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

[Eric B]

"Persevering unto the END" -

Yes, and whatever this "end" was, it was something they themselves would see in their lifetimes. We have just extended that to ourselves, but this takes it out of context and thus causes this debate.

You are arguing for 3 gospels not 2 and not 1. you have 1 in the OT and then another one after the cross AND THEN ANOTHER ONE after the AFTER-THE-CROSS ages.

In fact You boldly claim that "salvation by works" was the post cross (for a little while -- just while the actual BIBLE is being written that we should not pay attention too) gospel. Then after all that "bad Bible" got written - it switched over to the 3rd Gospel "Salvation by grace through faith"?

Your only problem is that you resort to a "multi-gospel" solution. One that insists on "salvation by works" for some period of time.

It's not separate "gospels" it is phases of the same Gospel. What do you consider to constitute a "gospel"? A set of instructions? The Old Covenant had totally different instructions. There was no "belive on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved". They had the atonement ritual. That was not a "separate gospel" either, was it?

Surely you can not be "completely satisfied" with that multi-gospel model.

You must surely "admit' the only thing that compromise "buys" you is a way to save OSAS from the innescapable fact that texts like these so clearly apply to believers and so clearly show failing to be lethal.

No; like I said, I'm not sure of this, as it raises many questions. (so I'm not trying to "save" anything!) But it does seem to answer the ones we are debating about here.

You and the CoC'ers seem content to solve it by simply redefining "faith" as works; like in these often repeated examples:

Naaman (2 Kings 5) did not earn the healing of his leprosy, but he was not healed until he obeyed. He obeyed because he believed God.

The Israelites did not earn the conquest of Jericho, not even the knocking down of the walls, but the walls did not fall until they obeyed God's command to march around the city so many times. They obeyed because they believed God.

The blind man that Jesus annointed with mud made from clay and spit did not earn his eyesight by washing in the pool of Siloam. Yet, his eyesight was not given until he washed in the pool of Siloam. He obeyed because he believed God.

I addressed this on one of my pages dealing with the popular "Abundant life" gospel that also uses these passages:

Many Christians love to cite John 9 and the blind man Jesus healed; saying "See, Jesus told him he had to go and wash in the pool of Siloam to receive his sight. This 'didn't make sense', and Jesus could have just opened his eyes right there; but the man had to do something 'in faith', to receive the blessing; so that is how it works today". (And this can be anything from "thanking God 'in faith' when we are hurt", to sending ministries thousand dollar "vows of faith"; depending on who the teacher is). But still, if a nonbeliever washed in the pool, it would not have worked. What Jesus did for him was still a supernatural miracle, not something natural any man can do that is made supernatural just because you do it "in Jesus' name". That was the whole point of it being a miracle! (And from just taking the context alone; it would seem that washing in the pool was necessary because the clay needed to be removed from his eyes). Even better is the account of Naaman in 2 Kings 5, who was instructed by Elisha to wash 7 times in the Jordan to be healed of his leprosy. In. v.11, he was angry, wondering why the prophet didn't just call on the name of the LORD and wave his hand over the spot and cure it. Once again, this is taken to prove that God puts us though more diffcult processes just because they don't make sense to us. But once again, the context sheds light on this. Naaman was a commander of the king of Syria, who often conflicted with Israel. We see even on v.12, where he resents the command on the basis of the rivers of Damascus being "better" than the waters of Israel. Sure enough, once he does it and is healed, this results in him proclaiming that "there is no God in all the world except in Israel" (v.15) So it was obviously his contempt of Israel (and lack of first hand knowledge of God) that was being broken,not his "understanding" on the most practical way to be healed. (Especially given that he was coming to Israelites to be healed). It is just saddening how widespreadly, passages like these are used, not only by evangelical "abundant life" teachers to support their "no understanding" doctrine, but also by heretical works-righteousness advocates, such as Catholists, Campbellists, some sabbatarians and other cultists to teach baptismal regeneration and other denials of salvation by faith alone.

