OSAS The Truth

[Gary]

So much knowledge and no discernment.

 

[smaller]

Either one is eternally secure at the moment of faith, or not. So yes, blanket statements do fit here.

That's a simplistic notion.

Could you please spell out what you're trying to say? I'm not sure at this point what you mean by "the subject matter". Please remove the vague comments. How is OSAS "insufficient" in any way? And be specific, not make general or vague comments.

I've said it many times in this thread. Will tolerate giving an example one more time, just for you, in brief:

The construct that Paul, a saved human being, Apostle, provided about himself is here (one of many similar scriptural examples from Paul and by other scriptures):

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.

Any credible sight of Paul will yield up a factual sight of

A. Paul

and

B. the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh

It is not credible that the position of OSAS is extended to party B.

Simple enough?

 

[FreeGrace]

13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:13


Those who believe for a while then fall away... are no longer believers.


What do you call someone who believes, then after a while stops believing?
JLB

Here are the facts.

1. God gives eternal life. 1 Jn 5:11
2. Jesus gives eternal life Jn 10:28
3. Paul describes eternal life as a gift Rom 6:23
4. God's gifts are irrevocable Rom 11:29

It doesn't matter eternally whether someone stops believing. They remain a child of God and have eternal life.

non-OSAS view cannot reconcile some huge problems:
1. One who has eternal life spending eternity in the "second death". Eternal life cannot die.
2. A child of God cannot become an UNchild.
3. A born again believer cannot become an UNborn again believer.
4. God's gift of eternal life is IRREVOCABLE.

Period.

 

[smaller]

That's an extremely poor motivator. And false doctrine at the same time. How sad.

What's so wrong with teaching what the Bible teaches; eternal reward for obedience and discipline in time (very painful) and loss of eternal rewards? Those are true motivators.

OSAS can be presented, but I will concede that there IS a very legitimate alternative scripture set that the non-OSAS camps will point to and should NOT discard.

I also believe that the NON-OSAS camps are WRONG in their conclusions about their scripture set and that there ARE credible ways to approach their scripture sets that do not result in a NON-OSAS conclusion. In other words we CAN take their scripture set and STILL arrive at an OSAS conclusion. The counter however is not 'they were never saved to begin with' which is the standard refrain of OSAS for their scripture set.

 

[FreeGrace]

There is a certain form of untouchable arrogance that can be bred from OSAS as well.

Arrogance can occur in any camp or theology.

That is partly why I say the position itself doesn't encompass the subject matter as well as it could. (and have given adequate and suitable examples in this thread that seem to be difficult to grasp.)

If they were adequate, they wouldn't have been so difficult to grasp.

And I agree that some can fall away in this present life, though I do not account that to loss of salvation in the eternal sense. OSAS will write these off as never having been saved when there may well be numerous reasons they abandoned certain camps of understandings and such may not have fallen away from anything but bad theology positions.

It isn't OSAS that writes off such individuals. It's the Calvinist camp. There is a theology that rejects Calvinism but is as strongly OSAS (or more) than Calvinism.

 

[smaller]

Arrogance can occur in any camp or theology.


If they were adequate, they wouldn't have been so difficult to grasp.


It isn't OSAS that writes off such individuals. It's the Calvinist camp. There is a theology that rejects Calvinism but is as strongly OSAS (or more) than Calvinism.

Well, hopefully we'll probe some of the weaknesses of both camps with reasonable dialog.

 

[gr8grace3]

There is a certain form of untouchable arrogance that can be bred from OSAS as well. That is partly why I say the position itself doesn't encompass the subject matter as well as it could. (and have given adequate and suitable examples in this thread that seem to be difficult to grasp.)

And I agree that some can fall away in this present life, though I do not account that to loss of salvation in the eternal sense. OSAS will write these off as never having been saved when there may well be numerous reasons they abandoned certain camps of understandings and such may not have fallen away from anything but bad theology positions.

