Circumcision and OSAS

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Perhaps HP, if one has denied the Lord, and previous to that had claimed to be a believer, that he wasn't a believer in the first place. John spoke of many pretenders in his day--the first century:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

HP: Yes, I will agree that perhaps they may not have been, but perhaps they might have been. Those spoken of may never have been, but can we conclude from this verse that if one goes out they could not have been? I certainly cannot establish that by the text itself. “No doubt” is not an expression of absolute certainty by any stretch of the imagination, and again establishes no set principles concerning those that might leave the faith under other circumstances or groups.

 

[DHK]

HP: Yes, I will agree that perhaps they may not have been, but perhaps they might have been. Those spoken of may never have been, but can we conclude from this verse that if one goes out they could not have been? I certainly cannot establish that by the text itself. “No doubt” is not an expression of absolute certainty by any stretch of the imagination, and again establishes no set principles concerning those that might leave the faith under other circumstances or groups.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The last part of the verse is written with certainty. They went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
That is why they left. They were no of us; they were not believers. They were only pretenders.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: That is why they left. They were no of us; they were not believers. They were only pretenders.

HP: I would fully agree, but again this verse does not establish that as a necessary fact nor even a rule of thumb. It was stated not to establish some timeless principle but rather simply making a comment of some certain individuals that left. Others could have well left under differing circumstances, having made shipwreck of the faith by any number of ways.

 

[DHK]

HP: I would fully agree, but again this verse does not establish that as a necessary fact nor even a rule of thumb. It was stated not to establish some timeless principle but rather simply making a comment of some certain individuals that left. Others could have well left under differing circumstances, having made shipwreck of the faith by any number of ways.

Read the entire book. He warns against false teachers, false doctrine.
He speaks of assurances--key word "know" Ways to know for sure that you are saved. One of the evidences of a person's salvation is their faithfulness. One who either is not saved or is a false teacher will not have this mark of faithfulness. They will leave the church where faithful doctrine is taught. And thus the encouragement:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[Amy.G]

NT circumcision is compared to the physical cutting away of the flesh under the Law.

It was a sign of the covenant between Abraham and his descendants and God. Abraham was not saved by circumcision. He was declared righteous by God before he was circumcised.

Under the new covenant, circumcision is not done by human hands, but by God. When we believe (have faith), God "cuts" away the flesh and separates it from our spirit. Our spirit is made alive by God and we are separated unto Him. We still sin because we are still living in fleshly bodies, but after the circumcision of God, we are not under the curse of sin, meaning it holds no power over us. We are freed from it's condemnation.

Because this is something that God does, it cannot be undone. It is a covenant between God and the believer. He has put His seal of the Holy Spirit on us. We are His. We cannot be condemned for sin in the judicial sense because He has separated the flesh where sin dwells from our spirit which is now living and separated unto God, or made Holy.


Ro*7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Ro*7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Ro*7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: The absurdity of it all is that we know what is at the heart of OSAS, and that is a complete unadulterated system of pure necessity, regardless of how it is packaged, or the precise words used. When one says he believes in OSAS, there is no appreciable distinction between them and any other that holds to a Calvinistic system of necessity, the end is the same. They will even tell you that one can deny God and still make it in. NO sin can separate no matter how vile or evil it may be. Such doctrine is an evil curse upon the Church. There is simply no other way to put it and that needs to shouted from the housetops.

The problem you are identifying might be best segmented this way--

1. OSAS for Calvinists

This is really the only model in which some kind of rationale for OSAS even exists. I as an Arminian - have to at least hand this point to the Calvinists. Because OSAS makes no sense at all in the Arminian system.

I have seen Calvinists comment on the flaw in Arminian arguments if those arguments try to claim both Arminianism - AND - OSAS... and you have to give the Calvinists credit here - they are right about the Arminian model not working with OSAS.

The 3 and 5 point Calvinists get OSAS at the "expense" of assurance - because on the one hand they faithfully accept the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints - but then they mix it with the man-made-tradition of OSAS - and LOSE the assurance of salvation -- since in that system today's ASSURANCE is "retro-deleted" if you fail to persevere ten years from today.

