saved as if the day of the Lord has already come? We are confident no one can defeat God's purpose. No one can snatch us from his hand. On the other hand God will shorten the days of our tribulation. Otherwise no human being will be saved. So the impossible is even possible, which is why the days will be shortened.

Jesus said many will fall away. You could say they were never one of us. But to say they were never saved is an awkward thing to say. They were enlightened. They did believe. But they did not abide in Christ Jesus.

We are branches. Branches that do not produce fruit are broken off. Branches that wither up and die are gathered together and tossed into the fire.

 

[mondar]

I most likely would not use terminology like "once saved always saved," and I am not sure I would totally agree with the community of believers that uses that terminology. In the end, I personally see little difference between the two groups (the OSAS and the non-OSAS). One the other hand, I would agree that once a person is regenerate, he cannot become unregenerate. We did not regenerate ourselves, how could we unregenerate ourselves? Once a person is justified, he cannot be unjustified. Once Christ has propitiated the wrath of God from a sinner, the wrath of God cannot be unpropitiated and again placed upon that sinner. Once we are redeemed, we are never unredeemed. Once we have a position of being "in Christ" we can never return to being not in Christ.

I would add that once Christ becomes our great high priest, and mediates the new covenant, offers his blood upon a heavenly altar, and intercedes for the believer, that ministry of Christ will never fail. We will be justified, and we will be progressively sanctified.

Probably other terminology could be used in this discussion, is sufficiency and necessity. Was Christs substitutionary death sufficient, or was it merely necessary for salvation? Most who claim to be Christians believe that the shed blood of Christ was necessary for salvation. The concepts of "necessity" and "sufficiency" are not the same. It relates to the nature of Grace. Is Christs shed blood enough by itself to save and nothing more is needed? Then Christs shed blood is sufficient by itself to save. If something must be added to Grace, or the shed blood, then Christs shed blood is merely necessary in that theology. So then, if we can loose our salvation, then can we not also gain our salvation? Salvation is then not something God does for us, but something we do for ourselves. God might assist, he might help save us by supplying power for salvation, but we must be the one to make the difference. We must add something to his grace. If salvation is by Gods grace alone, then Christs sacrifice was "sufficient" by itself to save. If something must be added to Christs grace, then Christs sacrifice was necessary, but not sufficient. Then Christs shed blood was insufficient by itself to save. It might come 99% of the way, and you have to do the 1%. It can be an act of merit like baptism, or a certain prayer, or a volitional act of will, but Christs death is insufficient and must be accompanied by something valuable in us. We have to be smarter, or maybe more spiritually sensitive, or something like that. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where most OSAS positions and most non-OSAS positions end up the same. It takes some volitional act of man in both theologies to save. Both OSAS and non-OSAS positions often require more then Christs shed blood to save.

As for me, I view faith itself as the gift of God (Phil 1:29). When God chooses to save, he never fails.

 

[Deborah13]

I most likely would not use terminology like "once saved always saved," and I am not sure I would totally agree with the community of believers that uses that terminology. In the end, I personally see little difference between the two groups (the OSAS and the non-OSAS). One the other hand, I would agree that once a person is regenerate, he cannot become unregenerate. We did not regenerate ourselves, how could we unregenerate ourselves? Once a person is justified, he cannot be unjustified. Once Christ has propitiated the wrath of God from a sinner, the wrath of God cannot be unpropitiated and again placed upon that sinner. Once we are redeemed, we are never unredeemed. Once we have a position of being "in Christ" we can never return to being not in Christ.

I would add that once Christ becomes our great high priest, and mediates the new covenant, offers his blood upon a heavenly altar, and intercedes for the believer, that ministry of Christ will never fail. We will be justified, and we will be progressively sanctified.

Probably other terminology could be used in this discussion, is sufficiency and necessity. Was Christs substitutionary death sufficient, or was it merely necessary for salvation? Most who claim to be Christians believe that the shed blood of Christ was necessary for salvation. The concepts of "necessity" and "sufficiency" are not the same. It relates to the nature of Grace. Is Christs shed blood enough by itself to save and nothing more is needed? Then Christs shed blood is sufficient by itself to save. If something must be added to Grace, or the shed blood, then Christs shed blood is merely necessary in that theology. So then, if we can loose our salvation, then can we not also gain our salvation? Salvation is then not something God does for us, but something we do for ourselves. God might assist, he might help save us by supplying power for salvation, but we must be the one to make the difference. We must add something to his grace. If salvation is by Gods grace alone, then Christs sacrifice was "sufficient" by itself to save. If something must be added to Christs grace, then Christs sacrifice was necessary, but not sufficient. Then Christs shed blood was insufficient by itself to save. It might come 99% of the way, and you have to do the 1%. It can be an act of merit like baptism, or a certain prayer, or a volitional act of will, but Christs death is insufficient and must be accompanied by something valuable in us. We have to be smarter, or maybe more spiritually sensitive, or something like that. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where most OSAS positions and most non-OSAS positions end up the same. It takes some volitional act of man in both theologies to save. Both OSAS and non-OSAS positions often require more then Christs shed blood to save.

