How to salvage OSAS in view of Rom 11 and 2Tim2

[BobRyan]

Rom 11

18do 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.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

2 Tim 2

10For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
11It is a trustworthy statement:
For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

How can you salvage OSAS "in spite of these texts"?

JJ seems to propose that we invent a "middle ground" something that is NOT a saint (perhaps fell from being a saint as indicated above) but STILL saved?

So do you "imagine" a middle-heaven that has wicked saints that are "outside the vine of Christ" and even "denied by Christ" as seen above - but "still ok"?

In other words - what is a good way to deny the Bible doctrine on perseverance so as to spare OSAS in view of these texts?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In defense of JJ and the attempt to invent a "middle heaven" for "wicked saints" that is not "hell" and yet not quite "saint" -- the alternative when considering Matt 18, Romans 2, Romans 11, 2Tim2 etc is to embrace "perseverenace" and to claim that those who "fail to persevere" where never saved to start with.

The problem there is it is really making a circular argument of the form "there is no such thing as failure to persevere so those who fail to persevere never were persevering to start with". And that kind of conflicted argument makes it appear that Paul is condmening already lost people for not staying lost the old way - and instead being lost in a new way.

Such concern for "ways to be lost" is never a focus of Paul - yet this is the hole this view falls into.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

Not the pronouns in the citations. The problem is the pronouns. For example, people who nave "invited Jesus . . ." tthink the verses apply only to them and not to Catholics. OSAS is correct but there is no test for election.

 

[BobRyan]

In the examples given "in the text" none are "out" to start with -- and the negative "consequence" identified is NEVER said to be the "starting condition".

That means you have a problem.

But the two option appear to be -

#1. JJ's option - "the wicked saint who is not to be called a saint - saved but no kingdom of heaven for the wicked saints". So when Paul says "THEY will be cast out of the vine of Christ" this view says "YES but still saved but just OUTSIDE of CHRIST!!" as if THAT is ever the Gospel description of "salvation".

#2. The 5 Point Calvinist option "Deny that failure to persevere exists - then try to rework all the failure to persevere texts so that they don't actually say someone failed to remain faithful". So when Romans 11 says they will be removed from the vine of Christ - this option says "no they wont - they were never IN the vine to start with. NO CHANGE!"

Both views might want to consider giving up OSAS and just accepting the Bible instead.

 

[Eric B]

I've been wondering about the preterist position. You may remember that from the debates with Grasshopper and Eschatologist. Whether the actual return of Christ is past or future (or typically past, and literally future), I think preterism may have been onto something in saying that they were still sort of between covenants in the NT (and thus in constant danger of "not making it") , and when the Temple was finally destroyed, then the full fruition of salvation was secured. All of those passages about falling away referred to falling back under the Law, in which Christ would be denied in order to appease the Jews, and all the scriptures on "perseverance", were pointing to something that would occur in their lifetimes. With the principle of "to whom much is given, much is expected", it would make sense that God would be harder on those who saw Jesus or were in that same generation who saw Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

Eric -

Your statement is pretty interesting.

#1. It admits that the clear meaning of the text shows "something bad" happening to believers if the failing scenario occurs and it also admits that this is a "real warning" not a pretend "easter bunny scenario that nobody should be concerned with". That is a huge step forward for someone who is holding to OSAS.

#2. Your entire solution is focused on the idea that this dire scenario "applied to them but not to us" which is a kind of "NT not written for me" solution. Basically you admit to the obvious point that the scenario does not work with OSAS so you are exploring the idea of a middle-dispensation for NT saints that is not really the NEW Covenant where OSAS would apply.

I prefer to just toss the myths of OSAS out the window and accept the text as it is written - as fully applicable - as fully meaningful - as legit as "real". The NT Text applicable to all NT saints - yes even us.

#3. I also prefer to think of salvation as the Bible describes it.
a. IN Christ, in fellowship with Christ and not "denied by Christ".
b. WALKING IN the Spirit
c. Walking IN perseverance - fully forgiven.

 

[James_Newman]

Preterism is just another example of 'loaded gun' theology. You treat the scriptures like a loaded gun and make sure you don't ever point it at yourself. Take all the warnings and apply them to Jews, or 'fake' believers, or intertestamental figures, or whoever they will stick to so they don't have to apply to me. Funny how we can wrest the blessings out of the same context that we reject the warnings from.

 

[genesis12]

OSAS doesn't need to be "salvaged". Remember that there are several ingredients in the interpretation of scripture. First of all, it is spiritually interpreted, not intellectually (from the flesh) See 1 Cor 2:9-14. Intellectual interpretation is futile. Among the other ingredients are three essentials:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

It is also helpful if one explores the Greek language "underneath" the English, and translates English and Greek back into Hebrew. That process includes the risk of intellectualism. One begins it in an attitude of prayerful submission to what the Holy Spirit reveals, ever on guard against the wanderings of the mind. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew sentence structure places the verb at the very front of the sentence. Example: Genesis 1:1 He created, God, in the beginning. A Greek insight: When you see "Our God and Savior," the proper interpretation is "Our God-Savior," clearly identifying Jesus. Peter makes that very plain in 1 Peter 1:1. Contextually, see Col 2:9, John 1:1ff, Hebrews 1:1ff, 1 John 1:1ff, John 8:58-59. In the Greek language when one encounters a definite article used before two nouns joined by the conjunction "kai," those two nouns refer to the same thing or person. Using the dash clears up may futile debates about the deity of Jesus. Similar forms of inquiry resolve many "conflicted" issues, such as those found in the OP.

