I said this:
"The same is true in the physical realm. Once born, we REMAIN born. No birth can be un-done."
Why is that?
Why can't a literal birth not be undone?
I am stunned at these questions. How would one become un-born AFTER they have BEEN born? That's what your questions suggest. So, please explain the process of how one could become un-born after they have been born. I can't think of any way, but if there is a way, please share.
The whole counsel of scripture shows us that the promise is conditioned on believing, not a one time, in the past, believing that ended.
Oh, but it does. Clearly. That's the message of the verses in the OP. Or, what are they teaching instead?
OSAS adds 'can never be unsealed' to the sealing of the Holy Spirit as if by pure definition 'sealed' means 'not being able to be unsealed'. Remember that next time you put your left over Lasagna in a Tupperware bowl.
Let's just get out of the weeds, ok? There is NO relevance between your tupperware bowl and the sealing with the Holy Spirit. Trying to compare them is ludicrous.
Second, the sealing of the Holy Spirit has a PURPOSE. It is FOR the day of redemption. What does that mean?
No. The part you are ignoring is the condition upon which being sealed is predicated on. It's predicated on believing to the very end the word of the gospel by which you were first saved.
Please show that from the very context of the sealing, in Eph 1:13. Here is the verse:
"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—
having also believed, you
were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise".
Clear.as.day. "having believed, you were sealed". That is the ONLY condition for this sealing.
For some reason OSAS simply refuses to acknowledge this condition plainly taught to us in the Bible in plain words, preferring instead to teach that there are zero conditions attached to being saved, and therefore, you can't lose it.
Why speak such untruths?? Please quote anyone from OSAS who claims that there are "zero conditions attached to being saved".
I just showed from Eph 1:13 the ONLY condition for being sealed. Which is the SAME condition for being saved: "having believed".
The next chapter of Eph says we are saved by grace through faith. Again, ONE condition for being saved.
It means exactly what it means in our plain everyday English language: From 'Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words'
"a word or saying," also means "an account which one gives by word of mouth"
But OSAS (you specifically) has changed the meaning of the word 'logos' to mean 'eternal life', and did that in order to defend an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB that strips it of the non-OSAS necessity to firmly hold onto the gospel message to be saved.
I'm still wondering what it means to "hold fast the word" to be saved. Do you know or not?
Christianity 101: We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH (Ephesians 2:8 NASB), and that faith comes by THE HEARING OF THE WORD (Romans 10:17 NASB, James 1:18 NASB).
Don't forget what ELSE is said in the NEXT VERSE attached to v.8: "not of works". So one can jettison any idea that works are in any way involved in getting saved.
And Paul said to the believing Corinthians that they are saved if they hold firmly to the word Paul preached to them by which they were saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB).
What does it mean to "hold firmly to the word"?
But OSAS changes it to say 'you are saved if you hold firmly to eternal life, which everyone who has believed has and which they can't get rid of by any means' (thus making Paul's statement meaningless).[/QUOTE]
The one who has changed meanings of words is on you by treating "hold firmly" to mean to grasp and not let go". Which it doesn't mean at all. Again, it means to "own", "possess". And Paul clearly told them that they had already "received" the message, from v.1.
"1 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."
So, let's exegete this.
In v.1 Paul tells them that they "received" the gospel which he preached to them. Notice the past tense here. And then he adds, "in which you stand".
In v.2 he clearly says "by which (gospel) you are saved". So, he note that they HAD received the gospel, which can only mean that they had believed it. We know from many other passages that one receives eternal life WHEN one believes the gospel, per Jesus in Jn 5:24. Also, Jesus said that those He gives eternal life to WILL NEVER PERISH, from Jn 10:28. And Paul taught that God's gifts are irrevocable and never attempted to say or show that eternal life was excluded from God's irrevocable gifts.
The phrase in dispute is the last part of v.2: "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain".
So, the phrase "unless you believed in vain" is directly related to "if you hold fast the word".
What does "believed in vain" mean? It means to believe anything OTHER than what is saving faith, which is believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God for salvation. Any other belief is "in vain", meaning it doesn't save.
So, if one has "believed in vain", it means they AREN'T holding fast (possessing) the word".
Your interpretation seems to ignore that last part of the verse, which explains the part that has been abused and misunderstood.
I cite the Parable of the Sower to explain to you what holding fast the word means, not to use it as an OSAS passage, so don't even bother going there.
LOL. It sure can't be used as an anti-OSAS passage either. So don't bother going there. If the Bible did teach LOS, that would have been one of the perfect places to state it very clearly and plainly. But Jesus "didn't go there". Because LOS isn't biblical.
Jesus Himself said that those He gives eternal life to will never perish. That is a promise and a guarantee. There were no conditions on that promise other than "entering through Him" from v.9.
