Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

[dwmoeller1]

You have answered wrong, and according to the Scriptures a person would not be able to enter into heaven based on that answer.
Furthermore, it was a serious question, albeit hypothetical, and had nothing to do with jokes. To take lightly one's salvation is not a joking matter. Do you think that eternity is a joking matter? Seriously?

Can you point out in Scripture where such a question will part of entering into heaven? EE popularized that question, but its purpose is to get people to give wrong answers. The hope was that they would say something like "Well I was good enough" which then leads the EE person into a spiel about how unsound a reason that is. Its a conversational piece, nothing more. Its not a sound basis for determining doctrinal correctness.

The question is too general, too hypothetical and too imprecise. I think we can all agree that God will be letting us into heaven based on His own reasons, not the reasons we give. This question however, makes it appear that maybe the opposite is true - that maybe we will be getting is dependent on how good our answer is. Or it might be taken as a question of how well we can guess God's reason. Or it might simply illicit a doctrinally sound response which is, in the end, false for that particular person.

So, the question can be taken in several ways and answered validly in several ways, yet you seem to be expecting a much more narrow set of answers. Thats called a loaded question.

So, really, while HPs answer isn't what you or I would give, its not really a false or doctrinally unsound answer - its merely one possible answer among a whole wide range of answers which are acceptable depending on how one sees the question.

Its a great conversation starter because its so open ended, but its a very poor way to determine doctrinal correctness.

 

[dwmoeller1]

What HP is trying to point out (I believe) is based on a particular sense of the word "security". "Security" can refer both to fact (if one is truly saved, they cannot lose that salvation, thus salvation is secure) as well as perception (I am secure about my salvation).

From what I can tell, if the doctrine of security were purely a question of fact, then HP wouldn't really have a problem with it. That is, if all the doctrine of security could be contained in the simple logic of "If one is truly saved, then one will always be saved." then I don't believe HP would have a problem with it. I know I wouldn't.

The difficulty arises when the doctrine of security starts to bleed over into the question of how one can know if they are saved at a particular point in time. When it comes to this question, the doctrine of security runs into some problems. So, how do you, the holder of the doctrine of eternal security, know you are saved? If you point to the past - ie. I was saved, therefore I will always be saved, therefore I am saved - that merely moves the question back to how you know you were saved, till eventually you must come to some point in time where you could no longer say "I was saved, therefore...".

So how can you know for certain that that you really and truly became saved at that point in time? If your assurance of salvation is based on what happened in the past, how can you be sure that it was a true conversion? After all, aren't there many many people who truly believed their experience was real and they gave good evidence of that this experience was real, yet still end up falling away and living in unrepentant sin? How can you be for certain that, at some future point, this won't be you as well?

The doctrine of eternal security has some problems addressing these questions in a non-fallacious way. What HP is proposing is that these questions of "How can I know?" can only be answered with sound reason by referring to one's present condition. In this I agree with him.

Now,thats not to say (here we may disagree, I can't tell) that our salvation is conditional upon our current condition - after all, if I was truly saved in the past, I am saved. All it means is that we can't really feel secure in our salvation if our current life is not what a Christian's should be. So, if we are living a life walking in the Spirit, then we can be totally secure in our salvation, not based on some past event, but based upon our current walk. However, if we are living with unrepentant sin, we might still be saved in fact, but we have no way to be secure in the belief that we saved. IOW, we can only accurately judge our own salvation based on current walk, not based on some event in the past which may or may not have been a true conversion.

So, total security for one walking the Spirit w/o any need to depend upon question about the past, and no security for the one living in sin, regardless of past events. Both of these people may be saved, but only one has any reason for feeling secure in their salvation.

 

[DHK]

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.

It is not fallacious reasoning.
If eternal life could be lost then eternal life would not be eternal and Jesus Christ would be found to be a liar.
He said: I give unto you eternal life.
If eternal life could stop at any time it would only be temporal. It would not be eternal. Eternal means eternal. Words have meanings. One cannot simply randomly change the meanings of words just because they have a different theology.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

This is a parable and should be treated as such. Basing doctrine on a parable is, at best, shaky. So, using this parable to prove your doctrine would be fallacious.

However, you raise a valid point. The story does suggest some sort of "forgiven but not really forgiven" situation. Since this is apparently inconsistent with the doctrine of eternal security its not really fair for an OSAS to just gloss over it. It deserves a thoughtful response. I am not OSAS but I think I can address it to their satisfaction.

First of all, your point depends a lot on creating an exact parallel between the Christian life and the parable - its about a person who is saved (is forgiven), but then loses his salvation (punished in hell). Its one possible parable, but if another reasonable parallel exists, then the main force of your argument disappears. So, is there another reasonable parallel?

Most definitely. The forgiveness but yet not forgiven aspect of the story could reasonable represent something else besides a story of conversion which is then lost. In fact, I believe the parallel I am going to suggest is much more in line with the elements of the parable.

The key element in looking at this parable is to notice the reaction of the servant. He is offered forgiveness but to all apparent evidence, it doesn't appear that the servant was ever truly repentant. The servant is like all unbeliever, all those who never repent - they are offered the gift of forgiveness of sins, they hear it and like it, but they never repent and accept the conditions of this forgiveness.

. Just like the forgiveness of salvation, the application of forgiveness in this parable was conditional upon true repentance by the servant. This is not a story of man who was truly repentant, was saved and forgiven in fact...and then later lost that forgiveness. Instead, this is a parable of a man who was *offered* conditional forgiveness, recognized the offer but never repented and thus never was forgiven in fact.