Another thing I should add, is that before Christ, God was essentially "babying" people, as we see in Is.28:9-12, with the concept of "line upon line, here a little, there a little". That is part of the reason why god often commanded people to do "silly little things that didn't make sense" to reach a goal. But under the New Covenant, we would not remain in that state. (1 Cor.3; Heb.5). Baptism or other works we do today are NOT such "tests of faith" with salvation being what they achieve.They are SIGNS of faith; yes, but you all are making them TESTS of faith, but this contradicts Paul's language contrasting "faith" and "works", and just brings us back to the uncertain, uneasy state Israel was in with God. That is no gospel at all!

I have to admit - pretty bold rejection of scripture.

Not if the traditional view is taking it out of context.

 

[Hope of Glory]

someone here as referenced "wicked saints" as "bad saints" - those who believe but do not walk as Christ walked (the liars that 1John 2 identifies regarding those who claim to KNOW Christ).

James 2 already selects that group out - that group that "claims salvation" as "believers" but not as those who live/walk in harmony "IN Christ" ... i.e. those "DENIED by Christ" 2Tim2. James says this is the "Belief of demons".

Indeed - lost sinful humanity does share that in common with demons.

IN Christ,

Bob

Once again, you show your willingness to distort the truth. If I'm not mistaken, you are the only person here who has even made a reference to "wicked saints".

You have made wild and unsubstantiated claims about Scriptures and have refused to show Scriptures to validate such claims, and your debating techniques boil down to "is not! BobRyan said so!"

You have also made wild and unsubstantiated claims about fellow brothers and have spread falsehoods and distortions. I can no longer suspend belief, and I now have to believe that you do it intentionally.

 

[James_Newman]

Here Christ defines salvation as -

Christ IN you
you IN Christ
Christ's Love IN you
Abiding IN Christ's Love
Being Christ's disciples
Living in HARMONY with His Word

this is the ONE Gospel model where Salvation IS FELLOWSHIP with Christ and full acceptance with God.

Where did Christ say this was the definition of salvation? I say that here BobRyan defines salvation as, and Christ is speaking to saved people of fellowship and discipleship.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Christ contrasts that to ALL those who are OUTSIDE Christ - stating that "they are BURNED IN THE FIRE"

As in all Gospel scenarios -- only two groups. The Saved and those that will one day be "burned in the fire". (And this is NOT a reference to purgatory friends).

I don't believe in purgatory. I believe in Hell, it's in the bible.

Christ does not say that appart from fellowship with Christ (Christ IN you and you IN Christ - abiding IN Christ's Love, BEING a disciple of Christ) you simply have "a little less joy" but there is "STILL salvation outside of Christ" just less reward. Such a watered down version can not be eisegeted into the text.

You show clearly that "you need it" in the text - you do not show that it is there. In fact you show by what you ignore in the text related to the DETAILS of what it is to be saved and the DETAILS of the branches that die - withered and burned in the fire -- that your view can not stand up to the full force of the text as it needs "another Gospel" one that has "Salvation outside of Christ".

In Christ,

Bob

I think you understand what I am saying and you just don't like it.

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

Once saved always saved.

It is a denial of the "fallen from Grace" texts of scripture (like the one in Gal 5) the "forgiveness revoked" texts (like the one in 2Tim 2) and the "cast out of the vine of Christ" texts that we see in John 15 and Romans 11.

As seen in the discussion of John 15 and Romans 11 it needs to claim "salvation outside of Christ" - outside of full fellowship with Christ "Christ adiding IN you and you abiding IN Christ". In the special example of the vine and the branch it is clear that "withering dying and being cast into the fire" is not simply "a little less joy" than being IN Christ!! It is "no salvation at all!"

That is a key point that OSAS needs to gloss over.