I would have to agree with Freegrace. Your posts are hard to follow and elusive.

Perseverance of the saints will write off believers. Not eternal security or Jesus Christ.

 

[FreeGrace]

That's a simplistic notion.


I've said it many times in this thread. Will tolerate giving an example one more time, just for you, in brief:

The construct that Paul, a saved human being, Apostle, provided about himself is here (one of many similar scriptural examples from Paul and by other scriptures):

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.

Any credible sight of Paul will yield up a factual sight of

A. Paul

and

B. the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh

It is not credible that the position of OSAS is extended to party B.

Simple enough?

Actually, still too confusing to understand. It makes no sense. How in the world would "the position of OSAS be extended to the messenger of Satan"???? That is absurd.

It seems to me that you may be just unaware of the purpose of the messenger of Satan, to buffet Paul. God took him to heaven to see and hear things that "humans aren't permitted to tell" (2 Cor 12:2-NIV).

The messenger and buffetting were to keep Paul humble and to realize that God's grace was sufficient for him.

I'm truly sorry that you haven't been able to adequately explain whatever point you have been trying to make.

 

[FreeGrace]

OSAS can be presented, but I will concede that there IS a very legitimate alternative scripture set that the non-OSAS camps will point to and should NOT discard.

Really? There are conflicting Scriptures? That is what you are insinuating by your comment.

Interesting to note that you did not share this so-called "alternative Scripture". Why would that be? Do you really have one? If so, why not share it?

I also believe that the NON-OSAS camps are WRONG in their conclusions about their scripture set and that there ARE credible ways to approach their scripture sets that do not result in a NON-OSAS conclusion. In other words we CAN take their scripture set and STILL arrive at an OSAS conclusion. The counter however is not 'they were never saved to begin with' which is the standard refrain of OSAS for their scripture set.

Of course. It's the Calvinists who will claim that one who has believed and then falls away never really or "truly" believed in the first place. Jesus Himself noted temporary faith, but the Calvinists seem to reject the point Jesus made. Strange.

 

[smaller]

Actually, still too confusing to understand. It makes no sense. How in the world would "the position of OSAS be extended to the messenger of Satan"???? That is absurd.

I can only conclude that if you were standing next to Paul, you would only see Paul. Paul did not see himself they way you think. I see Paul as he described. He stood as Paul with a messenger of Satan in his how flesh, but you can not see PARTY B apart from Paul's scriptural disclosure of facts.

Paul did not stand there as just Paul, which is the general point of the observation. He stood as Party A and B.

 

[gr8grace3]

That's a simplistic notion.


I've said it many times in this thread. Will tolerate giving an example one more time, just for you, in brief:

The construct that Paul, a saved human being, Apostle, provided about himself is here (one of many similar scriptural examples from Paul and by other scriptures):

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.

Any credible sight of Paul will yield up a factual sight of

A. Paul

and

B. the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh

It is not credible that the position of OSAS is extended to party B.

Simple enough?

1 Cor 15:50~~New American Standard Bible
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

 

[smaller]

Really? There are conflicting Scriptures? That is what you are insinuating by your comment.

I'm saying, rightfully, that there IS are scripture sets tossed by both parties. IF they had no basis they wouldn't have arrived at their position, and in case you missed it, the MAJORITY of christians are in the 'you can lose your salvation camp' inclusive of all of RCC and EO.

Interesting to note that you did not share this so-called "alternative Scripture". Why would that be? Do you really have one? If so, why not share it?

If you've studied the subject matter you should be intimately familar with the scripture sets used by every side of observations. And yes, the non-OSAS camps have scripture sets.

Of course. It's the Calvinists who will claim that one who has believed and then falls away never really or "truly" believed in the first place. Jesus Himself noted temporary faith, but the Calvinists seem to reject the point Jesus made. Strange.

Let's also acknowledge that within the 2 larger camps there are numerous amounts of sub camps that will flavor the drifts.

