Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS)!

[Grappler]

Yeah, He did give us a brain, does a person have to be unborn to die? I've already shown the use of John 6 is out of context.

You have shown that you don't understand scripture very well. You take a simple easy to understand statement by Jesus and make it complicated because it doesn't agree with YOUR belief system.

Does a person have to be unborn to die?

Are you aware that to be unborn is to have never been? If you know this then you should be able to find the answer that you seek grasshopper.

 

[Grappler]

Is the man in the photo your hero?

Yes.

Cool. Is he saved?

At first I thought no. But after reading through various threads in this forum, who am I to judge?

Why would you think no? What did he do to make you think that he was not saved? After all if he is your hero and you are a Christian maybe he should be a Christian as well....just saying.

 

[Guest]

Many have a big problem with the term "losing salvation".
How about "forfeiting salvation" or "rejecting salvation"?
Perhaps these terms are more explanatory, i.e. make more sense.

Yeah, makes sense to apostates who were never born again to begin with. To a born again christian, it makes their stomach churn. A born again christian is thinking in their head, why in the world would we forfeit our salvation and not do the good works of Christ when it's already been done in the blood of Christ for us. Salvation and grace is a gift, but running the race is the test.

 

[dadof10]

If so, Abraham was justified three times. Isn't that an example of justification being a process, not a one time event?

dadof10, I am not sure what biblical texts you could be referring to to suggest that Abraham was justified three times. I would be interested in a reply on this. What 3 different times of justification could you be referring to in Abraham's life?

Nevertheless, the only way to determine if any references speaka one justification or a continuous process would be the grammar and context. Would you not agree that interpretation begins with the grammar and context?

If we look at the grammar of one of the verb justification in one the texts (Romans 4:3), that text would be difficult to make justification a process. The reason it would be difficult in Romans 4:3 is that the verb for justification in that verse is found in the Aorist passive case. If it spoke of a process it would have a present tense ending.

Now the verb in verse 5 "reckoned" or "imputed" is present tense. The word "justified" in verse 5 is not a verb, but a participle.

Certainly Abraham did not experience initial justification at baptism, nor circumcision. He was never baptized, and while he was justified in Genesis 15, he was not circumcised until Genesis 17:10.

Abraham was justified in Gen. 12. Heb. 11:8 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."

I'm sure you'll agree this was a "saving faith". This is referencing Gen 12:

"Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."
4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him...

6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him."

It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God. It was faith in the promises of descendents and the land that justified Abraham, just like in Gen. 15. As Paul said, Abraham was justified (reckoned righteous) by his faith in Gen. 15, and this is the same faith he had in Gen. 12. He had faith in the promise of descendants, blessings and the promise of the land in both instances. If he was justified in Gen. 15, he was justified before that in Gen. 12.

Now the use of the verb "justified" is found in the present tense in James 2:24, but that context speaks not of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but it speaks of the the man who claims "I have faith." Is he just in making that claim. Of course it is works that "justify" the man in verse 18 who says "I will show you my faith by my works." So verse 24 says the man in verse 18 is just in his claim. This is of course not a reference to the doctrine of sola fide.

We have been over and over James and the word "justified" here. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your exegesis, and think that it is BLATANTLY obvious that James means "reckoned righteous" by "justified" in James 2.

So we don't get bogged down in James, yet again, I will grant the point (for the sake of argument) that James is off the table. I'll change my original point that Abraham was justified TWICE, because it still makes my point that justification is a process and Abraham is an example of this.

Well, give my regards to your 10 kids!! Any grandchildren yet?

Yes, but only three. The other kids need to get busy...

 

[dadof10]

Is the man in the photo your hero?

The Woman in my avatar is my hero...and, yes, I'm pretty confident she is saved.

 

[Butch5]

Yeah, He did give us a brain, does a person have to be unborn to die? I've already shown the use of John 6 is out of context.

You have shown that you don't understand scripture very well. You take a simple easy to understand statement by Jesus and make it complicated because it doesn't agree with YOUR belief system.

Does a person have to be unborn to die?

yes ,spiritually speaking. Your question is the same as Nicodemus. Do we have to go back to the womb to be born again?

No it's not. Does a person have to be unborn to die? It's either yes or no. Before a person dies do they begin to grow smaller to the stage of an infant? Obviously not, thus your statement was a non sequitur.

 

[Butch5]

Yeah, He did give us a brain, does a person have to be unborn to die? I've already shown the use of John 6 is out of context.

You have shown that you don't understand scripture very well. You take a simple easy to understand statement by Jesus and make it complicated because it doesn't agree with YOUR belief system.

Does a person have to be unborn to die?

