OSAS but yet again

In my humble opinion, I do not believe that a child of grace makes an arbitrary to decision to stop following Christ.

"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. NEVERTHELESS the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." (2 Tim. 2:18, 19)

This proves that faith is not the grounds of our acceptance with God.

"While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation." (Heb. 3:15)

This proves that some of the children of God are disobdient to the call of the gospel to discipleship.

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." (Heb. 4:1)

This proves that some of the children of God will not enter into rest because of unbelief. I believe the sin that so easily besets us all is the sin of unbelief. But yes, Jesus died for that, too.

"If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." (2 Tim. 2:13)

[ December 12, 2002, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

That is how amazing... Amazing Grace is to the Primitive Baptist brethren ... Brother Glen Of The Primitive Baptist Brethren

 

Hmmmm.

OSAS is bad terminology to begin with. That is a sin license.

Perseverence of the Saints indicates that when God does a work, He does it effectually.

So the question should be "Does God do a work for our salvation or do we?"

In other words, if we believe our way to salvation, then it is an easy step to say that we can choose our way out of salvation.

If we say that the Father gives the Elect to the Son, then the gift will remain and no one can take the Elect from the Son.

John 6: All who are given to the Son will believe.

Charlie

 

Pete,

First of all (in my view) the consistent Arminian position has to be that the Matt 18 "forgiveness revoked" scenario is precisely the "free will" principle in operation after forgiveness - after salvation and the result is the loss of salvation as indicated in the text - the loss of forgiveness.

I have seen this same thing expressed by many Calvinists who argue that the Arminian position is inconsistent if it does not go to this step of accepting Matt 18 (and Ezek 18) as prime examples of the free will principle after salvation - after forgiveness received - and I agree with them on that point.

But consider this - IF we view just the Calvinists who accept Calvin's teaching on the perserverence of the saints, then we observe the following - IF you claim to accept Christ today and then 20 years later "fail to perservere" your assurance is "retroactively deleted".

The result is

"Arminians may KNOW that they are saved today but can not guarantee they will be saved next year... the Calvinist may not even know THAT".

Which holds since it is not until after the life is lived and perserverence is demonstrated that a Calvinist (as defined above) could possibly know that even the FIRST year of assurance was valid.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 13, 2002, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Bob,

I think that this is a caricature of the Reformed position. I think that anyone genuinely seeking God is the Elect. It is not God keeping away those who WANT to please Him, but God drawing from those who hate Him.

Charlie

 

Unfortunately for Calvinism you must either choose to reject the "perserverance of the saints" as taught by Calvin (and as we see in scripture) - or you are stuck with a lack of assurance due to the Calvinist principle of retro-deleting assurance in the past.

The first option gets you rock-solid assurance at the expense of chucking the Bible teaching on the perserverance of the saints that even Calvin accepted.

The second option does not work well for assurance.

The Arminian position is the middle ground - it allows for immediate assurance that is not retro-deletable - and argues for the perserverance as a absolute requirement with the result that in the future you could lose your assurance and your salvation - but it does not retro-delete today's experience.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 15, 2002, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Once saved always saved -

We may not persevere - for what man has not sinned - but has had to call upon God who is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness as long as we confess

Like a young frog in the palm of hand of a child - we squirm - but God in his wisdom knows that we'll squirm, and so keeps His hands tightly wrapped around us - so that while we squirm
we are still in His hands

He will preserve those who have called upon His name. He asks us to persevere - but He knows our weaknesses - and so He preserves us when we fall.

If you see this as a license to sin - and so act it out perhaps you are like one of the brothers I read in I think a Max Lucado book

"The third brother who thinks to earn his forgiveness by building a road upstream, and such"

The idea of grace is not to be held back in ivory towers - or behind dams of church doors - it is to flow forth to those who sin - and need help to stop because they know they're too broken to do it on their own. You cant seperate grace and sin - they go together. If there is no sin - then where is the grace?

