Salvation in Christ - Secure

[Danus]

I have a questions for anyone here. Which comes first; Salvation or the Christian life?

In the ultimate sense the Christian life comes first. Salvation comes at the resurrection.

Thanks Butch5. A few questions.
How can you further justify that answer that one must first Live the Christian Life, then having done that to Gods satisfaction be granted Salvation?

Also, to what degree must one live the Christian life first to guarantee Salvation? In other words; does God grade on a curve in regards ti this Christian Life prior to being saved?

Can you give us some sound scripture that will help support your position that one must first live a good Christian life and so by doing earn their salvation?

 

[Danus]

*** Just a warning for everyone. Let's not speculate on anyone's salvation or status with God please. Keep the conversation biblicaly based, not personally based. ****

 

[Mitspa]

Hi Ezra,

It's really not a hard issue to research. History gives us the answer. This idea of OSAS is not seen in Christian history until the Reformation in the 1500's. For the first 1500 years of Christianity from the Apostles to the Reformation the church taught that salvation could be lost. That makes it incumbent on the one holding to OSAS to explain how his doctrine which didn't exist for the first 1500 years of Christian history suddenly became the truth of God's word and what had been to from the time of the Apostles is wrong. Additionally, he needs to address the issue of why, if OSAS is true, did the Christians refute the doctrine when it was raised by the Gnostics who John called antichrists. John called the Gnostics antichrist and the Gnostics held the doctrine of OSAS. This leaves the believer of OSAS to explain how a group labeled as antichrists by the Apostle John could have the true doctrine and the church have the wrong doctrine.

do you have any understanding of "church history" before the reformation? Are you trying to uphold the doctrines of the RCC as a biblical point on salvation. The reason the reformers believed and taught eternal salvation, is because they fought and died to read the bible and be allowed to believe what is clearly says.

Just because they fought and died doesn't make them right. The teaching that salvation can be lost can be traced back to the apostles, long before there was a Roman Catholic church. The OSAS dotrine can be traced to the Reformation and no further, thus it is not what the Scriptures teach.

Well I dont care what some call OSAS, I think the scriptures prove that when one turns from grace back into the written code of the law, they are in danger of rejecting salvation.
But the bible itself is the only doctrine and history one needs to prove, that a "believer in grace" can NEVER be seperated from God.

I would be interested know how you can claim that you have knowledge of history that goes to the Apostles. Unless you claim RCC history to be your source?

 

[Mitspa]

i understand scripture

Also the dog that returns to vomit is these same people who turn from the "way of righteousness" the righteousnesss of God by faith, (back to the law) and from the "Holy Commandment" of God.

that would be returning back to the old nature.

Well in truth, when one turns from grace back to legalism, they are turning from the spirit back to the flesh.
As Paul wrote we are those who worship God in Spirit and have no confidence in the flesh. and goes on to say...
Php 3:9 AND BE FOUND IN HIM, NOT HAVING MINE OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS BY THE LAW, BUT THAT WHICH IS THROUGH FAITH OF CHRIST, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH.

so clearly this warning in 2 Pet 2:21-22 is for those who turn from grace back to the law.

 

[ezra]

i dont have time to go into every thing with scripture.. but way i see it. your either saved or your not. no in between.. no straddling the fence . if your in Christ stop worrying if you can or can not fall away.. i get so tired of theology debates about who has best doctrine. in another forum i was told the ARMENIAN Christ was fake and the blood atonement was about as good as ketchup

 

[Butch5]

I have a questions for anyone here. Which comes first; Salvation or the Christian life?

In the ultimate sense the Christian life comes first. Salvation comes at the resurrection.

Thanks Butch5. A few questions.
How can you further justify that answer that one must first Live the Christian Life, then having done that to Gods satisfaction be granted Salvation?

Also, to what degree must one live the Christian life first to guarantee Salvation? In other words; does God grade on a curve in regards ti this Christian Life prior to being saved?

Can you give us some sound scripture that will help support your position that one must first live a good Christian life and so by doing earn their salvation?

