O.S.A.S. (Once. Saved. Always. Saved)

??? Only the most abysmal of heretics rely upon THEIR obedience to KEEP them saved. All TRUE Christians rely upon Christ and His atonement on the cross to keep them saved. But, of course, this does not prevent any of them from rejecting their faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross, and thus falling from grace and spending eternity in hell.

 

Just how does a TRUE Christian reject the atonement of Christ on the cross if this is what they trust is keeping them saved?

If it is through sin or disobedience then in turn sinlessness and obedience is what is keeping them saved in their own minds.

God Bless!

 

Steaver wrote,

Just like many others who are unfamiliar with the doctrine of soteriology, you are confusing faith, grace, and obedience.

The grace of God gives man the ability to hear and to respond to the gospel. Once the man has been saved, the grace of God gives man the ability, by faith, to say no to sin and yes to righteousness. Blackbird is not going to lose his salvation for spelling three words wrong in his last post, but should he choose, of his own volition, to reject the grace of God, as some in the New Testament did, and many others have since, he shall be in grave danger of eternal punishment in hell. But, beloved, I am convinced of better things concerning Blackbird, and things that accompany salvation, though I am speaking in this way.

 

Steaver,

In my last post I did not answer your question as directly as I should have. Christians can and sometime do reject the grace of God in the same way that they momentarily resist the grace of God and commit a sin. Momentary resistance is forgiven upon confession (from the heart), but total and lasting resistance (rejection) results in the abandonment of the Christian life and all that pertains to it, including one’s salvation.

 

No, that's not it.

(rest of philosophizing snipped).

That would include post-crucifixion Christians.

"should"? Well, I suppose that's true indirectly. But no, it primarily means that the Father will do the same to you (revoke your forgiveness) if you do not forgive your brother.

Did you even read the parable? "Holding a temporary grudge" is not what the servant did. He actively sought him out, and demanded the debt to be paid. His fellowservant begged for mercy and forgiveness, but the servant actively refused and had the fellowservant pay for his debts. That's a WHOLE lot more than holding a grudge.

It is not saying "forgive *instantly*", it says "forgive". The servant did not forgive.

That appears to be exactly what verse 35 says is the explanation of the parable. In black and white. And yet you came up with a differnt meaning.

 

Very well. It doesn't say "Father" or "saved" or "unsaved" or "all sin". But you have no problem inserting different words in your thought process. I will refrain from calling unforgiveness a grudge.

So let's break this down. To begin with the "Father God" was going to reckon with a man who owed Him ten thousand talents (24).

The man could not pay the demand so "Father God" commanded him to be sold...and his wife...and his children...and all that he had (25). I didn't know that God still held others responsible for one's own sin. But anyways.

The man, I should be saying servant, the servant worshipped "Father God" and asked for patience with him, and he would "repay thee all" (26).

Then "Father God" had compassion and forgave him the debt (27). This some would presume gave him a new birth and instant salvation. He is now a Christian.

But the same servant went out and found a fellowservant who owed him a hundred pence , laid hands on him and took him by the throat demanding payment (28).

The fellowservant fell down like the first servant did with God and ask the same things that he had ask God to do (29).

But he would not and cast him into prison (30).

So his fellowservants saw this and were very sorry and went and told "Father God" what this servant had done (31). I would think that God would already have known, but anyways.

Then "Father God" called upon the wicked servant and said to him "I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desirest me" (32).

"Father God says "Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee"? (33).

And "Father God" was wroth, didn't ask him to repent, but delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him (34).

And then Jesus says, So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses (35).

Well there you have it. I didn't read anywhere were it said that "all of the servant's sin was forgiven". It did say "I forgave thee all that debt". "That debt" would be the ten thousand talents I presume.

I didn't see any verse stating that the servant was sent to hell, but he was delivered to the tormentors. I don't think all tormentors live in hell. Paul even delivered some Christians unto Satan! (1 Tim 1:20) That would be the head tormentor! But they were still alive here on earth. Paul didn't send them to hell. I guess Satan isn't in hell is he? Maybe he can come and go as he pleases, and his tormentors as well. God allowed satan to torment Job. Anyways...

Yes it is and you are right! So then according to the parable, in order for it to apply, it must be a Christian who seeks out another Christain who owes him something and demands it be paid. Then if the one who owes asks for "patience and he will repay it all" (btw, the servant never asked for forgiveness), and you do not only give him more time but go a step further and forgive the debt all together, then you will lose your salvation. Therefore it isn't speaking about just any wrong done against you that must be forgiven, just if you seek out a brother or sister in Christ who owes you something and you refuse to erase the debt when they plead with you for more time to pay it.

