Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

[BobRyan]

He did not say "I think Christ was ignorant" - rather he ASKS if the OSAS group believes that the Gospel statements of Christ listed in the OP and so far carefully avoided by the OSAS group here - are consistent with OSAS and if not - is the OSAS group then claiming that Christ was ignorant of the OSAS doctrine.

His question seems to be about what the OSAS group might be claiming.

To be fair to HP - some OSAS people have argued that before the cross there was no OSAS - as their way of trying to solve that problem.

By contrast - Your reponse makes no sense because you suggest that if HP sees you as making an argument that Christ was in some way ignorant - then HP must be the one who thinks Christ is ignorant because... err um ... because you think HP thinks whatever he says YOU appear to think?

Surely even you would have to admit that such reasoning makes no sense.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

Interesting. Lots of invectives being hurled at Heavenly Pilgrim but no one seems interested in addressing the words of our Lord that HP has cited. If anyone gets around to it, I would like to also see them address Matthew 25:31-46.

You have nothing here to say forgiven saints go to Hell. HP has a way of avoiding context and quote single scriptures. Here is ONE scripture quoted...Mt 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you....Jesus didn't say your Heavenly Father but my"Jesus" Heavenly Father.

 

[BobRyan]

This is where it would have paid you to actually read the Matt 18 story referenced in the OP "I FORGAVE YOU ALL " is followed by "hand him over to the torturers until he should repay ALL".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

This is where it would have paid you to actually read the Matt 18 story referenced in the OP "I FORGAVE YOU ALL " is followed by "hand him over to the torturers until he should repay ALL".

in Christ,

Bob

Quote the whole story and not ONE verse! So likewise shall "my" heavenly Father......who's?

 

[BobRyan]

If you have some way to exegete Matt 18 so that the OSAS tradition gets out of the pickle it is in when it comes to Matt 18 - by all means - have a shot at it.

Until then - the lesson is clear - the same revoking of forgiveness illustrated in the story is what Christ claims will be visited upon any fully forgiven saint that does not forgive others JUST AS they have been forgiven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

If you have some way to exegete Matt 18 so that the OSAS tradition gets out of the pickle it is in when it comes to Matt 18 - by all means - have a shot at it.

Until then - the lesson is clear - the same revoking of forgiveness illustrated in the story is what Christ claims will be visited upon any fully forgiven saint that does not forgive others JUST AS they have been forgiven.

in Christ,

Bob

Jesus said I give them ETERNAL LIFE AND THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH! This is VERY CLEAR.....wana wiggle out of this pickle?

 

[BobRyan]

The death of the OSAS tradition in Matt 18 cannot be "undone" by observing some other texts that speak to the fact that some people actually do persevere firm to the end and will be taken to heaven. Though it might be fun to imagine that such an idea is actually exegeting Matt 18 -- it is not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

The death of the OSAS tradition in Matt 18 cannot be "undone" by observing some other texts that speak to the fact that some people actually do persevere firm to the end and will be taken to heaven. Though it might be fun to imagine that such an idea is actually exegeting Matt 18 -- it is not.

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry Bob........ it's death in YOUR mind! I didn't see where SOME of Jesus sheep have eternal life. You don't study John much do you?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: It's a straw man argument!

HP: You might need to be more expressive to be convincing JK. You might try a bigger stick when you pound the pulpit. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: You might need to be more expresive to be convincing JK. You might try a bigger stick when you pound the pulpit. :smilewinkgrin:

You won't be convinced.....I put that for others to see.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

Irevoking of forgiveness
Bob

Or as Bob otherwise calls "forgiveness revoked," a bogus doctrine, nowhere taught in the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The death of the OSAS tradition in Matt 18 cannot be "undone" by observing some other texts that speak to the fact that some people actually do persevere firm to the end and will be taken to heaven. Though it might be fun to imagine that such an idea is actually exegeting Matt 18 -- it is not.

Sorry Bob........ it's death in YOUR mind! I didn't see where SOME of Jesus sheep have eternal life. You don't study John much do you?

While I find your dedication to avoiding the text of Matt 18 to be quite remarkable -- on the flip side - that means that your actual Bible exegesis of the text of Matt 18 remains - "underwhelming".

Or as Bob otherwise calls "forgiveness revoked," a bogus doctrine, nowhere taught in the Bible.

Here is a thought - imagine that the "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine is "a good thing" EVEN when it comes to carefully studying Bible texts like Matt 18 that flatly contradict the OSAS traditions of man.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

While I find your dedication to avoiding the text of Matt 18 to be quite remarkable -- on the flip side - that means that your actual Bible exegesis of the text of Matt 18 remains - "underwhelming".

