Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Issue with O.S.A.S

XTruth said:
jasoncran said:
none of us have the time to prove ourselves, we are allowed to live each day out of mercy, and for god's glory.

tommorow isnt promised.
You've been given many scriptures. You have no excuse. The OSAS don't say to go and keep sinning, but all who look on the flip side see a gospel where you can sin and go to heaven. That is not the gospel Jesus taught. Not one passage in all of Scripture says anyone can have eternal life if they die in sin. On the contrary, sin STILL brings spiritual death to all, in Christ or not. Sin condemns all man when sin is conceived. Jesus alone makes one holy and only past sins are forgiven. Without holiness, no one will see eternal life.

That's the main problem with OSAS - there is no provision or necessity for sanctification of the believer... It is totally unbiblical and can lead to perdition, thus, should be exposed as a false teaching.

Regards
 
joe please, the founders of the mass bay colony, a very particular sect believed in oasas yet they were very holy. read up on john winthrop, and also what they taught, the puritans werent called that for no reason.

two

salvation is a gift, so then if we can lose it then? i guess god lied when he says that his gifts are without repentance?

instead of listenting to your rcc only doctrine. go to these sights and listen to these men.
www.lwf.org
www.ccbangor,org.(search for the program godsword)
both believe in eternal security and preach holiness.

the later isnt very catholic friendly. but he also will attack the lies of ostenn, hinn, and also rick warren.
 
jasoncran said:
joe please, the founders of the mass bay colony, a very particular sect believed in oasas yet they were very holy. read up on john winthrop, and also what they taught, the puritans werent called that for no reason.

two

salvation is a gift, so then if we can lose it then? i guess god lied when he says that his gifts are without repentance?

instead of listenting to your rcc only doctrine. go to these sights and listen to these men.
http://www.lwf.org
http://www.ccbangor,org.(search for the program godsword)
both believe in eternal security and preach holiness.

the later isnt very catholic friendly. but he also will attack the lies of ostenn, hinn, and also rick warren.


Jason,

Thanks on the historical lesson. I am thinking that the Puritans were more Calvinist than the modern-day version of OSAS. In terms you may appreciate, like a fire-and-forget missile, once you pull the trigger, you don't have to worry any longer about it. Now, it is unlikely that the Puritans had that mindset of the 21st century.

Regards
 
of course not, thats because osteen, warren have perverted the concept of the eternal security

its not a license to sin, but that we have a promise but since we have that promise we ought to consider the cost that was paid for us.

if i love my wife, i will WANT to please her, if i dont love her then i wont care to please her

faith without evidence is dead and faith without works is dead.

i want to please God, because he first loved me, then i can love others.
 
jasoncran said:
of course not, thats because osteen, warren have perverted the concept of the eternal security

its not a license to sin, but that we have a promise but since we have that promise we ought to consider the cost that was paid for us.

if i love my wife, i will WANT to please her, if i dont love her then i wont care to please her

faith without evidence is dead and faith without works is dead.

i want to please God, because he first loved me, then i can love others.

When "Jesus did everything", there is no need to become holy or sanctified, is there? If God views the "work of Jesus" when I am judged, I could kill hundreds and be good to go, correct?

It appears that the attitude you have is not a "OSAS" one, since you understand that faith without works is dead.

Regards
 
that's stupid to say that when we come to christ that we just sit back for the ride. we must have the proper reaction to that repentence (fruits) while we arent more saved when we repent, we must strive to please the lord as we love him.

fruit must be born, and if not then i doubt that salvation was ever given or granted.

i do believe that when we stray the lord show us mercy, and even if we die will be kept. but that is no license to sin. if we say well i'm saved i can sin all i want. then we arent saved.

god keeps us cause he knows we cant be good enough to get to heaven without the blood. but that isnt a license to sin all out and not care

there are sins that we will struggle with and try to repent yet own us, only god can set us free.
 
jasoncran said:
that's stupid to say that when we come to christ that we just sit back for the ride.

Yes, it is, but some people think that, in practice...

In other words, they hardly make any sort of change in their life. And why would they, if they are taught that Christ did it all and there is no point in trying to "work out your salvation", because when God judges, He only sees Jesus...???


jasoncran said:
we must have the proper reaction to that repentence (fruits) while we arent more saved when we repent, we must strive to please the lord as we love him.

