OSAS vs the Bible for Arminians, Calvinists, Non-Cals

Calvinism:
There is a thread that was opened a few months ago asking if Calvinism could survive the loss of the tradition of OSAS.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90634

Some did agree that Calvinism would not survive it.

But there are two other groups:

1. Non-Cals (some of them here) claim that OSAS is ok but hold to at least some form of the Arminian doctrine when it comes to the lost having free will.

2. Arminians on the other hand would often argue that the lost have free will - and so also do the saved - and that OSAS is simply man-made tradition not supported by the Bible.

================================================================================

Recently this question of the C-vs-A debate and OSAS came up again - on yet another thread.

First of all when you bring up the subject of OSAS you are right to frame it as an distinctly "Arminian" POV. Not is not merely "non-Cal" it is "Arminian".

in Matt 18 Jesus explains the principle of "Forgiveness revoked" without ever stating that for this to happen first Jesus must "lose his grip" or "Fail" in some way.

Thus the Arminian position does not require that Jesus "Fail" for Lucifer to fall, or for Adam to Fall or for saints to have free will.

Rather the warnings of the Bible are simply taken seriously - "you stand by your faith" - and then what comes next??

[FONT=&quot]20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Rom 11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellowcountrymen and save some of them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
22Behold then thekindness and severityof God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

======================================

It is no wonder then that Arminians such as myself see no reason to blame Christ for giving free will to the saints in the case where a saint fails to persevere firm unto the end.

Having said that - a number on this board do not hold to the Arminian doctrine - but rather they refer to themselves as "not Calvinist" because they belive the saints lose free will - once they are saved and can not choose to fail to persevere.

Thus to get all the non-Calvinist views as opposed to Calvinism here - you would have to focus on the one point where non-Calvinists will admit to free will - and that is the case of the lost. In that context both Arminians and non-Cals have some degree of common ground in opposing the Calvinist POV. (At least to an extent.)

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]