Are you aware that to be unborn is to have never been? If you know this then you should be able to find the answer that you seek grasshopper.

I'm not seeking an answer, just showing you statement was a fallacy.

 

[Grappler]

Is the man in the photo your hero?

The Woman in my avatar is my hero...and, yes, I'm pretty confident she is saved.

I didn't ask...but thanks for the information. Who is she?

 

[Grappler]

Does a person have to be unborn to die?

Are you aware that to be unborn is to have never been? If you know this then you should be able to find the answer that you seek grasshopper.

I'm not seeking an answer, just showing you statement was a fallacy.

'just showing you statement was a fallacy'....what??lol You asked me a question and now you say you were not seeking an answer...you showed me nothing....try again.

 

[Guest]

n/a

 

[dadof10]

Is the man in the photo your hero?

The Woman in my avatar is my hero...and, yes, I'm pretty confident she is saved.

I didn't ask...but thanks for the information. Who is she?

Jesus' mom.

 

[dadof10]

Concerning the term "earned" I think we need to be careful not to talk past each other. I am using the term "earned" in a way in which many similar verbs would be fine. We could say "deserved." Many other terms could be used. In the background of my comments are concepts of Grace. Of course Roman Catholics see the necessity of the Grace of God. Reformed people go a little further... we see the all sufficiency of the grace of God. Of course we use the term "sola gratia" (grace alone) to describe the sufficiency of Grace. One of the things I observe is that those who deny OSAS have a similarity in their thinking.

Well, to be accurate, isn't it true you believe "sola-gratia per sola-fide"? Catholics hold "sola-gratia".

Just so we are on the same page, here is a concise explanation of the Catholic doctrine of merit. Note that Grace ALWAYS precedes meritorious acts.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/merit-catholic-doctrine-vs-caricature.html

I have much on this and related subjects in my papers on Justification and Salvation. Here is some more relevant information to consider:

• The Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.), accepted as dogma by the Catholic Church, dogmatically taught in its Canon 7:
  
  • If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5]
  
  Likewise, the ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter 5, Decree on Justification:
  
  • 
    . . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
  
  Canon I on Justification:
  
  • 
    If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
  
  The existence of a measure of human free will in order for man to cooperate with God's grace does not reduce inevitably and necessarily to Semi-Pelagianism, as Luther, Calvin, and present-day Calvinists wrongly charge. The Catholic view is a third way. Our "meritorious actions" are always necessarily preceded and caused and crowned and bathed in God's enabling grace. But this doesn't wipe out our cooperation, which is not intrinsically meritorious in the sense that it derives from us and not God . . . Second Orange again:
  
  • 
    The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.
  
  Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott describes the Catholic view:
  
  • 
    As God's grace is the presupposition and foundation of supernatural good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man.{Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 (orig. 1952), p.264}
  
  St. Augustine wrote:
  
  • 
    What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?{Ep. 194,5,19; in Ott, p.265}
    The Lord has made Himself a debtor, not by receiving, but by promising. Man cannot say to Him, "Give back what thou hast received" but only "Give what thou hast promised."
    {Enarr. in Ps 83,16; in Ott, p.267}
  
  The concept of merit and its corollary reward is well-supported in Scripture: Mt 5:12, 19:17,21,29, 25:21, 25:34 ff., Lk 6:38, Rom 2:6, 1 Cor 3:8, 9:17, Col 3:24, Heb 6:10, 10:35, 11:6, 2 Tim 4:8, Eph 6:8.

Take for instance Jethro Bodine in this thread. Would you not see the similarity between him and you? Would you not see the similarity between those who deny OSAS. Is not Jethro's position, rather close to Roman Catholic Theology? Is not Jethro's gospel quite Roman Catholic? I am interested in your opinion on this.

No. From what he has said on this thread, I can see how you would come to this conclusion, but we have been 'round-and-'round on this very subject on other threads, and he does not hold the Catholic position. I'll let him speak for himself, if he chooses, but briefly, he thinks that justification and salvation are totally different; that you CAN lose salvation, but NOT justification and that justification is a one-time event. Anyway, he can fill in the blanks if he wants.

Concerning the illustrations you gave above. I would suggest that we might be quibbling about choice of words and there is little substance to the differences. As I mentioned, the concepts of earned, deserved, or some sort of merit is the issue, not the exact word "earned." I am speaking of the all sufficiency of Grace. Certainly if your son cleans your garage, there is a sense in which he deserves a reward. He has been a "good" boy. If you fix your mothers toilet, you merit your mothers love. That would be being a good son.

Can you think of an action that a person can do for another person that would NOT "merit" or "deserve" or "earn" or whatever? Certainly a person can help another without expecting recompense or earning a wage. This is, again, the difference between our views. Your tradition looks at our relationship with God as primarily a legal one, ours looks at the relationship as familial.