Hi Danus,

Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount telling His followers how they should live. Later in John at the end of His ministry He said to the Twelve, if a man keeps my commandments it is he who loves Me, he who does not keep them does not love Me. So, according to Jesus to love Him means to keep His commandments. That is living as He commanded. After the Resurrection He appeared to the twelve to go to the nations baptizing them and teaching them all He had commanded, this included the Sermon on the Mount. The author of Hebrews Speaking of Christ said, 'He became eternal salvation to all who obey Him. Also, Jesus, Paul, and John, said that men would be judged on their works and that the result of that judgment would be either eternal life or damnation.

 

[Butch5]

Hi Ezra,

It's really not a hard issue to research. History gives us the answer. This idea of OSAS is not seen in Christian history until the Reformation in the 1500's. For the first 1500 years of Christianity from the Apostles to the Reformation the church taught that salvation could be lost. That makes it incumbent on the one holding to OSAS to explain how his doctrine which didn't exist for the first 1500 years of Christian history suddenly became the truth of God's word and what had been to from the time of the Apostles is wrong. Additionally, he needs to address the issue of why, if OSAS is true, did the Christians refute the doctrine when it was raised by the Gnostics who John called antichrists. John called the Gnostics antichrist and the Gnostics held the doctrine of OSAS. This leaves the believer of OSAS to explain how a group labeled as antichrists by the Apostle John could have the true doctrine and the church have the wrong doctrine.

do you have any understanding of "church history" before the reformation? Are you trying to uphold the doctrines of the RCC as a biblical point on salvation. The reason the reformers believed and taught eternal salvation, is because they fought and died to read the bible and be allowed to believe what is clearly says.

Just because they fought and died doesn't make them right. The teaching that salvation can be lost can be traced back to the apostles, long before there was a Roman Catholic church. The OSAS dotrine can be traced to the Reformation and no further, thus it is not what the Scriptures teach.

Well I dont care what some call OSAS, I think the scriptures prove that when one turns from grace back into the written code of the law, they are in danger of rejecting salvation.
But the bible itself is the only doctrine and history one needs to prove, that a "believer in grace" can NEVER be seperated from God.

I would be interested know how you can claim that you have knowledge of history that goes to the Apostles. Unless you claim RCC history to be your source?

Hi Mitspa,

The history is there to search. As I said, I am referencing texts that existed before the Roman Catholic Church. If you're claiming OSAS, please explain why we cannot find any references to this teaching in the Church until the 1500's. You see this doctrine has it's roots in Augustine's writings, however, even Augustine didn't hold the OSAS doctrine. As I said, the early teaching on OSAS was among the Gnostics who John called antichrist because they rejected the idea that Jesus and the Christ were the same.

 

[Butch5]

i understand scripture

Also the dog that returns to vomit is these same people who turn from the "way of righteousness" the righteousnesss of God by faith, (back to the law) and from the "Holy Commandment" of God.

that would be returning back to the old nature.

Well in truth, when one turns from grace back to legalism, they are turning from the spirit back to the flesh.
As Paul wrote we are those who worship God in Spirit and have no confidence in the flesh. and goes on to say...
Php 3:9 AND BE FOUND IN HIM, NOT HAVING MINE OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS BY THE LAW, BUT THAT WHICH IS THROUGH FAITH OF CHRIST, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH.

so clearly this warning in 2 Pet 2:21-22 is for those who turn from grace back to the law.

How would one turn back to the Law? There is no temple, no animal sacrifices, and so on.

 

[Mitspa]

i understand scripture

Also the dog that returns to vomit is these same people who turn from the "way of righteousness" the righteousnesss of God by faith, (back to the law) and from the "Holy Commandment" of God.

that would be returning back to the old nature.

Well in truth, when one turns from grace back to legalism, they are turning from the spirit back to the flesh.
As Paul wrote we are those who worship God in Spirit and have no confidence in the flesh. and goes on to say...
Php 3:9 AND BE FOUND IN HIM, NOT HAVING MINE OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS BY THE LAW, BUT THAT WHICH IS THROUGH FAITH OF CHRIST, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH.

so clearly this warning in 2 Pet 2:21-22 is for those who turn from grace back to the law.

How would one turn back to the Law? There is no temple, no animal sacrifices, and so on.

Well there is more to the law than just the temple etc.. There is the Ten Commandments and many other precepts that many are pretending to keep.
Like the sabbath, like feast days, food restrictions etc...

