James 2 And OSAS

[Guest]

 

[farouk]

Psalm 23 - "Surely goodness and love and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life. Ans I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever and ever and ever".
Sounds like OSAS to me.

 

[francisdesales]

"MY theory?" OSAS was around a lot longer than me. The foundational basis is thousands of years old.

Where? Who? Again, which Christian writer from the first millenium taught such a thing that is "so obvious" to you? Men who had memorized the Bible don't seem to agree with you...

The scripture sets for the position have long been in place FD.

s

I'm afraid the Scripture say no such thing. Of course, no Church Father said anything to that effect either. Apparently, men with no axe to grind vs future OSAS Protestants didn't see it. Universally and unanimously. That is a powerful statement against the entire NEW idea.

Now, to explain, Salvation meaning freedom from sin - that is a free gift given to man, and that gift is available to all. That event of the past cannot be "taken away", NOR can one say "it never happened"... For if one DID, that invalidates the entire premise of OSAS!

Of course, it doesn't follow that one will persevere in that freely given gift, as countless Scriptures relate. The problem is that OSAS conflate two events into one - initial salvation with an automatic reward in eternal heaven. The Bible clearly speaks over and over again about those who were once righteous and turn to wickedness will not enter the Kingdom. Judgment is not based upon a freely given gift, but upon a reward promised to those whom are judged worthy based upon what they do in life. Clearly, there are two different standards - one is a gift entirely dependent upon God, the other depends IN PART upon the free will of the individual.

 

[chessman]

Paul pretty much ends the debate.

11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan. (1Ti 5:1 KJV)

Paul ends the debate about young widows typical desire to find another husband. But here, he's in no way talking about losing salvation by "wax wanton" that you highlight. You should consult other translations and a concordance for that word. It has nothing to do with losing one's salvation. Nor does the word "damnation" mean what you think it does here.

11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.

Paul in Romans knows how to discuss salvation and damnation. In 1 Tim 5, he's talking about young widows sex drive!

Now that's funny that you'd use this passage for OSAS.

 

[jasoncran]

Psalm 23 - "Surely goodness and love and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life. Ans I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever and ever and ever".
Sounds like OSAS to me.

oddly that a man of the law like david would be so ignorant that in Ezekiel (which he didn't know but it also likely taught by the sages and rabbis) that god respected those that remained faithful. I believe the verse is in chapter 18.

 

[MarkT]

There is a common form of blindness in the non-OSAS pack that automatically equates believers being blinded or taken captive again by Satan to mean:

A. God in Christ left them

B. God in Christ will burn them alive forever or eternally kill them

If they are teaching wrongdoing, what do you think they deserve?

God would not need to shorten the days. Why would God need to shorten the days if OSAS is true?

See above. If a believer falls in this present life it does not equate to an automatic hell sentence even if they die in unbelief.

John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Of course branches need water. The water we thirst for is the word of God. If a man rejects the word of God, the lack of water naturally results in death. The branch withers, and there is nothing left to do but to throw it into the fire.

A waterless spring is someone who has no knowledge or understanding. Polluted water is water that has become undrinkable, harmful, destructive. I don't see anything particularly harmful or destructive about your theology.

Even enemies of the Gospel are saved as it pertains to blinded Israel (SEE ROMANS 11:25-30). How much more a fallen faith warrior.

And let's face another fact about the so called 'fallen.' A LOT of them simply leave the churches because they can't stand the falsehoods being promoted, the divisions, the manipulations and the constant hypocrisy, etc etc..

Such are often only 'fallen' in the eyes of 'specific doctrinal sectarians.' Most denominationalists see other believers as fallen.

s

I believe you. But they are not fallen in my eyes or the eyes of God. If they continue to believe Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God and they keep his commandments the fire will not touch them and they will be saved from the wrath of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Psalm 23 - "Surely goodness and love and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life. Ans I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever and ever and ever".
Sounds like OSAS to me.

oddly that a man of the law like david would be so ignorant that in Ezekiel (which he didn't know but it also likely taught by the sages and rabbis) that god respected those that remained faithful. I believe the verse is in chapter 18.

You got it:

"24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. 25 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. " (Ezekiel 18:24-26 NASB)

I was hesitant to use this passage in this discussion because it immediately gets assigned to what many call the "time of works salvation" (the law) and, therefore, inapplicable today (which I don't agree with--the 'works salvation' part--but that's another subject). But you've used it as a good rebuttal to the Psalm 23 defense of OSAS.

