Does OSAS survive Galatians 5 and Matt 18?

[BobRyan]

This is a very hard topic..

and both sides have very strong arguments.

I agree with both-though I dont understand how they fit together.

However it is "noticed" that we have not had even one single taker from the OSAS group - show how OSAS can survive the texts in the OP.

They seem to be posting more along the lines "I prefer not to think about those texts when I think of OSAS".

in fact the posts from the OSAS group have been almost "here is why Christ should not have said that" or "here is why Paul should not have said that".

My biggest fear has to do with the folks who only think they are saved but our not, because I knew many people who appeared to be walking with the Lord at one period of their lives, but now are so far away from God that it brings tears to my eyes to think about them. But I cant believe that at one time they were abiding in Christ.

Both the OSAS group and the Bible group that accepts Perseverance of the Saints - can accomodate the idea of a lost portion of humanity that were never saved - but thought that they were saved.

That is the common ground to both -

It makes me wonder how many of you only think you are saved but will one day go through something that makes you fall down ..

Will you then say "he was never saved if he fell away?"

or will you say

"Too bad John is living like the devil, but he is saved anyway?"

4 Point Calvinism with OSAS - would say "living by the devil but fruits don't matter to salvation - saved anyway".

3 and 5 point Calvinism with OSAS - would say "living like the devil - so we retro-delete all former claims to assurance of salvation no matter how sincere".

Arminians and OSAS -- totally confused.

Arminians and Bible perseverance "they are living like the devil now - but at one time they were saved. They failed to take the warning of Matt 18 seriously, they failed to take the warning of Romans 11 seriously, they failed to take the warning of Gal 5:4 seriously... they failed to take the warning of John 15:1-5 seriously..."

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I thank God that I do not have to pay for my salvation since Christ did it for me. He paid the ENTIRE debt, and all He asks of me is obedience and faithfulness. Well, I often fail Him in those, but He is forgiving. I do NOT lose my salvation when I fail Him, but I do lose my fellowship. That is restored when I confess my sin to Him. If I continue to be out of His will, chastisement will occur. God does not chastise those who aren't His. Not does He disown anyone.

By contrast - Christ warns of "forgiveness revoked" in Matt 18.

We see that same thing worked out in detail in Ezek 18.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Emily25069]

Bob,

you and I may not agree on much, but we do agree on this.

They just would rather those passages didnt exist. it doesnt fit in their box.


I have more of an octagon than a box.

 

[BobRyan]

Emily - I take agreement where I can find it.

In this case I think it is very telling that there are whole paragraphs of instruction and warning as well as illustrations that do not fit the OSAS story.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

BobRyan writes:
"Both the OSAS group and the Bible group that accepts Perseverance of the Saints - can accomodate the idea of a lost portion of humanity that were never saved - but thought that they were saved.

That is the common ground to both "

drfuss: There is a third eternal security group who agrees with Charles Stanley. Stanley believes that a True Christian can stop trusting Christ, and still be saved even though he is not trusting Christ when he dies, see Stanley's book entitled "Eternal Security".

BTW, Stanley was president of the Southern Baptist Convention for two years in the 1980's.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Show where EXACTLY was the time the Jews were cut off and "lost salvation"? They didn't loose salvation...they never attained it!

For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that the Jews in question 'never attained it (salvation)'. That's really not the point of Paul's statements and warnings in Romans 11. The point is that the Gentile BELIEVERS whom he was specifically addressing it that passage (ie who were currently "stand(ing) by faith") could be 'cut off' and thus be in the same state as UNBELIEVING Jews (whether one argues these UNBELIEVING Jews were saved to begin with or not). Conversely the UNBELIEVING Jews could be grafted in again (ie share the same position that was currently held by the BELIEVING Gentiles Paul was addressing) if they did not persist in their unbelief (v23).

So unless you are trying to maintain that: (1)the unbelieving Jews were saved while persisting in their unbelief; and/or that (2) the Gentiles who were 'standing by faith' were not really saved while standing by faith, your argument fails. And if you are trying to maintain either or both of those two points, your argument has even greater problems as it would be very difficult--nay, impossible, in my opinion--to support either of those premises biblically. "Faith" and "unbelief" are presented as contrasts by Paul, and the difference between the two is the difference between being 'saved' and 'lost'.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

It is not a strawman. If you can lose it you have to work to keep it.

