Freewill and OSAS

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I appreciate those that claim to hold to freewill, but how can OSAS (once saved always saved) be seen as consistent with a free will? Does the will cease to be free as a believer? What makes it impossible for the will to make ‘shipwreck of the faith?’

 

[BobRyan]

Impossible to reconcile OSAS with the Arminian "Free will" position.

interesting that many Calvinists get this point clearly as well as the Arminians that see that OSAS can not work in a "whosoever will" system.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

A very interesting topic, I say. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

I would not argue that this is a weakness in the Arminian system - other than the weakness "of numbers" in that many Arminians try to hold to both the free-will construct AND to OSAS thus leaving themselves to exposed to Bible criticism from both Calvinists and fellow Arminians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Is it possible that some use the term OSAS when they mean they believe in the security of the believer? I, for one, reject the doctrine of OSAS. I do not believe the Bible bears it out in either Old or New Testaments.

However, I fully believe and place my trust in the security of the believer (John 10:28,29, etc).

The difference is this: a believer is an obeyer, a doer of the word. So long as one abides in Christ through faithful obedience to Scripture, he has nothing to fear.

I think OSAS leaves itself open to some who might take advantage of their supposed indestructible state and engage in willful sin, all the while comforting themselves with the idea that, "Though what I'm doing is wrong, I'll still go to heaven because I was saved when I was younger..." or something like that.

Now I don't recall ever hearing such taught from a pulpit, (not first-hand at least), even by those who espouse OSAS, but I've seen many people whose actions said as much, and quite loudly. Some have even said as much when questioned about their actions.

 

[gekko]

but how can OSAS (once saved always saved) be seen as consistent with a free will?

i'm not calvinist or the other.

i do believe in free-will though - and OSAS.

it depends on your defenition of OSAS..

i see it as: once you're genuinly saved - you won't want to stray from God at all. you want to know God in every aspect and don't want to walk away from Him.
(thus the "once saved, always saved, because you won't ever have the thought of running away from God")

but at the same time, you have free-will.

is God keeping you against your will? are you saved against your will? no.

you made the choice to receive Jesus - influenced by the Holy Spirit, yes - but not controlled by. (if we were controlled - we'd be robots - which goes against scripture)

Impossible to reconcile OSAS with the Arminian "Free will" position.

not at all really.
as i explained above. heh.

if you are genuinly saved - it doesn't mean free-will is thrown out the window..

 

[webdog]

I appreciate those that claim to hold to freewill, but how can OSAS (once saved always saved) be seen as consistent with a free will? Does the will cease to be free as a believer? What makes it impossible for the will to make ‘shipwreck of the faith?’

Since salvation is referred to as eternal life...can one be unborn once born (and I'm not talking about death, either). To me, comparing the will of man to the justification by God is apples and oranges. My mother and father had the free will to have sex or not, but they had no free will in the result of what came from that, my birth.

 

[J.D.]

Watching with interest also. But I think I know what the answer will be since I've asked this same question to OSAS pastors before.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SgtFury: I fully believe and place my trust in the security of the believer (John 10:28,29, etc).

HP: I fully agree with your testimony and clarification between OSAS and the security of the believer. Well stated.:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gekko: t as: once you're genuinly saved - you won't want to stray from God at all. you want to know God in every aspect and don't want to walk away from Him.
(thus the "once saved, always saved, because you won't ever have the thought of running away from God")

HP: Sin is the willful transgression of the law. When one forms an intent of selfishness or benevolence, there is more than likely the presence of feelings or influences to the contrary. Are we to believe that when one sins that there is no desire to do so? It would seem to me that if one sins it is obvious that indeed they want to do so, otherwise they would not have chosen that intent, if in fact the will is free.

OSAS does not simply state one ‘will not,’ or that one does not desire to, but that ‘one cannot’ make shipwreck of the faith. According to OSAS it is impossible for one to make shipwreck of the faith. Holding to OSAS it cannot affect ones eternal salvation regardless of anything one thinks or acts upon. Is that your position? If so, it is impossible for the will to be free, would you not agree?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Since salvation is referred to as eternal life...can one be unborn once born (and I'm not talking about death, either).

HP: Eternal life can be thought of with or without conditions. It can be thought of as revocable or irrevocable. You bring to the table a comparison between the natural birth and the spiritual birth. Help me out here. Where in Scripture are we taught that we should draw parallels between the new birth and the natural birth? I remember Nicodemus in his unlearned state trying to compare the two, but as I recall Christ corrected him did he not?

Webdog: To me, comparing the will of man to the justification by God is apples and oranges. My mother and father had the free will to have sex or not, but they had no free will in the result of what came from that, my birth.

HP: Why? If in fact God has mandated man to fulfill certain conditions in order to receive justification as I believe Scripture clearly states, where do the ‘apples and oranges’ come from? I am having trouble following your comparison between the way in which we are conceived and the free will involved in the act, and the lack of free will in the results. What does this illustration have to do with the manner in which salvation is achieved, the OP, or anything else? Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see any connection.

 

[webdog]

Where in Scripture are we taught that we should draw parallels between the new birth and the natural birth?

See below...

I remember Nicodemus in his unlearned state trying to compare the two, but as I recall Christ corrected him did he not?

Christ corrected him regarding the second birth not being a physical birth as Nicodemus wrongly thought.

