Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

[Jedi Knight]

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."Job 19:25-27.
Job was certain.:godisgood:

 

[Trotter]

Either a person is saved or he is not. If that person is saved, he was saved through the power of God through the Holy Spirit. If it is God that has done the saving, then it is God that will do the keeping.

How can a man undo what only God is able to do? What sin can a man commit that cannot be covered by the shed blood of Christ? I have yet to receive a solid answer to these questions.

 

[steaver]

May we persevere in obedience and love, for any notion of persevering while in a state of disobedience is at antipodes to a present, trustworthy, lively hope in Christ.

While a Christian may at times feel hopeless and unsure it does not change the fact that they are "in Christ".

The scriptures are there to encourage this one to "hang in there".

Mature Christians are to lift up the weak brother with these wonderful promises, not to make the weak brother feel lost and hell bound for their failures as in....."you better obey or else". This isn't the purpose of the Law. The Law is to show a Christian who has received grace how we ought to live holy lives.

You preach condemnation to the disobedient Christian. This goes against a ton of scripture. You use scriptures of encouragement to perservere to condemn the believer. This should not be.

 

[steaver]

If I may be so bold, it appears that how you address the question of "How can I know I am saved?" has little, if any, direct relationship to OSAS. Is that a fair assessment?

I don't think so.

You had said this earlier....

Originally Posted by dwmoeller1
Which doesn't negate the possibility that a person might choose to willingly reject the eternal life and choose to disbelieve what they previously believed.

A proper scriptural understanding of regeneration negates the possibility of one believing what God has revealed as truth and then deciding they no longer believe what they have been given absolute knowledge of...Jesus Christ.

Also regeneration is a new birth of a new creature. Two become one. Spirit joins with spirit. Part of this new creature's very being is the Holy Spirit. Just as one could not change the fact that they were born into this world, one cannot change the fact that they were born into Christ. Nor would their new nature desire too even if the old nature makes it uncomfortable during growth from a babe unto maturity.

Understand regeneration and you will understand OSAS.

Regeneration IS OSAS.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: The scriptures are there to encourage this one to "hang in there".

HP: You present salvation as one that could not choose to do otherwise under any conditions. The picture you paint is one permanently 'hung in there,' not needing in the least to exert any effort or make any choices to ‘hang in there.’ Salvation as you present it is not a choice but a fate.

 

[BillySunday1935]

HP: You present salvation as one that could not choose to do otherwise under any conditions. The picture you paint is one permanently 'hung in there,' not needing in the least to exert any effort or make any choices to ‘hang in there.’ Salvation as you present it is not a choice but a fate.

Salvation is a choice - a choice to accept His gift of salvation. It is, however, a gift which we can walk away from or refuse at anytime. Being the 2nd person of the Trinity, Jesus was not ignorant of OSAS. He knew very well the heresis that would come against his Church.

Peace!

 

[dwmoeller1]

Either a person is saved or he is not. If that person is saved, he was saved through the power of God through the Holy Spirit. If it is God that has done the saving, then it is God that will do the keeping.

How can a man undo what only God is able to do? What sin can a man commit that cannot be covered by the shed blood of Christ? I have yet to receive a solid answer to these questions.

This goes back to one's view of man's part in salvation. If you believe that you were saved due to an act of free will, then it stands to reason that you can also walk away from that salvation by act of free will. You cannot lose your salvation, but you can give it up.

This is a reasonable view and really can only be negated by dealing with one's view of salvation and how man's will plays a part in salvation. However, as was pointed out by Steaver, it doesn't address the question of how man's nature and will might be changed by salvation. So, if one believe's free will is a key component in receiving salvation, then it stands to reason that there is the possibility that man can also leave his salvation by free will...but true salvation means that there is no real possibility that a man would ever *want* to leave his salvation.

So, in the end it remains (for those who assign free will an essential part in salvation) theoretical possibility, but due to the nature of salvation and its effect and changes in a man, it effectively a non-possibility from a practical point of view.

Make sense?

 

[dwmoeller1]

I don't think so.
You had said this earlier....

A proper scriptural understanding of regeneration negates the possibility of one believing what God has revealed as truth and then deciding they no longer believe what they have been given absolute knowledge of...Jesus Christ.

Also regeneration is a new birth of a new creature. Two become one. Spirit joins with spirit. Part of this new creature's very being is the Holy Spirit. Just as one could not change the fact that they were born into this world, one cannot change the fact that they were born into Christ. Nor would their new nature desire too even if the old nature makes it uncomfortable during growth from a babe unto maturity.

