OSAS....Not !

[Dave...]

Hi thess.

One could say, if you could gain your salvation everyone would. Apparently you are not a universalist. The logic does not follow that if you could loose it everyone would.

It does if we understand that Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5). Why boast, when all of it was given to us (1 Corinthians 4:7). If our salvation relied on just a small mount of our flesh outside of grace, we would all fall short.

Anyone who keeps his eyes fixed on Jesus will in fact not loose their salvation because his grace will uphold them and allow them to persevere to the end.

I agree, and this is the promise (not threat) made in Revelation 3:5. Perseverance is a gift from God, we are held by His power (1 Peter 1:5)

Peter had faith. It says that he was born from above in Matt 16:15-19. Yet he denied the Lord three times. Now Jesus says "if anyone denies me before men I will deny him before my Father" Matt 10:32,33. He even cursed when asked if he knew Jesus. How many times would Peter have had to deny our Lord for Jesus words in Matt 10:32-33. Fortunatley by the grace of God Peter was restored to faith.

Peter was told by Jesus that Satan had ...asked...to sift Him as wheat, Jesus told Peter that He knew that he would deny Him 3 times. But Jesus also said that He would pray for Peter and told Him his faith would not fail and to strengthen the brethren. So "return to me" does not mean regaining salvation, because his faith never failed.

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.
32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."

Paul does not speak as you OSAS types do. He notes that he has to trudge on so that he might not be disqualified from the prize.

No time to list all the scripture that Paul wrote. This was dealt with by someone else. I agree that it has to do with rewards.

In Christ

P.S. Also keep in mind that when speaking of the book of life, that there are two absolutes, those whose names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, and those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundations of the world (Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8). This leaves no room for transfers out from the book, or into the book, after the foundations of the world were layed.

The threat at the end of Revelation is (I believe) is a threat of taking your physical life. The NASB translates that verse as tree of life. In the OT this term could, and did mean in a few places, your physical life.

 

[Dave...]

Once sealed, always sealed :wink:

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[unred typo]

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionâ€â€to the praise of his glory.

Having believed the words of Jesus (i.e. sermon on the mount,; blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy, forgive as you were forgiven, etc. ) we were given the Holy Spirit to bring those words to mind and bring us to repent whenever we unintentionally sin. He writes the word on our hearts and if we confess, he is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us. The Holy Spirit is guaranteed not to leave us or forsake us for as long as we continue in his word, but we are free to grieve him and leave if we are so willful to do that.

Once sealed, always sealed ;)

When you seal a letter it is not to keep it from being opened but to show when it has been broken.

 

[thessalonian]

Let's approach this question of OSAS from a logic standpoint. Is it logical that one can be 100% assured of salvation, which is what OSAS claims?

In other words let's say I believe in the OSAS doctrine. I am 100% sure I am going to heaven, or so I think. Yet I deny that any man can be infallibly certain of his biblical interpretations. Let's say I am 95% sure my interprutation that we can be assured of our salvation is true. Am I 100% assured of my salvation? Sorry, the math does not work. If I were 100% infallible in my interprutations then it would. But since Non-Catholics deny that anything but the bible itself is infallible, they cannot gaurantee OSAS to be true. It is their opinion that it is. I have known people who have believed in OSAS and gone toward falling from grace and vice versa. It seems like 50% sure is closer to the truth. Thus without some sort of infallibility, OSAS is logically false.
:
Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Hi thess.

Hi Dave. :D

It does if we understand that Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5). Why boast, when all of it was given to us (1 Corinthians 4:7). If our salvation relied on just a small mount of our flesh outside of grace, we would all fall short.

I agree but when we do works in Christ grace is working in us so your point is moot.

I agree, and this is the promise (not threat) made in Revelation 3:5. Perseverance is a gift from God, we are held by His power (1 Peter 1:5)

There is no doudt that God will guide those to salvation who are destined for it. They will be saved by his grace. But this does not mean that all in grace are going to be saved. Otherwise it would not say in Galations 3 that they have "fallen from grace". You can't fall from what you weren't in. If grace were irressistable I would say you had a point because the grace would automatically bring about the effect but in Corinthians it says that God will always provide a way out when we are tempted and yet we sin. Thus grace is not irresistable. Perseverence in grace is not guaranteed or there would be no reason for the scirptures to use the phrase "fallen from grace".

Peter was told by Jesus that Satan had ...asked...to sift Him as wheat, Jesus told Peter that He knew that he would deny Him 3 times. But Jesus also said that He would pray for Peter and told Him his faith would not fail and to strengthen the brethren. So "return to me" does not mean regaining salvation, because his faith never failed.


Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.
32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."

