Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

[BobRyan]

MacArthur – arguing the “never was saved to start with “ case – and doing somewhat of a "smackdown" on the very OSAS 4-point Calvinist camp that Zena was complaining about.

Inevitably, the question is raised, "How faithfully must one persevere?" Ryrie has written,

So we read a statement like this: "A moment of failure does not invalidate a disciple's credentials." My immediate reaction to such a statement is to want to ask if two moments would? Or a week of defection, or a month, or a year? Or two? How serious a failure and for how long before we must conclude that such a person was in fact not saved? Lordship teaching recognizes that "no one will obey perfectly," but the crucial question is simply how imperfectly can one obey and yet be sure that he "believed"? . . .

. . . A moment of defection, we have been told, is not an invalidation. Or "the true disciple will never turn away completely." Could he turn away almost completely? Or ninety percent? Or fifty percent and still be sure he was saved? . .
Frankly, all this relativity would leave me in confusion and uncertainty. Every defection, especially if it continued, would make me unsure of my salvation. Any serious sin or unwillingness would do the same. If I come to a fork in the road of my Christian experience and choose the wrong branch and continue on it, does that mean I was never on the Christian road to begin with? For how long can I be fruitless without having a lordship advocate conclude that I was never really saved?

Ryrie suggests that if we cannot state precisely how much failure is possible for a Christian, true assurance becomes impossible. He wants the terms to be quantified: "Could he turn away almost completely? Or ninety percent? Or fifty percent?" To put it another way, Ryrie is suggesting that the doctrines of perseverance and assurance are incompatible. Astonishingly, he wants a doctrine of assurance that allows those who have defected from Christ to be confident of their salvation.
No quantifiable answers to the questions Ryrie raises are available. Indeed, some Christians persist in sin for extended periods of time. But those who do, forfeit their right to genuine assurance. "Serious sin or unwillingness" certainly should cause someone to contemplate carefully the question of whether he or she really loves the Lord. Those who turn away completely (not almost completely, or ninety percent, or fifty percent) demonstrate that they never had true faith.

 

[steaver]

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.

.

I see no difference between the two.

OSAS would deny the theoretical possibility of one becoming unsaved.

As would perserverance of the saints.

In effect, they would deny free will by saying there is no possibility is no sense that one could become unsaved.

Did we not have a "free will" before we were born again?

Yet even though we had a free will we could not choose God UNTIL God allowed us to, correct?

Why should I believe God would allow me to choose hell AFTER He re-created me in Jesus Christ?

My free will remains intact just as it was before I was born again. I could NOT choose God without God and now I cannot choose hell without God.

God has total control over His salvation. I am given many free-will choices to make in life. But according to the scriptures the choice of eternal death has been removed through regeneration. God gives an open window, an opportunity to choose. The window remains open for the lost for awhile, but eventually it will be closed for ever. Once a person receives the new birth through free will choice there is no need for God to let that window open. It is closed and settled. Praise God for that!

Hbr 12:2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

God owns me. I am His slave. He does not allow me to escape. His grace is greater than any ill feelings I could ever muster up against Him. Thank God!

Eph 1:14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

1Cr 6:20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.


God owns His children. Free will is intact. Just as a earthly father would override the will of a child who screams "I hate you dad, I never want to see you again" so would a much Greater Father in heaven make sure His children's free will does nothing to cause their eternal destruction.

To me Regeneration is OSAS or Perserverance of the Saints, which ever way you prefer to say it.

 

[Cutter]

Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

To imply that Christ was ignorant of anything is ignorant.

 

[Jedi Knight]

To imply that Christ was ignorant of anything is ignorant.

Amen cutter!

 

[BobRyan]

You do not grasp the doctrine of regeneration. Regeneration is a one time event, an act of God, upon the person calling on the name of the Lord.

Salvation is a process that begins with regeneration and ends with glorification. Having the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit throughout.

