Calvinism and OSAS

[BobRyan]

(Caveat: I agree that non-Cals are sort of in the Arminian camp except for holding to OSAS along with Calvinists... that is another topic).

Can Calvinism survive if the tradition of OSAS is not Biblical?

Can find a way to be a Calvinist without OSAS?

Or is OSAS the ultimate expression of the Arminian view where free will is retained EVEN in a state of grace - even for the saved.

If these Bible texts on forgiveness revoked turn out to be true --


Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Then does Calvinism fall for those who accept these verses?

If OSAS be the ultimate expression of the Arminian POV - then what is the ultimate expression of Calvinism? Double predestination?

Certainly an Arminian could not hold to double predestination and still be Arminian.

thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Iconoclast]

(Caveat: I agree that non-Cals are sort of in the Arminian camp except for holding to OSAS along with Calvinists... that is another topic).

Can Calvinism survive if the tradition of OSAS is not Biblical?

Can find a way to be a Calvinist without OSAS?

Or is OSAS the ultimate expression of the Arminian view where free will is retained EVEN in a state of grace - even for the saved.

If these Bible texts on forgiveness revoked turn out to be true --


Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Then does Calvinism fall for those who accept these verses?

If OSAS be the ultimate expression of the Arminian POV - then what is the ultimate expression of Calvinism? Double predestination?

Certainly an Arminian could not hold to double predestination and still be Arminian.

thoughts?

in Christ

You should aquire an understanding of the position before you attempt to speak on it.

 

[BobRyan]

hint: The OP is in the form of a question. It is fine if you don't have the answer.

 

[Iconoclast]

BobRyan

hint: The OP is in the form of a question. It is fine if you don't have the answer.

Explanation: I posted what i did because of your "question"...In fact I do have the answer....that you do not have.

Biblical Calvinists do not believe in OSAS;

Biblical Calvinists believe in ;
Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
1._____ Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
( John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6 )

2._____ 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 and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
( Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40 )

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of 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 have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )

They are historically and biblically two different teachings with only a few similar ideas......when you do some reading and learn of the difference we can discuss it.

When you write what you did in the OP...you say to anyone who has looked at the issues and teaching...you are saying...I DO Not get it....I have not studied it,and do not know enough about it.

 

[preacher4truth]

The OP cannot distinguish between the Biblical behavior of sheep and goats which is why he consistently misinterprets and misapplies passage after passage.

 

[Iconoclast]

preacher4truth

The OP cannot distinguish between the Biblical behavior of sheep and goats which is why he consistently misinterprets and misapplies passage after passage.

Yes...I like that he has energy.....It would be nice to see Him actually come around a bit:thumbs: he sounds like a nice person...just not seeing it.

 

[preacher4truth]

preacher4truth



Yes...I like that he has energy.....It would be nice to see Him actually come around a bit:thumbs: he sounds like a nice person...just not seeing it.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan

Explanation: I posted what i did because of your "question"...In fact I do have the answer....that you do not have.

Biblical Calvinists do not believe in OSAS;

ok now i am interested since everyone i know - does believe in OSAS.

Biblical Calvinists believe in ;
Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
...

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of 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 have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )

They are historically and biblically two different teachings

Apparently you did not understand the question in the OP.

I am not interested as much in the different forms of OSAS - (perseverance of the saints vs preservation of the saints etc) Though you are certainly taken up with it and welcome to it.

Obviously neither one of those forms (and yes - one of them is the one you listed --- obviously) appear to survive Matt 18 and Matt 6.

If these Bible texts on forgiveness revoked turn out to be true --


Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Then does Calvinism fall for those who accept these verses?

For example in the "perseverance of the saints model" of OSAS you still cannot allow for the one fully forgiven to experience "forgiveness revoked".

As for the saints not being the goats... well it is obvious Matt 18 is talking about a fully forgiven saint who is expected to live in a spirit of gratitude for what has been done for him. (Arbitrary selection or not in getting him saved and fully forgiven)


[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So the question remains - if such a thing were actually true - what does that do to Calvinism?

And if this be the ultimate form of the Arminian position then what is the ultimate form of Calvinism? Double predestination?
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

[DHK]

ok now i am interested since everyone i know - does believe in OSAS.