Also I do not accept that you have found writtings from the early church that are not from the RCC.
If so? please post a address where I could look into this new found information, that is held apart from the RCC and their doctrines.
besides that the bible itself is the ONLY AUTHORITY, and it is clear that in grace a believer cannot be seperated from God and salvation in His Love.

 

[Mitspa]

Just because they fought and died doesn't make them right. The teaching that salvation can be lost can be traced back to the apostles, long before there was a Roman Catholic church. The OSAS dotrine can be traced to the Reformation and no further, thus it is not what the Scriptures teach.

Well I dont care what some call OSAS, I think the scriptures prove that when one turns from grace back into the written code of the law, they are in danger of rejecting salvation.
But the bible itself is the only doctrine and history one needs to prove, that a "believer in grace" can NEVER be seperated from God.

I would be interested know how you can claim that you have knowledge of history that goes to the Apostles. Unless you claim RCC history to be your source?

Hi Mitspa,

The history is there to search. As I said, I am referencing texts that existed before the Roman Catholic Church. If you're claiming OSAS, please explain why we cannot find any references to this teaching in the Church until the 1500's. You see this doctrine has it's roots in Augustine's writings, however, even Augustine didn't hold the OSAS doctrine. As I said, the early teaching on OSAS was among the Gnostics who John called antichrist because they rejected the idea that Jesus and the Christ were the same.

You do understand that Augustine is very much considered to be Catholic in fact one could account much of the RCC to his writtings. Also as I said before I do not believe OSAS is true for those who turn from grace back to legalism.
I do not support any mans doctrine or tradition. I look to the Word of God, and it is very clear on this issue, as I have stated.

 

[Deborah13]

If we want to understand what Paul means by the word seal we need to understand what a seal was to Paul. It doesn't matter what a seal means to a 21 century American. All you need to do is look at the book of Revelation to see that a seal can be broken

What did a seal me to Paul? Even then legal documents then may contained a seal of authorization, rather like the seal of a notary or a judge. You will find this definition in the Greek. I see that the 144,000 were sealed in Revelation, is this the seal you speak of?

 

[Butch5]

If we want to understand what Paul means by the word seal we need to understand what a seal was to Paul. It doesn't matter what a seal means to a 21 century American. All you need to do is look at the book of Revelation to see that a seal can be broken

What did a seal me to Paul? Even then legal documents then may contained a seal of authorization, rather like the seal of a notary or a judge. You will find this definition in the Greek. I see that the 144,000 were sealed in Revelation, is this the seal you speak of?

Hi Deborah,

The seal is basically the same a we would understand it. We seal envelopes when mailing them, we buy milk that has a seal. I don't know why people think the seal is something unbreakable because I am not aware of any use of the word seal that means something unbreakable. When an envelope is sealed it is done so with the expectation that the recipient will break the seal. When a milk is purchased it is expected that the user will break the seal. A seal's purpose is to conceal the contents of something from others with the expectation that the recipient will break the seal to see the contents. Likewise the Christian is sealed to protect the contents until the redemption of the purchased possession. However, that doesn't mean the seal can't be broken.

 

[gr8grace]

You're free to disagree, however, your arguments here are not logical. You've made a few assumptions also. First of all, what is a seal? Is it something that cannot be broken of is it something intended to be broken? When you buy milk it is sealed, can it be opened? Yes. When you mail an letter it is sealed, can it be opened? Yes. The purpose of a seal is to allow the recipient to know whether or not the contents of something have been tampered with. In Paul's day a seal was placed on a document so that the recipient would know if anyone tampered with the document while it was in transit. Without a seal someone could have altered the document before it reached its recipient, the seal prevented this. However, when the document was sealed there was every intention that the seal would be broken. Our being sealed with the Holy Spirit marks us as belonging to God, it doesn't mean the seal cannot be broken.

Yeah but we're not talking about a carton of milk or a half broken envelope. We're talking about God the Father, the Kingdom of God and his promises to us. NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can break his seal!! We are sealed with the blood of Christ. His BLOOD Butch.

Urk,

You can't just redefine the terms to fit your doctrine. If we want to understand what Paul means by the word seal we need to understand what a seal was to Paul. It doesn't matter what a seal means to a 21 century American. All you need to do is look at the book of Revelation to see that a seal can be broken. Stating your opinion, no matter how strongly does not make it a fact.

