OSAS The Truth

[Gregg]

Let's get the stack of theology aligned correctly.

God
Satan
Man

Rather:

God
Man [who is in Christ]
Satan

 

[chessman]

A woman who is married, and runs off with another man is called an ADULTRESS!
JLB

Actually, it depends. Precision is key here and everywhere when it comes to true doctrines. Your above statement is inaccurate in the case of the bride’s husband's death. Re-married widows ARE NOT adulteresses (Biblically speaking). Let’s look and compare your statement to Paul’s:

Rom 7 (LEB)
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband. 3 Therefore as a result, if she belongs to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she belongs to another man.​

So do you agree that a re-married widow woman is not actually called an adulteress (by God)? Let's assume you do agree since per Rom 7:3 it's impossible to believe otherwise and you have a tendency not to answer questions when you don't like their implications. I'll just assume you were just not precise enough in your above statement to handle the two differing cases (former husband still alive versus husband dead) and you don't actually think a re-married widow is an adulteress.

But here's the kicker, Paul actually uses this illustration to make a OSAS point. Don’t believe me, read on:

Paul goes on in the very next verse and uses the bride's re-marriage freedom (if her husband dies versus her adulteress sin if he's still living and she divorces and remarries) as an illustrative analogy to our salvation and makes a profound point about it with OSAS implications.

4 So then, my brothers, you also were brought to death with respect to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.​

Saved people's former husband (Satan) is put to death and they become Christ’s bride and “belong to another” (Christ) when they become saved which is an illustration taught here and elsewhere. Do you agree?

Let's set-up your anti-OSAS example and say Jane Smith was an unbelieving divorced (three times) woman serving in Iraq on 18 Dec 2014 (by "unbeliever" I mean it the way the Bible actually uses the term "unbeliever" in all twelve of its NT occurrences, i.e. someone who's never actually and truly believed Christ as Lord, in his/her heart). They've never become married to Christ, so-to-speak (much less divorced Him).

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unbeliever&qs_version=LEB

Jane is due to start a military mission into ISIS held territory on 20 Dec and is nervous about her possible death. She shares this fact with another service member on 19 Dec 2014. Jane is then called by the Holy Spirit of God (Acts 2:39) in such a way that Jane truly believes she's a sinner (but doesn't even realize that adultery is a sin), believes in Jesus Christ as her Lord, believes Jesus died for all her sins (even those of adultery which she doesn’t even realize she’s committed since she’s a brand new Christian) and that Jesus was raised from the dead to prove He's God in flesh and can/does actually forgive all her sins (even those she’s been deceived into believing are not sins such as adultery, etc.)
Thusly, Jane is called, saved and given the precious gift from God of Eternal Life on 19 Dec 2014. And according to Paul, in Rom 7, Jane now “belongs to another [Christ]” as His bride.

So far so good, right? OSAS or anti-OSAS has not even been considered, yet. So here goes giving OSAS a 50/50 chance as truth and anti-OSAS a 50/50 chance as truth:

20 Dec comes around and you guessed it, she’s captured by ISIS, raped and forced to denounce Christ and claim Allah as her Lord or die. So, she does. According to you, she’s un-saved, right?

Umm, that’s wrong. The only way she’s freed from Christ and able to re-marry Allah as her new husband is if Christ dies (which he hasn’t). What she’s done is commit yet another act of adultery (which she didn’t even know was a sin to begin with, yet Christ forgave her all her sins the day He married her). Has she sinned, yet again? Yes, sure.
Did her husband (Christ) die, setting her free to re-marry Allah? No.

Thusly she’s still married to Christ. Christ detests her adultery against Him, same as He did the day He married her. But does He divorce her? No.

There’s a reason Paul (and Jesus) uses Biblical marriage (and adultery) as an analogy to our salvation through Christ. And there’s a reason that the only way a bride can actually be Biblically free to re-marry from Christ is Christ dies. And there’s a reason Christ’s blood cleanses us of all our sins, not just a limited # of them.

