James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[chessman]

Jesus is giving them eternal life. This speaks of what was happening at present.

I agree that it speaks of what Jesus was doing in the present. He was giving them _________? Not a pat on the back. He was giving them ETERNAL LIFE.

The definition of eternal is, you guessed it, eternal. "without end, never to cease, everlasting".

But your next statement does not follow from your first:

Nothing here indicates that this situation will continue indefinitely

Wrong! Eternal means eternal.

The context of the passage is the thief or the robber. These are the one's who would attempt to snatch them from the Father's hand.

I agree, but so what. It says “no one†and it says they were “in His handâ€. I doesn’t say “no robber†can steal them. Jesus knew how to say no “thief can snatch themâ€. But the perfect word of God says “no manâ€.

The Greek word translated snatch implies the use of force.

I agree. Jesus pretty much knew that a sheep can and does walk away or that they could get robbed. So what? But your next statement does not follow from this.

There is nothing in this passage that indicates that a person cannot choose to walk away from God.

Yes there's nothing in there about the price of rice in China either. However, what is there is not to be taken lightly.
“No man†can snatch Jesus' sheep. Robber, thief or any other person (including one’s self). Period. You’re in God’s hand. Do you think there’s a logical case that you’ve made that Jesus could loosen the grip of His hand, or turn his back for a minute and let someone “walk away� I don’t.

If God is able to forgive sins initially, and EVER call someone His sheep, then he's able to go find those lost sheep whether they walk, run or are "snatched" away. That's exactly why IN THE PRESENT TENSE he said they HAD eternal life and were (present tense)in His hand.

And frankly, it's an insult to my intelligence to try to convince me that Jesus didn't really mean what He said here and elsewhere about His power to save and secure His sheep. Robber, thief or otherwise.

Just exactly what’s the difference in a sheep walking away or being stolen? How does that change “eternal life†or “in God’s hand�

Plus, the fact is, as with Judas; the Devil is constantly “snatching†and stealing sheep anyway (willing sheep or not). It’s all a battle with evil! I think Jesus knew exactly what He was saying.

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

One would have to ignore a whole lot of these scriptures to come to that conclusion?

Romans 2 is directed at Jews who are proud in HAVING the Law. They thought that possession of the Law would be enough to be seen as just in God's eyes. Having the Law did the Jews no good, if you continue reading Romans 3, where Paul cites a devastating litany of failures of Jews noted by David. Meanwhile, Gentiles appear as "spiritually circumcised" in the eyes of God for following an unwritten law on their hearts.

Which Scripture makes this a false conclusion?

Regards

Thats just error, the law declared in clear terms that the heart of all men are evil and deceptive above all things. The gentiles never had "the law written upon their hearts" until they were born-again. Read the passage in context and this is made very clear.

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, (THE HOLY SPIRIT) their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ro 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is if it fulfil by nature, The law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost
transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[Butch5]

I agree that it speaks of what Jesus was doing in the present. He was giving them _________? Not a pat on the back. He was giving them ETERNAL LIFE.

The definition of eternal is, you guessed it, eternal. "without end, never to cease, everlasting".

But your next statement does not follow from your first:

Wrong! Eternal means eternal.

Eternal is an adjective modifying the life. It is the life that is eternal, not how long one has it. If I had an eternally red car and sold it the car would still be red even though I no longer had it. Likewise, the life is eternal whether one has it or not. It is eternal because it is from God and God is eternal.

I agree, but so what. It says “no one” and it says they were “in His hand”. I doesn’t say “no robber” can steal them. Jesus knew how to say no “thief can snatch them”. But the perfect word of God says “no man”.

This is an argument from silence. Jesus made the statement within a certain context, if we remove the statement from that context then we don't have what Jesus meant. Yes, He said any man, however, it was in the context of a their or robber, therefore any man who is a thief of robber is unable to snatch a believer from Christ's hand.

The Greek word translated snatch implies the use of force.

I agree. Jesus pretty much knew that a sheep can and does walk away or that they could get robbed. So what? But your next statement does not follow from this.

