Prove it.

[thegospelgeek]

Those who do not believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, commonly referred to as OSAS, seem to indicate a lack of faith. I normally don't like to refer to church fathers, but this time I would like you to take a look down the road of history, beginning at the first martyr--Stephen. Did Stephen have a lack of assurance in his faith? Was he wavering at the end if he still had to work out his salvation as they cast stones at him? Not at all! He looked up into heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God ready there to welcome him home, and at the same time, as they cast those last few rocks at him, in his dying breath, found it in his heart to forgive them that killed him. There was no doubt in his heart that he was going to heaven. I believe that Stephen lived his life believing eternal security, so that whenever the Jews turned on him, or whenever anythng befell him he was always ready to die. He believed in eternal security. He was ready to die, not just then--but always. All the saints were.

Read Foxes Book of Martyrs. You will see the same testimony over and over again. These men and women were ready to die at any moment at any time. They believed in eternal security. There never was a moment in their lives where they would have to go back and confess some sin, worry about not going to heaven. They lived as if they would die at any moment by some unforeseen enemy of the truth.

Missionaries of past days were of like mind. The authorities of Burma tried to kill Adoniram Judson at every turn. They let him languish in horrible conditions in jail. Judson thought he would die. The Lord sustained him. But he was ready to die--always. Such a belief can only be held if one holds to the eternal security of the believer.

Concerning the church fathers, look at Polycarp. How did he die? He also died by the sword. He was ready. He was not afraid of death. Bring it on, was his attitude. No one can have that kind of attitude without believing in eternal security.
Those who don't believe in eternal security would be more afraid of death. They would be unsure of any unconfessed sin. They would be unsure if they had worked out their salvation to the full. They woulld be unsure if they had fully obeyed the Lord in order to be accepted by him.

History is replete with martyrs of our faith, that were confident of heaven, confident that if they would die at any time they would go straight to heaven. That is the belief of eternal security. That is the belief that we see from the Apostles till now.

Don't think for a moment that those of us who do not believe as you are lacking faith or have any doubts as to our eternal location. It's not as if I may accidently have an evil thought therefore sending my soul to Hell. Don't think that I preach a works based salvation. These are all misconceptions about people who do not believe OSAS.

 

[DHK]

Don't think for a moment that those of us who do not believe as you are lacking faith or have any doubts as to our eternal location. It's not as if I may accidently have an evil thought therefore sending my soul to Hell. Don't think that I preach a works based salvation. These are all misconceptions about people who do not believe OSAS.

I am just looking at the verses posted against OSAS.
One must:
"Work out their own salvation."
"Be obedient to the faith."
"have no unconfessed sin."
"not having turned away." etc.

Did any of these martyrs have to worry about these things? No. Not even in the flames of fire. Peter denied the Lord three times and still died a martyrs death.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I am just looking at the verses posted against OSAS.
One must:
"Work out their own salvation."
"Be obedient to the faith."
"have no unconfessed sin."
"not having turned away." etc.

Did any of these martyrs have to worry about these things? No. Not even in the flames of fire. Peter denied the Lord three times and still died a martyrs death.

Understood.

I base mine more on John 3:16, 17,18

(Joh 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(Joh 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

(Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

believeth- present tense

Overall, if you read the Bible as a whole I feel it leans toward enduring and making it till the end. Too many warnings for it not to have value.

For some reason this thread keeps drwaing me back in, even thow I normally don't participate in predest/ES threads with Calvanist. This time I'm really out.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Well gospelgeek was right after all. Here come the insults. I bolded the insult.

So if I believe in the eternal security of the believer, I am not thinking for myself?

My post wasn’t a jab at you Amy; my post is speaking from my own personal experience.

It would however do you some good to at least research the history of this “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine. Like who invented the doctrine and for what reasons this doctrine was built.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

My post wasn’t a jab at you Amy; my post is speaking from my own personal experience.

It would however do you some good to at least research the history of this “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine. Like who invented the doctrine and for what reasons this doctrine was built.

In XC
-

Who invented the doctrine? Try the Holy Spirit of God?
Did Stephen believe in the eternal security of God?
Demonstrate that he didn't. There is much proof that he did. In fact all the early believers did. They didn't have much choice if they believed the Bible. I suppose only the apostates didn't.

 

[thegospelgeek]

Who invented the doctrine? Try the Holy Spirit of God?
Did Stephen believe in the eternal security of God?
Demonstrate that he didn't. There is much proof that he did. In fact all the early believers did. They didn't have much choice if they believed the Bible. I suppose only the apostates didn't.

The name calling has begun..

 

[DHK]

The name calling has begun..

Nope, didn't call anyone here an apostate. That is what I see from the early believers of let's say the first three centuries.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Who invented the doctrine?

You’re an educated pastor, you should’ve learned about this in a Church History class…

Did Stephen believe in the eternal security of God? Demonstrate that he didn't.

Show the class where St. Stephen taught such a doctrine

In fact all the early believers did. They didn't have much choice if they believed the Bible.

Just because the early believers and their families were martyred doesn’t give precedence that they believed and taught a doctrine of OSAS.