Sphragizo was used in the ancient world for business transactions or business contracts. Signet rings were placed over wax and the transaction was finished. sealing as a signature was used as a guarantee of transactions, authentication of invoices, contracts, laws, directives, orders, policies of kings or rulers. In the spiritual realm, the sealing of the Spirit is God's final stamp of approval. The work for salvation is totally finished according to John 17:4, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.†Joh 19:30, When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.

God the Holy Spirit indwells us and seals us because God the Father signed a contract with us and He doesn't change, MAL 3:6, “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.†We change toward Him, but he never changes toward us. 1 SA 15:29, And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.

 

[Butch5]

Just because they fought and died doesn't make them right. The teaching that salvation can be lost can be traced back to the apostles, long before there was a Roman Catholic church. The OSAS dotrine can be traced to the Reformation and no further, thus it is not what the Scriptures teach.

Well I dont care what some call OSAS, I think the scriptures prove that when one turns from grace back into the written code of the law, they are in danger of rejecting salvation.
But the bible itself is the only doctrine and history one needs to prove, that a "believer in grace" can NEVER be seperated from God.

I would be interested know how you can claim that you have knowledge of history that goes to the Apostles. Unless you claim RCC history to be your source?

Hi Mitspa,

The history is there to search. As I said, I am referencing texts that existed before the Roman Catholic Church. If you're claiming OSAS, please explain why we cannot find any references to this teaching in the Church until the 1500's. You see this doctrine has it's roots in Augustine's writings, however, even Augustine didn't hold the OSAS doctrine. As I said, the early teaching on OSAS was among the Gnostics who John called antichrist because they rejected the idea that Jesus and the Christ were the same.

You do understand that Augustine is very much considered to be Catholic in fact one could account much of the RCC to his writtings. Also as I said before I do not believe OSAS is true for those who turn from grace back to legalism.
I do not support any mans doctrine or tradition. I look to the Word of God, and it is very clear on this issue, as I have stated.

I'm not talking about Augustine. The history goes back much further than Augustine, it goes to the apostles.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Also as I said before I do not believe OSAS is true for those who turn from grace back to legalism.

If someone turns away from grace back to legalism doesn't that mean OSAS is not true?

You said,

I do not support any mans doctrine or tradition. I look to the Word of God, and it is very clear on this issue, as I have stated.

yet what you are claiming is opposed to those men who were there. In essence aren't you saying that you have a better understanding than those people who were actually there? You're words are in opposition to the eye witness accounts. We're not talking about two guys interpreting Scripture, we're talking about one guy interpreting Scripture and another guy giving an eye witness account. Surely you're not suggesting we disregard the eye witness accounts in favor of the opinion of one reading of the events 2000 years later are you?

http://www.christianforums.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=789304

 

[Mitspa]

Hi Mitspa,

The history is there to search. As I said, I am referencing texts that existed before the Roman Catholic Church. If you're claiming OSAS, please explain why we cannot find any references to this teaching in the Church until the 1500's. You see this doctrine has it's roots in Augustine's writings, however, even Augustine didn't hold the OSAS doctrine. As I said, the early teaching on OSAS was among the Gnostics who John called antichrist because they rejected the idea that Jesus and the Christ were the same.

You do understand that Augustine is very much considered to be Catholic in fact one could account much of the RCC to his writtings. Also as I said before I do not believe OSAS is true for those who turn from grace back to legalism.
I do not support any mans doctrine or tradition. I look to the Word of God, and it is very clear on this issue, as I have stated.

I'm not talking about Augustine. The history goes back much further than Augustine, it goes to the apostles.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Also as I said before I do not believe OSAS is true for those who turn from grace back to legalism.

If someone turns away from grace back to legalism doesn't that mean OSAS is not true?

You said,

I do not support any mans doctrine or tradition. I look to the Word of God, and it is very clear on this issue, as I have stated.

yet what you are claiming is opposed to those men who were there. In essence aren't you saying that you have a better understanding than those people who were actually there? You're words are in opposition to the eye witness accounts. We're not talking about two guys interpreting Scripture, we're talking about one guy interpreting Scripture and another guy giving an eye witness account. Surely you're not suggesting we disregard the eye witness accounts in favor of the opinion of one reading of the events 2000 years later are you?

http://www.christianforums.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=789304

Like I said (in grace) OSAS is a doctrine that cannot be challenge, and is a sound doctrine.

