OSAS The Truth

[chessman]

Some observations for clarity:
1. All natural laws (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) were put in place by the Almighty Creator -- they are definitely NOT man-made.

All natural laws were put in place by the Almighty Creator-they are definitely NOT man-made. True!
But for clarity; Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. are man's study of those Laws. They are not the Laws themselves. The laws are never wrong (for as you point out, God created them). The study of those laws are also not wrong. God encourages us to study His creation.
When we study those laws, we then present doctrines based off of our study of them.
Our doctrines are the presentations for acceptance (or rejection) by others of the set of principles (doctrines) we think we’ve learned about those various laws through our study of God’s laws (such as gravity or such as salvation).
The doctrines of gravity are a set of principles presented for acceptance/belief to others based off of that study. Newton presented his doctrine(s) about gravity and Einstein present his doctrines (then modified them later when he learned more about it. Namely that gravity affected the speed of light and the speed of time. No surprise really since God created gravity, light and time.).
Paul presented his doctrines about salvation, the Roman Catholics presented theirs and the reformers presented theirs (thinking they re-formed the RCC’s back to Paul’s original doctrines).
Sometimes man's study of God’s Laws presents correct doctrines about those laws, sometimes not. But the laws are always right. Doctrines about them are only sometimes right and subject to re-formulations.
A doctrine of gravity is a set of principles presented for acceptance. I present to you that based on my study of the Law of Gravity that if a man attempts to jump off a 200 foot cliff without aid (such as a parachute or bungee) and survive the impact, that his matter will splatter at the bottom.
The doctrine of OSAS is a set of principles presented for acceptance. I present to you that based on my study of the Law of Salvation that if a man attempts salvation without aid (such as God) his matter will splatter at the bottom. On the other hand, if a man attempts salvation with the aid of God, he’ll be fine at the bottom.

2. The Law of Gravity operates by the power of Christ (Heb 1:3).

K, So does the Law of Salvation and all other things (Heb 1:3) which is kind of the point of OSAS. I assure you that my doctrine of OSAS is NOT about a license to sin. In fact, the only time I’ve ever heard OSAS presented as a type of ‘license to sin”, it comes from someone that doesn’t even believe in OSAS. I'm kind of surprised that the anti-OSAS doctrine believers haven't brought that one up more than they have in this thread It's been mentioned but only a couple of times.

3. Natural laws would not be classified as doctrines

I know. That’s my point! ALL doctrines are man-made (to include the ones about gravity and the ones about salvation). All Laws (capital L laws) are God made (to include the Law of Gravity, and here’s the kicker, The Law of Salvation). Again, that's kind of the point of OSAS. If it's God doing the saving, then it's always true (and eternal).

4. OSAS is not a doctrine of man but a Gospel truth

I disagree. When I say “Once a believer is Saved and therefore that believer is Always Saved” I’m making a doctrinal statement of principles based on my study of The Law of Salvation (soteriology) as presented in the Bible. It’s up to the person to either believe it’s a true doctrine of not. Or refute it using the Bible. But refuting it because their neighbor no longer goes to church, ain't gonna wok. Nor is pointing out that the doctrine of OSAS is a man-made doctrine. When I say if you jump off a cliff without a parachute, you’ll die, it’s up to the person to either believer it’s true or not. When I say Once you're saved, you're always saved, it's up to the person to either believe it's true or not.

5. The simplest proof of OSAS is John 3:16

Indeed when a person begins to unpack the logical proof laid out in John 3:16 it’s a rather obvious dichotomy (black or white) situation. There is no middle ground with respect to salvation. A person either has Eternal Life or they perish (per John 3:16). Both outcomes are because God so loved the world that He created and gave His Son too. i.e. salvation is a Law of God and perishing is a Law of God. The OSAS doctrine recognizes salvation as a gift from God (as John 3:16 does) And a gift that's necessary for the world NOT to perish. That’s kind of the point that’s being made in this thread by some and rejected by some. My point about the doctrine of gravity simply provides an analogy to compare the reasons one might reject these two doctrines (the one about gravity and the one about OSAS). If you believe in the doctrine of gravity that says don't jump off of cliffs if you want to survive (and it’s man-made, which it is) then what’s wrong with believing in the doctrine of OSAS simply because it’s man-made as well? Answer is nothing is wrong with it.

6. OSAS is a poor way of expressing this truth. The correct way would be "the eternal security of the believer", not "the perseverance of the saints".