Anti-OSAS will become a possibility the day Jesus dies again, leaving His bride a widow free to re-marry another husband!

2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband [Jesus] while he [Jesus] lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband.

Otherwise, she's still married to Jesus!​

 

[smaller]

Rather:

God
Man [who is in Christ]
Satan

If you read on you will find I already stated the same construct.

And fwiw there is no such animal as 'continuing in sin' because no one can say they have no sin. Continuation is a misnomer. We never stopped being sinners to start with.

There is no continuation other than we continue being sinners. We may sin less as if that makes any sin less.

 

[chessman]

I might suggest that God is not in need period, yet alone in need of anything man can provide. So anytime I hear the 'God in NEED' of something, I reject it outright. God is simply not in need whatsoever.

You mean to tell me that you honestly think God doesn't need more data on His smartphone plan?

 

[smaller]

You mean to tell me that you honestly think God doesn't need more data on His smartphone plan?

I have grown to detest the God in need postulations. They are so lame aren't they?

It does please God to have us SHARE in His Divine Nature. That much I will speculate upon by experience.

I love because I was LOVED first by Him.

 

[dadof10]

To be clear, a believer who ceases to believe, for whatever reason, are NOT UN-believers, but former believers, or EX-believers. Biblical UN-believers are those who have NEVER believed. This distinction is very important to understand.

An EX-wife is a woman who WAS formerly married. An UN-married woman is one who has NEVER been married.

Even a divorced woman who is not currently married isn't an "UN-married" woman. The proper term is divorced woman.

But those who refuse to accept Scripture will try to divert attention away from these proper terminologies in order to obfiscate the issue.

Rom 6:23 says that eternal life is a gift (Greek word 'charisma'). Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts (charisma) are irrevocable.

JLB refuses to deal with these 2 verses. Would you please discuss how Paul could NOT have had eternal life in view when he wrote 11:29?

Further, before he wrote 11:29, he wrote 8:38, in which he notes that "neither things present, nor things future" can separate us from the love of Christ.

He made no point about those who continue to believe. The "us" refers to those who have believed.

So Paul made clear that nothing in the future can separate us from Christ's love. There were no stipulations on the future either. Such as "those who continue to believe", which is JLB's view.

Sigh...Ok, are "ex-believers" saved? If a person believed, then ceased to believe, is that person saved?

 

[FreeGrace]

And your suggestion is that the experience, the action of God in Christ would have been entirely worthless and without merit were it not VALIDATED by Saul.

I've not, and I AM NOT, suggesting any such thing. The truth is what we read in Scripture. Jesus had an encounter with Paul on the road to Damascus and Paul responded to the encounter.

[QOUTE]I reject such notions. Saul did NOTHING to validate God in Christ.[/QUOTE]
I reject your suggesting that Saul did "validate God in Christ", whatever that means to you.

He was nothing but a pathetic blinded slave of SATAN until the Day the LIGHT forced him out of his spiritual captivity.

Except you have zero evidence that Paul was forced to DO anything.

God in Christ is invalidated by NO MAN.

Of course not. Why you think I think that is rather bizarre.

The game that a lot of religious people play is that they have something that GOD NEEDS, in your case, a validation by decision.

Your faulty obsession with what you erroneously think I believe is bizarre.

God in all His Works and all His Ways is not invalidated or placed in a lesser position by anything any man says or does.

Correct. I've never even hinted at anhthing different.

And no, God is not placed in a postion of NEED of your decision about anything. He changes NOT.

What made you think that I believe that God needed anything of man????

If any man hears or believes, it is only because it was GOD Himself who has removed them from control of spiritual blindness imposed by the god of this world, the spirit of disobedience, the prince of the power of the air.

Are you now suggesting that God chooses who will believe? If you are, please provide the specific Scripture that says so.

Uh, not. That is why preachers can preach til the cows come home, but unless and until God Himself decides to engage the factual spiritual captor of such a man, that man will know, see or perceive exactly NOTHING. It will be like water off a ducks back.