 

[smaller]

1 Cor 15:50~~New American Standard Bible
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

A step in the right direction of sight.

I think you can probably see the observation I have made is legit. That OSAS did not extend to PARTY B in my prior example, so it's disingenuous to spread the OSAS net further than it should be spread as it does NOT extend to 'factual' Party B.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here is a sample of your confused and confusing posts:

I can only conclude that if you were standing next to Paul, you would only see Paul. Paul did not see himself they way you think. I see Paul as he described. He stood as Paul with a messenger of Satan in his how flesh, but you can not see PARTY B apart from Paul's scriptural disclosure of facts.

First, both of would see the exact same thing if we were standing next to Paul.

Second, consider your sentence "He stood as Paul with a messenger of Satan in his how flesh"… What in the world??

What is "how flesh"??? I can't tell if you did a typo or have just made up something strange. Your sentence doesn't make sense, and you think it's my fault??

Paul did not stand there as just Paul, which is the general point of the observation. He stood as Party A and B.

Actually, that is very confused. Paul stands as Paul. The messenger isn't Paul. Which seems to be your point.

 

[smaller]

Here is a sample of your confused and confusing posts:

First, both of would see the exact same thing if we were standing next to Paul.

Uh, that would be a no. I don't see anyone standing apart from Party B.

 

[gr8grace3]

A step in the right direction of sight.

I think you can probably see the observation I have made is legit. That OSAS did not extend to PARTY B in my prior example, so it's disingenuous to spread the OSAS net further than it should be spread as it does NOT extend to 'factual' Party B.

It does not extend to either PARTY A or PARTY B
The new creature in Christ, is the eternally secure creature. And eternal security is never meant for flesh and blood. It is for the new creature in Christ. Paul is trichotomous, and you can't see His "Party C" that is the new creature/human spirit that is eternally secure and going to heaven.


Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 2 Cor 5:17

For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Gal 6:15

 

[smaller]

It does not extend to either PARTY A or PARTY B
The new creature in Christ, is the eternally secure creature.

That promise was extended to Paul as Party A. Not really addressing what that may actually be or already is upon summation.

And eternal security is never meant for flesh and blood. It is for the new creature in Christ. Paul is trichotomous, and you can't see His "Party C" that is the new creature/human spirit that is eternally secure and going to heaven.

Again, agreed. And Hey! Yer pretty good at this...! (not necessarily conceding to the terms and conditions attached to 'trichotomous')

 

[JLB]

Here are the facts.

1. God gives eternal life. 1 Jn 5:11
2. Jesus gives eternal life Jn 10:28
3. Paul describes eternal life as a gift Rom 6:23
4. God's gifts are irrevocable Rom 11:29

It doesn't matter eternally whether someone stops believing. They remain a child of God and have eternal life.

non-OSAS view cannot reconcile some huge problems:
1. One who has eternal life spending eternity in the "second death". Eternal life cannot die.
2. A child of God cannot become an UNchild.
3. A born again believer cannot become an UNborn again believer.
4. God's gift of eternal life is IRREVOCABLE.

Period.

What do you call someone who believes, then after a while stops believing?

 

[gr8grace3]

What do you call someone who believes, then after a while stops believing?

For the most part, they would be called a Legalist,religious or moral degenerate Christian(Still a Christian though). They have stopped believing in Christ alone for their salvation and stopped believing in Christ alone for their preservation. And are relying on their moral life, human Good and sinning less than the other guy. They have stopped believing in Christ alone for their position IN Christ..

For the majority, I would call them saved,religious Christians. They will "say" Jesus, talk Jesus,Do things for Jesus and rely on these things for their salvation and preservation. But they have stopped believing ON Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and preservation.

 

[FreeGrace]

Uh, that would be a no. I don't see anyone standing apart from Party B.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Your so-called "party B" was a messenger from Satan who buffeted Paul.