OSAS and John 6:36-40

[The Biblicist]

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This text directly addresses the issue whether any "of all" that the Father gives to the Son can be lost. It is explicit, clear and direct in addressing the subject of OSAS:

1. The giving of "all" by the Father precedes "come to me" as the future tense "shall" proves in verse 37.

2. However, the will of the Father in giving "all" and "all" coming to Christ, ALSO preceded the incarnation as the Son "came down from heaven" to accomplish the Father's will that "of all" given NONE shall be lost - vv. 38-39. He could not have come for that will of purpose if it did not exist prior to His incarnation.

3. The sole responsible person for seeing this specific will of the Father is effectual is the Son - not those who are given or come to the Son. If the Father's will fails, it is due solely to the failure of the Son, as he alone is given that responsibility by the Father.

4. If but ONE "of all" that the Father gave him is lost, then the Son failed to do the will of the Father and that makes him a sinner, and invalidates him as a qualified Savior.

 

[Reformed]

IMHnce-saved-always-saved is a phrase that allows for the error of Antinomianism. It is true that believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are eternally secure. No argument from me on that point. But their eternal security is marked by good works (Eph. 2:10) and a putting off the old man and putting on of the new man (Col 3:9). OSAS is too broad a term. I think the aberrant theology that Paul reacted against in Romans 6:1-2 was the Antinomian view expressed in OSAS.

 

[The Biblicist]

IMHnce-saved-always-saved is a phrase that allows for the error of Antinomianism. It is true that believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are eternally secure. No argument from me on that point. But their eternal security is marked by good works (Eph. 2:10) and a putting off the old man and putting on of the new man (Col 3:9). OSAS is too broad a term. I think the aberrant theology that Paul reacted against in Romans 6:1-2 was the Antinomian view expressed in OSAS.

The acrostic is based on genuine salvation, not a false profession. Hence, it is not too broad at all, Biblically speaking.

I am sorry but I do not believe in perseverance of the saints but preservation of the saints in saving faith. Good works are fruits, but they greatly vary in manifest degree and are not always evidence of salvation as Matthew 7:21-23 clearly demonstrates, as well as, the life of Lot, David, Solomon and others.

I do not believe there is such a person that is justified by faith without works that is not also a regenerated person and that is the point of Romans 6 and why the illustration of water baptism is brought into the context to illustrate the inseparability of both.

However, if you want to discuss this issue, please start a thread for that purpose. You have ignored the text and propositions that I have presented and inserting a subject this thead is not designed to deal with. I detest the designation "Reformed" as I deny any kind of historical affinity with the Roman Catholic Church, as much as I detest Calvin or Arminius, as they are pedobaptist heretics in my opinion.

 

[SolaSaint]

Is this just a statement or do you have a question?

 

[Reformed]

I detest the designation "Reformed" as I deny any kind of historical affinity with the Roman Catholic Church, as much as I detest Calvin or Arminius, as they are pedobaptist heretics in my opinion.

Well then, thank you making it plain that you detest the designation "Reformed". Seeing as my theological distinctives are detested by you there is really is no ground for us to interact on this board. I therefore bid you adieu.

 

[Salty]

...I am sorry but I do not believe in perseverance of the saints but preservation of the saints in saving faith. ...

First, why are you sorry - when you say you are sorry, it means you were wrong.

Second - so you are saying you do not believe in once-saved-always save?
If So, unless you are free-will Baptist - why then are you a Baptist?

 

[prophet]

First, why are you sorry - when you say you are sorry, it means you were wrong.

Second - so you are saying you do not believe in once-saved-always save?
If So, unless you are free-will Baptist - why then are you a Baptist?

Re-read his post. He was saying the opposite.