Apparently you did not understand the question in the OP.

I am not interested as much in the different forms of OSAS - (perseverance of the saints vs preservation of the saints etc) Though you are certainly taken up with it and welcome to it.

Obviously neither one of those forms (and yes - one of them is the one you listed --- obviously) appear to survive Matt 18 and Matt 6.

If these Bible texts on forgiveness revoked turn out to be true --


Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

So, what if your position is correct Bob (not saying it is), but what if?
Then if you lose your salvation because you have forgotten or neglected to forgive someone or just plain have harbored a grudge, correct?

If you die before the offense is cleared up, you go to hell, correct?

What do you do in order to "get saved again"?
You must forgive that person. Is that correct?

Then salvation is by works; not by grace, not by faith, but by works.
According to Eph.2:8,9 that is not Biblical.
You have a works-based salvation.
Since when is salvation based on forgiving another person?
I don't find that concept in the Bible.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

So, what if your position is correct Bob (not saying it is), but what if?
Then if you lose your salvation because you have forgotten or neglected to forgive someone or just plain have harbored a grudge, correct?

If you die before the offense is cleared up, you go to hell, correct?

What do you do in order to "get saved again"?
You must forgive that person. Is that correct?

Then salvation is by works; not by grace, not by faith, but by works.
According to Eph.2:8,9 that is not Biblical.
You have a works-based salvation.
Since when is salvation based on forgiving another person?
I don't find that concept in the Bible.

Ouch :tonofbricks:

 

[Iconoclast]

So, what if your position is correct Bob (not saying it is), but what if?
Then if you lose your salvation because you have forgotten or neglected to forgive someone or just plain have harbored a grudge, correct?

If you die before the offense is cleared up, you go to hell, correct?

What do you do in order to "get saved again"?
You must forgive that person. Is that correct?

Then salvation is by works; not by grace, not by faith, but by works.
According to Eph.2:8,9 that is not Biblical.
You have a works-based salvation.
Since when is salvation based on forgiving another person?
I don't find that concept in the Bible.

Yes..all of his posts describe a works gospel, both for salvation and justification.
That is because that is what that church teaches.

 

[BobRyan]

So, what if your position is correct Bob (not saying it is), but what if?

My position is that we should pay attention to Bible details rather than run from them when they cross a given tradition/belief/practice.

My position is that name calling solves nothing.

My question on this thread is whether Calvinism can survive without OSAS. And whether admitting to the Bible problems with OSAS is not in fact one of the ultimate expressions of the Arminian position.

Supported by something along these lines.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
ok now i am interested since everyone i know - does believe in OSAS.

Apparently you did not understand the question in the OP.

I am not interested as much in the different forms of OSAS - (perseverance of the saints vs preservation of the saints etc) Though you are certainly taken up with it and welcome to it.

Obviously neither one of those forms (and yes - one of them is the one you listed --- obviously) appear to survive Matt 18 and Matt 6.

If these Bible texts on forgiveness revoked turn out to be true --


Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Then if you lose your salvation because you have forgotten or neglected to forgive someone or just plain have harbored a grudge, correct?

You tell me - how do you read the text above?

They are not talking about eating cake -- I think we both agree there.

If you die before the offense is cleared up, you go to hell, correct?

The text does not deal with how the one who loses salvation gets it back.

But Romans 11 does - did you want to talk about that?

Looking at the actual Bible details??

In the text??

Then salvation is by works; not by grace, not by faith, but by works.

You cannot find an excuse for ignoring the Bible details in Matt 18 and Matt 6 - by redefining terms. OR trying to add "inference" to Eph 2:8-10 in a way to cancel out Matt 18 and Matt 6. It does not work.

I think we all saw that with some of the Calvinist posts. It does not work.

Better to simply look at the details in the text of scripture as they stand.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

My position is that we should pay attention to Bible details rather than run from them when they cross a given tradition/belief/practice.

My question on this thread is whether Calvinism can survive without OSAS. And whether admitting to the Bible problems with OSAS is not in fact one of the ultimate expressions of the Arminian position.

Supported by something along these lines.

You tell me - how do you read the text above?