 

[farouk]

Psalm 23 - "Surely goodness and love and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life. Ans I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever and ever and ever".
Sounds like OSAS to me.

oddly that a man of the law like david would be so ignorant that in Ezekiel (which he didn't know but it also likely taught by the sages and rabbis) that god respected those that remained faithful. I believe the verse is in chapter 18.

You got it:

"24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. 25 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. " (Ezekiel 18:24-26 NASB)

I was hesitant to use this passage in this discussion because it immediately gets assigned to what many call the "time of works salvation" (the law) and, therefore, inapplicable today (which I don't agree with--the 'works salvation' part--but that's another subject). But you've used it as a good rebuttal to the Psalm 23 defense of OSAS.

You guys lose me.

Instead of Reformed theology, I tend to read passages such as Psalm 23 as sources of great assurance to the believer. I guess my mind is too simple to do anything else.

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Of course branches need water. The water we thirst for is the word of God. If a man rejects the word of God, the lack of water naturally results in death. The branch withers, and there is nothing left to do but to throw it into the fire.

A waterless spring is someone who has no knowledge or understanding. Polluted water is water that has become undrinkable, harmful, destructive. I don't see anything particularly harmful or destructive about your theology.

I see the 'sap' of the branches as being the Holy Spirit, but the point is true nevertheless. Fruitless branches that don't have the life of the root in it are burned, not somehow preserved despite their fruitlessness.

It echoes James' teaching that the 'faith' that does not produce fruit is the faith that can not save. But OSAS effectively dismisses Jesus' and James' teaching and says it doesn't matter if your faith is fruitless...just as long as you have a claim to faith signified by the branch in Jesus' teaching, and by one who makes a claim of faith in James' teaching.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

oddly that a man of the law like david would be so ignorant that in Ezekiel (which he didn't know but it also likely taught by the sages and rabbis) that god respected those that remained faithful. I believe the verse is in chapter 18.

You got it:

"24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. 25 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. " (Ezekiel 18:24-26 NASB)

I was hesitant to use this passage in this discussion because it immediately gets assigned to what many call the "time of works salvation" (the law) and, therefore, inapplicable today (which I don't agree with--the 'works salvation' part--but that's another subject). But you've used it as a good rebuttal to the Psalm 23 defense of OSAS.

You guys lose me.

Instead of Reformed theology, I tend to read passages such as Psalm 23 as sources of great assurance to the believer. I guess my mind is too simple to do anything else.

Blessings.

I'm thinking your mind is not fully educated.

How is it you do not see the sound rebuttal to the Psalms 23 defense of OSAS? It is said by OSAS that David is saying he is saved forever...that nothing can change the 'forever' of his salvation. But the very teaching of the old covenant--the time of the law David is in--says former righteousness will not be remembered if you return to your unrighteousness. It's impossible that David would not be in agreement with Ezekiel.

Paul says, "Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory." (Hebrews 3:6 NIV). (Reread the Psalm 23 quote if you're not seeing the connection.) But OSAS says David was dwelling in God's house forever no matter what. That's not what the prophet, or Paul, says.

Hey, I'm just putting it out there. The Bible says what it says. It's amazing how indoctrinations can close the eyes to the plain words of scripture. I say that with lots of compassion and understanding. I've been vicitmized by them to. I know how they work. What really helped me see how powerful they are is when David Jeremiah (I think it was) was literally showing a verse of scripture that DIRECTLY contradicted the claim of a Jehovah's witness to a Jehovah's witness, yet they continued to see what they were so sure was true in their doctrine. That woke me up and helped me see how I was guilty of doing that, too, in regard to the things I believed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I must throw this in because it really is directly in line with the OP's point. I'm simply echoing his and other's thoughts in my own words, more or less:

A big problem with thinking that the fruitless person who was once fruitful, but who now is not, was never saved to begin with is that even if they do come back to fruitfulness they still don't have the assurance of OSAS it claims it has.

In OSAS it's said that to fail is to show you were never really saved to begin with. So if the fruitfulness they had before really didn't signify salvation, how is it that they can take some kind of OSAS assurance of a forever, irreversible salvation from their fruitfulness now? If it didn't prove the truth of OSAS before, why should it now? So I see the merit in saying OSAS is actually the doctrine that has less assurance of salvation in it.

