A bogus way to try and salvage OSAS

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Then it was, the proof, the fact the Galatians HAD been severed from Christ, they never were founded "in Him" truely!

I am exceedingly glad, dear Bob, you find my answer absurd. It 'proves' its truthfulness.

 

[BobRyan]

New page - and no actual points made on this page yet...

So let's go with a completely unnanswered point --

GE - this goes directly to B17's argument that the person has backslidden in that case but is still OSAS saved..

Your pretending not to understand the point is not serving your argument at all.

Giving me more opportunity to expose this flaw in your response is not working for you either. --

Best argument – to date: (Against “no-perseverance” group of OSAS)

MMAN –

II Pet 2:20-22, "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1034131&postcount=9


SOME of the OSAS people claim to believe in eternal hell and to believe that this failure to persevere simply means that you are “OSAS Saved anyway but without persevering”.

Question:
HOW can it be WORSE? Worse to live with Christ forever than burn in hell forever??

 

[mman]

Why would you equate knowing the way of righteousness with being saved? Is that how we get saved, by being righteous?

I'll let you answer your own question.

Read the passage. What is the obvious point of the passage?

II Pet 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Do you really think Peter was trying to describe someone who is lost by using the words, "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", "known the way of righteousness" and "washed"?

To be forced into another position other than the obvious meaning of the passage can only be as a result of trying to "protect" a prior belief.

Scripture should be used to modify our beliefs. We should never allow our beliefs to modify scripture.

While one scripture may indeed modify another scripture (it is written again), one scripture is never in contradiction with another. Scripture always lies in parallel paths.

Here's another passage to lay on top of II Pet 2:20-22, Rom 6:16-18 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

In Rom 6, we have people becoming free from the bondage of sin and then knowing the way of righteousness. Would anyone question that these are not in a saved relationship?

Then why would anyone suggest those in II Pet were not also saved, unless it were to protect some prior belief?

 

[mman]

No he is not. Saints cannot become as such. For we have the Holy Ghost living in us. Sons of disobedience do not.

What? A saint can't become a fornicator? Then why the warning?

Eph 5:3-7 " But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them."

Paul is either talking to the saved or to the lost. Those are the only 2 optoins.

He uses the words, "Let no one deceive you with empty words". Who is being deceived? The lost? No, he is writing to saints. The "you" are "christians" that are being warned about being deceived. Are christians deceived about the lost facing the wrath of God? There's nothing deceptive about that, now is there?

The deception is that saints that participate in this type of lifestyle will be saved anyway. That is the deception, that the saints partaking in these activities will somehow escape the wrath of God. What other deception could it be?

The truth. Don't let it be named among you, don't be partakers of these things, don't be deceived about this, "For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." That is why he tells them not to be partakers with them.

If a christian practices fornicaiton, is he a fornicator? Will fornicators have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God? If this were a warning to the lost, then big deal. They were already lost. The reason they are lost is not because they commit fornication, but because they have never come in contact with the saving blood.

For the christian, there is a warning. Don't be deceived, if you do these things you will face the wrath of God. Don't let it be named among you. Don't partake of these things.

 

[James_Newman]

I'll let you answer your own question.

Read the passage. What is the obvious point of the passage?

II Pet 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Do you really think Peter was trying to describe someone who is lost by using the words, "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", "known the way of righteousness" and "washed"?

To be forced into another position other than the obvious meaning of the passage can only be as a result of trying to "protect" a prior belief.

Scripture should be used to modify our beliefs. We should never allow our beliefs to modify scripture.

While one scripture may indeed modify another scripture (it is written again), one scripture is never in contradiction with another. Scripture always lies in parallel paths.

Here's another passage to lay on top of II Pet 2:20-22, Rom 6:16-18 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

In Rom 6, we have people becoming free from the bondage of sin and then knowing the way of righteousness. Would anyone question that these are not in a saved relationship?

Then why would anyone suggest those in II Pet were not also saved, unless it were to protect some prior belief?

I'm not suggesting they were not saved. I am suggesting that they were not saved by knowing the way of righteousness. They were saved by believing on Christ. But there is another sense in which we must be saved beyond believing on Christ alone, and that is what is being discussed in these passages. Peter is not talking about folks losing their eternal salvation because they turned back to their sin.