And the gnostics did not write the scriptures upon which I form my doctrine, nor those of those on the forum (that I have seen) in which you seem to have so much conflict.

So this is just a false aurgument and has no foundation, other than your attempt to cast the evil charges against those of us who you cannot debate within the scriptures.

And again you have no "first hand" eye witness of anything.
Nor any record of "church" doctrine apart from that of the RCC. if so please bring that info forward, where others can judge its value as it relates to this issue.

 

[Mitspa]

You're free to disagree, however, your arguments here are not logical. You've made a few assumptions also. First of all, what is a seal? Is it something that cannot be broken of is it something intended to be broken? When you buy milk it is sealed, can it be opened? Yes. When you mail an letter it is sealed, can it be opened? Yes. The purpose of a seal is to allow the recipient to know whether or not the contents of something have been tampered with. In Paul's day a seal was placed on a document so that the recipient would know if anyone tampered with the document while it was in transit. Without a seal someone could have altered the document before it reached its recipient, the seal prevented this. However, when the document was sealed there was every intention that the seal would be broken. Our being sealed with the Holy Spirit marks us as belonging to God, it doesn't mean the seal cannot be broken.

Yeah but we're not talking about a carton of milk or a half broken envelope. We're talking about God the Father, the Kingdom of God and his promises to us. NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can break his seal!! We are sealed with the blood of Christ. His BLOOD Butch.

Urk,

You can't just redefine the terms to fit your doctrine. If we want to understand what Paul means by the word seal we need to understand what a seal was to Paul. It doesn't matter what a seal means to a 21 century American. All you need to do is look at the book of Revelation to see that a seal can be broken. Stating your opinion, no matter how strongly does not make it a fact.

Sphragizo was used in the ancient world for business transactions or business contracts. Signet rings were placed over wax and the transaction was finished. sealing as a signature was used as a guarantee of transactions, authentication of invoices, contracts, laws, directives, orders, policies of kings or rulers. In the spiritual realm, the sealing of the Spirit is God's final stamp of approval. The work for salvation is totally finished according to John 17:4, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.” Joh 19:30, When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.

God the Holy Spirit indwells us and seals us because God the Father signed a contract with us and He doesn't change, MAL 3:6, “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” We change toward Him, but he never changes toward us. 1 SA 15:29, And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.

This is a small issue and I believe any honest reading of that scripture would make one to understand that the term is used to say that God Almighty has "SEALED" the believer.

Now one who respects God, understands that only God has power to break this seal, and He has promised He would never leave nor forsake the believer.
As Paul wrote NOTHING can seperate us from the love of God. So those who have His Love are confident, those who do not? Should not be confident.

Those who seek to "earn" there way to heaven are not granted by God to have the assurance granted to those who are justified by faith.

So it is not a strange thing to me, to see many who have no confidence, and no security in salvation. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO!

 

[Butch5]

I'm not talking about Augustine. The history goes back much further than Augustine, it goes to the apostles.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Also as I said before I do not believe OSAS is true for those who turn from grace back to legalism.

If someone turns away from grace back to legalism doesn't that mean OSAS is not true?

You said,

I do not support any mans doctrine or tradition. I look to the Word of God, and it is very clear on this issue, as I have stated.

yet what you are claiming is opposed to those men who were there. In essence aren't you saying that you have a better understanding than those people who were actually there? You're words are in opposition to the eye witness accounts. We're not talking about two guys interpreting Scripture, we're talking about one guy interpreting Scripture and another guy giving an eye witness account. Surely you're not suggesting we disregard the eye witness accounts in favor of the opinion of one reading of the events 2000 years later are you?

http://www.christianforums.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=789304

Like I said (in grace) OSAS is a doctrine that cannot be challenge, and is a sound doctrine.

And the gnostics did not write the scriptures upon which I form my doctrine, nor those of those on the forum (that I have seen) in which you seem to have so much conflict.

So this is just a false aurgument and has no foundation, other than your attempt to cast the evil charges against those of us who you cannot debate within the scriptures.