Well that IS quite a bit more than holding a grudge over any old thing. I think I am safe then. I don't know any Christain who owes me anything and I don't think I ever went looking for the ones who did in the past demanding payment.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> quote:

[ April 24, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: steaver ]

 

Steaver, this isn't rocket science. The servant had a debt he could not pay (what would that debt represent, if not the "wages of sin"?). His lord (yes, the "Father", verse 35) forgave him that debt (and how is the sins forgiven, if not through the blood of Christ?). Because that servant would not also forgive, he had his own forgiveness revoked. The meaning (as explicitly given!) is that the Father would do this to us as well if we do not also forgive.

Earlier in the thread you said the servant wasn't saved. Then you said it was only for the "OT" saints. Then you said it was for all who read it. Now you seem to be saying that the servant is saved but only a certain non-salvation debt (?) was reestablished and that being given to the tormentors does not mean hell. You have changed your interpretation of this passage 4 times in the last few pages, trying to squirm out from the plain, simple, black and white reading of the text.

 

I haven't changed anything. I still say that the servant wasn't saved, never said any different. My last post was trying to see it from your perspective that the servant was and how that would play out throughout the parable.

I said that the scripture is for all who read it because all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction as well as convicting the lost.

No "squirming" over here! I just need to be more specific I guess.

The point of my last post is this; We must make an interpretation of the parable because it doesn't use the words we would like it to. When I said "grudge", being my interpretation of "unforgiving", you cried foul! You said there was a whole lot more to it than that. So I agreed and went through the parable verse by verse to see what all was involved in this "unforgiveness" committed by the servant.

1) The servant went looking for the fellow servant.

2) The servant land hands on him, taking him by the throat, demanding payment.

3) The fellowservant pleaded for "patience" and said he would "pay it all" (never asked for the debt to be forgiven) but the wicked servant failed to forgive him the debt.

4) God judged the wicked servant. Didn't ask for repentance. God just unsaved him (your position, not mine)

Your conclusion must be if a Christian seeks out another Christian that owes him something and does not forgive the debt when the fellow Christian cannot pay, then this one time sin of unforgiveness will cause God to unsave them.

Would that be a fair conclusion of your position? If not please correct were necessary.

God Bless!

 

Steaver,

This topic will be closed because of page 20, so far.

We notice Christ told the parables on the servants. If you think, 'servant' is not apply to us, then what is the purpose of the parbles talking on servants?

One question is, does Matthew 25:14-30 talk on 'servant' is apply to us?

Aren't we the servant of God?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Brother natters,

I am surprised and somewhat disappointed in your stance with the unforgiving servant. When I first engaged you in this topic of OSAS it was because your position was a bit different than the normal insecurity camp's. Most all say you must be obedient to God's commands and also sins can make you lost as well. These claims are easily debunked, but your position was different in that you said "stopping believing" was the only covenant breaker. I found that interesting so I engaged on that specific issue alone. But to my disappointment you began to bring sin into the covenant breaking as well. Which sin, being the reason for the Law being given in the first place, was settled at the cross. The purpose of the law was to declare all under sin and all needing saved apart from themselves. Also God's commands are for our well being. It has already been established by scripture that keeping commandments cannot save nor can anyone be sinless and neither does sin condemn those under the blood of Christ, that is all and any sin!

Here is what you said in past post...

Now here you find yourself defending a position that this parable, that deals solely with a one time sin, is causing a break in the covenant. No faith in focus, just a sin. Also it would be God breaking the covenant because of a sin. Not even an unrepented of sin for He gives the wicked servant no prompting to repent. He just judges him.

Is it because we proved through our discussion that once one receives personal knowledge of an absolute truth they can never "stop believing" it? So now you find yourself looking for other ways to lose salvation? Here it is through a sin, which totally contradicts the message of the cross and I am sure totally contradicts your own knowledge of salvation through faith alone.

Maybe the "black and white" needs a little support from the rest of the NT for us to make an informed opinion about it.

Here is a "black and white" which totally contradicts the parables "black and white"...

"The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable"(Romans 11:29)

But you say the parable teaches that the servant was given the gift of salvation through forgiveness and then it is revoked!

God Bless!

 

We are servants. But all of God's servants are not saved. In fact by definition those saved have past from being called a servant to being called God's friend, even though we still serve.

God Bless!

 

Bro DeafPosttrib is right.

I propose we continue the discussion at:
Easy Believism, do you agree?

While nobody believes in "easy believism"
the discussion among those who believe
OSAS is true doctrine and those who believe
it to be false doctrine -- that discussion
can continue. Because we have a lot to discuss
on this matter, we will continually keep
that poll on top, until we reach page 20 of
that also.

BTW, i think non-OSAS is very incongrous
with post-trib beliefs.