Issue with O.S.A.S

[francisdesales]

francis

I think the OSAS message is God doesn’t go back on his promises.

God's promises are conditional. Obey the commandments and you shall live. Quite simple. God doesn't promise that making a one time faith declaration and going off to continue in a life of perdition is enough to receive eternal life. That is the silliness of OSAS. Make a statement and go on with your life of sin, if you want. If you do change your life, wonderful, but it isn't required, since you are OSAS...

Totally bogus and anti-Biblical.

I’m not a Calvinist. But it’s our mutual love of God that’s important, isn’t it?

Of course it is. But OSAS doesn't REQUIRE such an ongoing loving response to God. THAT''S THE POINT OF OSAS. You are saved and you cannot be unsaved...

Think about this for awhile... An analysis of OSAS states that once you are saved, you cannot be unsaved. No matter what you do. No matter what you don't do. Thus, a life of sanctification is not necessary, you are already saved. A life of faith is not necessary, you cannot be unsaved. A life of love and conversion is not needed. You already did your one time faith declaration...

OSAS means you are saved no matter what. Now, you seem to tell me things about mutual love. Good. But what does that have to do with OSAS???

NOTHING!!!

I like reasoning with you very much - but if you must know, I’ve been kicked out of some of the best Catholic run forums, I guess for not being Catholic enough. You've got a much better spirit.

Well, I am glad that you enjoy reasoning with me. ;)

If I have learned anything from being here, it is that most Protesatants love God and worship Him, so I have learned to be more respectful with people who do not agree with me on every issue. And on some issues, a few Catholics need instruction, I will admit.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

i never heard that way with osas. most chruches that teach eternal security preach the life must be lived.

thats why i posted those links.

 

[francisdesales]

i never heard that way with osas. most chruches that teach eternal security preach the life must be lived.

thats why i posted those links.

Then that is not truly "OSAS".

Think about it, Jason... If salvation is conditional upon you living the life, then it is not OSAS, since if you do NOT live the life, you are no longer OSAS. Thus, it is not eternal security.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

god cant be mocked, we must repent and actually avoid the same sins(to the best of our ability) we did before coming to christ.

thats like saying to a friend i'm sorry for offending you and then going on to do the same offense.

joe, i have heard of that type of osas thing, honest.

 

[shodan]

Discussions re: OSAS need more clarity. As I pointed out in my post on p. 5, these discussions always seem wrongly to assume that there are only two positions/options when in fact there are Three.

1)OSAS [which is a modern position that Calvin would not agree with as pointed out clearly in my post]

2) The position of which Calvin is the key representative.

3) The position of which Wesley is the key representative.

The key difference of Calvin and Wesley is that if a Christian was seen to fall away, Calvin would say that this one was not truly a Christian in the first place; Wesley would acknowledge such a one as a Christian though now lost. [Calvin and Wesley would acknowledge that repentance/surrender would change the lost state.]

OSAS says just what the acronym says....this one is not lost, rather is saved no matter what.

The finest overview of the New Testament on this topic is:
Kept by the Power of God
by I. Howard Marshall

He is a leading, evangelical NT scholar. Out of Print; you can find it used online.

 

[XTruth]

Following Christ is not only at the beginning of a Christian experience, but daily and throughout life (Jn. 10:27; Lk. 9:23). To claim eternal life when one does not follow is like these Jews claiming to know God and have eternal life. Jesus declared such was not true (Jn. 5:37-47; 8:54-55), so does Paul (1 Cor.10:1-11), so does Jude (Jude 4-5). To say a Christian who believes and repented was never saved, is like saying some Jews who were damned, were never really Jews... never really a Christian... never really a Jew? In Paul's argument against OSAS that was just mentioned in 1 Cor.10, the argument seems clear against the idea that you must have never been saved if you end up condemned.