It is a strawman. Working (ie making an effort) to keep something (so as not to lose it) is not the same thing as earning it (to begin with). For instance, I could receive a vast inheritence from a generous benefactor, which I in no way had any part in earning, yet squander it through poor decisions and reckless behavior.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Romans 11:35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"

 

[Darrell C]

Well then Rev, what do you make of the verses that state that we can fall away?

Perhaps, since you believe you can fall away, you might give the reason for this.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Emily - I take agreement where I can find it.

In this case I think it is very telling that there are whole paragraphs of instruction and warning as well as illustrations that do not fit the OSAS story.

in Christ,

Bob

Lets see those "paragraphs", Bob.

After all, you are teaching people to retain their salvation by exactly what Galatians is warning about.

Can you, or anyone here do better than a verse here, a verse there?

 

[Darrell C]

It is a strawman. Working (ie making an effort) to keep something (so as not to lose it) is not the same thing as earning it (to begin with). For instance, I could receive a vast inheritence from a generous benefactor, which I in no way had any part in earning, yet squander it through poor decisions and reckless behavior.

Okay, I see.

Were saved by grace through faith but the actual keeping of salvation is works.

Is it okay if you boast about these works?

 

[Darrell C]

However it is "noticed" that we have not had even one single taker from the OSAS group - show how OSAS can survive the texts in the OP.

You didn't think I was gone, did you?

I accept your doctrinal challenge with gladness. For it is my goal to glorify Christ and His perfect sacrifice.

And hopefully help those in the error of the Galatians to see they cannot be saved, nor "run well" by seeking righteousness by the law.

They seem to be posting more along the lines "I prefer not to think about those texts when I think of OSAS".

in fact the posts from the OSAS group have been almost "here is why Christ should not have said that" or "here is why Paul should not have said that".

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "What ineffable twaddle!"

After trying to put things in context for you, you say I "rearrange", "add to", and so forth. But you, with half a verse, are able to construct "solid" doctrine, which one of your own admits contradicts other scripture.

She is right, by the way.

Both the OSAS group and the Bible group that accepts Perseverance of the Saints - can accomodate the idea of a lost portion of humanity that were never saved - but thought that they were saved.

That is the common ground to both -

But only one group is able to identify who is who. And this by proper interpretation.

4 Point Calvinism with OSAS - would say "living by the devil but fruits don't matter to salvation - saved anyway".

3 and 5 point Calvinism with OSAS - would say "living like the devil - so we retro-delete all former claims to assurance of salvation no matter how sincere".

Arminians and OSAS -- totally confused.

Arminians and Bible perseverance "they are living like the devil now - but at one time they were saved. They failed to take the warning of Matt 18 seriously, they failed to take the warning of Romans 11 seriously, they failed to take the warning of Gal 5:4 seriously... they failed to take the warning of John 15:1-5 seriously..."

I don't actually know anyone that believes a Christian can sin at will. This is something you have to accuse those who trust in Christ explicitly to make your doctrine plausible to those who are weak in the faith.

I wish more of your followers would post...it might let you see the weakness in your doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

Hi Bob,

The game is afoot (figured I'd stick with the theme).

Okay, so far, 3 passages to deny the sufficiency of Christ.

Anything else?

Be back in a bit.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Those who are cut off:

Romans 10:3-For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Well, if you are trying to make those who "stand by faith" to be like these who they are contrasted to, you have to ask some questions.

1-Are they ignorant of God's righteousness?

2-What is the righteousness referred to here (answer this and you will have your context for Ch. 11)

3-If they are ignorant of God's righteousness, could it be that this is not the righteousness that Israel had?

To make this easier to understand, I'll answer these from a perspective of one who isn't confused by what seems to be contradictory scripture.

1-Those who stand by faith are not ignorant of God's righteousness. This is why they are saved.

2-The righteousness of God is...hold on...the righteousness of God! Can you believe it? Yet, this is what it says.

It is the righteousness which man cannot attain (yep, thats in there to, Israel did not attain to this). This is why it must needs be a gift.

Jesus Christ was the only man who lived righteous and without sin according to the standard of God's righteousness.

10:4-For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Its not hard to see, those that believe (in contrast here with unbelieving Israel) in Christ for His imputed righteousness admit they cannot attain to this righteousness.

Unbelieving Israel thought they were righteous. Paul said concerning the keeping of the law, he was blameless.

Was he a believer? Was he saved? Did keeping the law mean that God was pleased with him?

Think about it.

If you read Galatians and come to any conclusion other than you cannot please God by keeping the law, then you will of necessity be "confused why scripture seems to contradict."