And again you have no "first hand" eye witness of anything.
Nor any record of "church" doctrine apart from that of the RCC. if so please bring that info forward, where others can judge its value as it relates to this issue.

Are you serious? Make you case for OSAS. Show me a single passage that says salvation can't be lost. I can show plenty that say it can. You claim it's a doctrine that can't be challenged yet not only can it be challenged, it can't even be found in Scripture. The best argument that the OSAS side can present it one from inference. It has to be inferred because there is "NOT" a single passage of Scripture that states it. One would think a doctrine of such magnitude would have a least a single passage of Scripture to support it, yet OSAS has nothing. Since it isn't stated it can't be proven, thus it's an opinion.

As I said, the doctrine has it's roots in Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy. Here's Origen refuting the idea of OSAS around 285 A.D.

8. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God, that he might not send away the people; along with which will be examined also the statement of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” And certain of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is impossible can be lost; and Pharaoh, they say, as being of a ruined nature, is therefore hardened by God, who has mercy upon the spiritual, but hardens the earthly.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers:

 

[Guest]

This is a small issue and I believe any honest reading of that scripture would make one to understand that the term is used to say that God Almighty has "SEALED" the believer.

Now one who respects God, understands that only God has power to break this seal, and He has promised He would never leave nor forsake the believer.
As Paul wrote NOTHING can seperate us from the love of God. So those who have His Love are confident, those who do not? Should not be confident.

Those who seek to "earn" there way to heaven are not granted by God to have the assurance granted to those who are justified by faith.

So it is not a strange thing to me, to see many who have no confidence, and no security in salvation. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO!

Very good Mitspa, the only time He will break the seal is when we die and are called home. Judas never had the fruit of faithfulness, or any other fruit. Blessings.

 

[Mitspa]

I'm not talking about Augustine. The history goes back much further than Augustine, it goes to the apostles.

Isn't this a contradiction?

If someone turns away from grace back to legalism doesn't that mean OSAS is not true?

You said,



yet what you are claiming is opposed to those men who were there. In essence aren't you saying that you have a better understanding than those people who were actually there? You're words are in opposition to the eye witness accounts. We're not talking about two guys interpreting Scripture, we're talking about one guy interpreting Scripture and another guy giving an eye witness account. Surely you're not suggesting we disregard the eye witness accounts in favor of the opinion of one reading of the events 2000 years later are you?

http://www.christianforums.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=789304

Like I said (in grace) OSAS is a doctrine that cannot be challenge, and is a sound doctrine.

And the gnostics did not write the scriptures upon which I form my doctrine, nor those of those on the forum (that I have seen) in which you seem to have so much conflict.

So this is just a false aurgument and has no foundation, other than your attempt to cast the evil charges against those of us who you cannot debate within the scriptures.

And again you have no "first hand" eye witness of anything.
Nor any record of "church" doctrine apart from that of the RCC. if so please bring that info forward, where others can judge its value as it relates to this issue.

Are you serious? Make you case for OSAS. Show me a single passage that says salvation can't be lost. I can show plenty that say it can. You claim it's a doctrine that can't be challenged yet not only can it be challenged, it can't even be found in Scripture. The best argument that the OSAS side can present it one from inference. It has to be inferred because there is "NOT" a single passage of Scripture that states it. One would think a doctrine of such magnitude would have a least a single passage of Scripture to support it, yet OSAS has nothing. Since it isn't stated it can't be proven, thus it's an opinion.

As I said, the doctrine has it's roots in Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy. Here's Origen refuting the idea of OSAS around 285 A.D.

8. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God, that he might not send away the people; along with which will be examined also the statement of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” And certain of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is impossible can be lost; and Pharaoh, they say, as being of a ruined nature, is therefore hardened by God, who has mercy upon the spiritual, but hardens the earthly.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers:

Well like I said these are all RCC sources and of course they agree with RCC doctrine. Like I said you have no information that confronts reformation doctrine but that which was the object to be protested and reformed.
And many scriptures that prove this doctrine have been presented to you. It requires faith to have confidence in the promises of God. If one does not have faith, of course they will not believe what the promise says.
Now I have quoted ONE scripture and it in itself proves my point that NOTHING CAN seperate a believer from the love of God. If that does not save one forever? Then I do not know what does?
Rom 8:38-39

I am not here to defend OSAS, nor is there one constant doctrine that those who use the term all agree too.
But in general, it is a sound and very biblical position.