The text does not deal with how the one who loses salvation gets it back.

Looking at the actual Bible details??

In the text??

You cannot find an excuse for ignoring the Bible details in Matt 18 and Matt 6 - by redefining terms. OR trying to add "inference" to Eph 2:8-10 in a way to cancel out Matt 18 and Matt 6. It does not work.

Better to simply look at the details in the text of scripture as they stand.

Bob

1. In another thread and in another forum I explained the parable to you in detail. You mocked. I am not going to explain it again. You don't listen, nor do you want to listen. So you tell me, why are you asking for explanations and answers you don't want to hear?

2. When one states their belief concerning a certain passage of Scripture the consequence of that belief is just as important as the belief itself. Therefore my questions are not off topic, and do pertain to the text in question. They deal with the consequence of your purported "doctrine." And yet you are determined not to answer. Why is that? Lack of details perhaps?

3. Your determination to ignore context is astounding. The context basically gives the answer to the question, but you won't acknowledge the importance of that context.
Take for example:
"...There is no God." This is your type of teaching. Ignore the context.
A strange doctrine w/o context.
Fortunately the Bible doesn't teach atheism, but teaches that "fools say in their hearts 'there is no god.'

The context:
The parable was in answer to Peter's question.
"Lord how often shall I forgive my brother, seven times"
"I say unto you not seven times, but seventy times seven."
Then he launches into the parable of the King. It was in answer to Peter's question on forgiveness. Without considering that the parable doesn't have the proper setting.

Parables don't teach doctrine. They illustrate it. Jesus was illustrating a truth for Peter. He wasn't putting together a jigsaw puzzle to make all the pieces fit together. Sometimes they don't. They are meant to teach one central truth. And that central truth here is not "forgiveness revoked," but rather the importance of forgiveness.

From this parable you have taught a strange doctrine: "forgiveness revoked," taught nowhere else in the Bible.
Now you have to deal with the consequences of your doctrine.
1. How does a person get "forgiveness regained," or get his salvation back if it is lost by not forgiving someone?
2. Have you not made "forgiveness" a requirement for salvation, shoving aside grace and faith? Thus salvation is by works and not by grace through faith.
One could easily infer from your theology at this point that you must be born again and again and again, but that is not what Jesus taught.

I am not off topic here. I am dealing with the consequence of your teaching from the text. Now you should answer the post.

 

[Revmitchell]

You don't listen, nor do you want to listen. So you tell me, why are you asking for explanations and answers you don't want to hear?

.

That has been my experience as well. As well as refuses to directly answer questions.

 

[BobRyan]

1. In another thread and in another forum I explained the parable to you in detail.

In another place and on some other thread you avoid the details in the text that appear to be problematic for OSAS with such consistency that i reduce the Matt 18 case to three really easy questions -- hoping you will not find yet another creative way to avoid the obvious Bible details that cause the problem for OSAS.

============= 3 three easy questions

I am reminding those who keep ignoring these 3 easy questions (taken from the texts in the opening Post )-- of just what it is they are ignoring.
================================

I am asking you to respond to the details IN the text.

1. First this one -- where we see an ALREADY FULLY Forgiven servant expected to forgive AS HE WAS TRULY forgiven.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]

2. Then THIS ONE

Where we see forgiveness revoked - full debt returned.

[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.


3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

So yes that would be "Sola scriptura" testing of your man-made tradition if you can actually address "the Bible details".

Obviously - we all agree that ducking the these Bible details does not count as addressing them.

=========================

You have free will and can continue to avoid the details that are causing the problem for OSAS if you wish.

In the case of this thread - I am not even asking that you find a way for OSAS to survive Matt 18 or Matt 6.

I am just asking if Calvinism itself can survive if OSAS falls in cases like the one above.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

2. When one states their belief concerning a certain passage of Scripture the consequence of that belief is just as important as the belief itself. Therefore my questions are not off topic, and do pertain to the text in question. They deal with the consequence of your purported "doctrine." And yet you are determined not to answer. Why is that? Lack of details perhaps?

1. I have stated the answer numerous times and have an entire thread on Romans 11 to discuss this with you - feel free to engage in that discussion if your interest is genuine.