In Christ,

Bob

Does that mean I'll never be saved?

 

[James_Newman]

James,

bmerr here. How so? Obedience is not merit, it is simply the evidence of faith. Naaman (2 Kings 5) did not earn the healing of his leprosy, but he was not healed until he obeyed. He obeyed because he believed God.

But this is not what you said. What you said was

Again, nobody is suggesting that salvation can be earned by works, but the Bible does teach that obedience is required to receive the blessing of salvation (Heb 5:8-9).

re·quire (r

-kw

r

)
tr.v. re·quired, re·quir·ing, re·quires

1. To have as a requisite; need: Most plants require sunlight.
2. To call for as obligatory or appropriate; demand. See Synonyms at demand.
3. To impose an obligation on; compel:

It's one thing to say that works may be evidence of salvation, but to say that you have to have them? That is like saying my coming to work today is evidence that I will recieve a paycheck, but I didn't earn the paycheck by coming to work.

Naaman was told to do something to get rid of his leprosy and he did it. We were told to do something to be saved, and I hope you did it too.

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

um...I'm pretty sure I did so...I tried about three times on my own

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Once saved always saved.

It is a denial of the "fallen from Grace" texts of scripture (like the one in Gal 5) the "forgiveness revoked" texts (like the one in 2Tim 2) and the "cast out of the vine of Christ" texts that we see in John 15 and Romans 11.

As seen in the discussion of John 15 and Romans 11 it needs to claim "salvation outside of Christ" - outside of full fellowship with Christ "Christ adiding IN you and you abiding IN Christ". In the special example of the vine and the branch it is clear that "withering dying and being cast into the fire" is not simply "a little less joy" than being IN Christ!! It is "no salvation at all!"

That is a key point [bthat OSAS needs to gloss over[/b].

In Christ,

Bob

Does that mean I'll never be saved?

While I don't recommend denying scripture and eisegeting a "3rd gospel" as is "needed" by OSAS - I don't claim to know if those that do such things are always saved while doing it.:laugh: :applause:

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Here Christ defines salvation as -

Christ IN you
you IN Christ
Christ's Love IN you
Abiding IN Christ's Love
Being Christ's disciples
Living in HARMONY with His Word

this is the ONE Gospel model where Salvation IS FELLOWSHIP with Christ and full acceptance with God.

Where did Christ say this was the definition of salvation? I say that here BobRyan defines salvation

"Christ in you the hope of Glory" nahhhh that can't be "salvation" or my OSAS traditions won't hold up.

"Abide in Me and I in you" nahhhhh that can't be salvation or my OSAS traditions will not hold up.

"DENIED by Christ" 2Tim2 "YEAHHHHH! that IS salvation as my OSAS tradition needs it to be"

 

[bmerr]

James,

bmerr here. I don't think meeting the set conditions to receive something is neccessarily equivalent to earning that same thing.

For example, let's say my rich uncle dies, (now we know this is ficticious), and leaves 100K to me, but has stated in his will that I can only collect it if I meet his condition of showing proof of steady employment for 1 year.

I am able to show the required proof of employment, (and I promise I've never made $100,000/year), and I collect my inheritance. Did I earn my inheritance, or did I simply meet the conditions that were set in order to receive the inheritance? The latter would be the case, agreed?

Similarly, the blessing of the remission of sins and salvation are offered in the NT. The conditions of faith, repentance, and baptism have been placed in the Testament of Jesus Christ. Testaments, or Covenants, once confirmed cannot be changed (Gal 3:15-17).

Our meeting these requirements does not earn our salvation.

The definition of "require" you provided was very nice, but Heb 5:8-9 still says, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him".

It looks to me as though obedience is required.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[James_Newman]

I am able to show the required proof of employment, (and I promise I've never made $100,000/year), and I collect my inheritance. Did I earn my inheritance, or did I simply meet the conditions that were set in order to receive the inheritance? The latter would be the case, agreed?

