"Once saved, always saved"--Fact or Fiction?

[Briguy]

Hi bmer, Bob, Frank and others. There were arguments made on page one that were not addressed. We answered your "shipwreck" argument. Maybe we did not convince you but we offered an explanation. You have not directly refuted those early arguments. In all fairness you need to do that. Thanks much!!

I will tackle the Revelation verses soon.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[riverm]

I’m not a Calvinist and I believe that we all have the free will to accept Christ as our Saviour, and in the same sense I believe that just because we are saved doesn’t mean we now become programmed robots. We still have free will and if we choose to turn our backs on God then we have that free will and are thus lost. I also believe that those who do can always return and God is Just and Faithful to forgive them of their sins.

It’s hard for me personally to believe that someone can respond to an Altar Call, receive Christ and boom that’s all there is to it. Just repeat a couple of lines and your home free. A few luke warm months attending church go by and one day this person is down on his luck and decides to rob a convenient store and shoots the employee and runs from the law and is eventually gunned down. It is hard for me to believe that Christ would be waiting for them with arms wide-open saying. “Well done my good and faithful servant.”

When I pose such a scenario the response I get is: “Well, they were never truly saved to begin with.” I bought that answer for years and even used it in my own soul winning adventures when posed such a scenario. I have recently asked myself these two questions: What if the guy above died in a car crash going to rob a store? Is he saved, since he was never truly saved to begin with?

I’ve realized that the “Well, they were never truly saved to begin with.” Is nothing more than a OSAS cop out. It’s their escape route when their backs are against the wall.

Also, what about Satan, wasn’t he a high-ranking angel in the very presence of God. He had the free will to rebel against God. Is he still saved?

 

[Briguy]

riverm, if you are sure of your position, then please address the arguments on the first page made by acsund and me. Thanks!

BTW, did you sin today? Yes, you say, and you call yourself a Christian? I thought it says in 1 John that a real Christian does not sin. Thats what it says, right??

There was a point to that, hopefully you will get it.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[mman]

While there are MANY verses that directly refute OSAS, none perhaps is as clears as:

James 5:19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Who is James talking to? Brothers (Christians, spiritual Israel)

Where are they now? In the truth

What was possible? For them to wander from the truth.

What happens when someone brings them back into the truth? Save their soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Is this physical death or spiritual death? This has to be spiritual death, because all will die physically, even those in the truth.

I don't know this could be any clearer? Read it for what it says. No mental gymnastics required.

 

[riverm]

1 John 2:24 contains the word IF. This means that God’s love of giving us eternal life is conditional. IF that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you…

In 1 John 2:28: Why does John tell us to abide in Christ. What if we don’t? As long as we abide in Christ we can have assurance of our salvation, we can now have confidence. But this isn’t eternal security.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by riverm:
1 John 2:24 contains the word IF. This means that God’s love of giving us eternal life is conditional. IF that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you.

Well - not exactly. This is a first class conditional which assumes the truth of the statement. Hence, John is certain that his readership will abide and will remain and will continue in Jesus Christ. Here is where knowledge of Greek is vital.

Human centered self-righteous theology can easily twist this to mean just the opposite of what the author wanted to say. The first class conditional is a rather dramatic tool to emphasize OSAS.

Originally posted by riverm:
In 1 John 2:28: Why does John tell us to abide in Christ. What if we don’t? As long as we abide in Christ we can have assurance of our salvation, we can now have confidence. But this isn’t eternal security.

If we don't abide, then we don't have confidence at His coming. Why not use the very verse itself to supply the answer?

If we still abide.., then we still have confidence.
If we don't abide, then we don't have confidence.
Why try twist this with denominational rhetoric?


Confidence is a fleeting experiential thing (sanctification). It has nothing to do with the positional basis of Christ's Rock-solid security (justification). You can doubt all you want (not recommended) but nothing undoes Christ's ministries on our behalf. When one confuses justification with sanctification, then BIG errors happen.

Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:
1 John 2:24 contains the word IF. This means that God’s love of giving us eternal life is conditional. IF that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you.

Well - not exactly. This is a first class conditional which assumes the truth of the statement. Hence, John is certain that his readership will abide and will remain and will continue in Jesus Christ. Here is where knowledge of Greek is vital.</font>[/QUOTE]The New Testament is filled with conditional statements.

