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

[riverm]

Originally posted by ascund:
It (Calvinism) is very confusing.

I couldn't agree more...

My wife and I were discussing Christ’s disciples, our church had just finished studying the 12 chosen by Christ and we were discussing Judas Iscariot, was he or was he not in heaven?

I answered that I’m not going to make that call, but my gut feeling would be he’s in Hell, BUT then I thought that Judas did believe in Jesus, walked with Him, was chosen by Christ as one of the 12 and was given the same powers from Christ as to the others. So was Judas saved and then lost. So really Judas met all the criteria of being saved, OSAS, Judas should be in heaven, right?

I also asked a question about Satan in an earlier post. Satan abided in Heaven in the very presence of God, knew God, lived with God, yet Satan was not “saved” when given the opportunity he now faces punishment in Hell for the sin of pride. This sin occurred AFTER having known and accepted God. With this we know that angels have freewill and aren’t guaranteed salvation. I just can’t wrap my mind around it. If I have the freedom to choose to follow Christ, do I still have the freedom to denounce Him and reject His message?

Blessings

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Excellent Question.

Originally posted by riverm:
My wife and I were discussing Christ’s disciples, our church had just finished studying the 12 chosen by Christ and we were discussing Judas Iscariot, was he or was he not in heaven?
...

So really Judas met all the criteria of being saved, OSAS, Judas should be in heaven, right?

John makes a distinction between The Eleven and Judas in John 6:64. Judas never believed (John 6:64) and was described as a devil (John 6:70).

Later at the Upper Room, the ceremonial foot washing showed that the already fully bathed disciples were clean. They had no further need of cleansing except for their feet that got dirty enroute to the Passover Supper. In John 13:10, Jesus declares that they all weren’t wholly clean and John supplies that He was referring to Judas whom Christ shortly dismissed from the fellowship.

Judas was never truly saved. Hence, he is not in heaven right now.


Lloyd

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

Excellent Question.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:
My wife and I were discussing Christ’s disciples, our church had just finished studying the 12 chosen by Christ and we were discussing Judas Iscariot, was he or was he not in heaven?
...

So really Judas met all the criteria of being saved, OSAS, Judas should be in heaven, right?

John makes a distinction between The Eleven and Judas in John 6:64. Judas never believed (John 6:64) and was described as a devil (John 6:70).

Later at the Upper Room, the ceremonial foot washing showed that the already fully bathed disciples were clean. They had no further need of cleansing except for their feet that got dirty enroute to the Passover Supper. In John 13:10, Jesus declares that they all weren’t wholly clean and John supplies that He was referring to Judas whom Christ shortly dismissed from the fellowship.

Judas was never truly saved. Hence, he is not in heaven right now.


Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks and I just read John a few weeks ago. Concerning John 6:64 … For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

The words from the beginning, would this be from the beginning of time or the beginning of Jesus’ ministry?

 

[Briguy]

Riverm, I took a deep look at the verse from revelations 22 and believe I have an answer for you. John is actually quoting the OT here. Below are three verses from the OT that speak of not adding to the words of God. Now clearly this is not the person who is a Christian who may or may not believe that spiritual gifts are for today. That is not what is meant by adding. It must mean that the adding is a change in the salvation message. Adding to God's words, as it says in the Proverbs verse, proves the person is a liar. A Liar in this context is one who has not had a change in heart, never saved, that is. One whose heart still is dirty with sin. Read carefully the way the KJV says the person is taken out of the book of life. In verse 19 it says the persons "part" is taken out of book of life. You see, it is not the name that is taken out but the place where the name would be written. The Liar, the one who adds to God's word, has disqualified himself from salvation (think of the concept of sinning against the Holy Spirit). He has proven he is not one of God's chosen. He is eternally lost. He was not saved to begin with. I can expound further if you need me to. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I did not find this in a commentary I just read the verses carefully and did a simple cross reference.


Rev. 22
[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
[20] He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Proverbs 30
6(A)Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Duet. 12
32"(A)Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; (B)you shall not add to nor take away from it.
Duet.
2"(A)You shall not add to the word which (B)I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Riverm, I took a deep look at the verse from revelations 22 and believe I have an answer for you.