There is nothing in this passage that indicates that a person cannot choose to walk away from God.

Yes there's nothing in there about the price of rice in China either. However, what is there is not to be taken lightly.

Sure it follows if a one can walk to Jesus then they can walk away. It would seem that that would be understood.

“No man” can snatch Jesus' sheep. Robber, thief or any other person (including one’s self). Period. You’re in God’s hand. Do you think there’s a logical case that you’ve made that Jesus could loosen the grip of His hand, or turn his back for a minute and let someone “walk away”? I don’t.

Again, your argument is outside of the context of the passage. If I am in God's hand I am not a thief or a robber thus the snatching comment doesn't apply to me.

If God is able to forgive sins initially, and EVER call someone His sheep, then he's able to go find those lost sheep whether they walk, run or are "snatched" away. That's exactly why IN THE PRESENT TENSE he said they HAD eternal life and were (present tense)in His hand.

Had is past tense. He said, they are hearing and following and I am giving. He doesn't say I gave them eternal life, He says I am giving. That indicates a continual source. The eternal life is not something within the believer it is something being given of a continual basis

And frankly, it's an insult to my intelligence to try to convince me that Jesus didn't really mean what He said here and elsewhere about His power to save and secure His sheep. Robber, thief or otherwise.

I'm sorry if you think I was trying to insult your intelligence that was not my intention. However, this is a straw man. I never indicated that Jesus didn't mean what He said. My point was that what He said is not what you were claiming.

Just exactly what’s the difference in a sheep walking away or being stolen? How does that change “eternal life” or “in God’s hand”?

The person's intention.

Plus, the fact is, as with Judas; the Devil is constantly “snatching” and stealing sheep anyway (willing sheep or not). It’s all a battle with evil! I think Jesus knew exactly what He was saying.

This is confusing, you seemed to agree that no one could snatch one out of God's hand but here you seem to be saying the opposite.

 

[francisdesales]

Once again Francis, I do not believe in perseverance of the saints. I believe in the biblical teaching of eternal security.

I apologize, I am not familiar with the finer points of the distinction between the two. To me, the mean the same thing, but I am sure you will correct me. Perhaps you could explain the difference in a short few sentences? Thanks.

Here are just a few of the early church people who taught and knew about people who taught universalism.

We can read that Clement of Alexandria (150ad to 210ad) held to Universalism who was most likely taught by Pantaenus. It was Clement who taught Origen, as most know Origen was a Universalist.

Ok, could you please cite me something? I think Origen was the only one who spoke of the possibility of hell being emptied - but I think he was alone on this. That is not quite the same as you stated before, where it was a "teaching of the Church" for two hundred years. I know Ignatius and Justin didn't teach it, Irenaeus didn't, Clement of Rome didn't. I am pretty sure Tertullian didn't. Clement of Alexandria, it would not surprise me if he did, but could you post me a reference? I don't feel like re-reading his writings - which are often "spiritual" or "analogical", as the school of Alexandria was prone to be.

St. Augustine admitted that "very many" believed in Universalism in his day, so obviously it did not originate in his day.

Again, if you are going to make such statements, you need to post a reference. You just can't say such things when someone is asking for references.

I am simply pointing out that people are claiming that eternal security came around the time of St. Augustine.

I appreciate your efforts to discuss Church doctrine, I enjoy discussing such things. However, Universalism is NOT "eternal security", nothing to that effect. The former teaches EVERYONE is going to heaven, since God desires all men to be saved - He will make it so. That is not what "eternal security" states. It depends upon salvation as being conditional. Universalism is not conditional salvation.