As Norm Giesler points out - the idea that faith follows regeneration is a flawed argument because it stands Eph 2:8-10 on it's head making it say "for by salvation where you granted faith through grace" - but instead the Word of God actually says "By grace you were saved THROUGH faith" - if you are saved through faith - then faith had to come first.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I could NOT choose God without God and now I cannot choose hell without God.

.

There is no text in all of scripture that says that you "need God to help you choose hell".

Futhermore - even in the case of perfection - as in the case of Adam - we find no text at all showing that Adam needed to ask God to help him fall into condemnation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Trotter]

what am I missing?

The whole boat as far as I can tell.

I have never understood the whole "free will" point of view. From what I see it looks like this POV basically puts God as a powerless imbecile who must pander to the whims of man. I realize that that view is probably no where near reality, but that's the impression I get from it all.

God is GOD. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. He created all of existence with but a word. Even so He cares enough about us to have made a way for us to be reconciled to Himself, for us to attain that which Adam and Eve forfeited in the garden. And yet some still think that, after all that, that God is not able to keep those who belong to Him?

Can God force someone to go to heaven against their will? I can hardly believe that you posed that question. Seriously. Only the insane would attempt to refuse heaven. Just because someone is in rebellion does not mean that they wish to denounce eternal life.

I'm sorry. It's late, I'm tired, and the whole argument is just a shade above ludicrous to me... if that. For my two cents, if someone wants to walk away from God and His salvation then they deserve to lose it. That Doesn't mean that they will, but they sure ought to anyway. I guess it's a good thing that I'm not God.

 

[BobRyan]

To imply that Christ was ignorant of anything is ignorant.

Which of course "is the point" that is made in the OP about where OSAS traditions take the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The whole boat as far as I can tell.

I have never understood the whole "free will" point of view. From what I see it looks like this POV basically puts God as a powerless imbecile

So the OP claims that the OSAS tradition makes Christ appear to be "ignorant" of OSAS since Christ never taught it.

And the OSAS response above is to claim that to reject the man-made-traditions of OSAS is to make God appear to be a "powerless imbecile"??

Well then I say -- harrumph! harrumph! - pulpit pound - pulpit pound.

who must pander to the whims of man. I realize that that view is probably no where near reality, but that's the impression I get from it all.

God is GOD. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. He created all of existence with but a word.

Turns out - God "sovereignly chose" free will even though Trotter and others who hold to the man-made-tradition of OSAS think that would be a big mistake on God's part.

When Lucifer "chose" to rebel against God in heaven - God's own choice for "free will" in His creation - "allowed it". Even though it would "cost God" 1/3 of the angels of heaven.

When Eve "chose" to rebel against God in Eden and then to tempt Adam to do the same - God "chose" to "allow it" even though it would cost Him the human race AND the death of his son to get it back.

When Israel "chose" to crucify it's own Messiah - God "chose" to allow that - even though it meant a death of cruel torture on the cross for the Messiah - God's Son.

When the Christian church "chose" to adopt pagan customs and even persecute fellow Christians in the dark ages - God "chose" to allow that free-will "choice" of church leadership.

When Hitler "chose" to slaughter 15 million people during WWII - God "chose" to allow him to make that "choice".

In Matt 23 Christ said "How I WANTED to save your children... but YOU WOULD not"

Even so He cares enough about us to have made a way for us to be reconciled to Himself, for us to attain that which Adam and Eve forfeited in the garden.

When you say "us" do you mean the "FEW of Matt 7" that find the Narrow way - or are you talking about "God so Loved the WORLD" --?

Do you mean to speak of the God who "is NOT willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Cutter]

HP...Turns out - God "sovereignly chose" free will even though Trotter and others who hold to the man-made-tradition of OSAS think that would be a big mistake on God's part.

None of these examples have any merit in the argument against one believing in OSAS.

When Lucifer "chose" to rebel against God in heaven - God's own choice for "free will" in His creation - "allowed it". Even though it would "cost God" 1/3 of the angels of heaven.
Doesn't apply.Angels are not saved, nor can they be.