It seems that many Corinthians thought they were secure in their salvation because they had repented, were baptized, and had partaken of Christian ordinances. According to them nothing they did could cut them off from Christ -- they could partake of idolatrous feasts and still be saved (1Cor. 8:4-13; 10:16-33). This is why Paul made the plain statement of 1Cor. 9:27 (verse right b4 1 Cor.10:1). He now shows them that Israel also had sacramental ordinances in the wilderness similar to those of Christians; and that, regardless of their typical baptism (1Cor. 10:2), their typical eucharist (1Cor. 10:3), their eating of manna and drinking of that spiritual Rock -- Christ (1Cor. 10:4), when they joined with idolaters and partook of idolatrous feasts, going into sin, that God cut them off and destroyed them (1Cor. 10:5-11). He then warns Christians that God will also cut them off from Christ if they sin (1Cor. 10:11-14; 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Rom. 8:12-13; Heb. 3:6,12-14; 6:4-11; 10:26-38).

 

[shodan]

At our men's prayer breakfast this topic came up. One brother said, "The church has not solved this debate in 2000 years, we won't do it here this morning." Wise words.

As I have said before, what we often fail to recongnize is that there are three positions being debated, not just two.

I believe that Wesley had the correct Scriptural perspective, but I often find myself defending Calvin because he does not agree with the modern, sloganeering which goes under the banner of OSAS. Calvins's commentary on the Sower [see my post] is well worth reading. His commentaries are online.

 

[MarkT]

Peter called them waterless springs. And now you’re muddying the water by saying Peter was describing a man, when in fact, Peter was talking about false prophets and false teachers.

Please explain the difference between "a man" and "false prophets". Do you have in mind false female prophets? Or is this a singular vs plural useage of the words?

No. It's a fact issue. Peter wasn't describing a man. Certainly he wasn't describing a man as opposed to a woman. The problem here, I think, is pretty simple. You're ignoring the subject. Peter was talking about false prophets. We're talking about OSAS - whether any believer can have any assurance of salvation. We're not talking about false prophets.

The point is that the false teachers and prophets were at one time saved. They became false prophets later. Their current status is worse than if they never had been saved. This is clear evidence that the Bible does not agree with "OSAS".

You're assuming they were saved and you're assuming some sort of status ie. saved. not saved. First they were saved. Then they were not. But knowing Jesus is the Christ is knowing. Remember even demons recognized Jesus. But Peter doesn't go so far as to say they were saved. He said they had received the word, the holy commandment. They were informed and then they turned back.

Did Peter say they were saved? I don’t think so.

Yes, he did. Read 2 Peter 2:20-22 again. Please explain to me how someone can turn from a life of sin by the knowledge of Jesus Christ without being saved. Being saved means to be free from sin, and clearly, this man [men] was [were] freed from sin

Where do you see the word ‘saved’ in Peter‘s writing? As to your question, ever hear of wolves in sheep’s clothing? Matthew 7:15 RSV
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

He said they had turned back from the sound teaching they had received, and they were leading men astray. For this reason it would have been better for them if they had never known the way of righteousness.

That is not all it says.

It says they turned from a life of sin.

Outwardly perhaps they did for a time.

But did Peter say they were they saved? According to the true proverb, the dog returns to his own vomit. So if that is true, then they were dogs. Because the dog returns. If they were not dogs then the proverb wouldn’t make sense. The dog returns to his own vomit. The implication here is that dogs always return to their vomit, eventually.

It's a proverb, not a scientific fact. Nor is the sinner a biological dog... Pleae remember that a proverb is not to be taken literally

It’s a spiritual fact francis. A truth. Or do you prefer scientific 'facts' over truth?

Come to think of it, haven’t you argued that we don’t know who will be saved till the end? Then how could Peter be saying they were saved?

he didn't believe in OSAS!!! Being saved means being freed from sin, not "you are going to heaven no matter what".

I didn’t ask you why. I asked you how. How could Peter be saying they were saved? Haven’t you argued that we can not know who will be saved till the end? Then how could Peter be saying they were saved?

When the disciples asked Jesus who can be saved Matthew 19:25 RSV
When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?",were they asking him who can be freed from sin or were they asking him who can be saved from the coming destruction of the wicked?

But now you seem to agree that there is a saved condition.

Just as the parable notes, we don't know who is a tare and who is wheat. We don't pick and choose who WILL be saved, and so don't bother with preaching the Gospel to the tares... Naturally, we don't know who GOD has in mind OR His knowledge of who will be saved. Thus, we proclaim the Gospel to all men, not knowing if that man that we speak to will be like the Prodigal Son.

Jesus said we would know them by their fruits.