I won't bother to cast an answer to you.......your attitude is condescending and would do no good. Funny thing how SOME fretful "I can still go to Hell" professors have haughty attitudes and cling to their doctrine? Oxymoron......You might wana abandon that ship mates.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Mt 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Mt 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee


Mt 5:13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Mt 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mt 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mt 16:24 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mt 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

HP: Did someone forget to instuct our Lord that OSAS trumps any and all possibilities of a believer ending up in hell????

I read this post to mean something like this...

-If OSAS were true, then salvation wouldn't be conditional upon obedience.
-Several verses in Matthew indicate that salvation is conditional upon obedience.
-Therefore, OSAS is not true.

Is that an accurate restatement the argument? If not, please clarify. (Please, anyone who supports the above, feel free to reply.

 

[DHK]

Here is a thought - imagine that the "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine is "a good thing" EVEN when it comes to carefully studying Bible texts like Matt 18 that flatly contradict the OSAS traditions of man.
Bob

It is too bad that you don't practice what you preach. There is no sola scriptura practiced here. You have extricated a man-made doctrine from a parable, doctrine that is nowhere else found in Scripture. Parables don't teach doctrine. They illustrate doctrine that is already taught elsewhere in Scripture. That is a basic principle of hermeneutics. But you have stretched this parable to teach something that it doesn't teach--no, not in the parable, and not anywhere else in the Bible. That is not sola scriptura. What it is, is the teaching of man (or perhaps of a woman, maybe even EGW--just a guess).

 

[dwmoeller1]

FWIW, the doctrine of eternal security has some significant problems. Too many verses indicate that one cannot be secure if in a state of disobedience. A person who is living in sin should not be secure in their salvation. Eternal security also depends largely upon salvation being a definable, point-in-time event. Scripture doesn't really give absolute support to this conception of salvation - it may speak of it in those terms sometimes, but other times it speaks of salvation as more of a process. In the end, the doctrine of eternal security depends too much on being definite about things on which Scripture is sometime indefinite.

I believe the doctrine of perseverance of the saints to be a position which does a much better job of taking into account both the passages about not being able to "lose" one's salvation and also the verses which indicate that salvation is not always to be seen as absolutely secure.

 

[dwmoeller1]

All right, I can accept that but it is dangerous because it gives a person a license to sin. You say, no such thing, and point to something like Romans 6:1-2, but the unlearned Christian doesn't understand this. Come to think of though, it doesn't really matter if OSAS is really true.

I am not OSAS but I grew up as such. I know the doctrine well enough to know that the above is a straw man. You have unfairly characterized the doctrine - some may actually use this as a license to sin, but no serious proponent of the doctrine believes this way. OSAS would be just as strong as you in denying any sort of license to sin.

OSAS is no more inherently dangerous than your own position. I could point out that your doctrine is dangerous because it causes the believer to constantly live in fear and insecurity. Such an characterization of your position would be just as fair/unfair as your above.

Its best to deal with doctrines fairly and without resorting to strawmen to disprove them.

 

[dwmoeller1]

He also said that we would have eternal life which, of course, is not really eternal if we can lose it.

This is fallacious reasoning. That one cannot lose eternal life doesn't exclude them from choosing (explicitly or implicitly) to reject it of their own free will.

Most who are anti-OSAS don't believe that salvation can be lost at any moment due to a sin. Most would agree that losing salvation takes a person deciding to reject Christ in some way - for instance, a conscious and explicit rejection, or an implicit rejection (living in unrepentant sin). The idea that a single action at any point in time could be a loss of salvation isn't really the typical view...not for those who are doctrinally trained at least.

 

[dwmoeller1]

HP: Excellent point.:thumbs: I would go so far as to say if in fact anyone claims they are eternally secure yet their works are not lining up with their faith, are deceived as to their final standing before God.

Lets posit a person who claims to be saved and lives as such for a period, then for several years lives in unrepentant sin (ie. his works are not lining up with his faith), and then later repents and rededicates his life to Christ. Was this person saved the whole time or not? When it comes to questions like this the doctrine of eternal security has no good answer even though, by its own standards, it should. Its the inability of OSAS to deal consistently with all scenarios that cause it the most problems.

 

[dwmoeller1]

John 5:24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me HAS eternal life and will NOT be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Which doesn't negate the possibility that a person might choose to willingly reject the eternal life and choose to disbelieve what they previously believed.