 

[carpro]

If OSAS were true, then nobody has been able to adequately explain something to me.

Why would anybody even try?

I'm confortable with and believe in OSAS. I'm sorry you don't. Apparently I have more faith in your salvation than you do.

Pity.

 

[Eric B]

If a christian practices fornicaiton, is he a fornicator? Will fornicators have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God? If this were a warning to the lost, then big deal. They were already lost. The reason they are lost is not because they commit fornication, but because they have never come in contact with the saving blood.

But according to what you're saying, people who DID come in contact with the saving blood DO become "lost" because of acts like fornication.
So "lost", then is, potentially, everyone!

 

[Ed Edwards]

OSAS stands for 'once saved, always saved'

What God intended this verse to mean is
what I mean when I talk about OSAS:

John 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue
his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer
beleeueth in him, should not perish,
but haue euerlasting life.

Whatever 'not perish' and 'have
everlasting life' means is what OSAS means!
I am not Calvinistic,
I am not Arminan,
I am John 3:16inan.

 

[BobRyan]

I'll let you answer your own question.

Read the passage. What is the obvious point of the passage?

II Pet 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Do you really think Peter was trying to describe someone who is lost by using the words, "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", "known the way of righteousness" and "washed"?

To be forced into another position other than the obvious meaning of the passage can only be as a result of trying to "protect" a prior belief.

Scripture should be used to modify our beliefs. We should never allow our beliefs to modify scripture.

As pointed out - IF THIS text is to be bent and twisted to the point of referencing saints who are OSASed saying it is BETTER that they NEVER were saved and that they spend eternity in hell -- then someone needs to step up to the plate and SHOW that reason can be used to bend it so severely. (A four Pt calvinist or Arminian taking the 4 pt view would need to step up to the plate on that one)

So far that has not been done.

IF on the other hand someone wants to argue that the lost and totally depraved person can have on their own "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,"

Then show it. (A 5 Pt Calvinist or Arminian who believes as they do would need to step up to the plate on that one). In fact in this case you have the BOGUS warning about "the Lost becoming LOSTER!" and arguing for a BETTER state of being lost -- simply ESCAPED the pollutions of the world and NOT having fallen way -- just remaining as THAT kind of LOST person!!

As can be easily seen by the objective reader ALL such bogus arguments to salvage OSAS fail!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

OSAS stands for 'once saved, always saved'

What God intended this verse to mean is
what I mean when I talk about OSAS:

John 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue
his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer
beleeueth in him, should not perish,
but haue euerlasting life.

Whatever 'not perish' and 'have
everlasting life' means is what OSAS means!
I am not Calvinistic,
I am not Arminan,
I am John 3:16inan.

What about "Forgiveness revoked" Matt 18?

What about "REmoved from the Vine of Christ" John 15?

What about "REMOVED as the unbelieving Jews were" Romans 11?

What about "Denied by Christ" 2Tim 2:10-12?

What about having a crack at the text in 2Peter 2?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

I hate these discussions on Perseverance of the Saints/Eteral Security. They always get nasty.

One side often claims that the other wants to sin wantonly as reprobates, which I find personally offensive. The other side often claims the other wants to boast of their salvations, which is not exactly nice either.

This is one of those debates that typically fits Titus 3:8b-9a

“I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good |deeds|. These things are good and profitable unto men: but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable” (ASV|NLT 1996, RSV 1952|ASV).​

Whether or not one can lose salvation has no REAL bearing on good deeds -- or at least it should not. The debate over the question, however, has caused a great deal of uncharitable language and insinuations contrary to good deeds.

Mman has brought up some good passages discussing some passages that might be discussing a hypothetical loss of salvation. One passage I go to for the contrary is 1 John 2:19, the only Scripture case of people leaving the Christian community: “they were not of us” plus comment “if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” (ASV). However, I cannot answer every passage used by Eternal Security deniers, but at the same time, this passage seems to make Eternal Security appear more plausible than not.

Here is how I see it: if it REALLY matters to a person as far as Christian walk goes, there is a problem. I will address each side in turn.