You are taking that statement out of its context and trying to apply it to all men. "We know them by their fruits" refers to teachers and whether they are false or not, not to whether a person is a "true Christain" or whether they will ever be one.

Sorry I don’t understand. I’m not taking anything out of context. A true Christian worships God in spirit and truth.

So I know them francis. I’ve encountered them on other forums. They are the ones who don’t believe God would cast anyone into hell. They especially don’t like it when anyone tells them that men having sex with men is an abomination. I read their writings. I try to tell them the truth, but You say you don’t know them. Let me tell you. No one gets good fruit from a bad tree. The sons of the evil one do not become the sons of light. They hate the light. The sons of the evil one are of their father, the evil one, the father of lies. And weeds do not become wheat. You don’t get wheat by sowing weed seed. If a weed springs up, it’s because weed seed was sown.

You are taking the PARABLE too literally, missing the entire point...AGAIN.

We don't uproot the tares. Well, that is what you want to do and are doing. You are condemning people as "tares" when we are told not to judge people. We judge their actions, not whether they will "ever convert" or not. We don't know that, and that is what Christ is talking about in the parable. DON'T JUDGE

The weeds will be uprooted at the close of the age. I’m not uprooting any. I’m just speaking the truth.

Dogs always return to their vomit. Note vomit comes from the mouth. Swine love mud. Now you're either a prodigal son or a dog. You can't be both. Jesus didn't say anything about a prodigal dog.

The point of the parable is that tares and wheat look nearly identical and so we do not make the judgment whether they are one or the other, whether they are a hopeless apostate or a Christian in need of some counseling to return to the Father. It is not so easy to know which they are, FOR US!

Weeds and wheat do not look identical. If only you had eyes to see.

Fortunately, God is much more merciful than your attitude... Evangelize and don't worry about whether the person is a wheat or a tare. It is not up to you or me, we have been given a job to do, to spread the Gospel. I pray that you will do it more correctly now...

I’m sorry you disapprove of my attitude francis. Also I’m not approving any theological teaching. That includes OSAS.

You seem to be straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

 

[francisdesales]

You're assuming they were saved and you're assuming some sort of status ie. saved. not saved. First they were saved. Then they were not. But knowing Jesus is the Christ is knowing. Remember even demons recognized Jesus. But Peter doesn't go so far as to say they were saved. He said they had received the word, the holy commandment. They were informed and then they turned back.

Perhaps we need to define "saved" means, according to the Bible. It means that a person is freed from sin. Jesus came to save man. How? By freeing us from sin by His death. Being saved means being freed from sin. It DOES NOT mean "going to heaven", although it certainly is a necessary step to that process.

Now, let's look at what Peter said:

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 2 PEter 2:20-21

Now, first, they ESCAPED THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD. Clearly, that is a saved person, whether they are a teacher or not, the result is the same. Escaping the pollutions of the world means they escape sin. SAVED. Escaping the pollutions of the world, sin, happens only one way, Mark. By being saved through the Blood of Christ.

Do you disagree with that? Do you have ANOTHER means in mind where people escape the pollutions of the world?

Yes, Peter considered those false teachers as "once saved". They had escaped the pollutions of the world at one point in their lives. They, being teachers, had a more advanced knowledge of Christ - but by becoming proud, they began to teach falsely. Their actions became recognizable as bearing bad fruit. How? They returned to their former ways of sin. RETURNED, mark. That means they once LEFT their evil ways. Again, more evidence that Peter is talking about saved men. Whether they were teachers or not is inconsequential. We have a saved man who returned to the vomit of his former life. Thus, once saved always saved is false, according to Scriptures.

Clearly, this passage rules out OSAS, which is why I suggested long ago that a person use this to test a so-called teacher to see what they said and how they would avoid what the Bible actually says on the subject.

He said they had turned back from the sound teaching they had received, and they were leading men astray. For this reason it would have been better for them if they had never known the way of righteousness.

That is not all it says.

It says they turned from a life of sin.

Outwardly perhaps they did for a time.

Which means they were once saved, not always saved... Thanks ;)

It's a proverb, not a scientific fact. Nor is the sinner a biological dog... Pleae remember that a proverb is not to be taken literally

It’s a spiritual fact francis. A truth. Or do you prefer scientific 'facts' over truth?