So, cows and ducks, huh. Seems you're out in someone's "left field" or something.

The choice was never in their hands to begin with. All people are born into this world under control of the prince of the power of the air, the spirit of disobedience, the god of this world.

Nonsense. I suggest you read Isa 1:18-20 which is about choice.

Man is simply NOT a stand alone entity, and that is where your position falls.

I never suggested such a thing. Why your understanding is so faulty concerning my view is bizarre.

It is the MAN and his captor.

This isn't a complete sentence or thought. Could you please complete your thought?

I imagine you've frequently said "the devil made me do it", huh.

 

[FreeGrace]

No where in scripture does it say eternal life is irrevocable.

Here is what Scripture plainly says:

Eternal life is described as charisma in Rom 6:23.

God's charisma is irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

But you simply refuse to accept the obvious. And you have not demonstrated in any way that the charisma in 11:29 cannot refer back to eternal life. ESPECIALLY since Paul used the SAME WORD in both 6:23 for eternal life and in 11:29 for what is irrevocable.

The gifts and callings are irrevocable.

Spiritual gifts in Romans 12 do not equal eternal life.

I never said they did. But why do you continue to ignore the FACT that eternal life is described as charisma in 6:23 and dismiss that as reference to 11:29? Paul defined eternal life as "charisma" BEFORE he wrote 11:29, so the context for 11:29 would be what was written BEFORE that verse. NOT what was written after that verse.

Otherwise, the readers would remain confused about what Paul was talking about in 11:29.

Are you somehow suggesting if someone has a spiritual gift (charisma) such as prophesy, then they have eternal life?

Nope. Eternal life is charisma and is irrevocable.

There is no such scripture that states eternal life is irrevocable.

You can close your eyes and stop up your ears and repeat your mantra as often as you like, but it changes NOTHING.

Eternal life is charisma and is irrevocable.

A person must put two scriptures together, while taking one out of context, to come up with this false idea.

You haven't demonstrated how I've taken any verse out of context. In fact, by trying to go to ch 12 and claiming that charisma in that chapter is what Paul was talking about back in ch 11 is ridiculous. Context is what has already been noted. And 6:23 occurs before 11:29.

That is why OSAS is a false doctrine.

You've totally failed to prove your point. Which has been refuted by Paul's words.

 

[smaller]

I've not, and I AM NOT, suggesting any such thing. The truth is what we read in Scripture. Jesus had an encounter with Paul on the road to Damascus and Paul responded to the encounter.

Speculation about IF Saul would have not reacted is just that. I'd suggest that any of us struck blind by Light of Jesus Christ and hearing His Voice would respond according to His Wishes.

The others standing with Saul were not affected the same way that Saul was. There, in that exercise, is Divine Directive in action and in INaction.

Men who don't hear, CAN'T respond.

Except you have zero evidence that Paul was forced to DO anything.

The proof is in the reality of what transpired with Saul to Paul. Not in what might not have transpired to uphold the postion that 'men' have something to give God in order to validate Him.

Are you now suggesting that God chooses who will believe? If you are, please provide the specific Scripture that says so.

I'd point to an entire body of people called Israelites unto whom it was NOT given to hear or see by the placement of the spirit of slumber upon them.

I've even showed, by the example of Mark 4:15, the reality of HOW that spirit comes upon them and BLINDS them, all by Gods Word engaging the resisting party.

Your intention has been from the beginning to mitigate spiritual blindness imposed within the minds of unbelievers, making it merely a matter of their choice, when that simply isn't the case whatsoever. There is the person, there is the god of this world, their captor in their MINDS and there is the Will of God in Christ which can and DOES over ride them both.

I imagine you've frequently said "the devil made me do it", huh.

The devil does what he does. You can claim the devil made somebody do anything but the reality is that the devil does what the devil does and does so by resisting Gods Words wherever they are sown or handled. Did that make the devil make anybody do anything or DID THE DEVIL do it?

That's a question for you to toy with.

 

[FreeGrace]

The Living Word says that Satan is moved into resistance where the Word is sown.