For those who `depend' on Eternal Security: If you feel no need to obey the Lord because your salvation is `secure,' then you are living a life of insubordination to the Lord and not living according to any belief that Jesus Christ is Lord. Do you REALLY believe that Jesus Christ is Lord? If you do not live like it, you do not.

For those who reject Eternal Security because it `must' mean `license to sin': If you think it takes threat of eternal barbecue to get anyone to obey the Lord, I think such would make me sad. Essentially, you are saying that the prime reason you serve the Lord is for an escape from eternal barbecue. You are in it for yourself. Your prime motivation is not to please the Lord to make Him pleased with what you do for Him.

Really, what difference should it make whether or not we can lose our salvations? We are called to serve the Lord. I believe all servants of Christ ultimately recognize that we need to serve the Lord for the rest of our lives, and we will act accordingly. The question at hand should not matter in practice.

I apologize if I came off `holier-than-thou,' because I am not, but I wondered if that needed said. I will now step off my `soap box.'

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Accidental duplicate deleted. Sorry. ]

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"As can be easily seen by the objective reader ALL such bogus arguments to salvage OSAS fail!"

GE:

'Salvage OSAS' 'Salvage' it from what? When did it sink? Why would it have sunk?

Because this is written about OSAS?:
"Holy Father, keep through thine own Name those who thou hast given me"?
Because, "I, kept them in thy Name"?
Because, "Keep them, that they may be one as we are ... I in them, and thou in Me"?
Because, "The glory thou gavest Me I have given them"? "I am glorified in them"?
Because, "This is eternal life, that they might know thee ... and Jesus Christ"?

'Salvage OSAS'. You will have to 'salvage God, and Christ, and the Name of the Father, and their glory, and the oneness of God, and the oneness of the saved in Christ in God.
You will have to 'salvage' God first, before you can hope to salvage OSAS.

One upon the time there was a king whose name was Lucifer. Once upon a time there were people who thought they ought to save God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Rejecting OSAS NEVER goes without rampant error in other respects. Free will lies at the foundation of every one of such errors. Have you ever found an OSAS or Calvinist-SDA? Or an OSAS or Calvinist-Pentecostal? Or an OSAS or Calvinist-Mormon? Or an OSAS or Calvinist-Johova's Witness? Or an OSAS or Calvinist-Monotheist? Or - topping them all - an OSAS or Calvinist Roman Catholic?

Have you ever seen any of these NOT a free-willer humanist justification by works 'Christian'?

 

[BobRyan]

Mman has brought up some good passages discussing some passages that might be discussing a hypothetical loss of salvation.

"Scripture MIGHT be discussing a hypothetical loss.."?? Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how God is instructing the saints there -- try taking the actual 2Peter 2 example that MMAN quoted.

One passage I go to for the contrary is 1 John 2:19, the only Scripture case of people leaving the Christian community: “they were not of us” plus comment “if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” (ASV).

Sadly that scripture does not COUNTER MMAN's quote of 2Peter 2 because BOTH scenarios for failure are LOGICALLY consistent. NEITHER scenario necessitates the obvivation of the other.

I.e. we can have cases of those who NEVER were Christians (Hitler comes to mind) AND we can have cases of those who "FELL FROM GRACE" and "WERE SEVERED FROM CHRIST" Gal 5:4 comes to mind.

There is not way to argue that IF Hitler was never saved THEN NOBODY can fall from Grace!! Your attempt to pit one example of failure against another does not work.

For those who `depend' on Eternal Security: If you feel no need to obey the Lord because your salvation is `secure,' then you are living a life of insubordination to the Lord and not living according to any belief that Jesus Christ is Lord. Do you REALLY believe that Jesus Christ is Lord? If you do not live like it, you do not.

While that is true the BIGGER issue is not "their feelings" it is their rejection of the warnings of scripture - it is FAR more devastating to continually edit or ignore scriptures that they do not find ear-ticklingly pleasing to OSAS than even to listen to their "feelings" as you are pointing out above.

For those who reject Eternal Security because it `must' mean `license to sin': If you think it takes threat of eternal barbecue to get anyone to obey the Lord, I think such would make me sad.

Again - the issue is not "What texts would you like to see added to scripture". the REAL issue is "what texts do you SEE IN SCRIPTURE that you are unwilling to ignore".