HP: Why? If in fact God has mandated man to fulfill certain conditions in order to receive justification as I believe Scripture clearly states, where do the ‘apples and oranges’ come from? I am having trouble following your comparison between the way in which we are conceived and the free will involved in the act, and the lack of free will in the results. What does this illustration have to do with the manner in which salvation is achieved, the OP, or anything else? Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see any connection.

The very phrase born again or new birth is a similie to the physical or natural.
The illustration is intended to show the free will in a resulting birth...but no free will once the birth has taken place. Once we are born, we cannot be unborn.
Romans 2 also refers to salvation as a "circumcision of the heart". We know that circumcision was commanded in the OT, but the freedom to follow through was given. Once somebody is circumcised of their free choice, can the circumcision be undone? The arminian position claims it can be reversed. How?...who knows. To me the inconsistancy lies in the arminian position.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: The very phrase born again or new birth is a similie to the physical or natural.
The illustration is intended to show the free will in a resulting birth...but no free will once the birth has taken place. Once we are born, we cannot be unborn.

HP: You beg the question. Where does Scripture use the comparison between the natural birth and the spiritual birth to set forth that one born spiritually cannot loose that standing? I would say that you are drawing conclusions that take any such illustration beyond any and all scope of any meaningful or stated connection.

Webdog: Romans 2 also refers to salvation as a "circumcision of the heart". We know that circumcision was commanded in the OT, but the freedom to follow through was given. Once somebody is circumcised of their free choice, can the circumcision be undone? The arminian position claims it can be reversed. How?...who knows. To me the inconsistancy lies in the arminian position.

HP: It is not a matter of whether or not circumcision can be undone, but rather it is a question of it being made of no effect. 1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Although one might well have entered into a covenant with God via circumcision, it became of no effect if obedience was not the end result. Certainly one had not lost their physical circumcision, yet it was made of no effect if obedience was not the rule of their life. Whatever one believes they gained at salvation can indeed be made of no effect by a life of disobedience.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Originally bywebdog: Once we are born, we cannot be unborn.

I don't think it's a case of being "unborn". It's more a case of a child being punished for disobedience. I'm sure you've considered it before now, but here's some from 2 Peter.

2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

These were members of the church that Peter described here.

2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

They had been born again, they were children of God.

2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

They had been on the right way, but had forsaken it through their own free will.

Even more illustrative might be the case of an unfaithful spouse being put away for "spiritual fornication".

 

[webdog]

Where does Scripture use the comparison between the natural birth and the spiritual birth to set forth that one born spiritually cannot loose that standing?

Huh? Are you trying to state that one CAN be unborn
Birth and the mechanics of it are common sense, and not rocket science. The similie is evident.

It is not a matter of whether or not circumcision can be undone, but rather it is a question of it being made of no effect.

Sure it is. Like birth, we know what circumcision is. Please tell me how your heart can be un-circumcised after it has been circumcised by God?

Whatever one believes they gained at salvation can indeed be made of no effect by a life of disobedience.

This is nothing more than works based salvation that frustrates grace. This view is the opposite side of the coin with Lordship Salvation.

 

[webdog]

I don't think it's a case of being "unborn". It's more a case of a child being punished for disobedience. I'm sure you've considered it before now, but here's some from 2 Peter.

You are confusing justification with sanctification.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Are you trying to state that one CAN be unborn
Birth and the mechanics of it are common sense, and not rocket science. The similie is evident.

HP: No such correlation is made or suggested by Scripture. You are exhibiting a clear un-established presupposition.

HP: It is not a matter of whether or not circumcision can be undone, but rather it is a question of it being made of no effect.

Webdog: Like birth, we know what circumcision is. Please tell me how your heart can be un-circumcised after it has been circumcised by God?

HP: By disobedience without repentance.

HP: Whatever one believes they gained at salvation can indeed be made of no effect by a life of disobedience.

Webdog: This is nothing more than works based salvation that frustrates grace. This view is the opposite side of the coin with Lordship Salvation.

HP: You fail to realize that salvation is a conditional offer by God. Salvation is not gained by works, i.e., works are not the grounds of salvation, but just the same God requires man to do something to be saved and to remain in a right relationship with Him, thought NOT in the sense of ‘that for the sake of,’ but rather ‘not without which.’ Remember the prison illustration? A pardon is not gained by works, but neither will it be granted apart from the fulfilling of certain conditions.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Originally by webdog: You are confusing justification with sanctification.

As you might imagine, I've been told that before. I don't think I am, though. Any chance you might be confused?

 

[webdog]

As you might imagine, I've been told that before. I don't think I am, though. Any chance you might be confused?

No, not when it comes to God's promise. If it is up to us to maintain, it's not grace.

 

[webdog]

By disobedience without repentance.

So you believe a circumcision can be undone? That is not real strong logic to stand on. God is not a God of confusion. His Word calls it a birth and circumcision. We know what both entail. To try to supernaturally explain that both can be un-done when God uses language like "everlasting" and "eternal" defies all logic and common sense.

You fail to realize that salvation is a conditional offer by God. Salvation is not gained by works, i.e., works are not the grounds of salvation, but just the same God requires man to do something to be saved and to remain in a right relationship with Him, thought NOT in the sense of ‘that for the sake of,’ but rather ‘not without which.’ Remember the prison illustration? A pardon is not gained by works, but neither will it be granted apart from the fulfilling of certain conditions.

Here you blend justification and sanctification...