This is an interesting point but it falls short. Did Adam totally loose faith when he was cast out of the garden. I think not. Did Cain not believe in God after he killed his brother? I am sure I could site other examples. The scriptures say "faith without works is dead". So one can have faith and still not be in grace. Jesus says "why do you call me Lord" but do not do what I say?" and "not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom, but those who DO the will of my father". Peter denied our Lord three times. How many times I ask again would he have to deny him before the bluff would be called? "when you have turned" implies turned back to Christ. It implies that he had turned away. How do your reconcile Peter's denial's with Jesus words that those who deny him before men he will deny before the father.

Peter had the perfect opportunities to do good works and give glory to God by the fire. He could have simply said "Jesus will die and rise again" and then when he did, those around the fire that night would have given glory to God. But instead he choose to deny God. This is not a grace filled act in the slightest.

No time to list all the scripture that Paul wrote. This was dealt with by someone else. I agree that it has to do with rewards.

In interpreting them you ignore the ones I have listed is the problem.



Blessings

 

[aiki]

Hello, again.

1 Cor 15 speaks of contingent salvation and it is with regard to the Gospel.

1Cor.15
[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.

If is a conditional so one cannot say that Paul does not speak about conditional salvation with regard to the Gospel. Note that they recieved it and must hold to it. The conditional is holding to the Gospel.

Thess, I consulted three different commentaries looking for support of your view: Jamieson, Fawcett, and Brown, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and Matthew Henry's Commentary, and not one of them agrees with your interpretation of the first two verses of 1Corinthians 15. They all suggest that Paul is speaking theoretically about the possibility of believing in vain. They don't believe he is speaking of a real circumstance. Wycliffe Commentary states, "Believed in vain does not indicate loss of salvation as a possibility. The apostle means either that a faith that does not persevere is not true saving faith, or that a faith lodged in a purported resurrection of the Messiah would be groundless if the message of Christ's resurrection were untrue...If Christ was not crucified and resurrected, salvation is impossible."

[16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

Woe? Woe to someone who just looses their reward? They go to heaven? That's not Woe.

Well, apparently, Paul places a much greater value upon his eternal reward than you do. Do you suppose he understands something about it that you don't? :o

unred typo:

The gift of God was the possibility to be forgiven of your sins, not the ability to continue to sin without fear of punishment. Jesus died so you could be perfect in him, but if you don’t obey and follow him, you aren’t in Christ at all, he is not your master and you are yet in your sin.

Were you not dead in trespasses and sins when God saved you? Scripture says you were (Eph. 2:1-11). If God saved you while you were spiritually alienated from Him and an enemy in your mind toward Him by wicked works (Col. 1:21), how can your deeds suddenly become the basis upon which your salvation is maintained? This is like saving a quadraplegic from drowning and then telling him that if he doesn't learn to swim you'll throw him back into the water. Do you really believe that this is the way God operates? I very much hope not!

What is it about fear that appeals to so many Christians? Fear cannot elicit from anyone loving, willing, loyal obedience. Fear as a motive for obedience produces resentment, and hatred and only an outward, begrudging conformity to the rules. Think of prisoners in a jail or POW camp. When the guards are around they toe the line, but when their back is turned all sorts of rebellion goes on among the prisoners. Fear produces partial, superficial obedience, but is the very thing which prevents wholehearted, full obedience!

God would have you obey Him because you love Him. (See 1 John) This is the only motive for obedience God will accept. (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3)

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Excellent post!!! And so very very true. He saved us while we were sinning...he's not going to unsave us for sinning...how dumb!

 

[thessalonian]

Hello, again.

hello.

1 Cor 15 speaks of contingent salvation and it is with regard to the Gospel.

1Cor.15
[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.

If is a conditional so one cannot say that Paul does not speak about conditional salvation with regard to the Gospel. Note that they recieved it and must hold to it. The conditional is holding to the Gospel.

Thess, I consulted three different commentaries looking for support of your view: Jamieson, Fawcett, and Brown, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and Matthew Henry's Commentary, and not one of them agrees with your interpretation of the first two verses of 1Corinthians 15. They all suggest that Paul is speaking theoretically about the possibility of believing in vain. They don't believe he is speaking of a real circumstance. Wycliffe Commentary states, "Believed in vain does not indicate loss of salvation as a possibility. The apostle means either that a faith that does not persevere is not true saving faith, or that a faith lodged in a purported resurrection of the Messiah would be groundless if the message of Christ's resurrection were untrue...If Christ was not crucified and resurrected, salvation is impossible."