Your claims about I John 2:24 are not supported by the many scholars who translated various versions.

I John 2 :24 (NIV) See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

(NAS) 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

(KJV)24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

(NKJV)24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

(ESV)24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.

Things Children of God Can Do:
1. Fall from grace - Gal. 5:1-4,13
2. Be led away with error - 2 Pet. 3:17
3. Err from the truth - James 5:19-20
4. Weak brother may perish - 1 Cor. 8:11
5. Fall into condemnation - James 5:12
6. Be moved away from the hope - Col. 1:21-23
7. Deny the Lord who bought them - 2 Pet. 2:1
8. Depart from the living God - Heb. 3:12
9. Can be a castaway - 1 Cor. 9:27
10. Can become accursed children - 2 Pet. 2:14

Christian are told;
...be steadfast immovable: 1 Cor 15:58
...If these qualities are yours...2 Pe 1:5-11
...we will reap if we do not grow weary: Gal 6:9
...be faithful unto death and I will give crown of life: Rev 2:10
...practice these things and God will be with you: Phil 4:9


I Cor 15:2 - By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Wow, this refutes both OSAS and faith only.

How is it possible to "have believed in vain"?

II Pet 2:20-23, "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

How could the last state be worse than the first state, before they even knew the way of righteousness?

They escaped through the Savior and are later entangled again, but it would have been better for them to never know righteousness than to turn from it. This is so plain.

It takes serious mental gymnastics to ignore or try and explain this away.

 

[bmerr]

mman,

bmerr here. It may be on another thread, (I have a hard time keeping track of what was said and where), but I tried to illustrate the concept expressed in 2 Pet 2:20-23. Like you said, the text couldn't be much clearer.

But our friends are often, (was it you who put it this way?), so intent on not falling in the left-hand ditch, they fall into the right-hand one. I try to explain the situation like this:

When one obeys the gospel, that one is from that moment on, a child of God. As such, he is heir to the promises of God in Jesus Christ. So what happens [spiritually] to such a one if he turns back to the world? How could it be worse than if he had never known the way of truth?

To illustrate, imagine I find a bunch of kids vandalizing my property. They're all in trouble with the law, right? But what if one of those kids happens to be one of MY children?

That child is still my child, but he will be subject to far greater punishment from me than any of the other kids. They're ALL guilty of breaking the law, but this one's MINE. He knew what kind of behavior was expected of him, while the rest may not have. Therefore, he'll get a whipping that none of the other children will get from me.

Would you say that is a fair illustration?

Not to mention, when we obey the gospel, we are espoused to one husband (2 Cor 11:2). Mary was espoused to Joseph, who was a just man (Matt 1:19), but when she turned up pregnant, he was going to put her away, logically concluding that she had been unfaithful.

Of course, that turned out not to be the case, but under normal circumstances, he would have been authorized to put her away as he intended.

I just don't see how some get the idea that if they are unfaithful to Christ, the husband they are espoused to (benefit of the doubt), that He will come and receive them as though they had been faithful?

Keep up the fight. Nice post, by the way.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[riverm]

Also, Paul in 1 Timothy 5:15 states that some are already turned aside to Satan, so my understanding is that Paul knew some that have turned away.

 

[bmerr]

Briguy,

bmerr here. My neglect of responding to the arguments of the opposition wasn't intentional. I didn't mean to leave you hanging.

Lloyd made mention of Heb 8:10-12. Here is a portion of his post.

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings all

For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;

(1) I will put my laws into their mind, and
(2) [I will] write them in their hearts:
(3) I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(4) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(5) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
(6) their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Q1: Where is the conditional clause in any of these contractual promises?
A1: There are none. Hence, it is an UNCONDITIONAL contract/covenant.

Q2: What are the pronouns in these clauses?
A2: The pronouns of activity all refer to God.

Simple basics here. The NT covenant is UNCONDITIONAL and ONE-SIDED (for us). Once you are in the covenant, there is no provision for exclusion, termination, or escape. How much theologizing is required to twist this into a conditional, probationary contract?

There can be no other conclusion than OSAS!
Lloyd

Something Lloyd may have missed about the covenant in Christ, is the part about, "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

One big difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant in Christ is in how one enters into them.

Under the OT, Jews were part of the covenant by natural birth. As soon as they were born, they were Jews. As they grew older, they were to be taught of the covenant they were in, and of the LORD, Whose covenant it was. They learned of God after the fact, if you will.

