Featured Calvinism provides the basis for OSAS

In Calvinism the one who is lost does nothing at all to become a saved saint. They are arbitrarily selected for salvation and simply wake up one day and find "it is so" and then agree with what is already their new state.

Thus the one lost makes no choice, takes no action to become saved.

If someone is lost and not saved well and if God laments that case - then in Calvinism -- God is the cause of His own lament. (Thus a number of Calvinists on this board have insisted that there is no lament in scripture by God over the lost where God says "what more could I have done that has not already been done").

The Calvinist argument that since you took no action to become saved - you can take no action to be lost again - at least has some sort of logic to it that can be appreciated by Arminians objectively.

By contrast the Bible states the more Arminian view of "Whosoever will" Rev 22, and "to as many as received Him - to them he gave..." John 1 and "I stand at the door and knock If ANYONE hear my voice AND OPEN the door I WILL come in " Rev 3.

And of course there is always the Arminian statement of Romans 10 on what results in salvation.

Thus the Arminian argument has no construct for OSAS and must accept the "Forgiveness revoked" texts such as we find in Matt 18 and Ezek 18, and Matt 6.

Also the "Fallen from Grace" and "severed from Christ" warning of Gal 5:4 is much more of a serious matter for the Arminian POV because it cannot be redefined, watered down and made of none effect.

So also the Romans 11 warning "you should fear for you stand only by your faith .. if He did not spare them neither will He spare you" as it calls for perseverance of the saints and gives the warning of being cast away like the non-Christian unbelieving Jews.

There are a number here who agree with this and have called themselves "non-Cals" instead of "Arminian" because they agree that the consistent Arminian position does not provide a construct for OSAS or for switching from free will while lost -- to no free will after being saved (and then having to join the Calvinists in watering down and redefining all the warnings in scripture given to the saved saint).

Food for thought.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Calvinism argues that the lost do nothing - and yet find themselves saved - thus as the saved - they can do nothing to find themselves lost.

The Arminian model is that you must accept the 100 million dollars - but accepting a gift is not the same as earning the 100 million. Having accepted it - you can always give it away and return to your former state.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed. That is the one I hold to.

And that is why some of the "non-Cals" on this board do not call themselves "Arminian".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Romans 11 (which is where that verse comes from) makes this case explicitly -

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

Rom 11
13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”


20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severityof God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

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

I don't see how OSAS survives Romans 11.

You point to vs 28-31 - so let us see how this fits in Romans 11.

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemiesfor your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.

13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

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



Paul is arguing for the right of God to continue to hold out the offer of salvation to those called 'enemies of the Gospel' in the text above. He is NOT claiming that "Gospel enemy" is a "form of saint" under some sort of "OSAS" model. He is making the statement above as defense of his idea of trying to see " if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them "

 

In any case - I admit that some favor OSAS and some do not. My point here is to show that the "logic" for OSAS can be found in the Calvinist model, the premise, the assumptions in Calvinism provide the logic for OSAS.

But the Arminian model has no premise or foundation for it - other than to "Claim it anyway". The OSAS model is mutually exclusive to the "Whosoever will" choice mode of both Arminians and non-Cals when it comes to how one gets saved. Thus there is not that Calvinist consistent theme that says "choice did not play a part in getting you into the saved state and cannot play a part in losing the saved state".

This is the "real Achilles heel" in "some" non calvinist models.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Thank you for the kind words Skandelon - I do not doubt your intentions or think any less of those who differ with my views. All views welcomed. I am happy to have details sorted out even if they do not agree with me.

There is no question that both Calvinists and Arminians (and also non-Cals) believe in regeneration.

I am not arguing against that at all.

That does not work in Matt 18 because the argument is "I forgave you all that debt" and then the expectation was that the one fully forgiven should have forgiven others just as they were forgiven.

In the same way in Romans 11 "you stand by your faith".

Both cases demand that we accept their forgiven, saved state as being included in the text.

Certainly I agree that there is also the case of those who join the Church that were never saved to start with. That is a scenario that both Arminians and Calvinist models can accomodate without a problem.

I agree that God does know the future and that includes the future of the one who fails to persevere and the one who though fully forgiven as in Matt 18 refuses to then forgive others just as he was fully forgiven.

It is a circular and self-conflicted argument to say that failure to persevere in your saved state proves that you never failed to persevere in your saved state because you were never saved. "The "test" cannot be that they "failed to persevere in a state they were never in to start with".

In fact what the lost did was fully persevere in the lost state the entire time . There is no way to call that "failing to persevere in the saved state" -- because they never had it to start with - never had the chance to persevere in it or not.

In the same way that the Matt 18 could never be applied to the never-forgiven-lost person claiming that God expected him to forgive others just as he himself was never forgiven -- when what is meant is "failed to forgive others even though he was himself never forgiven and so was being fully consistent to not forgive others just as he himself was not forgiven.). That kind of argument is never made in Matt 18.


Failure to persevere in State A - cannot be proof that you were never in State A and thus could never have failed to persevere in a state you were never in. It is a self-conflicted position.

In Ezek 18 the same scenario is presented and the text says that when you fail to persevere in the saved state (state "A" in the illustration) - all that you did in that saved state is no longer remembered.

I think that both Calvinists and non-Cals as well as this Arminian have admitted so far that the Arminian position includes the view of Matt 18 and Matt 6 of forgiveness revoked - and the risk of the problem in Romans 11 - that someone may lose salvation.

You have presented a case for the Arminian view that predestination would prevent the saved saint (even in an Arminian model) from ever being free to choose a path that would lose salvation.

In that case - do you then argue that Adam was predestined to fail?

If predestination has in it the power to remove your free will to choose failure - then how did Adam fail?

If being sealed by the Holy Spirit removes free will - then perhaps there are Arminians that claim that Adam was not sealed and therefore could choose to fail, but now as born again saints we no longer have the free will to choose failure. In that case there can be no such thing as "I forgave you all that debt - you should have forgiven others" where the saint fails and then "all the debt is returned" for the now lost person to pay. No debt can be "returned" because no debt was ever removed. And if the person did have a debt removed - it cannot be revoked and the one forgiven is not "capable" of not always fully forgiving others - in that model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

On a similar thread - I said -

Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that there is such a thing as being saved and then "persevering firm unto the end".

Where they differ is on whether choice is involved in getting saved.

And if not then the argument that you cannot be lost by "a choice" because choice did not enter into the equation for your getting saved - becomes a strong argument.

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

The difference is that there are many Arminians such as myself that will argue that not only do you have free will as a lost person - but you also have free will as a saved person - and this is why there are so many Matt 18 (forgiveness revoked) and Matt 6 and Romans 11 style warnings given to the saints in scripture.

Calvinism on the other hand argues for no free will for the lost so no getting saved in a way that includes the lost making a choice to accept salvation. And by the same token no losing that salvation by making some decision being warned against in Matt 18 or Matt 6 or 1Cor 6 or Romans 11 or Gal 5:4 etc.

in Christ,

Bob