So you are a collector of or have access to Bible commentaries written by peope who's superceeding doctrine (i.e. TRADITION) of OSAS biases how they see scripture. I can find 10 Catholic commentaries on the verse that will contradict yours. But you wouldn't accept them and why would I accept your commentaries. However I am sure that if you collected some Lutheran, Armenian, or Anglican commentaries you would find that they don't all agree with yours. So let's let the Bible speak for itself.


1Cor.15
[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.

This verse says:
1) Paul preached the Gospel.
2) They recieved the Gospel.
3) They stand in the Gospel.
4) They believed.

Now it says they are saved IF (conditional) they hold fast. I see nothing that says they didn't really believe. I see nothing that says they weren't performing good works as fruits of their salvation. At face value this verse has to be taken as meaning they must continue to believe and do good works and hold fast to what was preached to them. They are holding fast to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ so how could this possibly be hypothetically about if Christ had not be resurrected. The conditional is not about the possibility that he wasn't resurrected but precisely that he was. Such obvuscation is silly. God does not bluff.

[16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

Woe? Woe to someone who just looses their reward? They go to heaven? That's not Woe
Well, apparently, Paul places a much greater value upon his eternal reward than you do. Do you suppose he understands something about it that you don't? :o .

That's kind of a no answer. He definitely knows something I don't . He knows that he too might be disqualified from all the blessings of the Gospel, including salvation.

1 Cor 9
[26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air;
[27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

He knows that if he falls short of the runway, the consequences are not good and so he keeps his eyes fixed on Christ.

unred typo:

God would have you obey Him because you love Him. (See 1 John) This is the only motive for obedience God will accept. (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3)

You cannot obey him if you do not love him is the truth of the matter. Because you must be in grace. You do not have the strength to obey him on your own. But grace is not irresistable or, since God always gives a way out and yet we sin.

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

Excellent post!!! And so very very true. He saved us while we were sinning...he's not going to unsave us for sinning...how dumb!

Dathan and Korah were saved from the slavery of Egypt only to be swalloed up in the earth along with 10,000 or so others for being disobedient to God. You presume upon God's justice when he gives you the grace to overcome sin. As long as your striving to overcome sin I think you are fine. But OSAS does not motivate growing in holiness. Have you ever even heard the phrase "grow in holiness". Grace is not irresistable and resisting it is not without consequence. God is faithful if we remain faithful, but he cannot deny who he is:

2 Tim 2
[11] The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;
[12] if we endure, we shall also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
[13] if we are faithless, he remains faithful --
for he cannot deny himself.


We must remain faithful and that means striving against sin.

Blessings

 

[Dave...]

Hi thess

I agree but when we do works in Christ grace is working in us so your point is moot.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. I agree, I think, that everything good that comes from us for the Church (i.e. good works) is an undeserved gift from God if that's what you mean, but I don't see how this makes my point moot.

There is no doudt that God will guide those to salvation who are destined for it. They will be saved by his grace. But this does not mean that all in grace are going to be saved. Otherwise it would not say in Galations 3 that they have "fallen from grace". You can't fall from what you weren't in. If grace were irressistable I would say you had a point because the grace would automatically bring about the effect but in Corinthians it says that God will always provide a way out when we are tempted and yet we sin. Thus grace is not irresistable. Perseverence in grace is not guaranteed or there would be no reason for the scirptures to use the phrase "fallen from grace".

What that verse is talking about is falling away from grace as a principal. If you live by the law you have fallen from the principle of grace, no matter if you are saved or not. Hebrews 6:3-6 shows this in action (unregenerate). If you've begun in the Spirit, now you live by the law, Paul says have you become perfected by the flesh?

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

There is also what is known as a common grace, I think that this verse shows that common grace does not effect God's eternal plans He had from the foundations of the world.

Jude 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The scriptures say "faith without works is dead". So one can have faith and still not be in grace.

Faith without works is dead...meaning it is no faith at all, right? Real faith is never separate from God's grace.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Jesus says "why do you call me Lord" but do not do what I say?" and "not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom, but those who DO the will of my father".

Those who don't do the will of the Father are bearing bad fruit. They can call Him Lord, but it doesn't make their faith real, which means that their professed faith was not from grace, but their flesh.

"Faith without works is dead" James went on to say that even the demons believe and tremble. Meaning they knew He was Lord ("Lord, Lord").

Peter denied our Lord three times. How many times I ask again would he have to deny him before the bluff would be called? "when you have turned" implies turned back to Christ. It implies that he had turned away. How do your reconcile Peter's denial's with Jesus words that those who deny him before men he will deny before the father.