Under the NT, only those who have already learned of God, and believed in His provision of forgiveness and eternal life through Christ (John 6:45) are given the right to enter into Christ's covenant, thus becoming the children of God. Like it says in John 1:12,

"But as many as received him, to them gave he the power (right, or priviledge - margin) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

While normal, physical birth was all that was required to enter the Old Covenant, entrance into the New Covenant requires one to be "born again" (John 3:3-5).

So, contrary to Lloyd's statement that, "The NT covenant is UNCONDITIONAL and ONE-SIDED (for us)", there are conditions (plural) for us to meet in order for us to enter into the NT covenant.

Belief in Christ is one condition (John 1:12). Repentance from sin is another (Acts 17:30). Confession of Christ as the Son of God is yet another (Acts 8:37). Baptism is the last condition we must meet to enter the NT covenant (John 3:5).

To remain in fellowship with Christ and the faithful, and to have confidence at the Lord's return, one must remain faithful (not to be confused with perfection) to the doctrine of Christ (1 John 1:7).

This is reasonable, since one knows what he's getting into before he enters into the NT covenant.

There's a rebuttal to rebut, Brian!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
One big difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant in Christ is in how one enters into them.

Wrong. Even big wrong! There is only one faith (Eph 4:5). The OT saints were saved the same way as NT saints: by faith - period.

While OT Jews were part of the covenant by natural birth, this did not save them. Did you pay attention to the very verse that you quoted (John 1:12) "even to them that believe on his name."

Jesus used the murmuring Israelites as an example of justification by a simple look (Num 21 & John 3).

Peter used already just Noah.

Paul used Abraham as an example of justification by faith.

The gospels used the paralytic, the weeping woman, and Zacheus.

All were saved by faith without baptism, sacrifices or sacraments. How, I genuinely ask, can you overlook such powerful illustrations?

So, contrary to Lloyd's statement that, "The NT covenant is UNCONDITIONAL and ONE-SIDED (for us)", there are conditions (plural) for us to meet in order for us to enter into the NT covenant.

Which clause has the condition? Here you are running to denominational rhetoric in trying to list a bunch of steps of getting into the covenant. I thought we were talking about OSAS. Simply point to one of the clauses that denies OSAS or repent of your denials of Christ and of God's Word.


You saw the clauses yet didn't see them.
You quoted the clauses but didn't know what they said.
You denied conditionality but didn't refer to the clauses.

This, my friend, is what I wish you would face squarely. There is no condition in the NT covenants.

Lloyd

 

[Briguy]

Good come back Lloyd, Thank you.
Bmer, still waiting for you to respond to my argument on page 1.

Bmer, I have a challange for you. This may sound goofy but I would like you to try it:

Look into a mirror at yourself. Point to the person (you) in the mirror and say these words. "My getting into Heaven depends on you" That is what you believe. Not that you saved yourself initially but that now that you are saved, your keeping your salvation depends on how you live your life and the choices you make. While still looking and pointing in the mirror ask yourself a second question: "Can I trust you to get me into Heaven?" That is what this is about. By whose faith are we kept in Christ, by ours alone or does the faithfulness of God, to us, play a role here. Careful now, because God's faithfulness is perfect and if He plays a role then OSAS has to be true. I will let you ponder that for a while. Please take my mirror test when you have the time

In Christian love,
Brian

 

[Briguy]

This is what I was referring to before from 1 John, not chap. 2 verse 1. (btw, I found out recently that the Greek word that is translated "if" in 2:1 is also translated "since" some of the time. I believe that most translators have picked "if" but "since" makes a whole lot more sense and should be included as an optional translation)

1 John 3
[7] Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
[8] He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

We are in trouble here folks. If we sin we are not a child of God. We can't sin if we are God's children but we do, well, I should say I do. I have failed to meet the standard that is set forth in this passage!! I will stop for now as I am weeping too hard to continue (lol)

In Christ,
Brian

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
One big difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant in Christ is in how one enters into them.

Wrong. Even big wrong! There is only one faith (Eph 4:5). The OT saints were saved the same way as NT saints: by faith - period.