The more we strive and become more like Christ, indeed, we do become "more saved", if you will. We begin to be "more saved" even here on earth as our life becomes full of peace and die to our selves.

jasoncran said:
fruit must be born, and if not then i doubt that salvation was ever given or granted.

Yes, this is another part of OSAS that makes no sense to me. If you doubt that salvation was ever granted, how can you say you were "OSAS"???

jasoncran said:
i do believe that when we stray the lord show us mercy, and even if we die will be kept. but that is no license to sin. if we say well i'm saved i can sin all i want. then we arent saved.

So it seems OSAS is not really "OSAS"... Congratulations, I don't think much of the idea, either.

jasoncran said:
god keeps us cause he knows we cant be good enough to get to heaven without the blood. but that isnt a license to sin all out and not care

there are sins that we will struggle with and try to repent yet own us, only god can set us free.

True.
 
[ok my keyvoard is 'missing' a letter...I am using V instead 'cause it rhymes with ___the missing letter}

Main provlem with these devates: done as if there are only two positions, _ut there are three...here I go to copy and paste:[and this is not something over which Christians should _rake/leave fellowship]

Its good intention lies in giving assurance to those who
struggle with their sense of being saved. Today, many seasoned
Christians will tell those who make a profession of
faith (whether by a prayer or by going forward at a church
or crusade) that they have eternal security. A popular slogan
rings out: “Once saved, always saved.â€
And other Christians will assure those who have been
baptized and confirmed that they are heaven bound no matter
what may follow. Though many of these converts might
never live by faith, this assurance will again be affirmed at
their funerals.
But a new idea enters here. By leaving out New
Testament essentials, these teachings depart from the historic
Christian faith.
This new idea leaves behind the holy
conjunction; it fails to hold essentials together. Faith and
obedience are sundered; forgiveness and repentance divided.
While some differences arise among great saints of the
past, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley, they
all agreed that we are saved by faith alone through God’s
unmerited grace. On this point, Wesley said of Calvin, “I do
not differ from him an hair’s breadth.â€4
So, too, the seasoned Christians mentioned above affirm
this. But where is the difference?
Martin Luther observed that “the world and the masses
100
Love, Prayer and Forgiveness
are and always will be unchristian, although they are all baptized
and nominally Christians. Christians, however, are few
and far between . . .â€5
Luther pointed to “the divine promise which says: ‘He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’ [Mark 16:16].â€6
(Note the holy conjunction.) But he also warned, “Unless
faith is present or comes to life in baptism, the ceremony is
of no avail; indeed it is a stumbling-block not only at the
moment we receive baptism but for all our life thereafter.â€7
John Calvin affirmed, “Only if we walk in the beauty of
God’s law do we become sure of our adoption as children of
the Father
.â€8 (What a contrast that is with the assurances
given by those who march under another banner.)
Furthermore, he wrote:
The apostle denies that anyone actually knows
Christ who has not learned to put off the old man,
corrupt with deceitful lusts, and to put on Christ.
External knowledge of Christ is found to be
only a false and dangerous make-believe
, however
eloquently and freely lip servants may talk about
the gospel.
The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but
of life.9
The key point here is succinctly summed up by J. I.
Packer:
“Scripture holds out no hope of salvation for any
who, whatever their profession of faith, do not seek to turn
from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8).â€10
We need to read and hear Jesus’ parable of the sower.
(Christians ought to read and know God’s word.) Here,
Jesus speaks of the different types of soil upon which the
seed of the gospel falls. The seed falls on the footpath, on
shallow, rocky soil, on ground infested with thorns, and on
101
Love, Prayer and Forgiveness
good ground (Mat. 13). The hard footpath will not even
grow a plant, but on the shallow, stony soil, the plants spring
up immediately, but because of the shallowness, they have
no deep root and wither away in the sun.
Jesus tells us, “He who received the seed on the stony
places, this is he who hears the word and immediately
receives it with joy, [he may readily run forward at an altar
call] yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a
while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of
the word, immediately he stumbles “ (Mat. 13:20-21).
About the ground with thorns, Jesus says, “He who
received the seed among the thorns is he who hears the
word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of
riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful†(Mat
13:22). The thorns choke out life. (We remember what Jesus
said about dead branches on the vine: they are cut off and
gathered to be burned.)
Here, confusion rushes in when those in this modern,
once-saved-always-saved camp assure these sad cases of
people that they have eternal security. (Just as the evangelical
churches of Joy and Mary did for them.)
Right here lies the critical point of difference between
the historic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and
this modern notion, which reigns under the banner of “once
saved, always saved.†Both will agree that God’s elect cannot
be lost; but those with this new notion will assure someone,
anyone, who makes an initial profession of faith that
they have eternal security. And their positive assessment
regarding the salvation of these hearers will never change,
not even when the roots shrivel and the thorns choke the life
out. The initial response (profession) rather than the life of
endurance (perseverance) stands as their criteria. (As a
result, they often fail in exhortation, and they often remain
silent, except to assure Christians like Joy and Mary that
they are heaven bound.)
102
Love, Prayer and Forgiveness
But Jesus said, “He who endures to the end will be
saved†(Mat. 10:22).
Calvin, one unflinching champion of the perseverance of
the saints, clearly taught this. Expositing this parable of the
sower, he speaks of the “temporary faith†of the one who
receives the word with joy:

They lack a living feeling (affectus) to confirm
them in steadfastness. . . . For unless the Word
penetrates the whole heart and puts down deep
roots there will be no steady flow of moisture to
make faith persevere. . . . let us realize that nothing
is done until faith has gained a firm strength. . . .
these are called ‘temporary’, not only because they
fall away in temptation after being professed disciples
of Christ for a time, but also because they
themselves think that they have a true faith.
. . . But
we must know that they are not truly born again of
incorruptible seed, which does not fade away, as
Peter says (1 Pet. 1.4).11

As F. F. Bruce has pointed out, “The perseverance of the
saints is a biblical doctrine, but it is not a doctrine designed
to lull the indifferent into a sense of false security; it means
that perseverance is an essential token of sanctity.â€12...

J. I. Packer affirms, “Only those who show themselves
to be regenerate by pursuing heart-holiness and true
neighbor-love as they pass through this world are entitled to
believe themselves secure in Christ.


[Two faithful witnesses]
 
i wouldnt use more saved but more christlike. as we dont get into heaven earlier for good works but we do have rewards in heaven.

i use santification for what you are saying, that is for the glory of the lord. we shine his light so that others will see. besides its a blessing not to be caught in deceptions.
 
jasoncran said:
i wouldnt use more saved but more christlike. as we dont get into heaven earlier for good works but we do have rewards in heaven.

i use santification for what you are saying, that is for the glory of the lord. we shine his light so that others will see. besides its a blessing not to be caught in deceptions.

Jason,

We (Catholics) refer to "being saved" as an ongonig event more than the one time event when we were first baptized and buried with Christ. Yes, we were saved then, but we see our life in Christ as a journey, not a one time event. Thus, being saved means, to us, being sanctified, being transformed, being made holy - for NO ONE shall enter heaven unless they become holy.

No, we don't get into heaven earlier for doing good works,for we cannot enter heaven until we die, and I don't necessarily see that Billy Joel was right in "Only the Good Die Young"...

However, we are beginning to receive our inheritance even now in this life. We are being conformed and are being allowed to share in the divine nature even now.

Regards
 
i know that catholicism beleives that.

i do believe that redemption also include this life.

but as for eternal salvation , those works or santificitations do matter but agian the place wherein we are recieved is the same.

believe me we pentacostals do beleive in having a blessed life on this side of heaven, but thats not to be confused with the name and claim type of preachin and also the prosperity gospel.
 
jasoncran said:
i know that catholicism beleives that.

i do believe that redemption also include this life.

What's redemption if it's not taking place now???

jasoncran said:
but as for eternal salvation , those works or santificitations do matter but agian the place wherein we are recieved is the same.

believe me we pentacostals do beleive in having a blessed life on this side of heaven, but thats not to be confused with the name and claim type of preachin and also the prosperity gospel.

I guess I wouldn't define your beliefs as "OSAS", then...

Regards
 
See how he "explains" his way out of 2 Peter 2:20-22. Note carefully, this man was saved - had escaped the pollutions of the world through Jesus Christ - then fell away, being WORSE OFF than if he had never been

What man? Peter said there would be false teachers and they would entice unsteady souls with loud boasts of folly. We can see some churches are approving of and are even being led by homosexuals. As Peter said, they are ignorant of the truth.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Parable of the Sower, not the Tares. Yes, indeed, the enemy has sown the weeds. God knows who is a weed, but we don't. That is why the weeds are not uprooted today, because the weeds of today can become the wheat of tomorrow. That's the whole point of evangelization