Hey thanks for the reply Briguy, I appreciate your time on this. This is some deep stuff. Maybe a little over my head with nothing other than Sunday school lessons under my belt. I have a J. Vernon McGee commentary on Revelation at home and I will take some time and see what he says about this. I’ll post a reply IF he has an opinion.

Let me ponder a bit on your reply and IF my wife lets me on the computer tonight I will try and respond…

 

[bmerr]

Briguy,

bmerr here. Is it the verses in 1 John 5 that you're waiting for a response to? I went back to page 1, and that's the only thing I saw from you that I didn't recall responding to, so I'll give it a shot.

If I remember right, the "focus" verse was 1 John 5:13, that says, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

I would ask the question, "What things did John write, that they might know this?"

In Chapter 1, John tells us how to deal with sin as Christians, how to not deceive ourselves about sin, and how to maintain fellowship with each other and with God.

In chapter 2, he tells us that we can know that we know Him if we keep his commandments, and that if anyone claims to know Christ and does not keep His commandments, then he's a liar.

Instead of my going through the whole book, I'd say that we should just go back and read what John had written, so that they could know what he said they could know.

Without doubt, knowledge of Greek verb tenses may be beneficial in our understanding verses like 3:9, and a few others. I don't have that knowledge, myself, but there are commentaries, and acquaintances that could help us improve our understanding.

Not much of a rebuttal, but it'll have to do for now.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[mman]

Originally posted by 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

I did not receive any replies to:

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.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

With regard to James 5:19:20, the continuance of life for the sinning brother is conditioned upon the intercession of the seeing brother. The point is, God, in answering prayer, will stop the sinning brother short of that which may become “sin unto death."

Paul delivered the sexual pervert to Satan so that his soul might be saved inthe day of judgment. Same thing here.

Only when you rip verses out of context or make them stand on their own does your human-centered presuppositions seem to work.

Have you noticed that this is your approach? YOu take single verses and look for something that will support your human centered view. Your approach simply pits one verse against the great weight of scripture. You want to build a theology on one or two verses instead of the Bible.

I take the broad concepts of Jesus as Surety, Covenant, God's faithfulness, etc. and relate the single verses to the panoramic teaching of scripture. This approach harmonizes all apparent single verse perversions.

James 5 is no problem whatsoever. Death is not always eternal damnation.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

With regard to James 5:19:20, the continuance of life for the sinning brother is conditioned upon the intercession of the seeing brother. The point is, God, in answering prayer, will stop the sinning brother short of that which may become “sin unto death."

Paul delivered the sexual pervert to Satan so that his soul might be saved inthe day of judgment. Same thing here.

Only when you rip verses out of context or make them stand on their own does your human-centered presuppositions seem to work.

Have you noticed that this is your approach? YOu take single verses and look for something that will support your human centered view. Your approach simply pits one verse against the great weight of scripture. You want to build a theology on one or two verses instead of the Bible.

I take the broad concepts of Jesus as Surety, Covenant, God's faithfulness, etc. and relate the single verses to the panoramic teaching of scripture. This approach harmonizes all apparent single verse perversions.

James 5 is no problem whatsoever. Death is not always eternal damnation.
Lloyd

I aways consider the whole, never just a part. The bible never contradicts itself, even once. Truth always lies in parallel with itself, never in contradiction.

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.

If "Death is not always eternal damnation", then it must mean physical death, right? So, it's physical death he is saved from? Is that what you really believe?

You reference I John 5:16, but that clearly states there is a sin unto death.

Your reference to Paul's deliverance of one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his soul might be saved was a withdrawl of fellowship. The action worked because he later told them to accept him again (II Cor 2:7). Therefore, this action had the desired result. He repented and his soul was saved from death, just as James describes.

Here is a definition of death, "Outside of a covenant relationship with God". That works for whether we are in the body or not.

Here is a definition of life, "In a covenant relationship with God". Again, this works whether we are in this body or not.

You have to come to grips with James 5:19-20. Surely you are not teaching that one who brings back a sinner will save his soul from physical death and cover a multitude of sins?