You are twisting my point so you don't have to confront it.

Yes, it is a spiritual truth, because men are not dogs. But Peter's point, and mine, remains. We don't take such statements in Scriptures literally, since men are not dogs, nor do they have a spirit analogous to dogs. They ACT like dogs when they return to their vomit, not that they ARE dogs.

Peter didn't believe in OSAS!!! Being saved means being freed from sin, not "you are going to heaven no matter what".

I didn’t ask you why. I asked you how. How could Peter be saying they were saved?

How? By writing they had escaped the pollutions of the world, which is sin.

what are you getting at?

Haven’t you argued that we can not know who will be saved till the end? Then how could Peter be saying they were saved?

AH! You think that being saved means going to heaven. I don't. Nor does the bible. Being saved is a thing of the past, and we are not in heaven, so obviously, being saved is something that has already happened - and cannot be taken away. We were once freed from sin. That cannot be taken away. Even by holier-than-thou's who view someone 20 years later and think they "never were saved". You give with your OSAS, than you take away 20 years later because they fell away!!!

When the disciples asked Jesus who can be saved Matthew 19:25 RSV
When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?",were they asking him who can be freed from sin or were they asking him who can be saved from the coming destruction of the wicked?

Same thing. Sin leads to destruction of the wicked.

Sorry I don’t understand. I’m not taking anything out of context. A true Christian worships God in spirit and truth.

Perhaps you are new to Christianity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, those who realize that life is a journey will readily understand that people's faith ebbs and flows. Sometimes, we are strong in Christ, strong in faith working in love. And other times, we sin or have doubts about God's work in our lives. Our faith suffers. Thus, we don't know if we are encountering a Christian in a low point in their walk or an apostate person who has no intention of loving Christ again. Thus, the parable clearly tells us NOT TO PULL UP THE TARES! You do. You ATTEMPT to identify the tares based on what they are doing TODAY, not realizing that God's time is not our time. Men and women sometimes fall away. I again suggest you read the Prodigal Son. Consider the Father's attitude. Was it like yours? If you had known the son while living in perdition, would you have totally judged him as not worthy of returning to the Father?

That is not our job, Mark. WE don't judge a person based upon their walk TODAY because we don't know if they are a dog/tare, in God's eyes. We don't know whether a conversion is coming in the future. Thus, your judgmental words and actions are counterproductive to the work of the Spirit. You are actually working AGAINST God, Mark.

No, I don't approve of that attitude. Would you?

The weeds will be uprooted at the close of the age. I’m not uprooting any. I’m just speaking the truth.

You are uprooting the tares, Mark, by telling people not to evangelize the 'lost cases', in your opinion, not knowing God's will for person "X".

Please accept this in the intent given - a friendly chastisement of a fellow brother.

Regards

 

[MarkT]

francis

MarkT wrote:
You're assuming they were saved and you're assuming some sort of status ie. saved. not saved. First they were saved. Then they were not. But knowing Jesus is the Christ is knowing. Remember even demons recognized Jesus. But Peter doesn't go so far as to say they were saved. He said they had received the word, the holy commandment. They were informed and then they turned back.

Perhaps we need to define "saved" means, according to the Bible. It means that a person is freed from sin. Jesus came to save man. How? By freeing us from sin by His death. Being saved means being freed from sin. It DOES NOT mean "going to heaven", although it certainly is a necessary step to that process.

We don’t need to redefine words francis. The word is in the dictionary - make safe from harm, danger, loss etc. rescue.

Saved does not mean that a person is freed from sin. In fact it’s got nothing to do with sin.

Some people save things. Those people understand what saved means. They collect stuff that other people throw away. They see value in things. That’s the idea. We were sinners deserving death. But Jesus gathered us to him. We were destined for the Pit. But Jesus rescued us. We were dead. But Jesus gave us life.

Isaiah 34:16 RSV
Seek and read from the book of the LORD: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the LORD has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them.

Isaiah 49:5 RSV
And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength--

Isaiah 56:8 RSV
Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."

Jeremiah 39:18 RSV
For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword; but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, says the LORD.'"

Ezekiel 3:18 RSV
If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.