K. I’m not sure I’d call it ‘poor’. Revisable, subject to improvement, etc. maybe. But not poor. Plus ESB would have its own set of potential confusing elements within that doctrine. For example. What do you mean by “security” or “Eternal”? Can someone be saved and not have a secure belief about it 100% of the time? I think they can be saved yet wonder, at times, whether they are saved or not. Luckily, Heb 1:3 still applies, however.
Plus, what do you mean by “OSAS is a poor way of expressing this truth”? A doctrine (as I pointed out) is man’s way of expressing what he thinks is truth. Why do you then say OSAS is a poor way of expressing truth, if you think OSAS isn’t a man-made expression (i.e. a doctrine)?

7. Those who reject this truth do not have a clear understanding of salvation.

Okay, I hear you. But are you sure that people that reject ESB don’t have a clear understand of salvation? Could they reject ESB because they don’t have a clear understanding of what you mean by security or eternal or believer (yet they understand salvation quite well)?

 

[Deborah13]

God is very predictable. He is in behalf of good and against evil. Yet He presently tolerates evil. That's a hard issue for any of us to get our heads around. Theodicy is a lifelong study.

"Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil."



I like how Paul used that on Mars Hill in Acts 17. Paul was saying God was tolerating their "ignorance," but said it in a nice way.

I think 'tolerates' evil is a much better word to use than 'allows'. I think that when many hear 'allows' that means to them that God is actually giving His permission to do evil and to have evil done to them.
To me 'allows' and 'permission' are to very different things. But then maybe I am wrong.
ie.
When I was a teenager my mom said to me, "IF you are going to start smoking I would rather you were open about it and did not sneak." She was not giving her permission for me to smoke but she was saying that if I chose to do that she wasn't going to try to stop me, she would allow it. I did not start smoking, she kind of took the fun out of it.

 

[Malachi]

Then there is the scripture that says, "in times past, God winked". God winked? Just what does that mean?

There are certain phrases and turns of expression in the KJV that made perfect sense for that time in the usage of English. When we run into a phrase such as "God winked at", we need to find out what that phrase was in the Greek text by consulting Strong's Concordance. That is hupereidon [Strong's 5237] ho Theos which means "God overlooked". Strong's is indispensable.

As to God hardening the hearts of sinner, we can only understand that properly in the context of all of God's dealing with sinners. Since "God SO loved the world", He would only harden someone's heart when there was absolutely no possibility of repentance. Indeed God warns sinners NOT TO harden their hearts when they hear the voice of the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:15; 4:7). Pharaoh in Exodus is a good example of one who had ample opportunity to repent, but because he first hardened his heart, God finally hardened his heart also (Exod 4:19-14:31). God does not arbitrarily harden hearts, and some sinners are not predestined for Hell. That is false teaching.

 

[Gregg]

It is even more painful to disregard statements of fact regarding this particular matter.

The body dies because of sin.

Rather, the body dies because God sentenced Adam to a physical death after he sinned, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen 3:19 KJV).

Sin is of the DEVIL.

Adam's sin was of Adam because of his disobedience, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it:' cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;" (Gen 3:17 KJV).

I submit, that a man's sin is of himself and not of the devil or a thorn in the flesh.

A thorn in the flesh was made possible also by God's declaration, as Satan's sentence was this, "and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" (Gen 3:14 KJV), dust from which a man's body was made.

- - -

You still have not explained why you interpret 2Cor 12:7 the way you do [carry? in?]; but only that you do because of what it says. Why do you believe it says what you say it says? Your own declaration is not good enough for a proof or testimony. Support your conjecture within the context of that verse, or with Greek grammar, or alongside a supporting verse.

 

[Malachi]

Okay, I hear you. But are you sure that people that reject ESB don’t have a clear understand of salvation? Could they reject ESB because they don’t have a clear understanding of what you mean by security or eternal or believer (yet they understand salvation quite well)?

Chessman,
You think about. To "understand salvation quite well" a person needs to understand (and this is not difficult) that salvation is (1) the GIFT of eternal life, (2) the GIFT of the indwelling Holy Spirit, (3) the GIFT of the indwelling Christ, (4) the GIFT of the indwelling Father, (5) the GIFT of the New Birth, (6) the GIFT of a new creation in Christ. If all these gifts are undeserved and unmerited gifts of God's grace for believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, how can the question of "losing" one's salvation even arise? This is entirely a supernatural work of God. Therefore those who reject ESB have no clue about what God has really done. It all goes back to a lack of proper teaching on salvation, because there is frequently no depth to the preaching and teaching of Gospel Truth.

 

[Deborah13]

There are certain phrases and turns of expression in the KJV that made perfect sense for that time in the usage of English. When we run into a phrase such as "God winked at", we need to find out what that phrase was in the Greek text by consulting Strong's Concordance. That is hupereidon [Strong's 5237] ho Theos which means "God overlooked". Strong's is indispensable.