In XC
-

 

[thegospelgeek]

Nope, didn't call anyone here an apostate. That is what I see from the early believers of let's say the first three centuries.

My apologies

 

[Amy.G]

Regarding Heb. 6

I assume we are talking about 6:4-6

Hbr 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Personally, I believe this is a hypothetical. It's saying that there is no other way in which to be saved.

However, I will say that is a difficult passage and as such we should not form doctrine around it alone.

 

[Steven2006]

I come down on the side that we can not lose our salvation. I will admit that this is an issue that I have at times struggled with. The verse that fist comes to mind when I think of this is Colossians 1:23. And I know that "If" is supposed to mean "since", but I have never been 100% satisfied as why is doesn't say just say "since".

Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

I guess nobody wanted to touch this verse.

 

[Amy.G]

I guess nobody wanted to touch this verse.

I'll touch it. :laugh:

Colossians 1
21And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;


First, these people Paul is speaking to have been reconciled to God through the blood of Christ. They are saved. I suppose the word "if" is causing to you think they might be able to lose their salvation. If they have to do the things that follow the word "if", then it would be a works salvation. Works do not save or keep you saved.

G1489 If
εἴγε
eige
i'-gheh
From G1487 and G1065; if indeed, seeing that, unless, (with negative) otherwise: - if (so be that, yet).

So we could say "seeing that ye continue in the faith........"


That's my take on it.

 

[Steven2006]

Amy, that is as good an explanation as I have read, and I have read many on this verse. Like I originally said I come down on the side that we can not lose our salvation, but I have struggled with this issue. My big question on this particular verse if (no pun intended), the word "if" used here really means something else other than if, why do all translation I have ever read choose to tranlsate it as if, and none use one of the words for the other meaning? It appears that they all look at how it is used and decide "if" is the most accurate way for us to understand the meaning.

 

[Marcia]

I am just looking at the verses posted against OSAS.
One must:
"Work out their own salvation."
"Be obedient to the faith."
"have no unconfessed sin."
"not having turned away." etc.

This sounds like salvation by works.

 

[Marcia]

I was not raised KJVO or OSAS because I had a nominal Christian mother and an agnostic father. I was not saved until rather late in life, so you can't use that argument on me (which I think means nothing anyway in re to this issue).


Believers are seated in the heavenly places - now!
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Eph. 2

Believers are of God's household:
19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, Eph. 2

Believers have a deposit or guarantee - the Holy Spirit is our "pledge," a pledge from God! This means a promise by God. God does not break his pledges.
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Eph. 1

We are saved for God's glory, not for ourselves. I think believing we can lose our salvation is a focus on man, not on God. Since we are saved by God's mercy and power and nothing of our own, neither can be break what God has done.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I suppose the word "if" is causing to you think they might be able to lose their salvation. If they have to do the things that follow the word "if", then it would be a works salvation.

HP: Steven2006, Amy has created a straw man argument that does not have the least bit of truth to it. This is what is amazing. God inserts a clear condition and the OSASer’s immediately dismiss it as works, and then having destroyed the evidence, they cry 'Prove it.'
Their problem is clear. They refuse to acknowledge the clear distinction that separates the grounds of salvation from the conditions of salvation. I have used the prison illustration to set forth that clear distinction.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions on the part of the prisoner as the grounds of his pardon, nor could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such is the case in our salvation. God has set forth conditions for us to fulfill, without which no man shall see God. Initially repentance and faith are the two conditions. Subsequently God demands that we remain obedient till the end. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of our works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Still yet, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Steven2006, Amy has created a straw man argument that does not have the least bit of truth to it. This is what is amazing. God inserts a clear condition and the OSASer’s immediately dismiss it as works, and then having destroyed the evidence, they cry 'Prove it.'

What conditions are you trying to appy to the Colossians passage? Because the people Paul is speaking to are already saved. He says plainly that they have NOW been justified. He doesn't say they will be justified "if"....



So in your prison story, at what point does the governor throw the prisoner back in jail? If he gets a traffic ticket will it void his pardon? What provokes the governor to rescind his pardon?


BTW, if you spent as much time searching scripture to prove your view as you did on that prison fairy tale, we might actually get somewhere in this discussion.

 

[DHK]

This sounds like salvation by works.

Originally Posted by DHK
I am just looking at the verses posted against OSAS.
One must:
"Work out their own salvation."
"Be obedient to the faith."
"have no unconfessed sin."
"not having turned away." etc.

Most of the reasons that those who give for not believing in OSAS do end up sounding like salvation by works. If we have to keep on being obedient or even keep on believing is that not a works salvation. Christ paid the penalty for our salvation once. The minute I received Him as my Savior, I also accepted the penalty that he paid. That penalty does not continue to be paid. It was paid, once and for all. And I was saved, once and for all eternity.

 

[gb93433]

I find it perplexing that those who believe one can lose their salvation also believe that salvation is gained by faith and lost by works.

How can one who knows God then later say that God does not exist?

 

[Jedi Knight]

"prove that we are wrong" Amy G,are you asking for proof because your not sure? If you are why are you asking this question?? :saint: I think we believer should be ready to give an answer for the hope we have,but your question begs and argument and what in the world are we as salt doing this for? Are you trying to save a soul from perdition??