OSAS is a misleading term

[Reformed]

OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) is an imprecise term that can unwittingly mislead certain people into thinking their salvation is cheaply bought and cheaply maintained. Please read my words carefully. Words mean things. I specifically wrote "can unwittingly mislead certain people", not all people. If you are mature enough in your faith to understanding what is required of you as a Christian, then praise God! However not everyone has that understanding.

There is a belief in Christianity that teaches once a person has accepted Jesus as their savior they can never lose their salvation no matter what they do; even if they seemingly apostatize. This belief existed during the earliest days of the Apostolic church. Paul addressed it in Romans.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

There was a heretical teaching in Paul's time that taught the more a person sins the more grace God has to give them to cover their sin. Hence, continually sinning makes God look good because He is forever forgiving even deliberate sin. While it is true that every sin a Christian commits is forgiven, the idea that we should sin in order to make God look good is warped and perverted. It turns grace into something it is not, a license to sin.

This warped and perverted view of grace is called Antinomianism (anti=against nomos=law, or literally against the law). Once-saved-always-saved fits perfectly into Antinomian theology. An alternate view, and one that I believe is supported by scripture, is the perseverance of the saints. Perseverance of the saints does not mean the perfection of the saints. Christians sin. They somethings commit grievous sins. In fact they may commit sins so heinous that God takes their life as an act of mercy so that they do not continue in sin (1 Cor. 11:30). Perseverance of the saints teaches that, generally speaking, Christians will give evidence through how they live their lives of actually being a Christian. This is proof (or evidence) of the transforming power of the Spirit. The reason I added the caveat "generally speaking" is because we cannot judge the unknown. We lack perfect knowledge because we are finite. A person may come to Christ and a week later and die in an accident. It would be foolish to try and evaluate their Christian walk for so short a time. I am writing from the perspective of altitude; looking at the big picture.

I write this because some think that those of us who oppose the term Once-saved-always-saved means we don't believe in eternal security. It is precisely because we do believe in eternal security that we object to the term.

 

[The Biblicist]

OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) is an imprecise term

Is the problem in the acrostic or the meaning of the words found in the acrostic or HOW others APPLY it and READ INTO it what it really says nothing about?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the acrostic or the terms used in the acrostic as they are Biblical in regard to what it actually states. I believe the problem is with those who MISUSE that acrostic. Hence, the problem is not in the acrostic or its meaning but in the USE or what some READ INTO that acrostic which is not there. However, John 6:37-39 confirms every word in that acrostic as true to Scripture but notice John 6:37-39 says NOTHING about antinominianism is therefore John 6:37-39 misleading and imprecise too?

 

[JamesL]

OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) is an imprecise term....

you are correct. Considering that OSAS flows from Calvinist thought, and that is a works assurance, it would be better to say Once Saved Always SERVING.

Or once saved, always persevering. Or once saved, always enduring. Or once saved, always committed, or once saved always WORKING. Grace and works are so forged together in this mindset that grace cannot easily be found.

Perseverance of the saints does not mean the perfection of the saints. Christians sin. They somethings commit grievous sins. In fact they may commit sins so heinous that God takes their life as an act of mercy so that they do not continue in sin (1 Cor. 11:30).

You obviously don't know what persevering means. To the END. If someone is being so rebellious that God takes their life while they are sinning, then He takes their life while they are NOT persevering.

That undoes the whole Calvinist argument that Christians inevitably endure to the end in faith and obedience. God would have no cause to take the life of one who is enduring to the end.

Perseverance of the saints teaches that, generally speaking, Christians will give evidence through how they live their lives of actually being a Christian. This is proof (or evidence) of the transforming power of the Spirit....

Westminster teaches no such thing as "generally speaking".

Chapter XVII

Of the Perseverance of the Saints


I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves


Westminster says "for a time" right after saying that their perseverance flows from their election.

You seem to be trying to give yourself an "out" because you know it is impossible to know if you will persevere, or that you aren't currently doing enough good works to prove to yourself that you're one of the elect.

Assurance is an elusive thing when it hangs on you making it to the finish line.

That's why I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Calvinism is nothing but Arminianism in disguise.

Both agree that you must persevere to the end in order to be eternally saved.

Take any man you wish, in any scenario of faith and works you wish, and subject him to both Calvinism and Arminianism for scrutiny

BOTH the Calvinist and the Arminian will assign him the same exact fate, each and every time. Go ahead. Concoct a scenario and try him in both systems. Both will agree that he is heaven bound, or both will agree that he is hell bound.

And that is without fail, each and every time, bar NONE.