For the 4 point Calvinist - you get BOTH OSAS AND assurance. Because in that model "today's assurance" is never retro-deleted by tomorrows total and complete apostasy. In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints - is entirely denied.





2. OSAS for Arminians
Simply does not work if by "Arminian" you mean "free will"
-- will to CHOOSE.

While the Arminian system does provide that God supernaturally enables the lost sinner to CHOOSE.... there is NO Arminian componant that requires that God TAKE THAT CHOICE AWAY - from the person once they choose salvation.

Rather - the only thing that makes sense for the Arminian model is that once having MADE the choice for salvation - the born again saint must then "Persevere" in CHOOSING to "die daily" to "take up his cross daily" and follow Christ -- just as Romans 2:6 states. Choosing NOT to persevere -- is choosing the Matt 18 road of "forgiveness revoked".




CONCLUSION:

If your goal is "OSAS at any cost" then there is only one real option - 4 point Calvinism.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Creating Adam as a sinless holy being is something "God did" -- and it cannot be "undone".

Adam could not be "uncreated".

As it turns out -- he did NOT need to be "uncreated" to fall - and to find himself in "need of adoption" in order to go back to being (once again) a child of God.

In Matt 18 the forgiveness provided to the debtor-servant in Christ's story - is an exmple of forgiveness that only GOD can give. God alone can take it back.

In the story - that is exactly what he does.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: NT circumcision is compared to the physical cutting away of the flesh under the Law.

It was a sign of the covenant between Abraham and his descendants and God. Abraham was not saved by circumcision. He was declared righteous by God before he was circumcised.

HP: Precisely, yetthe real question is: would have he continued his relationship with God apart from obedience to Gods command? It became a condition to his continuance of his relationship at the point it was given not before.

Amy: Under the new covenant, circumcision is not done by human hands, but by God. When we believe (have faith), God "cuts" away the flesh and separates it from our spirit. Our spirit is made alive by God and we are separated unto Him. We still sin because we are still living in fleshly bodies, but after the circumcision of God, we are not under the curse of sin, meaning it holds no power over us. We are freed from it's condemnation.

HP: I disagree and I believe Scripture does as well. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Amy: Because this is something that God does, it cannot be undone. It is a covenant between God and the believer.

HP: We, unlike God, are not God and can break our covenant just as many of the Jews broke their covenant and were divorced by God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Creating Adam as a sinless holy being is something "God did" -- and it cannot be "undone".

Adam could not be "uncreated".

HP: Excellent point BR.:thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, I would simply look at a 'OSAS Arminian' as someone confused as a white goose lost in a snow storm, concerning the real ramifications of their own beliefs. In essense a OSAS Arminian is a complete misnomer.

BR: If your goal is "OSAS at any cost" then there is only one real option - 4 point Calvinism.

HP: What point could they, or are they, missing?

 

[BobRyan]

4 Point Calvinists do not accept the Bible teaching on Perseverance of the Saints.

So for 5 Point Calvinists we have the full TULIP

T - Total Depravity of the sinful nature of man
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonment
I - Irresistable Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Three point Calvinists (almost Arminian) have T U P


Arminians can call themselves two point Calvinists -- T and P - if they wanted to.

(And of course if we correct the Calvinist U and L - to match the actual Bible meaning of U and L - then Arminians could be 4 pointers!!)

 

[steaver]

4 Point Calvinists do not accept the Bible teaching on Perseverance of the Saints.

So for 5 Point Calvinists we have the full TULIP

T - Total Depravity of the sinful nature of man
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonment
I - Irresistable Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Three point Calvinists (almost Arminian) have T U P


Arminians can call themselves two point Calvinists -- T and P - if they wanted to.

(And of course if we correct the Calvinist U and L - to match the actual Bible meaning of U and L - then Arminians could be 4 pointers!!)