When Eve "chose" to rebel against God in Eden and then to tempt Adam to do the same - God "chose" to "allow it" even though it would cost Him the human race AND the death of his son to get it back.
Doesn't apply. Jesus had not yet been crucified and salvation had not yet been offered.

When Israel "chose" to crucify it's own Messiah - God "chose" to allow that - even though it meant a death of cruel torture on the cross for the Messiah - God's Son.
Again, doesn't apply. Jesus had not yet been crucified and salvation had not yet been offered.

When the Christian church "chose" to adopt pagan customs and even persecute fellow Christians in the dark ages - God "chose" to allow that free-will "choice" of church leadership.
These members of the Christian church that broke free from the true born again, blood washed church were members in letter and not in spirit, therefore they were carnal and not saved.

When Hitler "chose" to slaughter 15 million people during WWII - God "chose" to allow him to make that "choice".
uhhhh...so you think Hitler was saved?

 

[dwmoeller1]

MacArthur – arguing the “never was saved to start with “ case – and doing somewhat of a "smackdown" on the very OSAS 4-point Calvinist camp that Zena was complaining about.

How does this fit your "retro-delete" concept?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Did we not have a "free will" before we were born again?

Yet even though we had a free will we could not choose God UNTIL God allowed us to, correct?

By "could not" do you mean that the unregenerate isn't allowed to choose God even if they wanted to? This is what the free-willer is typically going to see your statement as meaning. And, as far as that goes, the free willer would be perfectly accurate in their criticism of such a position.

Why should I believe God would allow me to choose hell AFTER He re-created me in Jesus Christ?

Because God doesn't restrain our wills. Free-willers are going to have big issues with this idea of "allowing". It implies a "you may want to but i am not going to let you" sort of idea. In as far as that goes, I would agree with the free willers. One should make clear that the will is not restrained either before or after salvation...well not restrained by anything external to the person.

God has total control over His salvation. I am given many free-will choices to make in life. But according to the scriptures the choice of eternal death has been removed through regeneration. God gives an open window, an opportunity to choose. The window remains open for the lost for awhile, but eventually it will be closed for ever. Once a person receives the new birth through free will choice there is no need for God to let that window open. It is closed and settled. Praise God for that!

Again, this can easily be seen as a "God won't let us choose what we might want to choose".

God owns His children. Free will is intact. Just as a earthly father would override the will of a child who screams "I hate you dad, I never want to see you again" so would a much Greater Father in heaven make sure His children's free will does nothing to cause their eternal destruction.

A will that is over-ridden is a will that is not free.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Being filled with something is not a change in nature. If I fill glass with water, the nature of the glass remains the same.

I see... yet that vessel gets heavier, its temperatuire changes, it expands/contracts depending on the temperature of the water filling it, its center of gravity changes, etc.

Sure, now we have a glass filled with water, so we have more than we had before, but there was no essential change to the nature of the glass.

Are you saying that being filled with the Holy Spirit has no impact on the nature of a person? I seem to remember a huge change in the apostles after pentecost - something like speaking in tounges, etc. That most certainly is NOT natural.

If the only change after salvation is that we are filled with the HS, that seems like what we have is just the same old sinner who now has something added on.

That "something" which is added on takes the natural and endows it with gifts and fruits which are, in fact, "SUPER NATURAL".

Peace!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
MacArthur – arguing the “never was saved to start with “ case – and doing somewhat of a "smackdown" on the very OSAS 4-point Calvinist camp that Zena was complaining about.

How does this fit your "retro-delete" concept?

MacArthur is talking about people that claim to have been saved and then were found later to be in a state of "not persevering" such that 5 point Calvinists considered that "those guys were never saved to start with".

Thus they "retro deleted" whatever assurance said person ever claimed to have.

If you take the time to read the text MacArthur shows cases where Ryrie and others take the view that the former assurance REMAINS even in a condition where fellow 5 point Calvinists claims that "they never were saved to start with".