I think the difference is semantic. If meeting the conditions required to receive something is not earning it, I don't know what other word you could put there. But aside from the 'merit' aspect, meeting conditions is still works. If it be of works it is no more grace.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Surely you can not be "completely satisfied" with that multi-gospel model.

You must surely "admit' the only thing that compromise "buys" you is a way to save OSAS from the innescapable fact that texts like these so clearly apply to believers and so clearly show failing to be lethal.

Eric
No; like I said, I'm not sure of this, as it raises many questions. (so I'm not trying to "save" anything!) But it does seem to answer the ones we are debating about here.

You and the CoC'ers seem content to solve it by simply redefining "faith" as works; like in these often repeated examples:

You keep glossing over this point.

It is obvious that you take these texts (that you are trying to get out of for the sake of OSAS) to mean "salvation by works".

It is obvious that you admit that they apply to believers so you are trying to push them out of the way.

It is obvious that you admit that IF true - IF true for believers today - then you think they are "salvation by works" and are lethal to the believer (falling from Grace, OUTSIDE of Christ etc).

It is obvious that your "solution" simply pushes them out of the way - to avoid their devastating impact on OSAS - (i.e. selecting preterism).

It is obvious that I DO NOT push them out of the way so that NT texts "Don't apply to us" -- (nor do most others on this board).

Your comment above does nothing to address the salient point being raised here. BY pushing them out of the way - by dodging these texts as being "FOR TODAY" the ONLY thing you gain is finding a shield for OSAS to protect it from the obvious impact these texts WOULD have if you had allowed these NT texts to actually APPLY to the believer today!! (this point could not be any more clear!)

When you try to "blame them on me" as if I am the one who wrote them as WORKS and by daring to believe them I AM guilty of "salvation by works" you merely ADMIT that you have a THREE GOSPEL system and that you "interpret these texts" as "ANOTHER GOSPEL"!

You have broken every rule of exegesis in doing this because Paul writing in Galations EARLY in his career (even BEFORE HE WOULD have written the "bad NT" that you want to ignore -- 2Tim 2 and Rom 11 and Rom 2 and ...) claims there IS ONLY ONE Gospel!!

I do not envy you the little corner you have painted yourself into - but I AM pointing out the GOOD that you do. YOU DO admit to the obvious effect these texts have on OSAS IF allowed to be read and applicable!! The error that you fall into (besides preterism) is that you interpret them as salvation by works when in fact you have the wrong definition!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[FollowMeHome]

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

Are you wanting to salvage OSAS?

 

[BobRyan]

Well we can't simply stick with the Bible and forsake OSAS can we?

 

[BobRyan]

Three options with these texts.

#1. Admit that "fallen from Grace"Gal 5 and "Faith of Demons"James 2 and "denied by Christ" 2Tim 2, "Cast out of the vine of Christ" Rom 11, John 15 is "Not the saved state".

Admit that the Bible never describes these conditions as "the saved condition fully accepted by God, reconciled born again etc".

-- But then try to rework each of these texts so that those who fall -- had already fallen and were never saved. Those who failed to persevere in fact never had anything to persevere IN so they in fact did not fail to persevere because they were never "in" to start with. (In interesting self-conflicted argument).

The benefit is that these texts were never applied to a saved person and so this would protect OSAS at the cost of a failed argument.

#2. Admit that these texts ARE being applied to the saved "to those IN the vine of Christ who then are cast out" and "to those Under Grace who then fall".. and to those "NOT denied by Christ and THEN are denied by Christ".

-- But then either claim that this negative result just gets the saved "more heaven" or claim that it just gets them "less kingdom but still more heaven". Deny them because you see them as "works based" and then claim that "entering the Kingdom of heaven is by works not by grace through faith".

Finally top it off by claiming that these texts should not be taken seriously by Christians because these as just "more examples of the NT text for us not to apply to ourselves". Preterism.