Salvation is/was seen as deification, the forgiveness of sins, a healing of man. IMITATION was big back in the first few centuries, to include from Clement of Alexandria, often citing Luke 6:36 (be merciful, even as your father is merciful). As one followed this imitation, one was freed from the power of sin. "the Old Testament law calls imitation 'following', and such 'following' to the limits of one's powers makes one like the model" (Clement, Stromata 2.19.100.4, cited from Pelikan's Development of Doctrine, I, pg 145). Clement's idea of imitation is best summed up in 1 Cor 11:1 - "the assimilation to God, so that as far as possible a man becomes righteous and holy with wisdom, Paul lays down as the aim of faith, and the end to be that restitution of the promise which is effected by faith" (Clement, Stromata, 2.22.136.6)

Those are not the words of a man who believes in "eternal security" as taught by OSAS, where the aim of faith is a one time proclamation, perhaps many years ago, which secures eternal life in heaven, no matter IF there is any imitation of Christ or not.

If salvation is akin to imitiation, it follows that there is no idea of "eternal security" to be found in the thought of Clement. Without imitation, is there salvation?

The Fathers realized this by continuing the Biblical warrant to remain faithful/persevere and other such exhortations to proper ethics becoming of a Christian.

OSAS remains an unheard-of teaching until the Reformation. That is a strong statement, if we consider that the Holy Spirit abides within the Church and as a result, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. So how could such a "fundamental teaching" escape the pillar and foundation of the truth's teaching for 1500 some years???

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

Thats just error, the law declared in clear terms that the heart of all men are evil and deceptive above all things. The gentiles never had "the law written upon their hearts" until they were born-again. Read the passage in context and this is made very clear.

George, where does the Bible state that? Where does Romans 2 suggest any "born again" idea? There is NOTHING said about the so-called "altar call" or "proclaiming with your heart that Jesus is Lord". George, we need to read what is there, not introducing our own traditions into the text, unless they are warranted by the context. Nothing suggests that one must introduce the altar call into Romans 2. It says that these Gentiles did NOT know the written Law - so how could they have been declared Jesus as Lord and Savior? Christian Gentiles were taught about the Law (read Galatians lately?)

Furthermore, the Law does not declare that the hearts of all men are beyond obedience to the Law. The Law was expected to be obeyed. Moses stated that it was not too difficult to obey the Law, and numerous people were declared righteous in the eyes of God. However, with that, one must realize that the Spirit of God MUST have been working in a hidden manner for ANYONE to be able to follow the Law from the heart, whether via written or unwritten means. If you go back a few verses, it states that some are entering eternal heaven because of this obedience to that Law, whichever is available to them.

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

The standard used by God to judge is the Law of Love, given by Christ. We can see that related in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. "How did you treat your brothers"? It doesn't mean that one MUST be aware of Jesus as God. One can know about the standard due to the Spirit of God writing an unwritten Law. In addition, you have already admitted that God is merciful and will judge the "ignorant", even if they never heard of Christ. Thus, God is not bound to an absolute law. He can save whomever He wills.

Again, is God condemning EVERY HUMAN born before Jesus was incarnate? Is Moses suffering eternal damnation because he did not make a Protestant altar call???

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

No its not possible for a muslim to be a Christian by accident, and receive the Spirit of God and then keep the royal law of Love. Mans love is not the love of God nor can a man be saved by being nice to other people.

Good gravy, George, I said like five times that IF a Muslim was obeying the Law of Love, he was doing so because of the Spirit of God. My entire premise is based upon the idea that we are seeing objective PROOF that God's Spirit is ACTIVE in the said Muslim when we see an example of Love without alterior motives. Self-sacrificial love is from God. So when we see it, we know it is the work of God, not the work of man.

What is shameful is that you are falsely accusing me of something i NEVER said and have strived to say the opposite in nearly every post I have made to you... If you want to continue our discussion, you will have to make the effort to read my posts.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I noticed you skipped over "the Spirit blows where HE wills", not where George thinks the Spirit should blow...

Again, I am talking about the difference between IGNORANCE and REJECTION. The later requires a willful knowledge of the Gospel and subsequent decision to refute it. Ignorance is not discussed as worthy of condemnation in John 3.

Furthermore, stating that salvation is open to some choice Muslims (chosen by God, George, sorry to remind you that HE is sovereign on this planet) is NOT universalism. You seem to be pegging the drama scale here, George.

Noting exceptions to the ordinary is NOT advancing universalism... Quite the opposite, George

Regards

 

[chessman]

Eternal is an adjective modifying the life. It is the life that is eternal, not how long one has it.