Im not saying to do what Tony Campolo does or purports to have done - although he is a nice guy he spent some time talking/walking with our youth group at a Missionsfest Toronto - and offer birthday cakes to hookers - although God knows they need grace too. Offer grace to family (toughest)- Offer grace to your neighbours - offer grace to the people in your workplace - imitate Christ be thou a fount of every blessing!
Even tho the water may sputter a bit, and on occasion turn brown

 

Indeed - KEEPING the concept of "perserverance" and the concept of "Free Will - Enabled by God's Divine Drawing" means that the Matt 18 principle of "Forgiveness Revoked" is a very "real" warning.

However - I have seen a number of times where Calvinists will question those Arminians who retain belief in OSAS even while holding on to the Bible principle of God-enabled Free Will.

In my opinion - they have a point argued from "consistency".

When God "sovereignly CHOSE" to allow Lucifer to have free will EVEN though HE knew Lucifer would eventually choose sin - that Choice for Free Will "Cost Him 1/3 of the Angels".

When God "sovereignly CHOSE" to allow Adam and Eve to have Free Will "EVEN" though He knew they would eventually sin "it Cost" Him mankind - and eventually the life of His Son.

When God "sovereignly CHOSE" to enable Free Will for sinful totally depraved man - even though He Knew that Israel would reject their own Messiah it "Cost Him his Holy Nation, His Royal Priesthood, His Chosen people" the branch of Romans 11 was "removed".

At each step - the sovereign choice to sponsor Free Will - was very "Costly" to God. Yet He valued it so highly - that He continued to CHOOSE that model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Synergistic Salvation is not God acting Sovereignly. It is tickling ears to try to combine God's Sovereignty with Man's Choice.

The problem is that men are most unable to choose God. Man is very consistent.

But mere human words are inadequate to decide a doctrine so important. Let us go the the highest authority and see what the judgement of man is.

The problem is not merely ignorance or lack of opportunity. The problem is that EVERY intent of his thoughts is Evil. And not just some of the time but CONTINUALLY.

The Bible does not say that God provided a plan in which man must make the final step to choose Him. For he cannot.

And let us face the facts. The choice is no choice at all. It is continued spiritual death and seperation with God or it is Life, and that as the adopted child of the Creator of the Universe. If there was any real Free Will, then all would choose Christ.

No. Unregenerate man is dead in his sins and is no more able to choose God than Lazarus was able to ask Jesus to raise him from the dead. Dead men can do nothing by which to be made alive.

The valley of dry bones in Ezekiel came alive by the only force or power in all of creation. The Spirit of God caused the bodies to be knit together and breathed life into those corpses.

Praise God He breathed life into me, when I could do nothing by which to save myself or do anything to please God.

Charlie

 

The sequence I posted above shows a succession of "Choices" on God's part and it is impossible "even for Calvinism" to claim that Lucifer and Adam "Were totally depraved and unnable to make anything but an evil choice".

The model showed a consistent determination on God's part to enable choice KNOWING what it would cost and the model shows choice in contexts where the circular appeal to depravity does not work.

Obviously - by all accounts - God chose to enable choice at infinite cost to Himself.

Moving on to the case of Sinful man - EVEN most Calvinist models accept the truth that WITH the John 12:32 supernatural "Drawing" - the INNACTIVITY of man caused by depravity - changes such that the man that is drawn CAN choose life.

Arminians argue that those drawn are "ALL MANKIND" and Calvlinism argues "NO it is just the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7" - again the redefinition coming into play for Calvinism.

And then they go on to differ - with Arminians claiming that those who are ENABLED are not forced to choose life - and many do not as Lucifer and Adam did not EVEN in a sinnless state ENABLED with choice.

Calvinists argue that sinful man is in a much better state than the sinnless Angels and sinnless Adam - when ENABLED by that John 12:32 drawing and so he will NEVER choose against life.

I am sure it "Sounds better" to refer to the arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7 as "ALL mankind" and "The World" - but Once you figure out the redefintion being suggested - it gets back to pure Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To As many as RECIEVED Him - to THEM He gave...

If anyone HEARS my voice and OPENS the door - I will Come in...