Me and dadof10 don't see eye to eye on much, but if he or anyone else of his doctrinal persuasion says something that's obviously true or has merit to it I'm getting on board with that truth. Why can't we all do that?

 

[farouk]

I'm thinking your mind is not fully educated.

How is it you do not see the sound rebuttal to the Psalms 23 defense? It is said by OSAS that David is saying he is saved forever...that nothing can change the 'forever' of his salvation. But the very teaching of the old covenant--the time of the law David is in--says former righteousness will not be remembered if you return to your unrighteousness. It's impossible that David would not be in agreement with Ezekiel.

Paul says, "Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory." (Hebrews 3:6 NIV). (Reread the Psalm 23 quote if you're not seeing the connection.) But OSAS says David was dwelling in God's house forever no matter what. That's not what the prophet, or Paul, says.

Hey, I'm just putting it out there. The Bible says what it says. It's amazing how indoctrinations can close the eyes to the plain words of scripture. I say that with lots of compassion and understanding. I've been vicitmized by them to. I know how they work. What really helped me see how powerful they are is when David Jeremiah (I think it was) was literally showing a verse of scripture that DIRECTLY contradicted the claim of a Jehovah's witness, yet they continued to see what they were so sure was true in their doctrine. That woke me up and helped me see how I was guilty of doing that, too, in regard to the things I believed.

Jethro:

Okay, so in the light of my inadequacies, I wonder if you could explain this to me?

First of all, there seem to be some precious promises in Psalm 23, for those with a simple trust in the Lord; (while Old Testament saints saw afar off the coming sacrifice of Christ, the New Testament believer looks back to the Cross). Either way, the assurance and peace that passages such as Psalm 23 have given to many simple saints down the years seem to be striking.

Then, the P of TULIP referring to the Perseverance of the Saints, in Calvinist theology, is often referred to as a logical proposition; but isn't it an irony that many of those who refer to this Biblical truth which should in fact give a lot of assurance about the eternal security of the believer, are also often so taken up with law-keeping (it often being so emphatic in Reformed theology) that they themselves not unusually struggle with assurance, and so often feel compelled to keep asking, what more by way of law-keeping can I do? Don't you find this somewhat ironic?

It's a pity that the P of TULIP doesn't seem to do them the good than its apparent subject matter would suggest it should.

My simple two cents', anyway.

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And as a note, jason, I think Ezekiel, who came after David as you point out, was actually making a reference to the law of Moses if I remember correctly. I'll check it out.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm thinking your mind is not fully educated.

How is it you do not see the sound rebuttal to the Psalms 23 defense? It is said by OSAS that David is saying he is saved forever...that nothing can change the 'forever' of his salvation. But the very teaching of the old covenant--the time of the law David is in--says former righteousness will not be remembered if you return to your unrighteousness. It's impossible that David would not be in agreement with Ezekiel.

Paul says, "Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory." (Hebrews 3:6 NIV). (Reread the Psalm 23 quote if you're not seeing the connection.) But OSAS says David was dwelling in God's house forever no matter what. That's not what the prophet, or Paul, says.

Hey, I'm just putting it out there. The Bible says what it says. It's amazing how indoctrinations can close the eyes to the plain words of scripture. I say that with lots of compassion and understanding. I've been vicitmized by them to. I know how they work. What really helped me see how powerful they are is when David Jeremiah (I think it was) was literally showing a verse of scripture that DIRECTLY contradicted the claim of a Jehovah's witness, yet they continued to see what they were so sure was true in their doctrine. That woke me up and helped me see how I was guilty of doing that, too, in regard to the things I believed.

Jethro:

Okay, so in the light of my inadequacies, I wonder if you could explain this to me?

First of all, there seem to be some precious promises in Psalm 23, for those with a simple trust in the Lord; (while Old Testament saints saw afar off the coming sacrifice of Christ, the New Testament believer looks back to the Cross). Either way, the assurance and peace that passages such as Psalm 23 have given to many simple saints down the years seem to be striking.

Then, the P of TULIP referring to the Perseverance of the Saints, in Calvinist theology, is often referred to as a logical proposition; but isn't it an irony that many of those who refer to this Biblical truth which should in fact give a lot of assurance about the eternal security of the believer, are also often so taken up with law-keeping (it often being so emphatic in Reformed theology) that they themselves not unusually struggle with assurance, and so often feel compelled to keep asking, what more by way of law-keeping can I do? Don't you find this somewhat ironic?