Understand regeneration and you will understand OSAS.

Regeneration IS OSAS.

Ok I see your thinking. And I agree. Really though, this view is much closer to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints than it is to OSAS.

Let me make a distinction about the word "possibility" to see if that helps explain. When one says there is a/no possibility, and when this possibility is about someone's will or what they might choose to do, there must be two distinct senses in which this can be meant. I will call them "theoretical" and "real" possibility.

If I am presented with a choice to which I am not neutral, nor to which no real neutrality can reasonably be attached, then I can see that choice in two ways. So, for instance, lets say that I hate spinach with the core of my being - there is something about me which is utterly revolted by spinach and I see no value in it. If I am offered the choice of eating spinach, is there any possibility that I will freely choose to eat it?

In one sense, it is undeniable that there is a possibility I would choose to eat spinach. After all, I have the facility for eating spinach (mouth, teeth, jaw muscles, etc.), no one is restraining from eating the spinach, the spinach is within my reach - in short, there is no reason why I can't make a choice of will to eat the spinach. Its not like the choice of flying on my own power (no facility - ie. no wings), or the choice of convict to simply walk out of prison (being restrained), or the choice of walking on the moon in the evening (out of my reach). Those are choices which I have no possibility of attaining regardless of what my will may choose. But eating spinach is easily within the realm of possibility if I so choose to do so. So, from one perspective, it is very much a possibility that I would choose to eat spinach. This I call a theoretical possibility.

However, if I truly hate spinach, there is no real possibility that I will freely choose to eat spinach. I might be compelled and have it forced down my throat, but if I really hate it, then there is no real possibility that I will choose to eat it, even if there is a theoretical possibility that I could.

See the distinction. This is essentially what I am pointing out. OSAS would deny the theoretical possibility of one becoming unsaved. In effect, they would deny free will by saying there is no possibility is no sense that one could become unsaved. You (and I agree totally) are more pointing out that there is no real possibility...and I agree but point out one cannot deny the theoretical possibility.

In short, one is never unsaved, not because they are unable to choose to be unsaved in all senses, but that, even if given the real choice of going back, they would never ever choose to do so. This approach, IMO, is able to address all the problematic verses that OSAS has trouble dealing with in a consistent manner.

 

[Trotter]

This goes back to one's view of man's part in salvation. If you believe that you were saved due to an act of free will, then it stands to reason that you can also walk away from that salvation by act of free will. You cannot lose your salvation, but you can give it up.

This is a reasonable view and really can only be negated by dealing with one's view of salvation and how man's will plays a part in salvation. However, as was pointed out by Steaver, it doesn't address the question of how man's nature and will might be changed by salvation. So, if one believe's free will is a key component in receiving salvation, then it stands to reason that there is the possibility that man can also leave his salvation by free will...but true salvation means that there is no real possibility that a man would ever *want* to leave his salvation.

So, in the end it remains (for those who assign free will an essential part in salvation) theoretical possibility, but due to the nature of salvation and its effect and changes in a man, it effectively a non-possibility from a practical point of view.

Make sense?

Man's view has nothing to do with salvation, though. God's view is the only view. How you and I see salvation coming about may differ, but it is the same with both of us as far as God sees it.

Salvation is wrought by God. Even if one holds to free will and that man must chose God, the very act of salvation is performed by God alone as man has nothing and can do nothing to earn salvation. So, in the end, it is still God doing the saving.

Unless God is not omnipotent, and thus not God, He cannot "lose" one of His own. Each person who accepts salvation is adopted into God's family and becomes an heir of His kingdom and a joint heir with Christ. Paul wrote these with the the Roman way of adoption in view which was if one was adopted they became a permanent part of the family and could never be disowned (unlike naturally born children). Therefore salvation is not an "on again, off again" proposition whether one decides he wants to walk away or not.

I may not always act like a child of God. There have been times when I cursed God and shook my fist at Him. Even at these times I still belonged to Him. I was a disobedient child but He still loved me. Even if I had remained in that condition I would still have belonged to Him. My own will, or anyone else's for that matter, is not enough to sever what God was done.