MacArthur – arguing the “never was saved to start with “ case – and doing somewhat of a "smackdown" on the very OSAS 4-point Calvinist camp that Zena was complaining about.

Inevitably, the question is raised, "How faithfully must one persevere?" Ryrie has written,
Quote:

Ryrie
So we read a statement like this: "A moment of failure does not invalidate a disciple's credentials." My immediate reaction to such a statement is to want to ask if two moments would? Or a week of defection, or a month, or a year? Or two? How serious a failure and for how long before we must conclude that such a person was in fact not saved? Lordship teaching recognizes that "no one will obey perfectly," but the crucial question is simply how imperfectly can one obey and yet be sure that he "believed"? . . .


Ryrie
. . . A moment of defection, we have been told, is not an invalidation. Or "the true disciple will never turn away completely." Could he turn away almost completely? Or ninety percent? Or fifty percent and still be sure he was saved? . .
Frankly, all this relativity would leave me in confusion and uncertainty. Every defection, especially if it continued, would make me unsure of my salvation. Any serious sin or unwillingness would do the same. If I come to a fork in the road of my Christian experience and choose the wrong branch and continue on it, does that mean I was never on the Christian road to begin with? For how long can I be fruitless without having a lordship advocate conclude that I was never really saved?

Ryrie suggests that if we cannot state precisely how much failure is possible for a Christian, true assurance becomes impossible. He wants the terms to be quantified: "Could he turn away almost completely? Or ninety percent? Or fifty percent?" To put it another way, Ryrie is suggesting that the doctrines of perseverance and assurance are incompatible. Astonishingly, he wants a doctrine of assurance that allows those who have defected from Christ to be confident of their salvation.
No quantifiable answers to the questions Ryrie raises are available. Indeed, some Christians persist in sin for extended periods of time. But those who do, forfeit their right to genuine assurance. "Serious sin or unwillingness" certainly should cause someone to contemplate carefully the question of whether he or she really loves the Lord. Those who turn away completely (not almost completely, or ninety percent, or fifty percent) demonstrate that they never had true faith.

Norm Geisler also addresses this "Never were saved" retro-deleted assurance - in the link I gave here.

part 9 – Perseverance – retro-deletes assurance for 5 point Calvinists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b8RzKmFBIw&feature=related

Indeed - this part of the debate is "Real". Geisler is promoting the very "easy believism" that MaCArthur condemns - and MacArthur holds to the 5 point "Perseverance-failed retro deletes assurance" problem that Geisler points out in 5 point Calvinism.

The BOTH hold to OSAS - but Geisler's view of it is an example of the flavor of OSAS that Zenas' comments are targetting.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lori4dogs]

Given Pastor John F. MacArthur's countless ignorant misrepresentations of Catholic teaching I have little care about his other views.

 

[BobRyan]

Turns out - God "sovereignly chose" free will even though Trotter and others who hold to the man-made-tradition of OSAS think that would be a big mistake on God's part.

When Lucifer "chose" to rebel against God in heaven - God's own choice for "free will" in His creation - "allowed it". Even though it would "cost God" 1/3 of the angels of heaven.

When Eve "chose" to rebel against God in Eden and then to tempt Adam to do the same - God "chose" to "allow it" even though it would cost Him the human race AND the death of his son to get it back.

When Israel "chose" to crucify it's own Messiah - God "chose" to allow that - even though it meant a death of cruel torture on the cross for the Messiah - God's Son.

When the Christian church "chose" to adopt pagan customs and even persecute fellow Christians in the dark ages - God "chose" to allow that free-will "choice" of church leadership.

When Hitler "chose" to slaughter 15 million people during WWII - God "chose" to allow him to make that "choice".

In Matt 23 Christ said "How I WANTED to save your children... but YOU WOULD not"

None of these examples have any merit in the argument against one believing in OSAS.

Better known as "turning a blind eye to the problems instead of addressing them" - point taken.

When Lucifer "chose" to rebel against God in heaven - God's own choice for "free will" in His creation - "allowed it". Even though it would "cost God" 1/3 of the angels of heaven.
Doesn't apply.Angels are not saved, nor can they be.