It's a pity that the P of TULIP doesn't seem to do them the good than its apparent subject matter would suggest it should.

My simple two cents', anyway.

Blessings.

Excellent.

I'm heading to bed so I can get up in the morning, so I really shouldn't stay up late with this, but I will pick this up tomorrow. This is the kind of honest, thoughtful discussion I enjoy in these forums. You're providing some good material for us to mine the truths of this subject.

 

[MarkT]

John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Of course branches need water. The water we thirst for is the word of God. If a man rejects the word of God, the lack of water naturally results in death. The branch withers, and there is nothing left to do but to throw it into the fire.

A waterless spring is someone who has no knowledge or understanding. Polluted water is water that has become undrinkable, harmful, destructive. I don't see anything particularly harmful or destructive about your theology.

I see the 'sap' of the branches as being the Holy Spirit, but the point is true nevertheless. Fruitless branches that don't have the life of the root in it are burned, not somehow preserved despite their fruitlessness.

It echoes James' teaching that the 'faith' that does not produce fruit is the faith that can not save. But OSAS effectively dismisses Jesus' and James' teaching and says it doesn't matter if your faith is fruitless...just as long as you have a claim to faith signified by the branch in Jesus' teaching, and by one who makes a claim of faith in James' teaching.

What is the fruit of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control. God desires mercy. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Judge not and you won't be judged. How does their faith dismiss the fruit of the Spirit? I'd say they have a pretty strong argument that their faith in God will save them.

The question is, if a man falls into unbelief, can his belief be restored. The characteristic taste of Christianity is the belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said salt that has lost its taste can not be restored. So I don't agree with OSAS. But that's just a gnat. As for James, I believe he is talking about acts of kindness, mercy, forgiveness. I don't think OSAS says anything against kindness and mercy. There are other issues I have with their theology. They see themselves as his sheep. I would argue his sheep keep his commandments.

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

 

[Butch5]

Right..."once you have accepted His Son".



The scriptures I posted say you must maintain that acceptance to the end in order to be saved. The scriptures plainly say you can't stop accepting the Son and expect to be saved in the end.





Since I'm coming at this from the Protestant perspective I can quickly see the failure of your thinking here. This ISN'T about acting foolishly or immature. But 'works salvation' is automatically heard by OSAS proponents when you try to explain to them how it is your faith must continue to the end.

This is about deciding NOT to trust in the blood of Christ anymore for the forgiveness of sins. And end of faith. How is it reasonable that I had to trust in the blood to receive salvation but I don't have to continue to trust in the blood to stay in that salvation?

Jethro,

IMHO it is very simple. Paul is saying even if you stop believing He will not withhold The lesser....HE WILL NOT WITHHOLD IT. There is nothing a creature can do to get out of their salvation. The creature would have to defeat God Himself to get "unsaved"

.

That flies in the face of so many passages of Scripture. If that were the case don't you think you'd be able to find at least "One" verse of Scripture that says so?

We are going over "one" of those verses.

Honestly Butch, I don't get how you have even the young widows that want to get married again and "set aside Christ" going to the Lake of fire in your theology.

What is casting off faith in Christ and turning aside after Satan? Do you believe one can do this and be saved?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How is it you do not see the sound rebuttal to the Psalms 23 defense of OSAS? It is said by OSAS that David is saying he is saved forever...that nothing can change the 'forever' of his salvation. But the very teaching of the old covenant--the time of the law David is in--says former righteousness will not be remembered if you return to your unrighteousness. It's impossible that David would not be in agreement with Ezekiel.

"Surely goodness and love and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life..."

Doesn't this echo Davids' belief that God will be there for him forever?
This is part of his eternal security, believing and trusting in God.
If you have this kind of faith then the fruits of the Spirit will be evident and the results of that will be noticeable good works.
I think James 2 is questioning if these people are actually saved.
They say "oh I believe in Jesus" but even the devil does that.
James is saying, "show me something".

 

[Butch5]

Paul pretty much ends the debate.

11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan. (1Ti 5:1 KJV)

Paul ends the debate about young widows typical desire to find another husband. But here, he's in no way talking about losing salvation by "wax wanton" that you highlight. You should consult other translations and a concordance for that word. It has nothing to do with losing one's salvation. Nor does the word "damnation" mean what you think it does here.

11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.