#3. Admit that these texts apply to believers. Admit that the "faith of demons" is totally devastating to OSAS. Drop the man made tradition of OSAS. Carefully adjust the man-made definition of "works" to fit what the Bible states it to be instead of what man-made tradition has made it.

For example -- to choose REPENT and BELIEVE is "a work" but is STILL NOT "salvation by works"! Because not only does God ENABLE that choice to repent AND convict of sin but God is the ONLY one that provides the SAVING blood - the SAVING payment - the BRIDGE to lost humanity.

Admit that "saving faith" is not the "faith of demons" that some here have imagined it to be. So when we see "Saved by grace THROUGH Faith" we are seeing the "GOOD TREE" with the "GOOD FRUIT". The "wicked saint getting MORE HEAVEN" is not what the Bible promises!

Matt 18 - that means "forgiveness REVOKED" is a "bad thing" and Christ SHOULD be listened to and read YES EVEN by Christians today! HE says "SO shall My Father DO TO EACH ONE OF YOU if you do not forgive others from the heart" speaking to the saved and insisting that AS THEY HAVE been forgiven - so they should forgive others!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Your comment above does nothing to address the salient point being raised here. BY pushing them out of the way - by dodging these texts as being "FOR TODAY" the ONLY thing you gain is finding a shield for OSAS to protect it from the obvious impact these texts WOULD have if you had allowed these NT texts to actually APPLY to the believer today!! (this point could not be any more clear!)

It's not to save OSAS just for its own sake, but to prevent salvation resting squarely on our own efforts, creating an undetermined "line" between "making it" and "not making it" when we fail.

-- But then try to rework each of these texts so that those who fall -- had already fallen and were never saved. Those who failed to persevere in fact never had anything to persevere IN so they in fact did not fail to persevere because they were never "in" to start with. (In interesting self-conflicted argument).

That's not true, and here is where you make your mistake. Just look at John 8, where the Jews were said to have "believed", yet He soon calls the same people "of your father the devil". People "believed on Christ", and had "faith", but it was in the wrong thing. Yet, the Bible's language does still call it believing.

Here is a excerpt of my page on Predestination (since some Calvinists twist the doctrine around to "do works to show yourself elect"), and thus ironicallyfall into the same trap):

To understand then what all of these scriptures speaking of "false faith", "making your election sure", "showing yourself approved" and "perseverance" to be saved were addressing, we must remember that many people in the New Testament, beginning with the ministry of Jesus Himself while still here, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. They had their agenda, and Jesus showed that they were not really following Him, though they professed. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel). Today we have many cults, liberals, etc. who "believe" in Christ, but knowingly twist or reject parts of the Bible; in effect creating a whole different concept of Christ (as different as the political Messiah of Israel), and most do not even speak of thinking they are "saved", or if they do, they make up their own idea of how to be saved (being good, keeping certain works, being baptized into their group, etc.). All of these are the people who "believed in vain", not someone who really believed they were saved, but fell into sin.
When I see someone who professes Christ but lives in open sin, I question and wonder if he's really saved, but I can't declare that he is not. This is where "do not judge" comes in. Of course, I try to admonish them to repent. If they don't, I leave it in God's hand, not pronounce him "unsaved". There are other evidences you can look for, such as the basis of their profession. One person I know seems to think he is Christian because he was raised in a Christian home. Of course, he'll say he "believes". He puts on an act around his family and church, but lives like a total heathen the rest of the time. When confronted, he says "yeah, yeah, I know", but just continues the way he's going like there is nothing wrong at all. So this person I can really question as not really understanding and accepting the true Gospel (but I still can't be completely sure).

Admit that these texts apply to believers. Admit that the "faith of demons" is totally devastating to OSAS. Drop the man made tradition of OSAS. Carefully adjust the man-made definition of "works" to fit what the Bible states it to be instead of what man-made tradition has made it.