Now I’m confused. I don’t see your logic here. If someone has (present tense) eternal life, they also have it in the future.

This is an argument from silence.

Exactly my point. Your argument assumes Jesus meant "no thief" from silence when He said "no man". And this relates to my past point that evidently I didn't make clearly enough. The “thief†in context of John 10 is Satan.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10 ESV)
​

Plus, the fact is, as with Judas; the Devil is constantly “snatching†and stealing sheep anyway (willing sheep or not). It’s all a battle with evil! I think Jesus knew exactly what He was saying.

This is confusing, you seemed to agree that no one could snatch one out of God's hand but here you seem to be saying the opposite.

My point is/was that all men are thieves driven by evil. It's a war. We all steal from God, what’s rightly His to begin with. Every sin is a theft against what rightly belongs to God. It's a battle with Satan. However, I simply think Jesus us more powerful than Satan. I meant Satan attempts to steal, not that he's successful once a person had the Holy Spirit within them. i.e. they are elect. That’s why I think Jesus meant exactly what he said “no man†can take the “eternal life†that we have. But I understand that people walk away. They are goats, however.

If God is able to forgive sins initially, and EVER call someone His sheep, then he's able to go find those lost sheep whether they walk, run or are "snatched" away. That's exactly why IN THE PRESENT TENSE he said they HAD eternal life and were (present tense)in His hand.

Had is past tense. He said, they are hearing and following and I am giving.

I meant “HAD†in the same way you just meant “He saidâ€. i.e. that this statement occurred ~2000 years ago. I understand the verb tense. I think the verb tense is completely appropriate for the discussion of “eternal lifeâ€.
I also think the Hand of God, is more powerful than any thief’s ability to steal something away from it and His hand is especially powerful enough to stop his sheep from walking away from it.
I’m all about context in the Bible. And I appreciate it when people point out that I may be taking some Scripture out of context. Especially when it’s a parable. They do tend to have multiple interpretations. However, I’ve evaluated your arguments for how I may be taking “eternal life†and “in His hand†out of context. I disagree with you.
But maybe I shouldn’t have used a parable for this reason. So what’s your take on:

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
​

Is there a context to Paul’s message here that I may be taking inappropriately to broadly or narrowly? What specifically did you mean by “Chessman, you're making inferences from passages out of context.†When I asked you about this passage previously?
Given how Paul uses the word “seal†here and elsewhere that seems like the message we should take away is OSAS.

1 Cor 1:22 </SPAN>and who has also oput his seal on us and pgiven us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.1
​

Thief or no thief. God’s more powerful than all thieves, including Satan.

1 Peter 1:5 </SPAN>who by God's power are being guarded nthrough faith for a salvation oready to be revealed in the last time.
​

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

George, where does the Bible state that? Where does Romans 2 suggest any "born again" idea?

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is if it fulfil by nature, The law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost
transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Surely you can see that "uncircumcision" is speaking of the gentiles, who are circumcised in heart, by the Spirit? How do you think this happened? They where born-again of the Spirit.

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

If you had such a neighbor, would you feel comfortable considering them a Christian? I think we could. They would consider themselves Muslim and pray to Allah. They would be wrong on a number of there ideas about who God is and not taking the final step on who Jesus is. Perhaps we could evangelize such people carefully. But at the end of the day, is knowledge or love more important?

This sounds to me like you are indeed suggesting that a muslim need not accept Christ, but that they just need to be nice to others.

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

Furthermore, stating that salvation is open to some choice Muslims (chosen by God, George, sorry to remind you that HE is sovereign on this planet) is NOT universalism

So we no longer preach the gospel, that all must come to Christ, but now we preach, you dont need Jesus? This is the new gospel? That Jesus is not needed?
And no man has the right to go beyond the scriptures and grant salvation to those who reject Christ. This is heresy.