Paul in Romans knows how to discuss salvation and damnation. In 1 Tim 5, he's talking about young widows sex drive!

Now that's funny that you'd use this passage for OSAS.

Hi Chessman,

It's not about salvation? I agree he's talking about their sexual drive. What's the point? The point is that they marry so that they don't sin with their sexual desires. However, he says they cast off their faith in Christ, received, damnation, and followed Satan. If one can follow Satan and be saved I guess all those who reject Christ are going to be saved. I have seen this argument used again and again with this passage by people who support OSAS. It's simply not logical to say that one can reject Christ, follow Satan and be saved.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1Co 6:9 KJV)

 

[smaller]

I'm afraid the Scripture say no such thing.

Any believer who says that obviously has spent either no time whatsoever with the huge amounts of scriptures for both determinism and OSAS or they have a 'sect' agenda that they either don't want to get over or can't get over for whatever reasons.

Of course, no Church Father said anything to that effect either.

Do you really want me to do your homework for you? Seriously?

I usually take it that believers who bother to post know their way around the subject matters. No one who does would make the statements above unless they want to be provocative.

Your own 'sect' has definitively ruled that exactly zero believers are or will be in the Lake of Fire. Doesn't that alone indicate 'something' to you?

shaking my head.

Apparently, men with no axe to grind vs future OSAS Protestants didn't see it. Universally and unanimously. That is a powerful statement against the entire NEW idea.

Trying to float phony balloons aren't going anywhere with me fd, other than to show very poor methods of communications.

Now, to explain, Salvation meaning freedom from sin - that is a free gift given to man, and that gift is available to all.

I listed to you specifically the numerous associations of what salvation is and means. It is certainly not a matter limited to 'your construct only.' That is also why scriptures themselves are far far more Superior than any limited set work that tries to boil these things down to some denominational package.

And if you think you are debating against the OSAS position because determinism means what Calvinism means you are again wasting your breath as I don't adhere to that type of determinism nor do many 'famous' reformed determinists. Unfortunately we just can not have an encompassing dialog on the matters in this forum. But the 'better' theologians, again, just as the ones that run in your pack, have determined exactly no believer in or on their assured way to the Lake of Fire.

Do you know why that is fd?

Don't be ashamed to say you don't know why. I know you don't know why. But surprise me. Of anything in this post, just try to address this one single matter please.

That event of the past cannot be "taken away", NOR can one say "it never happened"... For if one DID, that invalidates the entire premise of OSAS!

And you think that statement somehow rubs out OSAS how??? If we are having a conversation based on reason and reasoning abilities, it is reasonable to request a poster to connect the dots that bounce around in their own heads in an seemingly unconnected way by another viewer.

Of course, it doesn't follow that one will persevere in that freely given gift, as countless Scriptures relate.

I've never denied that a believer can fall in this present life. We ALL do.

Your presumption is that salvation is based on us. That kind of foundation was always doomed to fail and was never meant to be the basis of eternal salvation.

Our Eternal Foundation is on none but God in Christ, period. There is no other ABLE.

HE IS ABLE.

The problem is that OSAS conflate two events into one - initial salvation with an automatic reward in eternal heaven.

And if you have spent no time reviewing the many scriptures that convey salvation as a present tense matter then you are out of your element.

And if that is not the case, salvation as a present tense matter, then you have entire churches full of unsaved people. To them I say so what? What are you doing? If you or your leaders do not know or believe that salvation is NOW, you have no reason to say you know anything or you are right about anything as it may very well and just as easily be never for everyone of you.

You catching the drift here?

The Bible clearly speaks over and over again about those who were once righteous and turn to wickedness will not enter the Kingdom.

I'm really trying to be patient with you. Please take the time to engage the facts.

A. Yes, believers fall in this present life. All of us do when we SIN for example. That is a form of 'fall/separation.'

B. Some fall into complete blindness and die in same.

C. None of that means God in Christ abandoned a single person.

So if you are basing your kill shot on SIN you are wasting your time because WE ALL SIN.

Unbelief is also a sin.

Judgment is not based upon a freely given gift, but upon a reward promised to those whom are judged worthy based upon what they do in life.

If that is the case again I can only say AGAIN that the threshold level for 'sufficient performances' is quite low.

Remember I pointed you to the 'cup of water' salvation in one of my posts to you shortly. You bypassed it.