I think sometimes our two sides talk by each other and the reason is simple. We look at justification as familial, you look at it as legal. I have read so many commentaries by well meaning OSAS adherents that mention primarily the legal side of justification/salvation and ignore the familial relationship aspect altogether. IMHO, our relationship with Christ should be looked at primarily as a family relationship. After all, the most beautiful words in the Bible might just be the last four words of 1John 3:1: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are."

I am not sure how you are putting things together here. I am not sure I am grasping all of what you are saying above. Also, I am not sure if you are just suggesting that the issue is one of emphasis, or one in which you would deny that justification has a forensic aspect. In my past, I always understood Roman Catholics as understanding justification as "infused righteousness" and not a legal declaration. Your using different language that has more the feel of N.T.Wright, who is Church of England.

Then that's another one NT Wright got wright.

It is more than emphasis. As you said above, we look at righteousness as "infused", that the sinner REALLY BECOMES righteous, as a person REALLY BECOMES a son or daughter through adoption. You look at it as "imputed", that the sinner is DECLARED righteous, not really made righteous. Declared, as in a courtroom.

Concerning justification. I do not know which commentaries you have read. So I cannot speak to that. I would be very interested in what you read. Any chance you can point to any specific commentaries?

I don't really read commentaries, just books on the subject. Bob Sungenis, Scott Hahn and Chesterton, to name a few.

Cont...

 

[dadof10]

I do recognize that in the language of the scriptures, the term righteous (noun form), or just (verb form) has a range of meaning and uses in the scriptures. The terms can be used in a general sense, not in reference to the doctrine of justification, or it can be used in a technical forensic sense to speak of the Pauline doctrine of justification. When the context uses the term in a general sense, I would still not grasp what you could mean by "familial." The term in those contexts often means to "make righteous" without any specific forensic sense. On the other hand, some of the Pauline contexts point to a specific forensic concept that refer to the doctrine of justification. Take for instance:
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Notice the legal language in the context. The term "charge" speaks of a prosecution lawyer making an accusation or change in a courtroom setting. In verse 34 we again have the term "condemneth."

I should mention that Paul is not the only one to use the term "justification" in a forensic sense. Its that Paul is the one who uses the term in a forensic sense and connects it to the doctrine of justification. Another context in which the term has a forensic context is Exodus 23:7
Exo 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the justice due to thy poor in his cause.
Exo 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
Exo 23:8 And thou shalt take no bribe: for a bribe blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
Courtroom language is all over the context here. Verse 6 is parallel with verse 7. Bribes given in a courtroom setting would "justify' the wicked. There is, however, a huge difference between the use of the term in Ex 23:7 and the use in Romans 8:33. In Exodus 23:7 the context is all about a courtroom setting. The doctrine of justification is not what Moses is talking about in Exodus. Moses is giving a law code for the nation of Israel. Romans is merely using the term "justify" in a forensic sense to speak of the NT doctrine of justification.

Taking Exodus first, God's relationship with the Jews was more of a legal one in the Old Covenant. If they kept the LAW, they were blessed, if they BROKE THE LAW, they were cursed. This is the concept Paul was teaching against. Now, in the New Covenant, ALL mankind is brought into a family relationship with God through His Son. This is the main thrust of most things in his letters. He is trying to get the Jewish converts out of this legal mindset, which was from the OT, and into the mindset of a family.

Now, you are right about Romans 8:33-34. It does connote a legalism, because Paul is talking about actual secular courts, not the "Judgement Seat of God".

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Paul is encouraging those who are being persecuted by the secular authorities. This is the context. The "who is he that condemneth" is a direct reference to secular courts. I do think the word "justify" has a legal connotation, but, concerning our standing before God, it is blatantly obvious that, to Paul, it is more accurate to call Him "our Father" than "our Judge", even though He's both.

As far as the Scriptural proof for a familial relationship, there is plenty, I'm sure you'll agree. Just look at the language of Romans 8.

In the following verses, Paul ties justification directly to our "sonship".

"Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith." (Gal. 3)

"Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants -- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations" -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist." (Rom. 4)

"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another;
4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace andbecome heirs in hope of eternal life." (Ti. 3)

"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

4 1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; 2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir." (Gal. 3-4)

As you can see, Paul ties justification (righteousness) directly to a familial relationship, not a legal one. Again, this is where our two traditions split. One view is legal, the other familial.

Dadof10, I know some of my above discussion is only a small brief glimpse of what is involved in a discussion on justification. We both know there is so much more. Thanks for your comments. It is always good to talk to you.

You, too, Mondar.