The same goes for sin. There is no sin that Christ did not cover. Since Christ has already paid the penalty how could a person break their salvation through sin? Sin can and does create distance between us and God, but it cannot sever that bond God creates through salvation.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Either a person is saved or he is not. If that person is saved, he was saved through the power of God through the Holy Spirit. If it is God that has done the saving, then it is God that will do the keeping.

How can a man undo what only God is able to do? What sin can a man commit that cannot be covered by the shed blood of Christ? I have yet to receive a solid answer to these questions.

There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

It is the refusal to ask for forgiveness - a refusal to repent - it is known as the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Peace!

 

[dwmoeller1]

Man's view has nothing to do with salvation, though. God's view is the only view. How you and I see salvation coming about may differ, but it is the same with both of us as far as God sees it.

Very true. At the same time, all we have in the end when we communicate and think is how we view it. We may be constantly striving to see it how God sees it, but no one ever fully reaches that place (barring direct and specific revelation of the HS), nor should we expect to. After all, we aren't God to be able to see things from His eyes.

At the same time, how we view it has a major impact on how we interpret Scripture and view other doctrines. You asked "How could someone believe..." pointing out their possible view on salvation was an attempt to answer that.

So, talking about people view things (like salvation) is both meaningful and useful. It would be prideful and fallacious to insist that when I speak that I am speaking Gods view of things rather than simply my view of what I believe God's view to be.

But maybe we are just talking past each other here.

Salvation is wrought by God. Even if one holds to free will and that man must chose God, the very act of salvation is performed by God alone as man has nothing and can do nothing to earn salvation. So, in the end, it is still God doing the saving.

Yeah, totally. But, none of this bars the possibility that the same man who chose to believe may also choose to not believe. The same man who chose to accept salvation by free will also chooses to reject salvation by free will. It depends on exactly how you see free will interacting with the process of salvation.

Unless God is not omnipotent, and thus not God, He cannot "lose" one of His own. Each person who accepts salvation is adopted into God's family and becomes an heir of His kingdom and a joint heir with Christ. Paul wrote these with the the Roman way of adoption in view which was if one was adopted they became a permanent part of the family and could never be disowned (unlike naturally born children). Therefore salvation is not an "on again, off again" proposition whether one decides he wants to walk away or not.

So someone can be saved *against* their free will? God forces people into heaven who don't want to go? These would be the reaction of those who see free will as playing an essential role in salvation. And they have a point. Any formulation of this doctrine which can logically end up with people unwillingly be saved is not a sound doctrine. Again, that is a problem with OSAS and why perseverance of the saints is much better in dealing with these questions.

I may not always act like a child of God. There have been times when I cursed God and shook my fist at Him. Even at these times I still belonged to Him. I was a disobedient child but He still loved me. Even if I had remained in that condition I would still have belonged to Him. My own will, or anyone else's for that matter, is not enough to sever what God was done.

So you made no significant choices when you became saved? Would you still have been saved if you had refused to make these choices? In short, could God save you in contradiction to your will - could salvation take place while you still hated God and refused good?

The same goes for sin. There is no sin that Christ did not cover. Since Christ has already paid the penalty how could a person break their salvation through sin? Sin can and does create distance between us and God, but it cannot sever that bond God creates through salvation.

Scripture strongly indicates that those who continuously live in unrepentant sin cannot be saved. You seem to be saying that one who Christ saved could live in continuous and unrepentant sin yet still be saved. This would contradict several clear verses in Scripture. This seems to be a difficulty for OSAS to deal with. How would you deal with it?

 

[dwmoeller1]

There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

It is the refusal to ask for forgiveness - a refusal to repent - it is known as the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Peace!

In your view, can one who truly accepts God's mercy and "is saved" ever reach a state of impenitence and eternal loss afterwards?

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

If I may be so bold, it appears that how you address the question of "How can I know I am saved?" has little, if any, direct relationship to OSAS. Is that a fair assessment?

That depends on the flavor of Calvinism that you are using to believe in OSAS.

In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is out the window entirely. Thus it matters not if you persevere - you may be saved one day - then live like the devil the rest of your life - as along as that salvation event was real - the 4 point Calvinist model says you remain saved "anyway".

This in this model - your basis for assurance is everything - because perseverance reveals nothing about that salvation.

And some Arminians will innexplicably adopt that form of OSAS.

------------------------------------

In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

And some Arminians will innexplicably adopt that retro-delete doctrine on assurance of salvation in order to cling to OSAS "no matter what".