3-Israel had a righteousness: their own. Scripture makes it clear it was not God's, and they were cut off.

The Jews of John 15, Romans 11, and Galatians (those in danger of being burned and cut off0, are not standing by faith, they seek righteousness as unbelieving Israel did.

Every warning of eternal judgement is given to those who are not born again.

(just a few thoughts)

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darrell: “(just a few thoughts)”

HP: Yes, and they are for the most part thoughts as seen through the lens of the presupposition of (OSAS) which is not supported by Scripture. You beg the question at every turn Darrell. Instead of trying to establish proof of OSAS directly from the text itself, you merely assume it without proof at every juncture or try to disprove the others argument, again not from the text itself, but because it runs contrary to your firmly entrenched presupposition of OSAS.

For a classic example, your last statement says it all.

Darrell: "Every warning of eternal judgement is given to those who are not born again."

Nothing new about the manner which you are handling the Scriptures. Happens all the time by those holding to a deterministic system of theology.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay, I see.

Were saved by grace through faith but the actual keeping of salvation is works.

Is it okay if you boast about these works?

In Romans 2 Paul says it is "Not the hearers of the Law that are Just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL be JustiFIED".

In Matt 7 Christ said the same thing "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father"

In 1John 2 - John goes so far as to say that anyone who claims to be a Christian who loves Christ -- is not telling the truth IF they do not "Keep His Commandments" if they do not "Walk as He walked".

The good tree produces good fruit.

If we try to bend these into "boasting if you do well" would be to make Christ and Paul the authors of legalism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

drfuss: There is a third eternal security group who agrees with Charles Stanley. Stanley believes that a True Christian can stop trusting Christ, and still be saved even though he is not trusting Christ when he dies, see Stanley's book entitled "Eternal Security".

True - the 4-point Calvinists are very clear on their belief that a person can fail to persevere and they will get eternal life no matter what the bible says to the contrary.

Notice how Matt 18, Ezek 18, and Romans 2 flatly contradict that particular belief of 4 point Calvinists?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Not true. Works have nothing to do with retaining your salvation in any of the beliefs of the main Christian denominations except the Catholic Church.

Classic Arminians - A Christain can forfeit his salvation only by making a decision to stop trusting Christ.

Wesleyan Arminian - A Christian is in danger of losing his salvation if he continually resists the Holy Spirit in confessing and repenting of known sins.

Works have nothing to do with a Christian retaining his salvation in both Arminian beliefs. Not sure about SDA.

In the SDA church - the view is that a "good tree produces good fruit".

one has to be a born-again "saint" to start with - in order to produce good fruit.

But all mankind is given free will to "choose" and at any point the saved saint can choose some other path. They will then be lost - just as Matt 18 states, just as Ezek 18 states, just as John 15 states, just as Gal 5:4 states, just as Romans 11 states... (the list keeps going as you may already have concluded).
:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: The good tree produces good fruit.

If we try to bend these into "boasting if you do well" would be to make Christ and Paul the authors of legalism.

HP: Now I dare say that is taking ones position out to its logical end in first rate order. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

You cannot loose something YOU or THEY never had.:type:

Indeed you cannot be accused of losing something you never had.

you cannot be asked to PERSEVERE in HOLDING onto something you don't have.

The lost do not experience the "forgiveness revoked" of Matt 18 because they don't have forgiveness to BE revoked.

The lost do not experience what Christ said the "branches IN ME" experience in John 15 - in the case of some who are REMOVED and cast into the fire.

The lost (and never were saved) are not said to be "Running WELL" by the Gospel evangelists of the NT - rather they are urged "WE BEG you on behalf of Christ be RECONCILED to God"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

HP: Yes, and they are for the most part thoughts as seen through the lens of the presupposition of (OSAS) which is not supported by Scripture. You beg the question at every turn Darrell. Instead of trying to establish proof of OSAS directly from the text itself, you merely assume it without proof at every juncture or try to disprove the others argument, again not from the text itself, but because it runs contrary to your firmly entrenched presupposition of OSAS.

For a classic example, your last statement says it all.

Nothing new about the manner which you are handling the Scriptures. Happens all the time by those holding to a deterministic system of theology.

Is this your reply for everything?

Did you even read what I said?

I guess if keeping scripture in context and doing so consistently for more than a couple of verses is such a bad thing, well...you got me! I'm guilty.

By the way, this manner of handling the scripture can be traced back to the first century when Paul first wrote it.

God bless, H.P.

ps-have you any other scripture to hang your hat on? This is getting boring.