A few things to keep in mind here. This is pre Pentecost, so Peter did not have the permanent indwelling of the helper to teach him all things, he was still operating in the OT mode. Second, Peter may have failed being obedient due to his fear, but as Jesus prayed for him, so it was, Peter never lost His faith.

Peter had the perfect opportunities to do good works and give glory to God by the fire. He could have simply said "Jesus will die and rise again" and then when he did, those around the fire that night would have given glory to God. But instead he choose to deny God. This is not a grace filled act in the slightest.

Now you are getting into legalism. Peter stumbled, we all do. This does not prove your point. Jesus came to do the Fathers will. When He prayed for Peter, it's a prayer that cannot fail. Just as He prayed for the sheep in John, He also prayed for Peter. Peters faith never failed.


As a side note, I don't know how anyone can have any confidence when they are relying on themselves for their salvation. I draw my confidence in my salvation from the fact that it is all of God and therefore I know that I can count on every promise made in His Word. I still check myself daily. I guard and protect and work out my salvation with fear and trembling, but I know that ultimately the it will not be me who gets me through the narrow gates, it will be Him. Thank you Jesus.

In Jesus Christ

 

[thessalonian]

Excellent post!!! And so very very true. He saved us while we were sinning...he's not going to unsave us for sinning...how dumb!

How dumb?


Romans 1
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Romans 2
Rom.2
[1] Therefore you have no excuse, O man, WHOEVER YOU ARE, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
[2] We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things.
[3] Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet DO THEM YOURSELF, you will escape the judgment of God?
[4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (here he is talking about people who believe)
[5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.


Pretty dumb alright to think that God intends for his grace to help us overcome sin and if we do not strive to overcome it and actually give in to it, there will be judgement rather than mercy for us. Well maybe not so dumb.

 

[aiki]

Howdy!

Thess, you wrote:

So you are a collector of or have access to Bible commentaries written by peope who's superceeding doctrine (i.e. TRADITION) of OSAS biases how they see scripture.

If you come to this conclusion about my sources merely because they disagree with you, then you are as guilty of operating from a blinding bias as you think they are. The commentaries I cited dissect the Scriptures and expose their meaning. They don't simply enshrine tradition in print as you suggest.

I can find 10 Catholic commentaries on the verse that will contradict yours. But you wouldn't accept them and why would I accept your commentaries.

Hey, I never said you had to accept them. In fact, I assumed you wouldn't. My purpose in sharing what I did from the commentaries was to establish that there is thoughtful, scholarly reason to interpret the verses in question differently than you have.

However I am sure that if you collected some Lutheran, Armenian, or Anglican commentaries you would find that they don't all agree with yours. So let's let the Bible speak for itself.

I think you mean let your bias speak for itself.

1Cor.15
[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.

This verse says:
1) Paul preached the Gospel.
2) They recieved the Gospel.
3) They stand in the Gospel.
4) They believed.

Now it says they are saved IF (conditional) they hold fast. I see nothing that says they didn't really believe. I see nothing that says they weren't performing good works as fruits of their salvation. At face value this verse has to be taken as meaning they must continue to believe and do good works and hold fast to what was preached to them. They are holding fast to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ so how could this possibly be hypothetically about if Christ had not be resurrected. The conditional is not about the possibility that he wasn't resurrected but precisely that he was. Such obvuscation is silly. God does not bluff.

Well, as is so often the case in these instances, you have not understood the verses you've quoted in their broader context.

Paul goes on after verses 1 and 2 to explain in greater detail what he means when he says, "unless you believed in vain". In verses 3-9 Paul establishes that Christ was indeed raised from the dead, just as Paul had preached to the Corinthians. Paul establishes the claims of his preaching concerning Christ and his resurrection by the many eye-witnesses who saw Jesus alive post-crucifixion. But why is Paul doing this? It is not until verse 12, that Paul reveals why he makes the comments he does in verses 1 and 2 and then calls to remembrance the record of eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ: some of the Corinthians had been denying Christ's resurrection from the dead. Paul expands on his comment at the end of verse 2 in verse 14: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in vain, and your faith also is vain." In verse 17 Paul reiterates this point: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; you are yet in your sins." It is in light of these verses that we understand the correct meaning of Paul's words at the end of verse 2, which is in full agreement with the analysis given in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary: "Believed in vain does not indicate loss of salvation as a possibility. The apostle means either that a faith that does not persevere is not true saving faith, or that a faith lodged in a purported resurrection of the Messiah would be groundless if the message of Christ's resurrection were untrue...If Christ was not crucified and resurrected, salvation is impossible." Verses 1 and 2 do not stand isolated as you would make them do, Thess. And when they are properly connected to the rest of the passage in which they rest, we see they have a meaning different than the one you would give them.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Jay T]

If one is honest with themselves, one can see satan's words repeated in Once saved, always saved..... "You shal not surely die", (Genesis 3:4).