As for me, I view faith itself as the gift of God (Phil 1:29). When God chooses to save, he never fails.

I think this was a very good post in many ways but please explain this verse.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

 

[Butch5]

Guys and Gals,

Let me point out that the OSAS argument has nothing to do with God's ability. Any argument that says, who is more powerful than God or who can undo what God has done, has nothing to do with the argument. I don't know of any Christian who argues against OSAS that doubts God's ability to save. The issue lies with man and whether or not a believer can change his mind.

 

[mondar]

I think this was a very good post in many ways but please explain this verse.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Deborah, there are Two parties in the verse.
Jerusalem-----The first party is the leaders in Jerusalem. These leaders killed the prophets.
thy children-----Second party is the children of Jerusalem, the common people in Jerusalem. God would have gathered them together but the will of the leaders (Jerusalem, Jerusalem) was opposed to this. Of course the will of mankind "in Adam," the unregenerate, is always opposed to the will of God being that they are slaves of their sin nature (total depravity).

Deborah, I am guessing I already know what your thinking. Your suggesting that we make a contribution to salvation by our faith. This assumes that faith is not a gift (Phil 1:29) that comes from the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. That would make faith meritorious. So then, salvation would be partly by the merit of Christs shed blood, and partly by the merit of our faith. I do not deny that faith is pleasing to God (Heb 11:6) and thus meritorious, but suggest that since God is not only the object of faith, but the source of faith, the merit is all Gods. Now if we are the source of faith, then we can claim that merit and salvation is not by Grace alone, but by God's grace and our faith.

 

[mondar]

Guys and Gals,

Let me point out that the OSAS argument has nothing to do with God's ability. Any argument that says, who is more powerful than God or who can undo what God has done, has nothing to do with the argument. I don't know of any Christian who argues against OSAS that doubts God's ability to save. The issue lies with man and whether or not a believer can change his mind.

My argument had everything to do with Gods ability to save by himself by grace alone. Those who believe in OSAS and argue for their own meritorious faith and those who believe they can keep themselves saved by their own meritorious works might claim that God has ability to save, but they do so inconsistently.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Here's what I know.
I know in my heart that God will never let go of me.
I know the day will come that I will spend all eternity with him in his presence.
I know this.
God has put this in my heart to know this.

I once doubted.
I no longer doubt.
Doubt is fear, and fear separates us from the perfect love of God.

As we grow closer in the perfect love of God, the doubts begin to leave us and thus, the fear leaves us.
What is left is a closer relationship with God, one that tells us that we will be with him forever.

And this is where my OSAS beliefs come from.
I know that I know and nobody can take that from me.

Just as King
David knew.

 

[JLB]

Here's what I know.
I know in my heart that God will never let go of me.
I know the day will come that I will spend all eternity with him in his presence.
I know this.
God has put this in my heart to know this.

I once doubted.
I no longer doubt.
Doubt is fear, and fear separates us from the perfect love of God.

As we grow closer in the perfect love of God, the doubts begin to leave us and thus, the fear leaves us.
What is left is a closer relationship with God, one that tells us that we will be with him forever.

And this is where my OSAS beliefs come from.
I know that I know and nobody can take that from me.

Just as King
David knew.

It's called faith.

If God didn't put it in your heart, then it would not be faith.

Faith comes by hearing God!


Amen.

I believe God will never let go of you.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We are confident no one can defeat God's purpose. No one can snatch us from his hand. On the other hand God will shorten the days of our tribulation. Otherwise no human being will be saved. So the impossible is even possible, which is why the days will be shortened.

Good observation.

It reminds me of how faith is compared to gold in the Bible.

I was surprised one day to learn that gold is not some extremely hard, virtually indestructible metal. I had assumed that because I was projecting the teaching of the church about faith onto the Bible's use of gold to illustrate faith. Gold is actually a very soft metal that has to be refined very carefully because too much heat will ruin it. Now that I'm learning about how faith really is, I can see why gold, besides being something very valuable, is such a good analogy of faith in a person. It isn't indestructible. It's soft and can be destroyed by too much heat.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

One the other hand, I would agree that once a person is regenerate, he cannot become unregenerate. We did not regenerate ourselves, how could we unregenerate ourselves?