Clearly, James 5:19 is teaching that a brother can wander from the truth and left unchanged, the end result is death.

All men have an appointment with physical death, even the righteous. Therefore, he must be talking about spiritual death.

Why can you not accept this for what it says?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Matt 18 is a clear, irrefutable and obvious case of "forgiveness REVOKED".

Originally posted by ascund:
The parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:23–34) is introduced by the question of Peter, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?” (v. 21).

To make the mere act of forgiveness to be equivalent to eternal salvation is likewise all but unpardonable. If the King’s salvation is equal to the salvation of those forgiven, their obligation is to save their debtors by forgiving them.

If your view of this parable is true, we all go to hell. No one is able to perfectly forgive even the least of our offenders.

#1. You are rationalizing as to "why" you don't like the instruction of Christ in Matt 18 - you are not exegeting anything.

#2. You conclude that what Christ asks is silly and impossible - showing yourself to be "arguing with Christ" Himself! I think you go too far.

#3. There is NO case where Christ describes "salvation" as being "UNFORGIVEN" by our King of Kings -- our Lord and Master.

#4. "As was already pointed out" (and then glossed over in your response) Christ REPEATS this same explicit point IN THE LORD's prayer where we ARE absolutely praying to God FOR forgiveness. It is impossible to misdirect or obfuscate this teaching.

But I can see how someone might object to it.

Every one of your suggestions is met and refuted by context.

Then you should have no trouble exegeting Matt 18 and pointing out that context to make your case -- "as I DID"!!

The deafening silence of that approach in your response speaks volumes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Briguy]

Bob, if I am honest I will admit that I lok at scripture with a bias. I believe deeply in OSAS for many of the reasons on this thread. It is a concept I embrace because losing ones salvation makes no sense to me what-so-ever. I did not gain my salvation and so do not believe I can lose it. Ther is no "I" in my getting saved so if i am not involved in the getting I am in no position to lose it by myself because of what I do. Anyway, I start with that truth and interpret scripture based on that. I will have some thoughts on Matt. 18.
Bob, if you are honest you also have a starting point when looking at scripture. Your premise is that God will allow us to walk away from Him. That is in your mind and plays a role in your view point.

Bob, let me ask you a question I heard when I first went to a Bible believing church. The pastor said this:

When you got saved, did you reach up and grab God? or did He reach down and grab you? With that picture in my head I have never doubted OSAS again, for I know which way it works and by who's faithfulness I am kept. Which way do you see it, Bob?

In Christ,
Brian

 

[bmerr]

Originally by Briguy:

When you got saved, did you reach up and grab God? or did He reach down and grab you?

Briguy,

bmerr here. If salvation is dependant solely on "God reaching down and grabbing" us, why then does He not "reach down and grab" everyone, since the Bible tells us that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance?

If God wants all men to be saved, and He does, and men are saved by God "reaching down and grabbing" them, then how is it that some are "grabbed" and some are not? Is God a respecter of persons?

Though you may not realize it, you're delving into Calvinism with the idea that man has no part to play in his salvation.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. You know, it just occurred to me, that if OSAS is true, then Christ can never come back.

2 Thes 2:1-3 says,

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now, as you all know, I'm not the most educated fellow, but my common sense is decent, I think.

While I was in the service, I was a paratrooper. If memory serves me right, I never once fell out of a plane that I hadn't been in. Once I was out of the plane, I was no longer in it, but I was falling away from it.

Though I'm sure it will be explained to me how this doesn't apply to salvation, it seems pretty obvious to me that the Bible not only allows for Christians to fall away, but it requires that some should fall away.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by bmerr:
To All,

bmerr here. You know, it just occurred to me, that if OSAS is true, then Christ can never come back.

2 Thes 2:1-3 says,

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now, as you all know, I'm not the most educated fellow, but my common sense is decent, I think.

Hi bmerr:

2 Thes 2:3 is an interesting verse. Here’s what I found…the KJV reads …a falling away… and the NKJV reads …the falling away…

The article a or the makes this verse even more significant and confusing.

Since Paul seems to be talking about the end time looks to me like the falling away could mean the great and final rebellion, but I don’t know. Just thought it was interesting how the two versions used different articles here.