As to God hardening the hearts of sinner, we can only understand that properly in the context of all of God's dealing with sinners. Since "God SO loved the world", He would only harden someone's heart when there was absolutely no possibility of repentance. Indeed God warns sinners NOT TO harden their hearts when they hear the voice of the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:15; 4:7). Pharaoh in Exodus is a good example of one who had ample opportunity to repent, but because he first hardened his heart, God finally hardened his heart also (Exod 4:19-14:31). God does not arbitrarily harden hearts, and some sinners are not predestined for Hell. That is false teaching.

I am a student and if you ever have read many of my post you would see that I use Strong's all the time. I know what the word means. That's not the issue.

What do you mean when you say, "God does not arbitrarily harden hearts, and some sinners are not predestined for Hell."
Are you saying the Some sinners are predestined for Hell? If so, which ones are they, scripture please.

 

[smaller]

Rather, the body dies because God sentenced Adam to a physical death after he sinned, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen 3:19 KJV).

Romans 8:10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Adam's sin was of Adam because of his disobedience, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it:' cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;" (Gen 3:17 KJV).

I submit, that a man's sin is of himself and not of the devil or a thorn in the flesh.

I wouldn't see Adam's initial problem as any different than anyone else's.

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

You still have not explained why you interpret 2Cor 12:7 the way you do [carry? in?]; but only that you do because of what it says. Why do you believe it says what you say it says? Your own declaration is not good enough for a proof or testimony. Support your conjecture within the context of that verse, or with Greek grammar, or alongside a supporting verse.

There is no reason for me not to accept Paul's statement of fact regarding a messenger of Satan in his flesh. It would be torturing the text to try to get it to not say what it says.

As to supporting scripture have already cited several corresponding scriptures including Romans 7:17-21, Romans 9:19-21, 1 Tim. 1:15, 2 Tim. 2:20-21, 1 John 1:8, 1 John 3:8, Hebrews 5:14, 10:22, etc etc.

Believers ARE tempted internally in mind and heart by Satan. This is a fact and that fact places the adversary 'within.'

There is no escaping the scriptural logic.

 

[Chopper]

What did Calvin teach about the two kinds of vessels? One vessel being born elect, chosen and the other being born a vessel of wrath, not chosen, fit only for eternal wrath?

Great question my Dear Deb. This is the part of Limited Atonement or LA that I see two applications rather than only one that Calvin understood. I have to be careful how I respond to Calvin's teachings. Personally, I don't think much of folk who elevate themselves above this brilliant Reformation Teacher. The remarks of these people come across to me as pure pride, and most always I ignore their ideas.

Having said that, Calvin looked at just a few cases in Scripture that identify a person of whom God definitely used for negative results like Pharaoh in Exodus. I don't see that LA should encompass all people outside of the Elect. I'm sure there must have been certain circumstances in which Calvin felt that LA applied to all. The Roman Catholic Church was a great enemy of Christianity in those days, and Calvin may have isolated his theory when he considered the Pope and his followers. It's perhaps the old saying, don't examine a tree, examine the forest for a better evaluation of facts.

So, I see a valid use of LA when applied to folk like Pharaoh and Judas, but the rest of lost humanity God is not willing that any of them perish. That's the catalyst for my theory of a General Call of the Gospel.

 

[FreeGrace]

It's directly applicable 'because' the application of OSAS assuredly never extended to the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh.

Actually, because OSAS is "never extended to the messenger of Satan", it is NOT applicable to OSAS.

I have no idea why you think it is.

 

[FreeGrace]

All people are born blinded to the Gospel. They are blinded to the Gospel by the 'god of this world' who blinds their minds and remains blinding their minds (2 Cor. 4:4). Therefore the wrath of God abides on every blinded person, again, because the 'god of this world' is present with them in their minds, blinding them.

And yes, the 'god of this world' is fitted to destruction, wrath and perpetual resistance from God and from the 'god of this world' toward God.

It's never been a question of just the person.

A more simple observation is to asses the reality of internal/mind temptations in relationship to the tempter. That shows both the presence and the location of the tempter.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

And the Bible never said that the devil was "fitted to destruction". Matt 25:41 is what was said.

 

[smaller]

What does any of this have to do with anything?

And the Bible never said that the devil was "fitted to destruction". Matt 25:41 is what was said.

It is reasonable to assume that God resists the tempter wherever same is located. It is also easy to see that OSAS does not extend to the resisting parties.

That's why God can be both Savior and enemy simultaneously.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yeah, I think you get the picture pretty well.

It is impossible for OSAS to be extended to the tempting/deceiving parties. That's all I'm saying.

There was no need, since no one would think otherwise.