 

[Iconoclast]

IMHnce-saved-always-saved is a phrase that allows for the error of Antinomianism. It is true that believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are eternally secure. No argument from me on that point. But their eternal security is marked by good works (Eph. 2:10) and a putting off the old man and putting on of the new man (Col 3:9). OSAS is too broad a term. I think the aberrant theology that Paul reacted against in Romans 6:1-2 was the Antinomian view expressed in OSAS.

agreed .....osas is directly related to the other false theology.

 

[RLBosley]

I detest the designation "Reformed" as I deny any kind of historical affinity with the Roman Catholic Church, as much as I detest Calvin or Arminius, as they are pedobaptist heretics in my opinion.

Wow.. tell us how you really feel.

Seriously though, don't you think that was a bit much? I don't think Reformed was trying to derail your thread, he appeared to be just remarking that the term OSAS is often abused by true antinomians.


All that said, your OP is on point. :thumbsup:

 

[kyredneck]

Well then, thank you making it plain that you detest the designation "Reformed". Seeing as my theological distinctives are detested by you there is really is no ground for us to interact on this board. I therefore bid you adieu.

agreed .....osas is directly related to the other false theology.

Wow.. tell us how you really feel.

Seriously though, don't you think that was a bit much? I don't think Reformed was trying to derail your thread, he appeared to be just remarking that the term OSAS is often abused by true antinomians.


All that said, your OP is on point. :thumbsup:

Bib is a Landmarkist, which doctrine I detest exactly because of the attitude it engenders and which he just demonstrated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Bib, he's a smart guy and really knows and loves his Bible, but he would do well if he could shed this (ancient) error of Landmarkism (see Mt 3:9). It stinks.

 

[convicted1]

Bib is a Landmarkist, which doctrine I detest exactly because of the attitude it engenders and which he just demonstrated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Bib, he's a smart guy and really knows and loves his Bible, but he would do well if he could shed this (ancient) error of Landmarkism (see Mt 3:9). It stinks.

You mean we baptists didn't spring forth from Polycarp????

 

[kyredneck]

?????

....no dummy, 'we are of' John the Baptist, don't you know! (facetious/sarcasm alert)

 

[convicted1]

?????

....no dummy, 'we are of' John the Baptist, don't you know! (facetiousness/sarcasm alert)

:laugh: :tongue3: :tonofbricks: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[The Biblicist]

Wow.. tell us how you really feel.

Seriously though, don't you think that was a bit much? I don't think Reformed was trying to derail your thread, he appeared to be just remarking that the term OSAS is often abused by true antinomians.


All that said, your OP is on point. :thumbsup:

What truth is not abused by someone? Just because it is abused does not make it an error! OSAS is Biblically sound and the text I provided in its context proves it is Biblically sound. If some think not, then deal with the content of my thread.

Reformed had nothing to say about the content of the thread - nothing! In fact, except for your post, I have yet to see anyone contribute a single word to the content of this thread.

In our past discussions this seems to be the MO of most. They don't want to deal with content and context. If my thread had been about the abuse of OSAS or about Romans 6:1 or does grace encourage sin, then such a response would have been appropriate for this thread.

I detest theological label's (Reformed, Calvinist, Arminian) as they are simply used as excuses to avoid Biblical based discussion or make personal attacks. I also detest these labels because of their theological pedobaptistic origin.

 

[The Biblicist]

agreed .....osas is directly related to the other false theology.

Are you saying OSAS is false? You say "other" false theology. If you think that then deal with the content and context of my thread because you are simply wrong! There is not anything wrong with OSAS - Once saved always saved! OSAS does not stand for "Once made a profession always saved" but that is how some treat it. The acrostic refers to someone "saved" and if they are "saved" they are always saved! If you think not then point out the flaw in my thread as that is precisely what John 6:39 explicitly and clearly states "of all" given,coming NONE are lost - that is OSAS in the clearest possible language.

 

[The Biblicist]

Bib is a Landmarkist, which doctrine I detest exactly because of the attitude it engenders and which he just demonstrated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Bib, he's a smart guy and really knows and loves his Bible, but he would do well if he could shed this (ancient) error of Landmarkism (see Mt 3:9). It stinks.