Thus in this view - there is no such thing as real assurance -- until you see that ten years from today you do not fail to persevere.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
This is where it would have paid you to actually read the Matt 18 story referenced in the OP "I FORGAVE YOU ALL " is followed by "hand him over to the torturers until he should repay ALL".

This is a parable and should be treated as such.

A point that Christ must surely have known when He said -- speaking outside of the parable -- "SO shall My Father do to each one of you IF you do not forgive your brother from your heart".

Basing doctrine on a parable is, at best, shaky. So, using this parable to prove your doctrine would be fallacious.

In this particular case that wooden rule only works if you can prove that Christ was mistaken in his own application of his own parable since he makes that application outside of the parable itself.

In light of that detail - the point is sustained.

However, you raise a valid point. The story does suggest some sort of "forgiven but not really forgiven" situation.

In the parable we have the "I forgave you all" statement and the argument that is made - is in the form "in like manner as you have really been forgiven - so you should forgive".

But IF it could be argued that the slave was not "really" forgiven - then it could also be argued that the slave WAS in fact forgiving others JUST AS he had been forgiven - for in fact - he had not really been forgiven.

And in that case it would be the King in the story that is unjust by demanding that of his servant which he himself was unwilling to perform.

But the parable suggests no such thing.

Since this is apparently inconsistent with the doctrine of eternal security its not really fair for an OSAS to just gloss over it. It deserves a thoughtful response. I am not OSAS but I think I can address it to their satisfaction.

Please do - all they have done so far is come up with reasons why this Gospel teaching of Christ should be ignored at this point.

First of all, your point depends a lot on creating an exact parallel between the Christian life and the parable - its about a person who is saved (is forgiven), but then loses his salvation (punished in hell).

I agree. My point rests heavily on the "SO shall My Father do to each one of you IF you do not forgive your brother from your heart" - statement of Christ being a form of approval of the fact that this parable is in fact reliably parrallel to real life salvation events.

Its one possible parable, but if another reasonable parallel exists, then the main force of your argument disappears. So, is there another reasonable parallel?

Most definitely. The forgiveness but yet not forgiven aspect of the story could reasonable represent something else besides a story of conversion which is then lost. In fact, I believe the parallel I am going to suggest is much more in line with the elements of the parable.

The key element in looking at this parable is to notice the reaction of the servant. He is offered forgiveness but to all apparent evidence, it doesn't appear that the servant was ever truly repentant. The servant is like all unbeliever, all those who never repent - they are offered the gift of forgiveness of sins, they hear it and like it, but they never repent and accept the conditions of this forgiveness.

That is a wonderful alternative summation or "takeway" based on the parable that Christ possibly should have used instead of the one that He actually did use - the one that focuses on the King and his reaction to the servant.

If Christ had chosen to go down the path you suggest above - simply stating that this parable shows how an unforgiven servant will very likely ALSO be unforgiving to others because he himself has no knowlege of Mercy and grace and full forgiveness received and experienced in the life - then certainly this could be no argument against OSAS.

Of course Christ would also have to replace a few key details in the parable to make that kind of "see this servant was never forgiven by the king in the first place" argument.

. Just like the forgiveness of salvation, the application of forgiveness in this parable was conditional upon true repentance by the servant.

Not quite. At the moment the servant stands before the King - the King does not say "go out and forgive your fellow servant first - and then I will release you from this debt".

The forgiveness and release is experience by the servant first.

Only in the light of that full pardon is the servant expected to forgive others and Christ's application (pre-cross) indicates that His followers had also been fully forgiven and were expected to show the same sense of real forgiveness to others as was being stressed in the parable.

This is not a story of man who was truly repentant, was saved and forgiven in fact...and then later lost that forgiveness. Instead, this is a parable of a man who was *offered* conditional forgiveness, recognized the offer but never repented

You seem to imagine a parable about a King that says - "make this servant pay all that is owed -- oh no wait! I think I might like to forgive this servant" only to have the servant reply "No thanks my King -- I do not need your forgiveness.. I think I have this one covered on my own. Here here is the payment .. you need not toss me and my family into prison, nor turn me over to torturers" -- where upon the King receives the payment owed and the servant then goes out to his fellow slave - demanding payment and unwilling to show mercy.

Certainly that parable fits the points you are trying to make in that case above.

But in the case of the actual parable in Matt 18 - we see the opposite points being brought out not only in the parable - but also in the application by Christ.

and thus never was forgiven in fact.