 

[chessman]

If all these gifts are undeserved and unmerited gifts of God's grace for believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, how can the question of "losing" one's salvation even arise?

Men make stuff up, maybe????

 

[Deborah13]

Great question my Dear Deb. This is the part of Limited Atonement or LA that I see two applications rather than only one that Calvin understood. I have to be careful how I respond to Calvin's teachings. Personally, I don't think much of folk who elevate themselves above this brilliant Reformation Teacher. The remarks of these people come across to me as pure pride, and most always I ignore their ideas.

Having said that, Calvin looked at just a few cases in Scripture that identify a person of whom God definitely used for negative results like Pharaoh in Exodus. I don't see that LA should encompass all people outside of the Elect. I'm sure there must have been certain circumstances in which Calvin felt that LA applied to all. The Roman Catholic Church was a great enemy of Christianity in those days, and Calvin may have isolated his theory when he considered the Pope and his followers. It's perhaps the old saying, don't examine a tree, examine the forest for a better evaluation of facts.

So, I see a valid use of LA when applied to folk like Pharaoh and Judas, but the rest of lost humanity God is not willing that any of them perish. That's the catalyst for my theory of a General Call of the Gospel.

I understand what your theory is but that is not what I am asking. I think you are gently trying to evade what Calvin taught.
Limited Atonement does not address my question. Limited Atonement simply says that Christ did not die for All people. That He only paid the price for those who will be saved. Even many non-OSAS believe that. That is not what I am asking about.

Did Calvin teach that all people are predestined to either be saved or not saved?
Did he teach that God created individual people to either be saved or to never be saved, to perish?

Those are yes or no answers. He either did or he didn't. I haven't read his book, what did he say in his book?

 

[FreeGrace]

I wasn't addressing Calvin's teaching total depravity.
I was asking what Calvin taught about God creating two kinds of people.
1)One that is doomed to be lost and there is nothing they can do about it, vessel of wrath, God will never call them to be saved.
2)The other kind of person is created by God to be saved, elect, chosen and there is nothing they can do about it, vessel of obedience (?) perseverance (?), they are the only ones that God will draw to Himself.

I wasn't aware of Calvin teaching that God created 2 kinds of people. If he did, just one more error to his list.

God created man in His own image. Gen 1:26,27. That's it. There can't be 2 kinds, or there'd be 2 races. But there is only one human race, and we're all in it.

The Calvinist idea of election is off kilter. Paul was clear who the elect are: believers. First, he tells us through the Ephesian church that "God chose (elected) us…to be holy and blameless" in 1:4. Then, in 1:19 he defined who the "us" are: "us who believe".

Calvinists seem to view election as God choosing who will be a believer, but that cannot be supported from Scripture.

The doctrine of election is properly understood as being chosen for "special privilege and service". So that even though not all of the Israelites were saved, all of them were chosen by God as a nation to serve Him. Just as all believers have been chosen to serve Him by being ambassadors for Christ.

Even Judas was a chosen disciple per John 6:70, though he was not saved. His service was to fulfill prophesy by betraying Him.

 

[smaller]

Actually, because OSAS is "never extended to the messenger of Satan", it is NOT applicable to OSAS.

I have no idea why you think it is.

I have no idea why the tempter is discounted in any scriptural equations unless the tempter inspires people to do so.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sorry to point out the obvious flaws in OSAS.

What would they be, exactly? You haven't yet listed any.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think 'tolerates' evil is a much better word to use than 'allows'. I think that when many hear 'allows' that means to them that God is actually giving His permission to do evil and to have evil done to them.
To me 'allows' and 'permission' are to very different things. But then maybe I am wrong.

If one allows another to act, then that one has permitted another to act. Different words but the same idea.

ie.
When I was a teenager my mom said to me, "IF you are going to start smoking I would rather you were open about it and did not sneak." She was not giving her permission for me to smoke but she was saying that if I chose to do that she wasn't going to try to stop me, she would allow it. I did not start smoking, she kind of took the fun out of it.

She didn't use either word, but the concept is still the same. If you chose to smoke in front of her, and she didn't stop you, then she was giving you permission to smoke.

 

[FreeGrace]

It is reasonable to assume that God resists the tempter wherever same is located. It is also easy to see that OSAS does not extend to the resisting parties.

That's why God can be both Savior and enemy simultaneously.

What does this have to do with what I said: "What does any of this have to do with anything?

And the Bible never said that the devil was "fitted to destruction". Matt 25:41 is what was said."

I will repeat; no one here thinks that OSAS would extend to "the resisting parties" if you mean fallen angels.

 

[smaller]

What would they be, exactly? You haven't yet listed any.

God won't be blessing or OSASing the tempter or his activities in anyone, believers first and foremost.