Your point dies as soon as the reader remembers that "God created angels" and that "God chose a free will system for his created beings".

Turns out - God actually did Create angels and this IS an example of God's sovereign choice to "sacrifice" in order to preserve free will - choice even though the choice "costs" him 1/3 of His Angels.

When Eve "chose" to rebel against God in Eden and then to tempt Adam to do the same - God "chose" to "allow it" even though it would cost Him the human race AND the death of his son to get it back.
Doesn't apply. Jesus had not yet been crucified and salvation had not yet been offered.

Your point dies as soon as the reader remembers that "God created Adam and Eve" and that "God chose a free will system for his created beings".

Turns out - God actually did Create man and this IS an example of God's sovereign choice to "sacrifice" in order to preserve free will - choice even though the choice "costs" him ALL of mankind AND the death of His Son to redeem man.

When Israel "chose" to crucify it's own Messiah - God "chose" to allow that - even though it meant a death of cruel torture on the cross for the Messiah - God's Son.
Again, doesn't apply. Jesus had not yet been crucified and salvation had not yet been offered.

Your point dies as soon as the reader remembers that "God sovereignly CHOSE Israel" - a chosen race a holy priesthood (yes even AFTER the fall of mankind) - a people for God's Own possession. And that "God chose a free will system for his created beings" in this case seen to be even AFTER the fall of mankind.

Turns out - God actually did Create the nation of Israel and this IS an example of God's sovereign choice to "sacrifice" in order to preserve free will - choice even though the choice "costs" the experience of being rejected by "HIS OWN". "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Hiim not" John 1

When the Christian church "chose" to adopt pagan customs and even persecute fellow Christians in the dark ages - God "chose" to allow that free-will "choice" of church leadership.
These members of the Christian church that broke free from the true born again, blood washed church were members in letter and not in spirit, therefore they were carnal and not saved.

These are post-cross Christians - making very bad choices and the "cost" for God "soverignly allowing that choice" is that instead of pure Acts 15 Christian church with saved born-again leadershp - the church was in confusion with some leaders saved and some lost and all of them somehow befuddled to the point of going along with some very bad decisions.

When Hitler "chose" to slaughter 15 million people during WWII - God "chose" to allow him to make that "choice".
uhhhh...so you think Hitler was saved?

I never claimed that God "only gave saved people a choice".

Again - your argument does not make it off the ground.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

I see... yet that vessel gets heavier, its temperatuire changes, it expands/contracts depending on the temperature of the water filling it, its center of gravity changes, etc.

Yes, but in all that, its essential nature never changes...its just being affected by outside forces. All it is just the same old glass with an outside force making it somewhat different but without changing what it was in the first place.

Are you saying that being filled with the Holy Spirit has no impact on the nature of a person? I seem to remember a huge change in the apostles after pentecost - something like speaking in tounges, etc. That most certainly is NOT natural.

Change in their abilities, change in their power, change in their energy, yes. But none of that indicates a change in one's nature. For example, Saul was filled at one time with the HS and many of the same outward changes were seen. Yet Saul w/o the holy spirit was one just as distant from God as he was before filled with the HS. Being filled with the HS affected him, yes, but it made no real change in his nature and outlook.

I am suggesting that regeneration is *more* that just having the HS living in us - that regeneration is a recreation, that the old man is really gone and the new man is essentially different even apart from the indwelling of the HS. Before regeneration, we are clay chamber pots and after we are gold chalices. Its not that the chamber pots just got a really good cleaning and then got filled with wine, its that the chamber pots are totally gone and a whole new item of a different substance is created instead. Sure, the wine in the chamber pot is going to have a different affect on it that it being filled with sewage, but in the end, its still just a clay pot.

