I am Southern Baptist and a doctrine that we typically have in common is Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). This is a doctrine that I have taken issue with, but not for the reasons that are often used to denounce the teaching. I do believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer.
I believe that these two doctrines are often used interchangeable but that there are differences (at the minimum slight nuances). Perhaps these are differences in my own mind based on how they have been presented in my experience - I am not pretending to be objective but am presenting my subjective view and asking for feedback.
I understand OSAS to be the doctrine that once a man is saved there is nothing that he can do to lose that salvation. Eternal security is similar, but emphasizes that all who are Christians are eternally secure in their salvation and will never fall away because of Christ’s faithfulness.
The reason that I take exception with OSAS is its focus on the individual and a state of having been saved. In my view and experience this teaching provides the assurance of security based on a past event (a moment where salvation was experientially confirmed). I do not see this assurance as biblical. In fact, the only assurance that I can find in the Bible that I am indeed saved is through examining my life and present fruits of the Spirit. This is the assurance of the believer. The troubling part of this assurance is that I may be saved, but if my life does not speak to that salvation then I have no assurance.
The doctrine of Eternal Security, to my subjective and limited understanding, looks forward and to a specific people – the elect. God has gathered a people, and God will keep these people. These people persevere to the end because of God’s work. No one who is in Christ will ever be outside of Christ. This does not apply directly to the individual as an assurance of salvation. Instead it apples to the people that we are to test ourselves to be sure that we are among.
Do you believe the doctrines to be interchangeable (is OSAS exactly the same thing as Eternal Security)? In your experience, are they presented identically?
I believe that these two doctrines are often used interchangeable but that there are differences (at the minimum slight nuances). Perhaps these are differences in my own mind based on how they have been presented in my experience - I am not pretending to be objective but am presenting my subjective view and asking for feedback.
I understand OSAS to be the doctrine that once a man is saved there is nothing that he can do to lose that salvation. Eternal security is similar, but emphasizes that all who are Christians are eternally secure in their salvation and will never fall away because of Christ’s faithfulness.
The reason that I take exception with OSAS is its focus on the individual and a state of having been saved. In my view and experience this teaching provides the assurance of security based on a past event (a moment where salvation was experientially confirmed). I do not see this assurance as biblical. In fact, the only assurance that I can find in the Bible that I am indeed saved is through examining my life and present fruits of the Spirit. This is the assurance of the believer. The troubling part of this assurance is that I may be saved, but if my life does not speak to that salvation then I have no assurance.
The doctrine of Eternal Security, to my subjective and limited understanding, looks forward and to a specific people – the elect. God has gathered a people, and God will keep these people. These people persevere to the end because of God’s work. No one who is in Christ will ever be outside of Christ. This does not apply directly to the individual as an assurance of salvation. Instead it apples to the people that we are to test ourselves to be sure that we are among.
Do you believe the doctrines to be interchangeable (is OSAS exactly the same thing as Eternal Security)? In your experience, are they presented identically?