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.

Satan MUST do what he does because it is commanded by God that Satan resists.

Where in the world do you get the idea that God ever commanded Satan to resist???? That is a very bizarre idea.

Satan ENTERED Adam because the Word was sown in Adam. From that point forward it was never a question of just Adam. Adam's sin was no different than any man's sin. It is OF THE DEVIL who controls them in their sin.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence or support for your very unusual view.

And where you see EVE was deceived, EVE was still Adam's INNER MAN when God sowed His Word upon Adam. They were BOTH called Adam in the beginning.

It is always the INNER MAN who is deceived.

Yeah, sure, the devil made them do it. 2

 

[FreeGrace]

Actually, it depends. Precision is key here and everywhere when it comes to true doctrines. Your above statement is inaccurate in the case of the bride’s husband's death. Re-married widows ARE NOT adulteresses (Biblically speaking). Let’s look and compare your statement to Paul’s:

Rom 7 (LEB)
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband. 3 Therefore as a result, if she belongs to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she belongs to another man.​

So do you agree that a re-married widow woman is not actually called an adulteress (by God)? Let's assume you do agree since per Rom 7:3 it's impossible to believe otherwise and you have a tendency not to answer questions when you don't like their implications. I'll just assume you were just not precise enough in your above statement to handle the two differing cases (former husband still alive versus husband dead) and you don't actually think a re-married widow is an adulteress.

But here's the kicker, Paul actually uses this illustration to make a OSAS point. Don’t believe me, read on:

Paul goes on in the very next verse and uses the bride's re-marriage freedom (if her husband dies versus her adulteress sin if he's still living and she divorces and remarries) as an illustrative analogy to our salvation and makes a profound point about it with OSAS implications.

4 So then, my brothers, you also were brought to death with respect to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.​

Saved people's former husband (Satan) is put to death and they become Christ’s bride and “belong to another” (Christ) when they become saved which is an illustration taught here and elsewhere. Do you agree?

Let's set-up your anti-OSAS example and say Jane Smith was an unbelieving divorced (three times) woman serving in Iraq on 18 Dec 2014 (by "unbeliever" I mean it the way the Bible actually uses the term "unbeliever" in all twelve of its NT occurrences, i.e. someone who's never actually and truly believed Christ as Lord, in his/her heart). They've never become married to Christ, so-to-speak (much less divorced Him).

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unbeliever&qs_version=LEB

Jane is due to start a military mission into ISIS held territory on 20 Dec and is nervous about her possible death. She shares this fact with another service member on 19 Dec 2014. Jane is then called by the Holy Spirit of God (Acts 2:39) in such a way that Jane truly believes she's a sinner (but doesn't even realize that adultery is a sin), believes in Jesus Christ as her Lord, believes Jesus died for all her sins (even those of adultery which she doesn’t even realize she’s committed since she’s a brand new Christian) and that Jesus was raised from the dead to prove He's God in flesh and can/does actually forgive all her sins (even those she’s been deceived into believing are not sins such as adultery, etc.)
Thusly, Jane is called, saved and given the precious gift from God of Eternal Life on 19 Dec 2014. And according to Paul, in Rom 7, Jane now “belongs to another [Christ]” as His bride.

So far so good, right? OSAS or anti-OSAS has not even been considered, yet. So here goes giving OSAS a 50/50 chance as truth and anti-OSAS a 50/50 chance as truth:

20 Dec comes around and you guessed it, she’s captured by ISIS, raped and forced to denounce Christ and claim Allah as her Lord or die. So, she does. According to you, she’s un-saved, right?

Umm, that’s wrong. The only way she’s freed from Christ and able to re-marry Allah as her new husband is if Christ dies (which he hasn’t). What she’s done is commit yet another act of adultery (which she didn’t even know was a sin to begin with, yet Christ forgave her all her sins the day He married her). Has she sinned, yet again? Yes, sure.
Did her husband (Christ) die, setting her free to re-marry Allah? No.