I agree with you that a "never was forgiven in the first place" sort of story could be contructed to fit a "never was forgiven in the first place" conclusion - and if this were an exercise in "creative bible writing" perhaps we could all construct such a scenario worthy of replacing what we currently find in the text.

Or not.

Your solution not only requires that we ignore the specific details of the parable Christ tells - but also requires that we pay no attention to His concluding remarks. That is a "distance from the text" that not everyone here will be comfortable with -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

[/U][/B]
That depends on the flavor of Calvinism that you are using to believe in OSAS.

Assurance of salvation does not depend upon a man. It depends upon whether or not:
1. A person has trusted Christ as Savior.
2. That person is trusting in the promises of the Savior as written in the Word.
Faith comes by hearing; and hearing by the Word of God. The more we spend in the Word and in prayer, the more we develop a relationship with Christ. His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. True Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship.

In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is out the window entirely. Thus it matters not if you persevere - you may be saved one day - then live like the devil the rest of your life - as along as that salvation event was real - the 4 point Calvinist model says you remain saved "anyway".

If your faith is in a man perhaps you are not saved at all. It is Christ that saves; not Calvin. Thus the above point is moot. Scripture I am willing to hear.

This in this model - your basis for assurance is everything - because perseverance reveals nothing about that salvation.

And some Arminians will innexplicably adopt that form of OSAS.

Again, man's opinion. I don't follow a man. Where is the Bible in the plan of salvation you present? You don't use one??

In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

You are totally ignoring the question asked, and are presenting the philosophy/theology of a man. No Scripture is presented. Do you also follow a man/woman? I think we all know the answer to this question.

And some Arminians will innexplicably adopt that retro-delete doctrine on assurance of salvation in order to cling to OSAS "no matter what".

Do you know the price of tea in China these days?

Thus in this view - there is no such thing as real assurance -- until you see that ten years from today you do not fail to persevere.

in Christ,

Bob

Seeing you have not attempted to answer the question posted why did you even bother to post?

 

[Trotter]

But, none of this bars the possibility that the same man who chose to believe may also choose to not believe. The same man who chose to accept salvation by free will also chooses to reject salvation by free will. It depends on exactly how you see free will interacting with the process of salvation.

I can choose to not believe in gravity but it will have the same effect as choosing to stop believing in God's finished work. Once salvation is done by God it is no longer in man's hands. This seems to be the point where the two sides disagree. If it is up to man to keep himself saved, whether by works or continuing to believe, then it is not salvation at all. Either God does it and therefore keeps it or it is just wishful thinking on man's part.

So someone can be saved *against* their free will? God forces people into heaven who don't want to go? These would be the reaction of those who see free will as playing an essential role in salvation. And they have a point. Any formulation of this doctrine which can logically end up with people unwillingly be saved is not a sound doctrine. Again, that is a problem with OSAS and why perseverance of the saints is much better in dealing with these questions.

No one is ever saved against their will. I do not appreciate anyone twisting my words or trying to draw out conclusions I did not make. I have no idea where you came up with that one as I never said anything akin to it. No one who refuses the free gift offer by God is saved. Once that person accepts it he/she is adopted into the family of God. You are either in or out and that door only goes in one direction.

So you made no significant choices when you became saved? Would you still have been saved if you had refused to make these choices? In short, could God save you in contradiction to your will - could salvation take place while you still hated God and refused good?

Stop trying to put words in my mouth or making inane conclusions. My life was radically changed when I was saved. The times I mentioned were not at my point of salvation but came much later. I did not remain in that state, nor will I elaborate on the conditions that brought it about. i used them as an example of a child of God in complete rebellion and yet remaining in the family of God.

When I accepted Christ I did so through my own choice. Up until that point I was still a sinner bound for Hell and eternal damnation. I asked Jesus Christ to save me and repented of my past life and sins. It was a transaction through faith, and that faith was given by God. I could have refused and remained lost but I didn't.

Scripture strongly indicates that those who continuously live in unrepentant sin cannot be saved. You seem to be saying that one who Christ saved could live in continuous and unrepentant sin yet still be saved. This would contradict several clear verses in Scripture. This seems to be a difficulty for OSAS to deal with. How would you deal with it?

Yet another straw man. OSAS is not a cloak for being able to live like the devil; it is not fire insurance. Anyone who continues to live in unrepentant sin is showing evidence of having never known Christ to begin with. And yet those who oppose OSAS continue to try to throw this up as some sort of legitimate argument.