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

My entire premise is based upon the idea that we are seeing objective PROOF that God's Spirit is ACTIVE in the said Muslim

You claim that by judging if a muslim is nice to others, that is evidence he is saved and has the spirit of God, even thou he does not confess or worship Chirst? That a man can worship a false God and deny Christ and that believers should accept him as a Christain? So you allow a muslim can be saved even without faith in the Blood of Christ, but believers who are justified by His Blood, must keep a standard of works to be considered really saved? Do you have any idea how far from biblical truth you are?

 

[MarkT]

If you add 'provided they continue in their belief', would that harm OSAS? After all the sheep will continue. They do continue. They will follow. They do follow. Those that do not follow or fall away were never His sheep. I know brethren that God has predestined us for glory. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Mark,

That argument isn't logical, if you were never one you cannot fall away from being one.

I didn't say you could fall away from being his sheep. His sheep do not fall away. However Jesus had thousands of followers and they all fell away except for the 12 and one was a devil. They turned back, went home, did not continue with him, could not endure his teachings, said he was beside himself, out of his mind, didn't like what they heard; the carpenter's son telling them they were evil, eating with sinners, something about salt, eating his flesh, drinking his blood, doing things against the law, making himself God. They followed him for a while - believed he was a prophet, a good man, then they went back to their daily life.

 

[Butch5]

Now I’mconfused. I don’t see your logic here. If someone has (present tense) eternallife, they also have it in the future.

Eternal is anadjective describing the life. It’s not saying how long one has the life. Johnsaid,


KJV 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seenwith our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of theWord of life;

2 (For the life wasmanifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto youthat eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1Jo1:1-2 KJV)
What did John see, was it not Christ? Eternal life is not something that one has in their possession. It islife that flows from God, that life is eternal whether a person has it or not.The life flows from God and God is eternal therefore the life is eternal. If aperson has it and then loses it, it doesn’t change the life, the life is stilleternal.

Exactlymy point. Your argument assumes Jesus meant "no thief" from silencewhen He said "no man". And this relates to my past point thatevidently I didn't make clearly enough. The “thief” in context of John 10 isSatan.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have lifeand have it abundantly. (John 10:10 ESV)

Chessman, It’snot my argument that is from silence. Your claiming any man refers to any manthat has lived, correct. That is not what Jesus. The context in which He madethat statement is The thief comes to kill steal and destroy, anyone who doesn’tenter in by the door is a thief and a robber. Here’s the context of any man.
8 All that ever came before me arethieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. (Joh 10:8 KJV)
The thief may or may notbe Satan, the passage doesn’t say. However, it does say all that come before whichwould indicate that there was more than one.

My pointis/was that all men are thieves driven by evil. It's a war. We all steal fromGod, what’s rightly His to begin with. Every sin is a theft against whatrightly belongs to God. It's a battle with Satan. However, I simply think Jesusus more powerful than Satan. I meant Satan attempts to steal, not that he'ssuccessful once a person had the Holy Spirit within them. i.e. they are elect.That’s why I think Jesus meant exactly what he said “no man” can take the“eternal life” that we have. But I understand that people walk away. They aregoats, however.

The context isbelievers being snatched from God’s hand, not believers walking away from God’shand. Robbers and thieves steal, they take things against a persons will. Jesusis saying that this won’t happen to the one in God’s hand. However, He’s notsaying anything about a person walking away.

I meant“HAD” in the same way you just meant “He said”. i.e. that this statementoccurred ~2000 years ago. I understand the verb tense. I think the verb tenseis completely appropriate for the discussion of “eternal life”.

I also think the Hand of God, is more powerful than any thief’s ability tosteal something away from it and His hand is especially powerful enough to stophis sheep from walking away from it.

I agree,however, Jesus is not address a person walking away.

I’m all about context in the Bible. And I appreciate it when peoplepoint out that I may be taking some Scripture out of context. Especially whenit’s a parable. They do tend to have multiple interpretations. However, I’veevaluated your arguments for how I may be taking “eternal life” and “in Hishand” out of context. I disagree with you.

But maybe I shouldn’t have used a parable for this reason.