In your argument you are assuming 'regeneration' is already considered something permanent. Instead of realizing that the argument itself is, 'is regeneration permanent'. You can't use what you think is the answer to the argument to prove the argument.

But anyway, the answer to your question is faith is what regenerates our spirits. And faith must continue for us to remain regenerate.

Once a person is justified, he cannot be unjustified. Once Christ has propitiated the wrath of God from a sinner, the wrath of God cannot be unpropitiated and again placed upon that sinner.

But Christ said the kingdom is like the slave who had his debt reinstated because he refused to offer the same forgiveness/ mercy he himself had received from the King to his fellow slave, and that is how Jesus' heavenly Father will treat each of us if we do the same. Or is that just another one of those teachings in the Bible that really doesn't mean what it so plainly says? We have a lot of those in the church today.

Once we are redeemed, we are never unredeemed. Once we have a position of being "in Christ" we can never return to being not in Christ.

As has been pointed out by MarkT, branches that don't produce fruit are broken out of Jesus. I can't help but to think that what you are saying is another one of the church's 'the Bible doesn't really mean what it says' doctrines.

I would add that once Christ becomes our great high priest, and mediates the new covenant, offers his blood upon a heavenly altar, and intercedes for the believer, that ministry of Christ will never fail. We will be justified, and we will be progressively sanctified.

Right, the ministry of Christ will never fail. It's impossible for it to fail. But it is applied for our benefit through our faith. We can't stay under the power of Christ's ministry if the faith that gives you access to that ministry fails.

"4 This inheritance is kept in heaven for you,5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:4-5 NASB)

So the argument is, 'can saving faith fail'. OSAS is only true if you can prove that a believer's faith can never fail.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Guys and Gals,

Let me point out that the OSAS argument has nothing to do with God's ability. Any argument that says, who is more powerful than God or who can undo what God has done, has nothing to do with the argument. I don't know of any Christian who argues against OSAS that doubts God's ability to save. The issue lies with man and whether or not a believer can change his mind.

Amen, amen, and amen.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I once doubted.
I no longer doubt.
Doubt is fear, and fear separates us from the perfect love of God.

What you are saying is, you once did not have faith.

The argument is, you have to have faith, and have it to the end to be saved. That's how you access the perfect ministry of Christ to save. You did not have faith in God's power, so how could you possibly have assurance of a salvation that is dependent on having faith?

As we grow closer in the perfect love of God, the doubts begin to leave us and thus, the fear leaves us.
What is left is a closer relationship with God, one that tells us that we will be with him forever.

And this is where my OSAS beliefs come from.
I know that I know and nobody can take that from me.

Just as King
David knew.

But what about the people who don't grow closer to God? I know a person who got saved when I did. As evidence of that relationship with God they later received the gift of tongues (I did not receive that gift). Today they complain of not being able to believe and have rejected everything they knew about Christianity.

 

[King James]

I understand why you posted the first scripture, the NT, skin of ones teeth.

I think people were different in the old days. My teeth have no skin. That would be kind of gross. On a similar note, I cannot keep my eyes peeled. I can see out of my eyes when I open my eyelids. No additional peeling efforts needed.

I agree with OSAS. Some feel they can be saved by God. Others feel they can be saved by the church in my opinion.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Some feel they can be saved by God. Others feel they can be saved by the church in my opinion.

Not believing in OSAS doesn't mean a person is justified by something other than faith in Christ. What it means is we have a responsibility to keep believing to the very end:

"21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22 NASB)

"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

"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)

"6 ...but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end." (Hebrews 3:6 NASB)

"14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end..." (Hebrews 3:14 NASB)

Because the Bible so clearly and plainly warns us to continue in the faith we have, as if the possibility of failing in that faith is very real, non-OSAS says a person must continue in what we all agree justifies all by itself--faith in Christ--to the very end, or lose the promise that faith lays hold of.

I see the Bible speaking more about faith in terms of it being strong or weak, rather than an either/or way the church does today. A strong faith being that which can endure to the end and inherit the promise, while the weak faith is in danger of failing and losing the promise of that which faith secures for a person. OSAS says the faith that fails was never really faith to begin with (that either/or thing I was talking about), while non-OSAS says weak faith is indeed very much saving faith but simply can't endure to the end...because it's weak. I believe the Bible is in firm support of the latter argument. By far.