I have no problem dealing with it. A person who is saved will show this by there being a difference in their life from before salvation. There will be times where everyone will falter and sin as we are still bound in our mortal bodies and subject to this world, but this is not the same as continuous unrepentant sin. Even a true Christian may remain in such for a season but God will not give them peace in it as He knows His own and chastens them.

A person's condition of salvation is known only to them and God, and sometimes only to God as there are many who think that their works, deeds, church, or whatever is going to get them there. We cannot look at someone and know whether they are God's or not as there is not insignia or mark to distinguish us from the non-saved. Our lives and actions will show it, but even then one cannot judge due to us living in a sinful world. everyone can and does sin, but that does not mean that we lose our salvation.

 

[dwmoeller1]

HP: You present salvation as one that could not choose to do otherwise under any conditions. The picture you paint is one permanently 'hung in there,' not needing in the least to exert any effort or make any choices to ‘hang in there.’ Salvation as you present it is not a choice but a fate.

I think that the concept of "could not...otherwise" runs into the same problems as the concept of "unable" and "possible". These concepts all ultimately have to do with the will, and when dealing with the will one need to take into account the nature of the man which informs the will.

These concepts have two very legitimate senses in Christian theology. In one sense, "ability/could/possibility" refer simply to the faculty of the will and recognize that the will is, in one very real sense, free. That means that, in one sense, it is possible for any unbeliever to, of their own free will, repent and believe totally of their own volition. Hence, "whosoever will may come". There is nothing external which prevents them from coming to Christ if they will to do so. Unregenerate man is able, in one sense, to come to God totally on his own. He has the faculty of will necessary to make that choice, and no one can compel him otherwise if he doesn't will it.

At the same time, unbelieving man HATES God with the very core of their being. So sure, they have the faculty to choose to repent and believe but such a choice is so repellent to their outlook, attitudes and nature that there is no real possibility (in the other sense) that they will ever make such a choice. Hence "no man may come to Me except the Father draw Him".

So, on one hand, the man is able, and on the other hand, man is unable. Both are equally true and the statement is not contradictory because able is being used in two distinct ways.

That's what I see going on here. Steaver talks about "able/possible" and tends to focus on the latter sense - that, regardless of man's faculty to choose otherwise, there is no realistic/practical possibility that they will actually do so. HP on the other hand seems to be (at least in his responses to steaver) focusing on the first sense - that man clearly is able (ie. has the faculty and is not being compelled/restrained otherwise) to make any moral choice he wishes.

Making sense so far? Is this helpful at all?


Ok, so now to see if I can resolve what I see as the "talking past each other" that I perceive is going on...
HP: You present salvation as one that could not choose to do otherwise under any conditions.

Say rather that steaver is presenting salvation as such a fundamental change of nature that one *would* not choose to do otherwise. Sure, man may still struggle with the old nature that still hangs on in our bodies, but, in the end, the regenerate man loves God and the things of God at the core of his being and would never ever choose to finally reject God. In fact, regeneration/salvation produces such a profound change to the core of the believers nature that it makes perfect sense to say "cannot" (in one sense).

HP: The picture you paint is one permanently 'hung in there,' not needing in the least to exert any effort or make any choices to ‘hang in there.’

In regards to the nature of saved man this is true. The fundamental change that regeneration produces in the believer is not related at all to effort or choices of the believer. Regeneration is "all God". Before regeneration one hates God at the core of his being - after regeneration he loves God at the core of his being. Just as physical generation has zilcho to do with the will or effort of the neonate, so spiritual generation has nothing to do with the will or effort of the believer. The believer does not need to continue to will their love for God - it is part of their nature now. Just as they didn't need to will their new nature into being (nor could they have), nor do they need to continue to will this nature in order to retain it. Its as natural as breathing.

So yes, in that sense, they are permanently "hung in there" without needing the least effort. HOWEVER, when it comes to assurance of salvation or continuing in good works, steaver's position does not at all imply this "hung in there" or lack of effort. He, so far, seems to be focusing almost exclusively on the nature of man after regeneration and reasoning from this basis. You are focusing on the "assurance" aspect of salvation and reading his statement in that light. And vice versa (not trying to place any blame - just trying to explain the disconnect I see going on, HP's post just happened to be the one I am focusing my response around) - steaver seems to be missing you very valid points about the connection of "works" to "assurance".