The context isthe thief and the robber snatching someone from God’s hand. I agree this cannothappen. But again, Jesus isn’t addressing one walking away.

So what’s your take on:

Ephesians 1:13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of yoursalvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Is there acontext to Paul’s message here that I may be taking inappropriately to broadlyor narrowly? What specifically did you mean by “Chessman, you're makinginferences from passages out of context.” When I asked you about this passagepreviously?
Given how Paul uses the word “seal” here and elsewhere that seems like themessage we should take away is OSAS.
1 Cor 1:22 </SPAN>and who has also oput his seal on us and pgiven us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

How is Paulusing the word seal? How were they sealed, what is the seal? This is one ofthose times an historical understanding comes into play

Thief orno thief. God’s more powerful than all thieves, including Satan.

1 Peter 1:5 </SPAN>who by God's power are being guarded nthrough faith for a salvation oready to berevealed in the last time.

I agree, however, this passage doesn’t address OSAS. How are they beingkept, is it not “through Faith”? Here again, this passage says nothing about a person walking away.
The OSAS argument is not about God’s ability, it’s about man’s faithfulness.

Sorry about the words running together. For some reason when I copy and paste into this forum from Word it runs some words together.

 

[MarkT]

You're only hearing what you want to hear.

Jude says they were destroyed. You say they were saved. Jude does not name Moses or Aaron. No need to go there. You go there anyway.

The scriptures say they did not enter the promised land because of unbelief and died before entering because of same.

You are welcome to continue to disregard that fact of text.

Numbers 20:12
And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Jude says the same thing.

Clear enough to me.

s

No he doesn't. Jude reminds us that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe. Is Jude not stressing the importance of belief here? How on earth do you get unbelief is inconsequential from this?

 

[Butch5]

If you add 'provided they continue in their belief', would that harm OSAS? After all the sheep will continue. They do continue. They will follow. They do follow. Those that do not follow or fall away were never His sheep. I know brethren that God has predestined us for glory. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Mark,

That argument isn't logical, if you were never one you cannot fall away from being one.

I didn't say you could fall away from being his sheep. His sheep do not fall away. However Jesus had thousands of followers and they all fell away except for the 12 and one was a devil. They turned back, went home, did not continue with him, could not endure his teachings, said he was beside himself, out of his mind, didn't like what they heard; the carpenter's son telling them they were evil, eating with sinners, something about salt, eating his flesh, drinking his blood, doing things against the law, making himself God. They followed him for a while - believed he was a prophet, a good man, then they went back to their daily life.

Hi Mark,

I know you said the sheep don't fall away. My point was that they do. a person could not fall away if they weren't one of the sheep to begin with.

 

[Grappler]

If you add 'provided they continue in their belief', would that harm OSAS? After all the sheep will continue. They do continue. They will follow. They do follow. Those that do not follow or fall away were never His sheep. I know brethren that God has predestined us for glory. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Mark,

That argument isn't logical, if you were never one you cannot fall away from being one.

I didn't say you could fall away from being his sheep. His sheep do not fall away. However Jesus had thousands of followers and they all fell away except for the 12 and one was a devil. They turned back, went home, did not continue with him, could not endure his teachings, said he was beside himself, out of his mind, didn't like what they heard; the carpenter's son telling them they were evil, eating with sinners, something about salt, eating his flesh, drinking his blood, doing things against the law, making himself God. They followed him for a while - believed he was a prophet, a good man, then they went back to their daily life.

Hi Mark,

I know you said the sheep don't fall away. My point was that they do. a person could not fall away if they weren't one of the sheep to begin with.

Jesus said "All that the Father has given me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." What does this mean to you Butch?

 

[smaller]

You're only hearing what you want to hear.

Jude says they were destroyed. You say they were saved. Jude does not name Moses or Aaron. No need to go there. You go there anyway.

The scriptures say they did not enter the promised land because of unbelief and died before entering because of same.

You are welcome to continue to disregard that fact of text.

Numbers 20:12
And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Jude says the same thing.

Clear enough to me.

s

No he doesn't. Jude reminds us that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe. Is Jude not stressing the importance of belief here? How on earth do you get unbelief is inconsequential from this?