The point being, non-OSAS is not a works gospel. Justification is still by faith in Christ's blood all by itself, apart from works, to forgive. But non-OSAS says a person must continue in that faith to the very end for that faith to save a person.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

"if we are unfaithful, he abides faithful"
2 Timothy 2:13;

If getting to heaven depended on holding on, we would not make it.
No flesh shall glory in it's faithfulness.
Galatians 3:3;

God will complete the good work in us.
Philemon 1:6;

Once we belong to Jesus, he won't let go of us.
For salvation is not by what we do, nor by how much faith we have, it is of the Lord.
Jonah 2:9;

 

[Deborah13]

I think people were different in the old days. My teeth have no skin. That would be kind of gross. On a similar note, I cannot keep my eyes peeled. I can see out of my eyes when I open my eyelids. No additional peeling efforts needed.

I agree with OSAS. Some feel they can be saved by God. Others feel they can be saved by the church in my opinion.

Sadly, I think you are correct about that, some people think that going to church and obeying traditions, etc. is part of their salvation, or even all they need to do. :neutral

 

[Butch5]

My argument had everything to do with Gods ability to save by himself by grace alone. Those who believe in OSAS and argue for their own meritorious faith and those who believe they can keep themselves saved by their own meritorious works might claim that God has ability to save, but they do so inconsistently.

The OSAS argument doesn't. No one that I've seen argue against OSAS questions God's ability to save. What they question is man's faithfulness. The real question is, can man change his mind.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"if we are unfaithful, he abides faithful"
2 Timothy 2:13;

"IF WE ARE UNFAITHFUL"

This is talking about faithful behavior, not trusting in Christ's forgiveness. But let's use it as if it's talking about the faith of salvation itself to illustrate what non-OSAS says.

This is what non-OSAS says. You must have faith to the end to be saved by that faith. Even the quote you use above is saying that. God's response is conditioned on our faith. It's an 'if' proposition.

Let's look at another portion of that passage:

"If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:12-13 NASB)

See? If you reject Jesus' forgiveness outright, God will reject you outright. Contrast that with continuing to believe and trust in Christ, but falling into faithless living (which we can all relate to). You don't lose your salvation over that...unless, it represents what Paul just said--a denial of Christ altogether.

This is why I say that the only sin that can rob you of the promise is the sin that represents an outright rejection of the gospel. Which the Bible more than suggests is possible for the saved person to do. The sin we commit in our daily growing up into Christ does not separate us from the promise. He remains faithful to us even we are not faithful. But he denies us if we trample down and deny trust in God for the forgiveness of sin altogether.

If getting to heaven depended on holding on, we would not make it.
No flesh shall glory in it's faithfulness.
Galatians 3:3;

God is our faith coach. There's no question that without his guidance, his counsel, his power to strengthen our faith, we would not endure in our believing. But that hardly means we've lost the choice to willingly decide we like sin better than the forgiveness of God.

God's job is to strenghten our believing, not do our believing for us. Did God do your believing for you when you got saved? Did he move heaven and earth so you could do your own believing? Most certainly.

God will complete the good work in us.
Philemon 1:6;

Once we belong to Jesus, he won't let go of us.

He won't let us down, and he won't let us go. That hardly means we won't want that good work to continue in us. This is the fundamental problem with how the church interprets these 'God is able and willing' scriptures that get used to defend OSAS.

For salvation is not by what we do, nor by how much faith we have, it is of the Lord.

Okay, good. I was hoping we could go here.

Show me where the 'work' of believing in Christ is among the works that Paul says can not justify. How did the church decide that the believing that Paul says does justify--which he contrasts with the doing of righteous things in the law that can not justify--is really among the works that he says can not justify? Someone please explain this to me. My Bible says believing is how I am justified--the only way to be justified. But the church says even my choosing to believe the gospel is really a damnable work of self.

Jonah 2:9;

Salvation is from God. No question about it. We can't produce it in ourselves. But how does that mean my work of believing in God's forgiveness somehow makes that forgiveness from me, and not God? Explain.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The OSAS argument doesn't. No one that I've seen argue against OSAS questions God's ability to save. What they question is man's faithfulness. The real question is, can man change his mind.

This is where I'm at.

We don't have to wonder what will happen if a person who once believed stops believing. The Bible is clear about that. I shared those scriptures earlier today. As you say, the real question is, can a believer stop trusting in the forgiveness of God? I say since the Bible warns us not to do that--clearly, and in more than one place--it must be possible to do that.

 

[Butch5]

This is where I'm at.

We don't have to wonder what will happen if a person who once believed stops believing. The Bible is clear about that. I shared those scriptures earlier today. As you say, the real question is, can a believer stop trusting in the forgiveness of God? I say since the Bible warns us not to do that--clearly, and in more than one place--it must be possible to do that.

Yeah, that's the real issue. We have examples in the Scriptures of people who turned away that's what amazes me that this doctrine even exists.