Thusly she’s still married to Christ. Christ detests her adultery against Him, same as He did the day He married her. But does He divorce her? No.

There’s a reason Paul (and Jesus) uses Biblical marriage (and adultery) as an analogy to our salvation through Christ. And there’s a reason that the only way a bride can actually be Biblically free to re-marry from Christ is Christ dies. And there’s a reason Christ’s blood cleanses us of all our sins, not just a limited # of them.

Anti-OSAS will become a possibility the day Jesus dies again, leaving His bride a widow free to re-marry another husband!

2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband [Jesus] while he [Jesus] lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband.

Otherwise, she's still married to Jesus!​

​

Brilliant example!!

 

[smaller]

Where in the world do you get the idea that God ever commanded Satan to resist???? That is a very bizarre idea.

I quoted Jesus in Mark 4:15 and the correlatives from the other parables will confirm the same activity.

Yes, the enemy of God, that would be SATAN and his, does resist God and His Word. And that resistance transpires IN mankind.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence or support for your very unusual view.

Only if one can't see the obvious by the same working of resistance in themselves.

Where the Word is sown Satan enters hearts to STEAL and to BLIND people to the Gospel.

Whether you believe it or not irrelevant. I'd suggest most are led to just blame MAN in typical accuser manipulated fashions and the expense of entirely overlooking the other party and yeah, that is what YOU do and practice.

But I don't 'blame you' as Gods child, because I know where such oversights originate from the testimony of the Word.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sigh...Ok, are "ex-believers" saved? If a person believed, then ceased to believe, is that person saved?

Why the "sigh"?

Anyway, eternal life is described as "charisma" (gift) in Rom 6:23. With me so far?

In Rom 11:29 Paul wrote that God's gifts (charisma) are irrevocable. With me so far?

Still confused about one who used to believe? Since eternal life, a gift (charisma) of God is irrevocable, they still have the gift.

 

[JLB]

I've pointed you to Romans 11:25-32 as my accepted answer from Paul. Go read it and make your own conclusions.

This is just what I expected from those who push false doctrine.

You can't answer a simple question that each and every Christian knows the answer to.

This just shows how much you really believe what you yourself post.


Do you believe that unbelieving Jews are saved?



JLB

 

[JLB]

Why the "sigh"?

Anyway, eternal life is described as "charisma" (gift) in Rom 6:23. With me so far?

eternal life is given to believers, not unbelievers.

With me so far.


JLB

 

[smaller]

This is just what I expected from those who push false doctrine.

I believe exactly what Paul said is COMPLETELY TRUE.

Doesn't make me the bad guy for believing his statements of fact as noted prior, found in Romans 11:25-32. I also understand that it drives a MACK TRUCK through what you think.

I also understand that people like you will read the same statement and arrive at a conclusion that does not and can not align with Paul. And I don't blame you for not being enabled to see it.

 

[smaller]

duplicate

 

[smaller]

and as another example of circular logic:

Of course satan blinds people

followed by:

Yeah, sure, the devil made them do it. 2

 

[FreeGrace]

eternal life is given to believers, not unbelievers.

Yes, at the exat moment that they believe, according to Jesus, if you believe Him.

John 5:24 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

With me so far?

Now, Paul described eternal life as charisma in Rom 6:23.

Still with me?

Then, Paul wrote that God's giftS (charisma) are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

Still with me?

Note that the word charisma is in the plural in 11:29.

Still with me?

Eternal life is just one of God's gifts (charisma).

Please show this forum WHY charisma cannot refer to eternal life, since you reject that. While you're at it, please show why 11:29 ONLY refers to the spiritual gifts in CH 12.

Still with me?

With me so far.

No. Way ahead of you. And on the right track.

By the way, please explain WHEN you think eternal life is given. Please be specific, as related to WHEN one believes. And back it up with Scripture to support your idea.

 

[FreeGrace]

and as another example of circular logic: followed by:

Your error is in thinking that all sin comes from the devil, as if man has no ability to sin within himself.

I suggest you read James 1.