I don't understand the fascination with Calvinism when it comes to debating OSAS. If I understand TULIP correctly then I am a OSAS believer who does not agree with anything Calvin proposed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I don't understand the fascination with Calvinism when it comes to debating OSAS. If I understand TULIP correctly then I am a OSAS believer who does not agree with anything Calvin proposed.

HP: Are you willing to have your views debated? If so, possibly we can start another thread to do so. Of course you would have the right to see how close to Calvinism you might find myself as well.

We might entitle the thread “Are You Too Close to Calvinism? Are you gain? If so, post away or I will try later on this weekend the Lord willing.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yes, based on the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 and dozens of other N.T. passages that bear this out. Very tiny, but not a minority of one. Yes, I am part of a great church--the best anywhere around here. I have served there more than 35 years and I love them all. However, they're not very dogmatic on matters of doctrine. For example, I didn't know until about 15 years ago that OSAS was a prevalent belief among Baptists. I only learned that when the seminaries started to require their faculty to affirm the BF&M. Being naturally curious, I decided to read the BF&M and learned a lot about Baptist beliefs that I had not known before.

I will say this however. There are more people in my church who believe you can lose your salvation (about 5) than there are five point Calvinists (only 2 that I can identify).

Okay, thanks, just curious.

 

[donnA]

HP: But your circumcision can become uncircumcision and as such your circumcision is made of absolutely no effect.

it is using circumcision as a comparison, you can only be circumcised once, and it can not be undone. The comparison was used because the jews would have understood the purpose of circumcision, and this is one of the facts of circumcision, it can not be done more then once and it can not be undone. otherwise it is a faulty comparison.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't understand the fascination with Calvinism when it comes to debating OSAS. If I understand TULIP correctly then I am a OSAS believer who does not agree with anything Calvin proposed.

Which of course - makes no sense at all given that the Arminian distinctive is "free will to choose" rather than "mind locked -- no choice possible".

 

[steaver]

Which of course - makes no sense at all given that the Arminian distinctive is "free will to choose" rather than "mind locked -- no choice possible".

If I agree with Arminian or Calvin in anyway I have no problem saying so. I just don't think I would agree with anything in the TULIP statements. Maybe I am wrong for I have not studied them in any depth. Begin a thread and if it turns out I do agree with them then I guess you can call me a Calvinist if it makes you feel good. But hey, I don't call you an Ellen Whitist. You go out of your way to say that your beliefs are totally based on the scriptures and have nothing to do with EGW. So why can't us in the OSAS camp say the same without being labled a Calvinist?

And guess what? If TULIP turns out to be biblically acurate, then I still am not technically a Calvinist but rather just a biblical Christian just like your not a Whitist. Calvin is just another commentator.

:jesus:

 

[webdog]

Which of course - makes no sense at all given that the Arminian distinctive is "free will to choose" rather than "mind locked -- no choice possible".

Non sequitur, Bob. I can kill someone of my own "free will", but you cannot maintain that using this same free will I can undo the murder. Eternal life is only eternal if it is eternal In your and HP's model it ceases to be eternal, and if that was the intended truth God had in store, He would have never used "eternal", but conditional life.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I would say that eternal is indeed eternal but in this present world were are birthed into a ‘lively hope’ of eternal life.
1Pe 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

There is nothing to worry about period IF we remain faithful to the Lord unto the end. He has promised the strength to accomplish the ends of hope, life eternal. We must simply walk in obedience and trust in the Lord.

 

[webdog]

I would say that eternal is indeed eternal but in this present world were are birthed into a ‘lively hope’ of eternal life.
1Pe 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

There is nothing to worry about period IF we remain faithful to the Lord unto the end. He has promised the strength to accomplish the ends of hope, life eternal. We must simply walk in obedience and trust in the Lord.

How can one hope in something if it is dependant on us to maintain? How does a Holy Spirit filled believer (who, btw, are told will "never leave us nor forsake us") be an equation to something we must maintain? Does he indwell, leave, and indwell again?
There is no condition to hope or remaining faithful in "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish..." from John 10:28. Like I said, if you can lose it, it can never be called eternal life, and when Scripture refers to it as such it would be a lie.