Uh, because even though Moses and Aaron did not enter the promised land and died in the desert because of UNbelief they were SAVED anyway.

s

 

[George Muller]

even though Moses and Aaron did not enter the promised land and died in the desert because of UNbelief they were SAVED anyway.

True and I enjoy that when some cannot find a list of rules to bind around a believers neck, they turn to trying to condemn other believers by the standard that some might have an "unsaving" level of faith. These same people have no doubt struggled at times with faith, but they grant themselves unlimited mercy for their unbelief, but try to establish some standard for other believers to judge their salvation. None of them keep the royal law, none of them grant to others the mercy they allow for their own weaknesses. Love your brother as yourself, never really enters their mind, its just another scripture to challenge the salvation of another believer. How far are these people from knowing God?

 

[chessman]

Eternal is an adjective describing the life. It’s not saying how long one has the life.

Also adjectives are; short. A short life. or Long, a long life. But the adjective eternal describes that life to be, well... eternal.

That which was from the beginning (i.e. Jesus), which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (i.e. Jesus)— (1 John 1:1-2 ESV)
​

John’s saying Jesus never dies, even though He was crucified. I get it. I don’t get your point. Jesus said His sheep have (present tense) eternal life. The sheep’s life (obviously spiritually speaking) is like Jesus’ life in that respect. I cannot figure out if I’m being thick-headed or you areJ I just don't get what you are saying here, I guess.

The context is the thief and the robber snatching someone from God’s hand. I agree this cannot happen. But again, Jesus isn’t addressing one walking away.

So if Jesus isn’t even talking about someone walking away and no robber/thief is powerful enough to “snatch†a sheep, then that doesn’t leave any other option than the sheep remain inside the pen.

How is Paul using the word seal? How were they sealed, what is the seal? This is one of those times an historical understanding comes into play

I’m supposed to understand that’s an argument against OSAS? Cause it’s not.

1 Peter 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
​

The OSAS argument is not about God’s ability, it’s about man’s faithfulness.

I quote you a passage an underline God’s power and you tell me that passage is not about God’s ability. Now, I do know who’s confused here.

How are they being kept, is it not “through Faith�

Yes. God’s faith and man’s faith which is a gift from God (Holy Spirit). Howevr, that does not negate the power of God to “guard†our faith and/or our salvation.

 

[dadof10]

You've not made a Biblical case for your point #2. and there's biblical evidence against your assertion. Paul was saved, yet still the “chief among sinnersâ€, for just on example.

I think I need to clarify what "backslide" means to me. It doesn't mean when a Christian commits a sin. It means living in sin. It means returning to a previously sinful life, the way a person lived before conversion. It means if there is belief, it's rudimentary at best, it's belief in Jesus, but not to the point of living any different than before. I'm not married to the term "backslide". You can use whatever term you want. Maybe "apostatize" is more accurate.

You may say you don't know anyone like this, but I have known several. Most of them, when asked, said they consider themselves "saved", because...here it comes...they were justified by the "blood of Christ by faith alone". It's a past event that was given them by grace and ...."IT CAN NEVER BE LOST, I didn't earn it by my works, so I can't lose it by my works". Sound familiar? It should, I have seen it posted here at least three times. This is why I consider the doctrine of OSAS so heinous, almost as rotten as Calvin's double predestination, it gives a FALSE SENSE of security.

I actually agree with your point #1. But I don’t see how that “destroys†OSAS.

OK, so you agree that "It is possible to outwardly prove to others that you are really, truly saved."

If a person who has outwardly proved to others that he is really, truly saved then apostatizes, as I have described above, what would you say about this person?

You couldn't say "he was never saved to begin with", because he has PROVED his true faith. You couldn't say he is still saved, because he is not PROVING his salvation by his deeds, he is living contrary to the Gospel. The only other option is he WAS saved and LOST that "true faith".

I started to respond to your post point-by-point, but I want to stop right here and ask you how I'm logically wrong? If I'm not, then OSAS is false.