When you SEE Christ say "YOU TOO SHOULD FEAR for IF HE did not spare them THEN NEITHER WILL HE SPARE YOU" Rom 11 -- is He speaking along the lines of your statement above OR is He saying "PAY no attention to whether you continue in the faith or not -- it really does not matter".

Look at John 15:1-8 does the Word of Christ about "Branches REMOVED from Christ and burned" fit your words above OR do they fit the words "Have no fear ONCE you are IN Christ you can not die you will not be burned in the fires of judgment"??

Loot at Matt 18 "FORGIVENESS REVOKED" what is the Lesson Christ gives at the END of that parable? What model does it fit??

Or are all these texts "just so much more scripture to ignore?"

Your post is right on the money IF the issue is NOT really scripture at all -- we can just toss that out the window -- if the real issue is "our feelings" alone -- then you are right on target.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

BobRyan: Your post was a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of what I was discussing in that post you quoted extracts from.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1036946&postcount=91

It was a prime example in multiple respects.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks - I tried to make sure I responded to each point in your post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1037270&postcount=95

 

[BobRyan]

Also I notice a thread called "compiling texts for OSAS" that none of the texts DEBUNKING OSAS were listed.

How surprising that one can not discuss certain parts of the Bible when trying to build a case for OSAS - when those texts deal EXPLICITLY with the idea of what happens AFTER one is saved

"Forgiveness revoked" for example Matt 18
"REMOVED from Christ and cast into fire" John 15
"SEVERED from Christ" and "FALLEN from Grace" Gal 5:4
"REMOVED from Christ alike the unfaithful Jews" Romans 11

Etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

There is no scripture that establishes OSAS, only encouragement scriptures that are interpreted to mean OSAS. For a scripture to establish OSAS, it would have to say a Christian can not (or will not) stop trusting Christ as Savior. There is no such scripture. For instance, a scripture many OSAS Christians like to use to support OSAS is John 10: 27,28. “My sheep listen to my voice, I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no man can snatch them out of my hand.”

“And they follow me.” To be his sheep, a Christian must continue to follow Him. Christ does not force us to follow Him. If a Christian decides to stop trusting Christ, he takes Himself out of His hand. If OSAS was true, then the scripture should say “And they cannot stop following me.” The fact that it does not say “cannot stop following Him” implies to me that OSAS is not correct.

I have attended an OSAS believing church for the past 15 years, and I have some insight into why they believe OSAS. First is all, when someone becomes a Christian in an OSAS church, they are taught that eternal security is their assurance of salvation. That is, if you don’t believe in eternal security, you don’t really know that you are saved. They are taught that either you believe in OSAS, or you believe you can lose your salvation. The fact is that non-OSAS Christians are just as sure of their salvation as OSAS Christians. Also, the Belief that a Christian can forfeit, but not lose, their salvation is never even mentioned.

To illustrate how other beliefs are misrepresented, one minister in our church made the following statement from the pulpit: “Those who don’t believe in eternal security who are saved one week, not saved the next week, saved the next week, not saved the next week, etc.” I think most people in the church blindly believed him. While I have only heard that statement once, it is often implied by less gross misrepresentations from the pulpit and in Bible study classes.

To be fair here, I have not seen a bible study quarterly ever misrepresent what others believe. However, it seems they think it necessary for each quarterly to reinforce OSAS at least once. I can’t speak for the teacher’s quarterly, but I suspect it misrepresents what others believe since many teachers misrepresent what others believe.

When we ask an OSAS Christian to consider that OSAS may not be true, to many of them we are asking them to question the security of their salvation. While non-OSAS Christians consider OSAS to be just a doctrinal issue open to interpretation, many OSAS Christians consider it to be a vital part of the security of their salvation. That is why they had to develop over the years many explanations of the scriptures that conflict with eternal security. These innovative explanations have been taught to OSAS Christians so often and for so long that they have trouble backing away from them and considering what that scripture actually says or means.

Of course, non-OSAS Christians believe continuing to trust in Christ is our security of salvation.

Hopefully, this will help non-OSAS Christians to better understand OSAS Christians and why they take certain positions.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Timothy 4:16
Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.