 

[Chemnitz]

In otherwords the only way to defend osas is through mind games.

The idea of translating back to hebrew is ludicrous since the NT was written in Greek.

 

[genesis12]

The idea of translating back to hebrew is ludicrous since the NT was written in Greek.

REALLY? WOW! I'll bet none of us knew that! Zowie! Thanks ever so! :tongue3:

Try reading the NT in English, Greek, and Hebrew (there are Hebrew-language New Testaments). Some scholarly work has been done on translating English to Hebrew instead of Greek, of course. But we all know that ... don't we? :laugh:

 

[J. Jump]

See if we would understand the real meaning of salvation by grace through faith the idea of eternal security would not be a problem. But for unamed reasons man still wants to play a part in his salvation just like Adam and Eve tried to do after their fall.

God rejected their feeble attempt to right their wrong and He rejects all works other than the works of His Son Jesus Christ.

Since we don't work to gain salvation there is nothing we can do to rid our selves of salvation since it was based on Another's work.

But when you teach a false doctrine such as work's salvation then you have to follow with an equally false doctrine that you can lose salvation.

It is so easy to see that this teaching is false. Salvation is by grace. It is something undeserved, meaning there is nothing within you that deserves salvation. So if you don't deserve it in the first place and God is not looking at your works, why are you going to be found undeserving at some point in the future when you weren't deserving in the first place.

The whole premise of losing one's salvation just doesn't even make sense, but man still to this day wants to say look at me I'm good enough. Guess what no we are not...not according to Scripture. We weren't before we were saved, we aren't after we are saved and we won't be in the future. The only thing good about us is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Again I pray that people reading these threads will not be tossed to and fro by your false teachings.

 

[BobRyan]

Preterism is just another example of 'loaded gun' theology. You treat the scriptures like a loaded gun and make sure you don't ever point it at yourself. Take all the warnings and apply them to Jews, or 'fake' believers, or intertestamental figures, or whoever they will stick to so they don't have to apply to me. Funny how we can wrest the blessings out of the same context that we reject the warnings from.

Excellent point.

 

[BobRyan]

In otherwords the only way to defend osas is through mind games.

Speaking of "gaming" notice that in the recent posts here tryint salvage OSAS neither JJ nor Genesis actually deal with any of the texts in the OP.

In other words - the OP that asks how we are going to prop up "OSAS" in view of the "details" in these inconvenient texts -- gets glossed over and dodged.

Now that is a neat trick!

What if you could do that with every part of scripture that opposed your traditions?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Bob there is no reason to deal with those texts in your OP because you have shown time and time again that you are not going to change your mind regardless of how clear it has been shown that you are in error, so why waste time?

 

[Claudia_T]

Work out your own salvation

J.Jump

Hey there! I just wanted to ask you then, what do the Scriptures mean when they say:

Phil:2:12: ...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.


If we dont have anything to do with our salvation then what is it that we are supposed to be working at?

 

[Hope of Glory]

How many times do you want this passage covered? It has been covered numerous times by several people, yet you still ask the question, "What about..."

 

[J. Jump]

Claudia that's a great question. It has to do with the salvation of your soul. That's a totally different thing than grace through faith without works.

In order to see your soul saved you must be obedient, you must walk in the Spirit, you must be an overcomer, you must run and finish the race, you must live by faith, etc. etc. all those things that so many think have to do with eternal salvation have to do with the salvation of the soul.

Just because the term salvation is used doesn't mean it is talking about salvation by grace through faith. The nation of Israel was in need of salvation during the time of John the Baptist, Christ, the disciples/apostles, but it wasn't eternal salvation it was the salvation of their souls that were at stake.

But that has been said a number of times.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob there is no reason to deal with those texts in your OP

Now "How did I just KNOW you were going to take that dodge"??!!

Your penchant for glossing over inconvenient texts is getting to be legendary.

So ... as they say -- "the point remains".

If you really think that by posting non-point after non-point that does not respond to the details of the SCRIPTURES listed in the OP - you are "helping your tradition" in the face of disconfirming scripture - then you have not really latched on to the concept of "compelling response".

Since the texts are so devastating to your case -- I will post them "again".

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The OP asks how in the world OSAS is to be salvaged in light of scriptures that so clearly debunk the OSAS tradition -- scriptures such as these...

Quote:
Rom 11
Quote:
18do 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.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.




Quote:
2 Tim 2
Quote:
10For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
11It is a trustworthy statement:
For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

The "answer" JJ gives is (in essence) "we don't need to respond to no scriptures like duh ones youz bring up".

And I have to admit - these are pretty good texts to ignore if you are going to believe in OSAS "anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Bob you really are a funny guy. You are about as funny as a guy on a previous message board that said if you don't respond I win by default. That's basically what you are saying.

I leave the kindergarten games to the little kids. You have no desire to change your errant views so why do I need to respond to you. You are not my judge.

Those Scriptures in no way contradict eternal secruity. It is merely your misunderstanding of those verses that clouds your mind and causes you to teach your errant views to other people.

If someone is following this thread that truly wants to know they are more than welcome to PM me, email me or IM me and I would be more than happy to share with them.

As for you...well closed minded is a thought that comes to mind...again you have no desire to truly learn you just want to keep on spitting out your "proof" texts. Well sorry after so long of that I have to move on to other things.

You keep playing your kiddie games, because I'm sure they are enough milk drinkers around for you to have some playmates. I just pray they can see through your false teachings, but the Bible tells us that there are a lot that won't and will fall for them