Two different packages, but the same surprise in both boxes - WORKS

 

[Reformed]

Christians will persevere (endure) until the end, but they do so because of the effacious work of the Holy Spirit. But in enduring they will produce fruit. If fruit is not present to some degree then their claim to faith is only to a counterfeit faith.

 

[JamesL]

Christians will persevere (endure) until the end, but they do so because of the effacious work of the Holy Spirit. But in enduring they will produce fruit. If fruit is not present to some degree then their claim to faith is only to a counterfeit faith.

If God takes your life while you're in a state of sin, then He does it while you are NOT persevering.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Either you persevere to the end or you don't. To the END leaves no room for being in such a state of sin that God takes your life.

In your admission that a believer might die while in a state of sin, you must also admit that it is possible for a believer to not persevere to the end

 

[Yeshua1]

If God takes your life while you're in a state of sin, then He does it while you are NOT persevering.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Either you persevere to the end or you don't. To the END leaves no room for being in such a state of sin that God takes your life.

In your admission that a believer might die while in a state of sin, you must also admit that it is possible for a believer to not persevere to the end

Actually, OSAS more of a baptist then reformed statement!

And either way we view this discussion, a real christian is eternally secured by God father/Son/Holy Spirit, as the father sent the Son, who died for those who got saved, and sealed by the Spirit, and are interceded for by High priest Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

Christians will persevere (endure) until the end, but they do so because of the effacious work of the Holy Spirit. But in enduring they will produce fruit. If fruit is not present to some degree then their claim to faith is only to a counterfeit faith.

BOTH OSAS/reformed would agree with that!

As both of us know that its the work and will of God himself to keep us unto the very end, to complete his work in us until that day!

ANY one holding to OSAS and also thinks its just "asking jesus into their lives", and yet has NO evidence anything really happened misunderstands the teaching!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) is an imprecise term that can unwittingly mislead certain people into thinking their salvation is cheaply bought and cheaply maintained.

Before we go any farther, can we define exactly how salvation is "maintained"?

 

[Yeshua1]

Before we go any farther, can we define exactly how salvation is "maintained"?

Isn't that the work of our great High priest though?

 

[The Biblicist]

Before we go any farther, can we define exactly how salvation is "maintained"?

The problem is not with OSAS and what it means any more than John 6:37-39 has any problem. The problem is HOW some READ INTO that acrostic more or less than what it actually states. What it actually states is PERFECTLY TRUE. However, Reformed and Iconoclast only want to interpret it in certain chosen theological contexts rather than what the acrostic actually says and means.

For example, I can apply the very acrostic to John 6:37-39 without fear of contradiction. John 6:37-39 does not deal with perseverance at all but deals explicitly with OSAS! However, if we want to divorce John 6:37-39 from other salvational contexts and only hold to that one truth then we have a problem, likewise, if we want to isolate OSAS from other Biblical truths concerning salvation do we have a problem. However, there is no problem in dealing with the truth of John 6:37-39 in its own context as there is dealing with OSAS in its own defintive context. Problems are only MANUFACTURED by isolating one truth from another truth. OSAS is ONE truth just as John 6:37-39 is ONE truth.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The problem is not with OSAS and what it means any more than John 6:37-39 has any problem. The problem is HOW some READ INTO that acrostic more or less than what it actually states. What it actually states is PERFECTLY TRUE. However, Reformed and Iconoclast only want to interpret it in certain chosen theological contexts rather than what the acrostic actually says and means.

For example, I can apply the very acrostic to John 6:37-39 without fear of contradiction. John 6:37-39 does not deal with perseverance at all but deals explicitly with OSAS! However, if we want to divorce John 6:37-39 from other salvational contexts and only hold to that one truth then we have a problem, likewise, if we want to isolate OSAS from other Biblical truths concerning salvation do we have a problem. However, there is no problem in dealing with the truth of John 6:37-39 in its own context as there is dealing with OSAS in its own defintive context. Problems are only MANUFACTURED by isolating one truth from another truth. OSAS is ONE truth just as John 6:37-39 is ONE truth.

Exactly. That is well said.

Spurgeon agreed. He said of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility:

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

So it is with much of biblical truth. It is equally an error to pursue only one of those lines as it is to reject both because they "contradict" one another.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly. That is well said.

Spurgeon agreed. He said of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility:So it is with much of biblical truth. It is equally an error to pursue only one of those lines as it is to reject both because they "contradict" one another.

Agreed!:thumbsup:

 

[Reformed]

If God takes your life while you're in a state of sin, then He does it while you are NOT persevering.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Either you persevere to the end or you don't. To the END leaves no room for being in such a state of sin that God takes your life.