The two-actor two-part action-response scenario is in all of scripture. IT would be hard to say that God does not show such a two-part model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Well, the London Confession puts it this ways:

And you go further to say, " Obviously - by all accounts - God chose to enable choice at infinite cost to Himself."

But then you know that Calvinism does not discount choice, only that unregenerate man's consistent choice is rebellion against God.

You also say:

You accuse calvinists of redefining in the same sentence that you define Election as arbitrary. Um, maybe you should not be making such allegations.

Finally, you say:

To be consistent, one must end up with the Doctrine of Grace, commonly referred to as "Calvinism". With that I agree. The other choice is the de-throning of God to make Him subject to the whims of a fallen race. Or so it seems to me.

God Bless Ya,
Charlie

 

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12, 13)

Note the verb tenses employed in this verse. Those who believe (present) on the name of Jesus Christ were (past) born of God. The same verb tenses are used elsewhere in the New Testament:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24)

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." (1 John 5:1)

John also wrote in his first epistle, "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is os God; and every one that loveth is born of God." (I John 4:7) Note that the same sentence structure is used. Do you believe one must love, as a condition, in order to be born of God, or does love manifest or reveal one to be born of God. Any serious Bible student would identify with the latter. Therefore, faith reveals or manifests one to be born of God. Faith, therefore, is not a condition for being born again.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20)

If one will examine this verse in the context of Revelation 3, it will become evident that Jesus is talking to the apostate church of the Laodiceans. Therefore, Jesus was addressing the elect, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." (Hebrews 12:6)

[ December 18, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

Here is a tough case for Calvinism indeed. It must argue that Christ standing OUTSIDE the door of the heart and NOT in fellowship with the believer - but knocking to come in and to then fellowship - is in fact - the SAVED condition.

It must be argued that being spriitually blind, poor and unclothed is "The Saved Condition".

THey must argue that apostate churches are "SAVED" without Christ on the INSIDE.

They must argue that Apostate church Members are themselves Saved by virtue of their apostacy (noting that they are lukewarm and the fact that they ARE church members.)

Of course scripture never uses any of the above to describe "the New Birth" or "Salvation" or "perserverance". Just rebellion.

But the truth is - Calvinist generally accept that such is NOT the case. They agree that not ALL church members are saved. And the 5 point Calvinist insist that APOSTACY indicates you never Were saved since it would deny perserverance.

The case for Calvinism attempted from Rev 3's 7th church is impossible.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 19, 2002, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Bob,

What is the context of Rev. 3:20? Exegetically speaking, who is it written to?

Charlie

 

No letter of Paul or John or any NT author or any OT author had the selectivity to address itself in the form "Only read this if you are one of the elect who actually will be in heaven".

In fact, we see the authors indicate that some IN the church are not saved ALTHOUGH they read the letters and pretend to be saved.

In Romans 2 the statement is made to "You who claim to be a Jew" saying that "God is mocked among the Gentiles because of you" - letters written to Christian congregations never assumed they would find only "elect" audiences among the church membership - OR that all churchmembers were "the elect". Simply saying that the letter was sent to a church does not making all readers "the elect" NOR obliterate the devastating condemnation of spiritually "poor blind and naked".

The fact is, the text was given to entire congregations and EVEN the authors admitted that the congregation contained BOTH the lost and the saved.

And when exegesis SHOWS us that the reciepients of the letter to the Laodiceans were spiritually "Poor, Blind, and naked" - we remove all doubt as to their "Spiritual" condition.

Not only were they spiritually "poor, blind, and unclothed" they were in complete darkness about that fact. Christ addressed the very same problem with the religious leaders of the one-true sovereignly chosen Nation Church of Israel in the Gospel accounts.

In Christ,

[ December 21, 2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Charlie T -

Are you one of those Calvinists that believes in perserverance? Do you believe that being spiritually in the dark and spiritually "poor, blind and naked" is a description of "perserverance"?

Can you see how a 5-pt Calvinist might call that "lack of perserverance"?

If so, can you see how an Arminian might agree on that point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, all I asked was what is the context of the verse. Why does that upset you so much?

Seriously, based on the context of the verse, who do you think it is speaking to and about what?

Charlie