 

[dwmoeller1]

As Norm Giesler points out - the idea that faith follows regeneration is a flawed argument because it stands Eph 2:8-10 on it's head making it say "for by salvation where you granted faith through grace" - but instead the Word of God actually says "By grace you were saved THROUGH faith" - if you are saved through faith - then faith had to come first.

in Christ,

Bob

The problem is that you are equating regeneration with salvation. If regeneration is in some way distinct from salvation (just as election is distinct from both), then Giesler's argument is actually a straw man.

In order to prove that regeneration leads to faith is flawed, you would either have to show
a. that regeneration is equivalent to salvation and then point back to Eph 2:8-10, or
b. show where Scripture indicates that faith precedes or is a necessary condition for regeneration.

As it stands though, the above doesn't show a flaw except maybe a flaw in Giesler's understanding of the position he attempts to negate.

 

[BillySunday1935]

snip...
I am suggesting that regeneration is *more* that just having the HS living in us - that regeneration is a recreation, that the old man is really gone and the new man is essentially different even apart from the indwelling of the HS. Before regeneration, we are clay chamber pots and after we are gold chalices. Its not that the chamber pots just got a really good cleaning and then got filled with wine, its that the chamber pots are totally gone and a whole new item of a different substance is created instead. Sure, the wine in the chamber pot is going to have a different affect on it that it being filled with sewage, but in the end, its still just a clay pot.

Is it therefore your contention that once the regeneration takes place, that this recreated individual is, being a new creation, unable to rebel against God via sin? If so, then how do you explain the scripture indicating the posibility of falling away?

I'm just curious as this logical construct would seem to make the Catholic belief in transubstantiation a real possibility...

Peace!

 

[dwmoeller1]

MacArthur is talking about people that claim to have been saved and then were found later to be in a state of "not persevering" such that 5 point Calvinists considered that "those guys were never saved to start with".

Thus they "retro deleted" whatever assurance said person ever claimed to have.

Absolutely not. The point MacArthur makes is not about people are "not persevering". He readily states that people can be found in various states of not persevering while still remaining saved. Instead, MacArthur's statement about those who were never saved to begin with is solely applied to the case of a person who totally and finally falls away, not one who is simply "not persevering" at a point in time.

If you take the time to read the text MacArthur shows cases where Ryrie and others take the view that the former assurance REMAINS even in a condition where fellow 5 point Calvinists claims that "they never were saved to start with".

Ryrie's protest is summarized in these two questions: "If I come to a fork in the road of my Christian experience and choose the wrong branch and continue on it, does that mean I was never on the Christian road to begin with? For how long can I be fruitless without having a lordship advocate conclude that I was never really saved?"

MacArthur's answer boils down to this:
To the first question, the answer MacArthur gives is, no! A Christian can choose the wrong branch and even continue on it. Therefore, if a person does this, it does not mean they were never on the correct road (ie. no retro deletion for choosing the wrong path and continuing on it).

To the second question, MacArthur specifically says that there is no way to answer this question. This is a question of quantity (how long?) and MacArthur says "No quantifiable answers to the questions Ryrie raises are available." MacArthur's position is that such a question is ultimately unanswerable.

As to this statement: "Those who turn away completely (not almost completely, or ninety percent, or fifty percent) demonstrate that they never had true faith." You are taking it further than MacArthur intends. You read by this that an outside observer can know when someone has reached this point. However, examine the logic behind that. If the only way one can have assurance "retro-deleted" is by *completely* falling away, when can one know if someone has ever reached that point?

You see, this statement of "complete falling away" is purely a principle and not a statement of knowledge. We can't know when someone has reached that point. For one, perseverance is ultimately about one's heart and not one's actions - one can be totally mired in sin and yet still not have completely and finally rejected God in their heart. We have no way of looking at someone at determining that, oh, this person is now at the point of complete and final rejection of God. So, IOW, there is no point at which a person could actually say that one's assurance has been "retro-deleted".


But lets ignore all that right now and let me ask this. If "retro-deletion" is indeed what a 5 pointer holds, then what is the problem with that position? What difficulties does it raise or what contradictions does it create? In short, how is it objectionable beyond the fact that it doesn't fit within your own system?