For example -- to choose REPENT and BELIEVE is "a work" but is STILL NOT "salvation by works"! Because not only does God ENABLE that choice to repent AND convict of sin but God is the ONLY one that provides the SAVING blood - the SAVING payment - the BRIDGE to lost humanity.

Not what the Bible states what works is, but rather adjust faith to be synonymous with it. So basically, the CoC's "grace is just instructions". He provides the blood, and then the rest is still up to us. That leaves us in little better position than in the OT. To say "repent and believe" is "a work" is what the Calvinists used to argue to prove then that noone can be saved by that, unless God essentially does it for them. That would be devastating for your non-Calvinist position. But we're not talking about the initial act of repenting and believing; we're talking about how we remain saved.

 

[BobRyan]

AFter Eric points out the "need" that the man made tradition - OSAS, has to duck the text of 2Tim 2, Romans 11, Matt 18, Romans 2, James 2 ...

Bob points out the obvious -

Quote:
Your comment above does nothing to address the salient point being raised here. BY pushing them out of the way - by dodging these texts as being "FOR TODAY" the ONLY thing you gain is finding a shield for OSAS to protect it from the obvious impact these texts WOULD have if you had allowed these NT texts to actually APPLY to the believer today!! (this point could not be any more clear!)

Eric said

It's not to save OSAS just for its own sake, but to prevent salvation resting squarely on our own efforts, creating an undetermined "line" between "making it" and "not making it" when we fail.

Well eisegeted. You admit to the bias you are serving (bias based on a flawed definition in this case) as you come to these texts and seek for ways to avoid them. That is key in any eisegetical model.

Why not give up your OSAS tradition BEFORE giving up these texts of scripture?

Why try giving up scripture FIRST!?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Why not give up your OSAS tradition BEFORE giving up these texts of scripture?

Because you have them contradicting other scriptures, and you're content to redefine other scriptures to make them fit your reading of these scriptures. It's just a matter of which set of scriptures must be interpreted in light of which.

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

so we can't remain saved through faith, which automatically forces works out of a believer, then why bother? Agnosticism is now giving a better outlook on the ultimate future than you guys are.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eric B: It's just a matter of which set of scriptures must be interpreted in light of which.

HP: You bring up a sad truth. Much of the discussions I witness are nothing more than the trading of one proof text for another. I see very few attempts to actually harmonize difficult and, even at first glance, seemingly contradictory passages. I do not believe God has locked man into such a dead end direction of understanding truth. God has granted to man a mind, equipped with reasoning and abilities to utilize logic and first truths of reason to guide us by as well as Scripture. We need to utilize every avenue of truth God grants to man in the development and understanding of truths, no matter what particular realm of truth we are dealing with.

Truth never contradicts truth. God is the Author of all truth regardless of where it is found, whether in first truths of reason, truth of logic and reason, or Scriptural truth. Our duty is to harmonize our beliefs in such a manner that although we many have many uncertainties, we will never be seen to harbor absurdities. We may error as either philosophers or theologians. When we see an apparent absurdity, our duty is to discover which in fact might possibly be in error and to eliminate any and all absurdities from our formed ideas of truth. May God be our constant help and guide.

 

[James_Newman]

Why not give up your OSAS tradition BEFORE giving up these texts of scripture?

Why try giving up scripture FIRST!?

In Christ,

Bob

Since we are going to stick to scripture, what or who should I apply this verse to?

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

If abiding in Him is equivalent to salvation as you contend, Bob, how do we fudge around verses that say whoever abides in Christ does not sin? I don't think even yourself would pretend that you were sinlessly perfect. If abiding in Christ is how we are saved, and we abide in Christ by not sinning, how can we ever even pretend to be saved? In reality what we are doing is hoping that at this moment we have prayed hard enough and repented good enough to be considered abiding and then maybe a truck will hit us before we slip up again. Is this the gospel you teach?