In your admission that a believer might die while in a state of sin, you must also admit that it is possible for a believer to not persevere to the end

Go back and read what I wrote. You are not getting it and I am not going to get into the habit of repeating myself anymore on this board.

 

[Reformed]

BOTH OSAS/reformed would agree with that!

As both of us know that its the work and will of God himself to keep us unto the very end, to complete his work in us until that day!

ANY one holding to OSAS and also thinks its just "asking jesus into their lives", and yet has NO evidence anything really happened misunderstands the teaching!

Well, I'm not sure about both groups agreeing with anything that is said on this board. I can make the statement that the sun will set in the west and rise in the east and I guarantee you someone will disagree with it just for the sake of disagreeing.

God keeping us (in Christ) is not dependent on our actions, but our actions give evidence of our standing in Christ. Some are trying to paint those who hold to this view into a corner, as though they are contradicting themselves by somehow overlooking a sinful moment. The fact that we sin does not in any way negate eternal security. There is a categorical difference between a Christian that sins and a Christian that is given to sin as a lifestyle. This is what John the Apostle had in mind:

1 John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The one who "practices sin" labors at it. This person doesn't sin and then, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repents of it. This person sins and revels in it. It's not that this person loses his salvation, it's that they never possessed it. They were never born of God to begin with (1 John 2:19).

 

[The Biblicist]

Go back and read what I said. You are not getting it and I am not going to get into the habit of repeating myself anymore on this board.

We persevere in saving faith but Lot did not perserve in good works. In fact, there is NOTHING recorded in his life that is praiseworthy right till his death where the last we read of him is drunkeness and incest. Yet Peter claims that his righteous "heart" was vexed and contrasts him to those reserved for eternal darkness.

Furthermore, progressive sanctification not only differs greatly between saints due to stages of maturity but in degree of the measure of grace and faith given each.

The biggest problem that your position has is that it fails to recognize internal fruits that are not externally manifested due to losing battles with indwelling sin (Rom. 7:18). In manifest failures there is still internally intent to do good but no power IN SELF to attain it.

The difference between the saved and lost is not sin. It is their attitude toward sin as there are none without sin, even the best of saints (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, I'm not sure about both groups agreeing with anything that is said on this board. I can make the statement that the sun will set in the west and rise in the east and I guarantee you someone will disagree with it just for the sake of disagreeing.

God keeping us (in Christ) is not dependent on our actions, but our actions give evidence of our standing in Christ. Some are trying to paint those who hold to this view into a corner, as though they are contradicting themselves by somehow overlooking a sinful moment. The fact that we sin does not in any way negate eternal security. There is a categorical difference between a Christian that sins and a Christian that is given to sin as a lifestyle. This is what John the Apostle had in mind:



The one who "practices sin" labors at it. This person doesn't sin and then, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repents of it. This person sins and revels in it. It's not that this person loses his salvation, it's that they never possessed it. They were never born of God to begin with (1 John 2:19).

Do you hold, as some of LS seem to, that a saved person no longer has the sin nature/flesh to deal with?

Mytpoint is that if one really holds to the right view of OSAS, would free them up to be thankf ul and loving to the lord who has saved them, and will encorage them now to live as they ought for him!

IF you would hold to the truth that even while saved, we can at times be found sinning, as the flesh is still there to deal with, and If those holding to OSAS would also agree that is not a liceanse to keep on sinning, we should be in agreement!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

God keeping us (in Christ) is not dependent on our actions, but our actions give evidence of our standing in Christ.

When you use a term like "maintained" in reference to our salvation, you seem to imply that what we do does, in fact secure us in Christ. If you are referencing Christ's "maintenance" of our salvation, that would also be inaccurate, because He does not have to struggle against us to "keep us saved."

 

[convicted1]

Christians will persevere (endure) until the end, but they do so because of the effacious work of the Holy Spirit. But in enduring they will produce fruit. If fruit is not present to some degree then their claim to faith is only to a counterfeit faith.

Best post in this (limited thread)......hands down....

Shut'er down boys....

 

[convicted1]

Do you hold, as some of LS seem to, that a saved person no longer has the sin nature/flesh to deal with?

This is twice you have wrongly judged Brother Iconoclast's position. It needs to stop...


He's never stated once he believed what you're slanderously accusing him of. This needs to be put to bed, Brother.


But I'll let him explain himself to you....

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you hold, as some of LS seem to, that a saved person no longer has the sin nature/flesh to deal with?

None in that hold to the LS position "seem" to believe that. I agree with the previous post. It is slanderous to assert such. What we need is more integrity in representing others positions.