While OT Jews were part of the covenant by natural birth, this did not save them. Did you pay attention to the very verse that you quoted (John 1:12) "even to them that believe on his name."</font>[/QUOTE]Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[f] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

As for John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,"

What has God done for the believers? Given them the right to become children of God. He didn't say they are the childern of God, but he gave them the right to BECOME the childern of God.

How? By faith through baptism, according to Gal 3:26-27. That is why Mark 16:16 is so plain and easy to understand.

 

[Briguy]

mman, I think you are looking at certain scripture from mistaken viewpoint. There is "position" and there is "salvation". Before Christ, Jews were born the people of God. They were the true branches of the vine. In Christ all peoples now are positionally on the tree, the Gentiles have been grafted in with full salvation rights. Now, whether salvation occurs is based on faith. Without faith the branch, whether Jew or Gentile (natural or grafted in), slave or free, male or female, etc..., will be cast off and burned. Many verses are speaking of the position shift that occured when Jesus came because He welcomed all men unto Himself. I hope that makes some sense as you re-read certain scriptures.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[ascund]

Greetings


First, your reference to Gal 3:23-26 completely ignores the context of the immediately prior verses where Paul shows that the promise of faith given to ABraham was not altered by the Mosaic covenant (Gal 3:11-18)

Then Paul shows that the law was added to highlight the hopelessness of human obedience and drive us to Christ (Gal 3:19-25).

So while they were imprisoned under the law of Moses, they still had access to faith in the Promised Seed as emphasized by the Abrahamic Covenant.

Context rules!


Second,

Originally posted by mman:
How? By faith through baptism, according to Gal 3:26-27. That is why Mark 16:16 is so plain and easy to understand.

your reference to being baptized into Christ is a reference to the Spirit's baptism. There is no water mentioned here or anywhere in Galatians, a book that gives a detailed explanation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul even denies baptism as part of the gospel message in 1 Cor 1:14,17 and teaches that only the Spirit immerses the believer into Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Anything that is seen is temporary and not associated with eternity (2 Cor 4:18). Since water baptism can be seen, it is NOT the baptism that saves.

Mark 16 clearly combines both justification and sanctification. It is only the extreme act of ignorance that blends justification and sanctification. Faith (justification) and baptism (sanctification). How much clearer can it get??

Lloyd

 

[Briguy]

Hmmm - no responses to what I said yesterday!!

Must have the no OSAS crowd stumped!!


Good post Lloyd, keep them coming!!!

In Christ,
Brian

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hmmm - no responses to what I said yesterday!!

Must have the no OSAS crowd stumped!!

I have a few questions on page 1 that have yet to be answered. Lloyd considers them “gray areas”, but they definitely do damage to the OSAS doctrine.

 

[riverm]

Hi Board:

I just thought of something and was planning on asking my Pastor, but wanted to run this past you guys first. I attend a fundamentalist church that preaches against Calvinism, but teaches OSAS.

Wouldn’t the OSAS doctrine be inline with Calvinist, since according to them the “elect” are guaranteed to remain in the faith and go to heaven and is impossible for anyone to forfeit his salvation?

Thanks

 

[ascund]

Greetings


Excellent Question! Most people mindlessly equate the "P" (Perseverance) in the Calvinistic TULIP with OSAS. While they appear the same, they are based on contrasting assumption.s

Even heretic Shank was able to provide a scholarly denouncement of "P" in his book "Elect in the Son." This is a standard read for many heretical denominations.

"P" tests one's election by examining works. If there are good works, then there is election. If there are no good works, then there is no election.

OSAS is based on God's faithfulness. Once elected in Christ by faith alone, God provides all required aspects of certainty. Jesus is the faithful High Priest, the Mediator of the Covenant, the Surety of the Covenant, the Paracletos of the Covenant. He is the Author and Finisher of the faith Who will never ever leave or forsake His brethren.

God's Spirit seals until the Day of Redemption and personally indwells the believer.

God the Father is faithful to His covenant even when we aren't.

So, in OSAS, an unfaithful vain believer is still the very righteousness of Christ. (NOTE: this is not to say that I preach faith and licentious living. I am not an antinomial either.) I Cor 3:11-15 verifies this.

So, Calvin's "P" and OSAS are dramatically different - even contrasting arguments. Calvinism is a disguised works righteousness theology. It is an example of hot and cold at the same time. It is very confusing. OSAS is a basic dependence of the Reformation motto: Grace - alone; faith - alone; Christ - alone.

Lloyd