Now Origen himself was accused by many of being a heritic,
and his teachings are NOT ACCEPTED as any witness to the truth of scripture.

The insult you charge against those who believe the clear and evident truth of the scriptures, is just that? an insult and it has no purpose other than to make a false charge against the true gospel.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not talking about Augustine. The history goes back much further than Augustine, it goes to the apostles.

Isn't this a contradiction?

If someone turns away from grace back to legalism doesn't that mean OSAS is not true?

You said,



yet what you are claiming is opposed to those men who were there. In essence aren't you saying that you have a better understanding than those people who were actually there? You're words are in opposition to the eye witness accounts. We're not talking about two guys interpreting Scripture, we're talking about one guy interpreting Scripture and another guy giving an eye witness account. Surely you're not suggesting we disregard the eye witness accounts in favor of the opinion of one reading of the events 2000 years later are you?

http://www.christianforums.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=789304

Like I said (in grace) OSAS is a doctrine that cannot be challenge, and is a sound doctrine.

And the gnostics did not write the scriptures upon which I form my doctrine, nor those of those on the forum (that I have seen) in which you seem to have so much conflict.

So this is just a false aurgument and has no foundation, other than your attempt to cast the evil charges against those of us who you cannot debate within the scriptures.

And again you have no "first hand" eye witness of anything.
Nor any record of "church" doctrine apart from that of the RCC. if so please bring that info forward, where others can judge its value as it relates to this issue.

Are you serious? Make you case for OSAS. Show me a single passage that says salvation can't be lost. I can show plenty that say it can. You claim it's a doctrine that can't be challenged yet not only can it be challenged, it can't even be found in Scripture. The best argument that the OSAS side can present it one from inference. It has to be inferred because there is "NOT" a single passage of Scripture that states it. One would think a doctrine of such magnitude would have a least a single passage of Scripture to support it, yet OSAS has nothing. Since it isn't stated it can't be proven, thus it's an opinion.

As I said, the doctrine has it's roots in Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy. Here's Origen refuting the idea of OSAS around 285 A.D.

8. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God, that he might not send away the people; along with which will be examined also the statement of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” And certain of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is impossible can be lost; and Pharaoh, they say, as being of a ruined nature, is therefore hardened by God, who has mercy upon the spiritual, but hardens the earthly.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers:

Well like I said these are all RCC sources and of course they agree with RCC doctrine. Like I said you have no information that confronts reformation doctrine but that which was the object to be protested and reformed.
And many scriptures that prove this doctrine have been presented to you. It requires faith to have confidence in the promises of God. If one does not have faith, of course they will not believe what the promise says.
Now I have quoted ONE scripture and it in itself proves my point that NOTHING CAN seperate a believer from the love of God. If that does not save one forever? Then I do not know what does?
Rom 8:38-39

I am not here to defend OSAS, nor is there one constant doctrine that those who use the term all agree too.
But in general, it is a sound and very biblical position.

Now Origen himself was accused by many of being a heritic,
and his teachings are NOT ACCEPTED as any witness to the truth of scripture.

The insult you charge against those who believe the clear and evident truth of the scriptures, is just that? an insult and it has no purpose other than to make a false charge against the true gospel.

No, they are not. There was no RCC in 285 A.D. You're simply dismissing any evidence that is against your position. As I said, in 285 there was no RCC. Your claim about Origen will be seen as bogus unless you can back it up. You claim of Romans 8:38-39 does not support OSAS. Paul said nothing could separate them from the "Love" of God, He didn't say nothing could separate them from God. Jesus said, "for God so loved the world" are you going to argue that the whole world will be saved? He said, "that those who believe might be saved". Clearly He loves those who are not saved. So this passage does nothing to support OSAS. I've already shown the doctrine has it's roots in Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy. And so far you have made "NO" case for the doctrine. Where is Scripture telling us that salvation cannot be lost?

o·pin·ion
[ ə pínnyən ]

• personal view: the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment
• estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something
• expert view: an expert assessment of something