Clearly, there are two different standards - one is a gift entirely dependent upon God, the other depends IN PART upon the free will of the individual.

Clearly? If you want to tell me what 'sufficient performances' are knock yourself out.

Tell me and God in Christ what standard you intend to raise in order to march yourself into heaven.

Should be fun....

enjoy!

smaller

 

[smaller]

If they are teaching wrongdoing, what do you think they deserve?

Most good determinists are the ones that quit lying to ourselves and we know that none of us are capable of being good enough for God in Christ to merit our own salvation and that salvation is based entirely upon God in Christ.

So it is not a matter of what 'they' deserve, but what HE HAS DONE.

None of us in and of our own merit 'eternal existence.' IN fact I sincerely hope my eternal life isn't about 'me.' I am not all that interested in eternal habitation with 'me' in my present state. Are you? IF anyone is that in love with themselves what can I say?

John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Of course branches need water. The water we thirst for is the word of God. If a man rejects the word of God, the lack of water naturally results in death. The branch withers, and there is nothing left to do but to throw it into the fire.

If the measure that the non-OSAS crowd wants to use is NO SIN after salvation, then no one is moving on, period.

A waterless spring is someone who has no knowledge or understanding. Polluted water is water that has become undrinkable, harmful, destructive. I don't see anything particularly harmful or destructive about your theology.

I haven't gotten around to it in detail yet in this thread, but there really are other scriptural ways of viewing matters of 'falling' that do not revolve solely around the believers as individual fallen members.

One small example that I gave to open the door to this as a factual discussion was this statement from Paul:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

I am 'overemphasizing' the point above to point out the obvious shortcomings in both sides of these conversations because the notion of OSAS or NON is entirely too simplistic.

Why do I say that? Because in the above example we see PAUL and we also see that in PAUL'S FLESH there is A MESSENGER OF SATAN.

Is the MESSENGER OF SATAN in Paul's flesh OSAS? Assuredly NOT. Yet most fail to account for this fact in their theology and look only at PAUL when for a fact there is another entity to view is there not?

You get the picture here?

Let's say Paul was OSAS. I think we could all agree that as an Apostle we would certainly hope that to be the case.

But that does not address 'all' that Paul was in his fleshly life. There is for no uncertain fact 'another entity' with Paul that Paul RULED AND REIGNED OVER in his life.

Some believers FALL in that battle. Paul himself described himself as the chief sinner after salvation. Do you think Paul was not aware of the 'personal tempter' that was put INTO his flesh? Of course he was! And Paul accounted for that 'entity' openly for us all to view.

So, in the light of this fact, we have to have accurate accounting in order to have accurate theology.

Theology 101.

Even enemies of the Gospel are saved as it pertains to blinded Israel (SEE ROMANS 11:25-30). How much more a fallen faith warrior.

And let's face another fact about the so called 'fallen.' A LOT of them simply leave the churches because they can't stand the falsehoods being promoted, the divisions, the manipulations and the constant hypocrisy, etc etc..

Such are often only 'fallen' in the eyes of 'specific doctrinal sectarians.' Most denominationalists see other believers as fallen.

s

I believe you. But they are not fallen in my eyes or the eyes of God.

If you understand the fact 'in principle' outlined above in brief, then you could take that same principle to fallen/blinded Israel and see in Romans 11 vs. 8 that these blinded fallen of Israel did for a fact have a 'spirit of slumber' put upon them by God.

It is not hard to connect the dot here to the fact that 'another spirit' was upon them CAUSING them to NOT SEE OR HEAR.

That 'spirit' is AN EVIL SPIRIT or should I say there are many such enemies in our present life aka EVIL THOUGHTS. And it causes all kinds of present difficulties.

Gods Word conveys these as NOT US as believers, but BLINDING PRICIPAL PARTIES that are not us, but are DEVILS.

This 'knowledge' has pretty much fallen away from the churches of modernity, but it is quite a secure scriptural fact.

If they continue to believe Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God and they keep his commandments the fire will not touch them and they will be saved from the wrath of God.

Whether they do or not doesn't matter in the 'eternal salvation' tense. We ALL fall in this present life. Mankind in general IS FALLEN and believers also ALL FALL in sin as well. SIN can not be the measure of qualification to eternal entry to heaven.

Paul as a child of God remained so even if he would have lost his battle with his given enemy.

God in Christ never leaves us and DOES NOT abandon His fallen warriors.

s