Now, let's look at what Peter said:

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 2 PEter 2:20-21

Now, first, they ESCAPED THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD. Clearly, that is a saved person, whether they are a teacher or not, the result is the same. Escaping the pollutions of the world means they escape sin. SAVED. Escaping the pollutions of the world, sin, happens only one way, Mark. By being saved through the Blood of Christ.

Do you disagree with that? Do you have ANOTHER means in mind where people escape the pollutions of the world?

Yes, Peter considered those false teachers as "once saved". They had escaped the pollutions of the world at one point in their lives. They, being teachers, had a more advanced knowledge of Christ - but by becoming proud, they began to teach falsely. Their actions became recognizable as bearing bad fruit. How? They returned to their former ways of sin. RETURNED, mark. That means they once LEFT their evil ways. Again, more evidence that Peter is talking about saved men. Whether they were teachers or not is inconsequential. We have a saved man who returned to the vomit of his former life. Thus, once saved always saved is false, according to Scriptures.

Clearly, this passage rules out OSAS, which is why I suggested long ago that a person use this to test a so-called teacher to see what they said and how they would avoid what the Bible actually says on the subject.

I disagree. Notice Peter doesn`t use the word saved. That`s a fact. I would ask you why he would say they were saved if in the same letter he calls them dogs, but I already know your answer. Seems like we`re going around in circles. I would ask you why he would quote the proverb. I already stated that a pig can be cleaned up. That`s a physical change. That`s what you`re counting on, I believe ie. a changed life , a visible transformation, something that can be seen. Something that men can approve. But the true proverb is the sow is washed only to return to the mire. The connotation is once a sow always a sow. It speaks of the person, of who you are, not the ability of a person to change his life.

MarkT wrote:
francisdesales wrote:
It's a proverb, not a scientific fact. Nor is the sinner a biological dog... Pleae remember that a proverb is not to be taken literally


It’s a spiritual fact francis. A truth. Or do you prefer scientific 'facts' over truth?


You are twisting my point so you don't have to confront it.

Yes, it is a spiritual truth, because men are not dogs. But Peter's point, and mine, remains. We don't take such statements in Scriptures literally, since men are not dogs, nor do they have a spirit analogous to dogs. They ACT like dogs when they return to their vomit, not that they ARE dogs.

I don`t know what you mean by literally. I never said they were dogs of the canine variety. The words are spirit. But you have to take them verbatim word for word. It`s not that they act like dogs. They are dogs. They are not of God. Jesus told us, ``Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.`` Mt. 7:6 The connotation again is a dog is a dog. And Jesus said we would know them. Seems like you`re ignoring that commandment.

Perhaps you are new to Christianity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, those who realize that life is a journey will readily understand that people's faith ebbs and flows. Sometimes, we are strong in Christ, strong in faith working in love. And other times, we sin or have doubts about God's work in our lives. Our faith suffers. Thus, we don't know if we are encountering a Christian in a low point in their walk or an apostate person who has no intention of loving Christ again. Thus, the parable clearly tells us NOT TO PULL UP THE TARES! You do. You ATTEMPT to identify the tares based on what they are doing TODAY, not realizing that God's time is not our time. Men and women sometimes fall away. I again suggest you read the Prodigal Son. Consider the Father's attitude. Was it like yours? If you had known the son while living in perdition, would you have totally judged him as not worthy of returning to the Father?

That is not our job, Mark. WE don't judge a person based upon their walk TODAY because we don't know if they are a dog/tare, in God's eyes. We don't know whether a conversion is coming in the future. Thus, your judgmental words and actions are counterproductive to the work of the Spirit. You are actually working AGAINST God, Mark.

No, I don't approve of that attitude. Would you?

MarkT wrote:
The weeds will be uprooted at the close of the age. I’m not uprooting any. I’m just speaking the truth.


You are uprooting the tares, Mark, by telling people not to evangelize the 'lost cases', in your opinion, not knowing God's will for person "X".

Please accept this in the intent given - a friendly chastisement of a fellow brother.

Francis. I`m not an evangelical. I don`t evangelize. I tell people to read the Bible. You have no idea. The weeds will be uprooted. I am uprooting nothing. I may bind them to the nether gloom of wherever they are but they are still in their place, still teaching, still leading people astray. The wolves are the ones who are evangelizing. I am a servant of God. To those who can hear me, I send greetings.