2. Matt 18 is not my "doctrine" it is the Bible.



Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Then does Calvinism fall for those who accept these verses?

If OSAS be the ultimate expression of the Arminian POV - then what is the ultimate expression of Calvinism? Double predestination?

Certainly an Arminian could not hold to double predestination and still be Arminian.

3. Your determination to ignore context is astounding. The context basically gives the answer to the question, ...

The context:
The parable was in answer to Peter's question.
"Lord how often shall I forgive my brother, seven times"
"I say unto you not seven times, but seventy times seven."
Then he launches into the parable of the King. It was in answer to Peter's question on forgiveness. Without considering that the parable doesn't have the proper setting.

Parables don't teach doctrine. They illustrate it.

In both Matt 18 and in Matt 6 the statements made outside the parable - cause a problem for OSAS -- not just inside the parable.

Matt 18 OUTSIDE the parable.


[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Matt 6 NOT a parable

14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

I think you will agree with me that this has been pointed out to you at least half a dozen times.

=========================

In any case for this thread - I do not insist that you find a way for OSAS to survive the details of the text in Matt 18 or Matt 6.

I am only asking if Calvinism survives the fall of OSAS (should it be found to fail in places like this) -- and if so - then how does it survive without OSAS?

Some have chosen to respond to a different subject - which is -- OSAS via Perseverance of the saints, or OSAS via preservation of the saints.

I think both of them would fail if the "forgiveness revoked" warning in Matt 18 and Matt 6 were admitted to - but that aside... does Calvinism survive in such a case?

Yes..all of his posts describe a works gospel,

As much as that response pays no attention at all to the texts listed or the question being asked - I think Calvinists may want to consider the actual question enough to show that Calvinism can survive in the event that this text is true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

Can Calvinism survive if the tradition of OSAS is not Biblical?

The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are Biblical, Period!

 

[BobRyan]

Ok fine.

Would Calvinism survive without OSAS if it were found the OSAS did not survive Bible testing in places like Matt 18 and Matt 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

1. I have stated the answer numerous times and have an entire thread on Romans 11 to discuss this with you - feel free to engage in that discussion if your interest is genuine.

2. Matt 18 is not my "doctrine" it is the Bible.



Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

You are still peddling the nonsense that the passages from Matthew 18 and Matthew 6 teach that God has kicked His child by adoption, for whom Jesus Christ died, out of the fold. You are cherry picking Scripture and then assuming it states something it doesn't.

And just how many times can this fictitious person be saved and kicked out? Only once or each time he sins? Is there no limit?

As I have said before you really should consider all Scripture. you might read what the Apostle Paul says about the Security of the Believer giving himself as an example:

2 Timothy 1:12. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Now was the Apostle Paul delusional?

Is God so weak that He cannot keep that which He chose and which Jesus Christ purchased for Him by His sacrifice on the cross? Meditate on the following Scripture and then in a year or so?????

Ephesians 1:3-14
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8. Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9. Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14.Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

My position is that we should pay attention to Bible details rather than run from them when they cross a given tradition/belief/practice.

My position is that name calling solves nothing.

My question on this thread is whether Calvinism can survive without OSAS. And whether admitting to the Bible problems with OSAS is not in fact one of the ultimate expressions of the Arminian position.

Supported by something along these lines.

You tell me - how do you read the text above?

They are not talking about eating cake -- I think we both agree there.

The text does not deal with how the one who loses salvation gets it back.

But Romans 11 does - did you want to talk about that?

Looking at the actual Bible details??

In the text??

You cannot find an excuse for ignoring the Bible details in Matt 18 and Matt 6 - by redefining terms. OR trying to add "inference" to Eph 2:8-10 in a way to cancel out Matt 18 and Matt 6. It does not work.

I think we all saw that with some of the Calvinist posts. It does not work.

Better to simply look at the details in the text of scripture as they stand.

in Christ,

Bob

You cannot find an excuse for ignoring the Bible details in Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, and Titus 3:5 by redefining terms. OR trying to add "inference" to Matt 18 and 6 in order to cancel out Ephesians 3:8-9, ROmans 3:28, and Titus 3:5. It does not work.