If by saved you mean cleaned up, sure they were cleaned up. You can clean up a pig. You can put clothes on a pig. You can put lip stick on it. But it’s still a pig. And no amount of evangelizing is going to make it a human being. Jesus warned us about throwing our pearls before swine and not giving dogs what is holy, which means we don’t give them his words or try to teach them. Matthew 7:6 “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.â€
 
MarkT said:
francisdesales said:
See how he "explains" his way out of 2 Peter 2:20-22. Note carefully, this man was saved - had escaped the pollutions of the world through Jesus Christ - then fell away, being WORSE OFF than if he had never been

What man? Peter said there would be false teachers and they would entice unsteady souls with loud boasts of folly. We can see some churches are approving of and are even being led by homosexuals. As Peter said, they are ignorant of the truth.

You are avoiding the problem with OSAS here. The man Peter describes is a formely saved man who has become an unrepentant sinner who has returned to his former ways of evil. He is WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE. So much for OSAS...

MarkT said:
francisdesales said:
Oh, I thought you were talking about the Parable of the Sower, not the Tares. Yes, indeed, the enemy has sown the weeds. God knows who is a weed, but we don't. That is why the weeds are not uprooted today, because the weeds of today can become the wheat of tomorrow. That's the whole point of evangelization

If by saved you mean cleaned up, sure they were cleaned up. You can clean up a pig. You can put clothes on a pig. You can put lip stick on it. But it’s still a pig. And no amount of evangelizing is going to make it a human being. Jesus warned us about throwing our pearls before swine and not giving dogs what is holy, which means we don’t give them his words or try to teach them. Matthew 7:6 “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.â€

You are missing the entire point of the parable!!!

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.
 
:crazy all this time we have thought the same joe, for the most part.

i do have a minor disagreement, while the santification process begin at the moment of true repentance. this current life upon death isnt gonna be eternal perfecting we get

for instant if a husband or wife dies, they arent remmaired in heaven, and the widow(er) are free to marry another. so the cant be marriage in the new heaven and earth. boy the confusion

i use santification since that is realated to santize. or sanarse(to cleanse oneself in spanish).
meaning that we are being purged slowly of sinful things. and also they we are used for glory of god.

we should accept that our life isnt our own, and we are bought with a price(thats what redemption is) we were slaves to satan, the cross set us free from satan.
 
MarkT wrote:
francisdesales wrote:
See how he "explains" his way out of 2 Peter 2:20-22. Note carefully, this man was saved - had escaped the pollutions of the world through Jesus Christ - then fell away, being WORSE OFF than if he had never been


What man? Peter said there would be false teachers and they would entice unsteady souls with loud boasts of folly. We can see some churches are approving of and are even being led by homosexuals. As Peter said, they are ignorant of the truth.


You are avoiding the problem with OSAS here. The man Peter describes is a formely saved man who has become an unrepentant sinner who has returned to his former ways of evil. He is WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE. So much for OSAS...

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

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.

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?

In fact, he said, “for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved.â€

MarkT wrote:
francisdesales wrote:
Oh, I thought you were talking about the Parable of the Sower, not the Tares. Yes, indeed, the enemy has sown the weeds. God knows who is a weed, but we don't. That is why the weeds are not uprooted today, because the weeds of today can become the wheat of tomorrow. That's the whole point of evangelization


If by saved you mean cleaned up, sure they were cleaned up. You can clean up a pig. You can put clothes on a pig. You can put lip stick on it. But it’s still a pig. And no amount of evangelizing is going to make it a human being. Jesus warned us about throwing our pearls before swine and not giving dogs what is holy, which means we don’t give them his words or try to teach them. Matthew 7:6 “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.â€


You are missing the entire point of the parable!!!

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. 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 they won’t accept it. When I see their writings and the way they twist the truth, I see bad fruit, and I know the tree is bad. Seeing them is like looking down into a well full of snakes.

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.

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.
 
francis

I think the OSAS message is God doesn’t go back on his promises. Not sure. Nothing about sin or a license to sin jumps out at me. If you don’t believe you’re in the Father’s hand at least don’t stand in the way of those who want to enter.

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

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. :)
 
MarkT said:
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?

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".

MarkT said:
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

MarkT said:
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.

MarkT said:
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

MarkT said:
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?

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

MarkT said:
francisdesales said:
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.

MarkT said:
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. :shame

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 :shame

MarkT said:
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!

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...

Regards
 
Back
Top