HP: Salvation as you present it is not a choice but a fate.

Can you clarify something for me? As I understood your position, you seemed to hold that, if one is truly upon the path to salvation, that one will ultimately reach that end. Is this essentially accurate (allowing for a confusion in terminology due to the fact that I don't yet fully understand where you are coming from)?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Zenas
All right, I can accept that but it is dangerous because it gives a person a license to sin. You say, no such thing, and point to something like Romans 6:1-2, but the unlearned Christian doesn't understand this. Come to think of though, it doesn't really matter if OSAS is really true.

I am not OSAS but I grew up as such. I know the doctrine well enough to know that the above is a straw man. You have unfairly characterized the doctrine - some may actually use this as a license to sin, but no serious proponent of the doctrine believes this way. OSAS would be just as strong as you in denying any sort of license to sin.

OSAS is no more inherently dangerous than your own position. I could point out that your doctrine is dangerous because it causes the believer to constantly live in fear and insecurity. Such an characterization of your position would be just as fair/unfair as your above.

Its best to deal with doctrines fairly and without resorting to strawmen to disprove them.

You are in a bit of an error here.

While it is true that not all "flavors" of OSAS are the 4 Point Calvinst "deny perseverance of the saints" flavor -- still it is just as true that Zenas's argument applies perfectly to that form of OSAS that is quite explict among 4 point Calvinists and among Arminians who innexplicably choose the OSAS flavor of 4-pointers -- it is totally untrue that 4 point Calvinists "do not exist" and equally untrue that "There are no arminians that take the 4-Pointer's flavor of OSAS".

Thus to be fair your complaint could use an adjustment.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I

At the same time, unbelieving man HATES God with the very core of their being. So sure, they have the faculty to choose to repent and believe but such a choice is so repellent to their outlook, attitudes and nature that there is no real possibility (in the other sense) that they will ever make such a choice. Hence "no man may come to Me except the Father draw Him".

So, on one hand, the man is able, and on the other hand, man is unable. Both are equally true and the statement is not contradictory because able is being used in two distinct ways.

1. It is not true that unbelieving man "hates God with every fiber of their being".

Becuase as we see in Romn 9 even the wicked can be "hardened" from their initital condition.

2. While you are correct that the sinful state of man does not allow him to choose life and seek after God - yet in Gen 3 we see that God supernaturally places enmity between mankind and Satan, and in John 12:32 - Christ says that He "DRAWS ALL" unto Him. In John 16 we are told that the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD" of sin and righteousness and judgment.

Therefore God is providing the supernatural "drawing power" for ALL - that enables ALL to choose life if they will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

[/U][/B]That depends on the flavor of Calvinism that you are using to believe in OSAS.

Ummmm...Calvinists reject OSAS as well so I am not getting your point here.

In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is out the window entirely. Thus it matters not if you persevere - you may be saved one day - then live like the devil the rest of your life - as along as that salvation event was real - the 4 point Calvinist model says you remain saved "anyway".

With rare exceptions, 4 point Cists reject the doctrine of limited atonement, not perseverance of the saints. I don't think you will find any serious Cist who doesn't hold to that doctrine. I suspect you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Calvinism and those who hold it. But please, by all means, refer me to a serious (or even popular for that matter) Calvinist who rejects this doctrine and I will concede the matter.

This in this model - your basis for assurance is everything - because perseverance reveals nothing about that salvation.

And some Arminians will innexplicably adopt that form of OSAS.

This has always been a point of dispute within Arminianism. In fact, the 5 points of Arminianism leaves this open to question. However, the original tendency in Aism was towards some form of perseverance of the saints.

In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

Meh, you totally misunderstand the doctrine. Now sure, some may misapply it, but the doctrine itself is quite clear. Assurance in perseverance of the saints is not some retroactive thing. How the doctrine relates to to assurance is that as soon as it appears that you aren't persevering (ie. living in unrepentant sin), you can no longer have assurance of salvation. There is little, if any, retroactive looking - the question of "was I saved" is essentially moot and the only question that matters if "Do I have good reason right now to believe I am saved."

What you may be seeing is those raised in Cist backgrounds who never studied the doctrine and thus confuse OSAS with perseverance of the saints. What you describe though, while maybe representative of some people's practices, is *not* the doctrine of P of the S.

In short, don't create a strawman...

Looking forward to your response on more substantive issues I raised with you.