Don't confuse a wrong "attitude" with wrong doctrine. The historic definition of "Landmarkism" supplied by Pendleton is Biblically based. The problem with the Universal Invisible Church theory is it confuses the baptism in the Spirit with spiritual union obtained through regeneration. Spiritual union/regeneration is necessary before and after Pentecost as without it spiritual separation/death is the result (Rom. 8:9) whereas the baptism in the Spirit is promised only to PREVIOUSLY water baptized believers prior to Pentecost in every single solitary verse.

 

[The Biblicist]

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This text directly addresses the issue whether any "of all" that the Father gives to the Son can be lost. It is explicit, clear and direct in addressing the subject of OSAS:

1. The giving of "all" by the Father precedes "come to me" as the future tense "shall" proves in verse 37.

2. However, the will of the Father in giving "all" and "all" coming to Christ, ALSO preceded the incarnation as the Son "came down from heaven" to accomplish the Father's will that "of all" given NONE shall be lost - vv. 38-39. He could not have come for that will of purpose if it did not exist prior to His incarnation.

3. The sole responsible person for seeing this specific will of the Father is effectual is the Son - not those who are given or come to the Son. If the Father's will fails, it is due solely to the failure of the Son, as he alone is given that responsibility by the Father.

4. If but ONE "of all" that the Father gave him is lost, then the Son failed to do the will of the Father and that makes him a sinner, and invalidates him as a qualified Savior.

Once again, can anyone show that this passage does not teach that "all" given by the Father do not come to the Son in faith, or "of all" given that one is lost?

Once again, can anyone prove that coming is the result whereas giving by the father is the cause - hence unconditional election?

Once again, can anyone prove that the Father's will in selecting, giving, and coming "OF ALL" considered was not the will of the Father before the incarnation? Thus "from the beginning" and thus "before the world"?

 

[The Biblicist]

(see Mt 3:9). It stinks.

Mt 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

I don't see how you can relate this text to Landmarkism. This text has to do with salvation not the church. Moreover, what God is "able" to do versus what He has decreed He will do are not one and the same. Do you know of any literal stones that have been made literal children of God at any time in history from Genesis to the present? I would say your application of this text is what "stinks."

 

[The Biblicist]

Well then, thank you making it plain that you detest the designation "Reformed". Seeing as my theological distinctives are detested by you there is really is no ground for us to interact on this board. I therefore bid you adieu.

I never said one word about your person, never called you any names, or inferred such. However, that is how some read my response to you. I simply told you that I "detest" the term "reformed" (also, Calvinist, Arminian, etc.) for many reasons in addition to the fact they originate with Roman Catholics and pedobaptists. They are used to avoid dealing with scriptures. They are used to attack, smear and insult. I utterly detest such labels. They provide nothing for content contextual based discussion. My thread had nothing to do with Romans 6:1 or any abuse that some may have with OSAS. OSAS is Biblical through and through as those who are "saved" (not those who merely profess to be saved) are always saved and the text and comments provided in my thread prove that. If you think not, then simply point out the flaw in my statements. I am not an antonomian or a legalist but as I said there is no such thing as a justified person who is not a regenerated person and that demands "delight for the law of God (Rom. 7:21).

I clearly stated and demonstrated OSAS in the text but you chose to ignore that and redirect the thread down a different path. I simply objected to that redirection.

 

[kyredneck]

Mt 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

I don't see how you can relate this text to Landmarkism.

You don't see how God could raise up out of the RCC valid bona fide assemblies of Christ?

This text has to do with salvation not the church.

The text is a direct allusion to the 'I was first' jealousy that overcame them when God raised up from the Gentiles children unto Abraham. The same attitude as yours when you imply 'Protestant' or 'Reformed' is invalid because they were raised up out of the RCC. You Landmarkists consider yourselves to be the 'real genuine thing' and set all others at nought. It stinks.