Blessings

 

[bmerr]

riverm,

bmerr here. I'm of the opinion that the RCC is spoken of here, and the "man of sin" is the pope. He does claim to be "the vicar of Christ on earth", and sets himself up as God, at least in the fact that he accepts the worship of man.

I found an interesting website that presents this view much better than I do. If I can find it again, I'll try to post it, if you want.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by riverm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
To All,

bmerr here. You know, it just occurred to me, that if OSAS is true, then Christ can never come back.

2 Thes 2:1-3 says,

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now, as you all know, I'm not the most educated fellow, but my common sense is decent, I think.

Hi bmerr:

2 Thes 2:3 is an interesting verse. Here’s what I found…the KJV reads …a falling away… and the NKJV reads …the falling away…

The article a or the makes this verse even more significant and confusing.

Since Paul seems to be talking about the end time looks to me like the falling away could mean the great and final rebellion, but I don’t know. Just thought it was interesting how the two versions used different articles here.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe "falling away" is the correct interpretation. The greek word Apostasia means more than falling away, it can also mean defection / removal or christianity. I believe this should have been the correct interpretation, a removal of christianity from the world (rapture of the church). That "man of sin" and "son of perdition" is the antichrist. It can't be the pope because the pope recognizes the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the death/resurrection. The antichrist will come claiming to be God and denying Jesus Christ.

 

[bmerr]

Webdog,

bmerr here. I've heard that view, too. One problem with it, though, is the idea of "the antichrist". I can't find any reference to a character called "the antichrist" in the Bible.

Now, John uses the word antichrist 5 times (I think) in his general epistles, but always in reference to "the spirit of antichrist", or in stating that there were already "many antichrists" in the world at the time of his writing. Pretty much anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist, seems to be what he's saying.

You may be right about the papal stance concerning the diety of Christ, etc. I don't keep up with the RC's as a rule. Though he may uphold some truths about Christ, which you mentioned, these same things are also admitted by the demons.

He is still viewed basically as God on earth, and he does accept worship from "the faithful". Also, if my limited knowledge is accurate, the word of the pope is held in higher regard than Holy Writ.

In these respects, the pope fits the description of the man of sin in 2 Thes 2.

I don't have my Bible with me at the moment, but there is a verse, I believe in the context of those under consideration, that mentions "that which now letteth will let, till it be taken out of the way", or words to that effect. I've heard the view that this is a reference to the Roman government, which kept the influence of the "church" in check, until it collapsed. When it did, the papacy filled the power vacuum, and held sway both religiously, and politically. That is still the aim of the RCC today.

More investigation is a must. Interesting stuff.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

riverm, webdog, whosoever,

bmerr here. The view that the man of sin is the pope of Rome is very well presented at:

http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Pope.htm

He makes a pretty good case, based on history and Scripture. It's worth reading. The whole site's pretty good, actually.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

I would seriously like to have you close the issue of God's covenants. Originally, I only highlighted the UNconditionality of covenants, and the personal pronouns used in those clauses.

I do hope you realize the contractual clauses are the basis for industry. Any company that enters into a legal transaction does so through contracts with specific clauses. This is not new.

God has likewise entered into a contract with humans. We call it the New Diathnkn (Testament). The clauses are found in Heb 8:7-13.

Because of the one-way UNconditionality of the covenantal clauses, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to have a legal basis by which one can: forfeit, lose, or give up eternal life; come into double jeopardy for already paid sins; drift into damnation; etc.

Here again, OSAS appeals to broad theological concepts. Your denial appeals to specific verses generically worded that are conducive to a presuppositional redefinition.

Is it right to find a handful of verses by which one repudiates the great weight of scripture?

Lloyd

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by bmerr:
riverm, webdog, whosoever,

bmerr here. The view that the man of sin is the pope of Rome is very well presented at:

http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Pope.htm

He makes a pretty good case, based on history and Scripture. It's worth reading. The whole site's pretty good, actually.

In Christ,

bmerr

The pope still can't be the antichrist. The False Prophet maybe, but not the antichrist.