 

[Jay T]

If one is honest with themselves, one can see satan's words repeated in Once saved, always saved..... "You shal not surely die", (Genesis 3:4).

 

[thessalonian]

Howdy!

Hey, I never said you had to accept them. In fact, I assumed you wouldn't. My purpose in sharing what I did from the commentaries was to establish that there is thoughtful, scholarly reason to interpret the verses in question differently than you have.

I call it biased. But then the Catholic ones are as well. We are all biased by a "tradition" of what all the scriptures teach. The Catholic Tradition however has a 2000 year track record (the gates of hell shall not prevail). OSAS is a creation of 16th century reformers.



[quote:8ff92]I think you mean let your bias speak for itself.

No you have one too and it is apparent to all but yourself. You simply won't admit it. I do admit that there is Tradition that influences my thinking and I am glad for it so that I am not blown about by every wind of doctrine.

1Cor.15
[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.



Well, as is so often the case in these instances, you have not understood the verses you've quoted in their broader context.

[/quote:8ff92]

No, the context does nothing for you. YOu cannot erase that he said they recieved it and they stand in it and they are saved by it if they hold fast as you would try to do. It is apparent that Paul sees some of them denying the resurrection of the body of men. What a perfect oportunity to say "you were never really saved" or "you need to get saved if you believe in the resurrection.". But instead he says to ALL, not just the ones who deny the russurecton "you are saved, if you hold fast". He does not say they aren't saved at the curent moment and the waring is to all, I would assume with the concern that the others might be infected by them. So your context does nothing. It does not explain how a man standing on the ground beneath a tree who was never n the tree fell from the tree.

Blessings

 

[Dave...]

It's hard for people to deal with the fact that they cannot earn their salvation. Some people want Jesus on their terms, not His terms, which is sad because His yoke is easy and leads to salvation, their yoke is impossible and leads to death.

The seal is permanent. If you think that you are in Christ and are not, you will be exposed as such in time. This is not losing salvation.

 

[thessalonian]

It's hard for people to deal with the fact that they cannot earn their salvation. Some people want Jesus on their terms, not His terms, which is sad because His yoke is easy and leads to salvation, their yoke is impossible and leads to death.

The seal is permanent. If you think that you are in Christ and are not, you will be exposed as such in time. This is not losing salvation.

So Dave, how does one fall from a tree he was never in? How is a branch cut off that was never on? You can't ignore other verses and make a doctrine and then use it as a trump card. By the way Catholicism does not teach that we earn our salvation.

 

[aiki]

Thess:

Hello, again!

OSAS is a creation of 16th century reformers.

Actually, OSAS is a correction of faulty Catholic teaching. It wasn't created by Reformers, but rather uncovered (or recovered) by them from beneath the mountain of man-made tradition in Roman Catholicism that had accumulated over the centuries and obscured and/or warped this truth.

No you have one too and it is apparent to all but yourself. You simply won't admit it.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for such an admission. I know what I believe and it is different from what you believe. There, how's that? :D

I do admit that there is Tradition that influences my thinking and I am glad for it so that I am not blown about by every wind of doctrine.

No, you can't be blown about by every wind of doctrine when you're already caught in the terrible tornado of Roman Catholicism! :wink: :-D

YOu cannot erase that he said they recieved it and they stand in it and they are saved by it if they hold fast as you would try to do.

I wasn't trying to erase what Paul said, but rather make better sense of it than you are doing. I have done this by keeping his words in context, which you have not done.

It does not explain how a man standing on the ground beneath a tree who was never n the tree fell from the tree.

???

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[thessalonian]

Lot's of scripture their Aiki. Seems your better with cryptic comments about Catholicism than you are with the word of God. How is Catholicism every wind of Doctrine? I can only think of one group that fits that. Even Martin Luther applied the verse to the Protestantism that he started. It cannot in any manner be applied to Catholicism except by the very ignornant. Now do tell how it is a good thing to be in a group "blown about by every wind of doctrine" as Luther himself said.

Blessings

 

[Jay T]

It's hard for people to deal with the fact that they cannot earn their salvation.

So True !
Millions in the Christian world try to work their way into the favor of Jesus Christ, by Sunday worship services.
They figure if they honor the day He arose from the grave, that it will pleasing to Him.
BUT...Jesus said...."IF you love me, keep my commandments", (John 14:15).

Those who love Jesus will keep the 4th commandment, (7th day Sabbath), as their [sign] of loyalty and love for Him.
"And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I [am] the LORD your God"

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ?"