So, the parallel which your whole point is dependent upon is, at best, the much weaker way to see the condition of the servant.

 

[DHK]

Can you point out in Scripture where such a question will part of entering into heaven? EE popularized that question, but its purpose is to get people to give wrong answers. The hope was that they would say something like "Well I was good enough" which then leads the EE person into a spiel about how unsound a reason that is. Its a conversational piece, nothing more. Its not a sound basis for determining doctrinal correctness.

The question is hypothetical, and does not have to be in Scripture. "Are you sure you are saved?" is not a question that is in Scripture, but needs to be asked, on occasion. There are many questions that we need to ask people to determine their needs--questions that obviously are not in the Bible.

If you were to stand before God right now, and He were to ask you: "Why should I allow you to enter into my heaven?" What would you answer?

That is a perfect legitimate question, and it is very precise. We do not gain heaven on our own merit. We do not gain heaven on the basis of our works. If you think that we do you are lost. You need Christ. It is Christ that saves, not we that save ourselves.

 

[DHK]

Instead, this is a parable of a man who was *offered* conditional forgiveness, recognized the offer but never repented and thus never was forgiven in fact.

So, the parallel which your whole point is dependent upon is, at best, the much weaker way to see the condition of the servant.

You have a terrible view of God. Your view of God seems to be that God is a big old meanie sitting up in heaven with a stick in his hand ready to club anyone who sins and/or gets him upset. You don't seem to think that God is a God of love.

God's love is unconditional. God's forgiveness is unconditional. God's promises are unconditional. He does not take things back. There are no "ifs" with God. He doesn't say "I'll love you if you will be a good little boy." That concept is not found in the Bible, but that thinking seems to be found in your post.

 

[dwmoeller1]

It is not fallacious reasoning.
If eternal life could be lost then eternal life would not be eternal and Jesus Christ would be found to be a liar.

Bob: I lost my watch.
Jim: What happened?
Bob: I gave it as a gift to Jill.
Jim: I thought you said you lost it?!!

"Lost" implies something involuntary. Even anti-OSAS would tend to agree that one does not lose their salvation. I point out that the fact that we can't "lose" our salvation does not logically imply that we can't voluntarily give it up. Conflating the concept of "lose" with the concept of "give" is fallacious.

He said: I give unto you eternal life.
If eternal life could stop at any time it would only be temporal. It would not be eternal. Eternal means eternal. Words have meanings. One cannot simply randomly change the meanings of words just because they have a different theology.

You also can't read too much into the meaning of words either. Eternal life could refer to the quantity of the life - life that must be infinite in value. Or it might refer to the quality of the life - life that never runs out.

You are trying to insist on the quantity meaning and create an equation from that: Eternal life = life with an infinite, and life which is not infinite in quantity cannot be eternal. You are treating life as if its an object which we posses, and if we posses something that is less than infinite, then it cannot be eternal. Sure, if this is the correct way to look at life, then you conclusion is correct. However, there are other valid ways to look at life.

For instance, life can also be seen as a flow of something. For example, Christ uses the concept of spring of water to describe eternal life. In this case, the concept of eternal life is not about the numeric value or length of life, but about the quality of the life - a flow that, unlike our physical life, never runs out. If this is the more correct view, then it is possible and logical to say that one can remove this type of life from themselves and not do damage to the concept of "eternal life".

Since there is more than one valid view of the concept, insisting that yours is the only correct one is fallacious without something else to negate any other valid possibility.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You have a terrible view of God. Your view of God seems to be that God is a big old meanie sitting up in heaven with a stick in his hand ready to club anyone who sins and/or gets him upset. You don't seem to think that God is a God of love.

Huh!? You don't know me well enough nor have you seen enough of my views to even make that sort of evaluation yet.

God's love is unconditional. God's forgiveness is unconditional. God's promises are unconditional. He does not take things back. There are no "ifs" with God. He doesn't say "I'll love you if you will be a good little boy." That concept is not found in the Bible, but that thinking seems to be found in your post.

Did Christ die for the sins of the whole world? Yes.
Does God offer forgiveness of sins an eternal life to everyone? Yes.
Are some people still judged and sent to hell? Yes
Therefore, I can only conclude that forgiveness is conditional upon something. If everyone *could* be forgiven, but not everyone *is* forgiven, then forgiveness is obviously conditional.

If forgiveness is not conditional, then everyone should be forgiven.

As to Scripture there are numerous verses showing that salvation is conditional. For instance: Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. This is a conditional statement - in effect "IF you believe, THEN you will be saved."

Now, what salvation is NOT conditional upon is works or obedience to the law. It is however, clearly conditional upon belief and repentance. Those who don't believe and repent won't be saved - those who do will be saved. Really, how can you consider this basic doctrine to be exceptionable?

 

[dwmoeller1]

The question is hypothetical, and does not have to be in Scripture. "Are you sure you are saved?" is not a question that is in Scripture, but needs to be asked, on occasion. There are many questions that we need to ask people to determine their needs--questions that obviously are not in the Bible.

I have no real problem with the fact that the question is hypothetical (although one does need to be careful in how one uses them), or that its not in Scripture (although one does need to be careful that the question is Scripturally valid).

As I explained at length, my problem has to do with the imprecise nature of the question. Its a question which can be reasonably taken in several different ways and thus has broad range of possible valid answer. You however, are restricting your meaning to one possibility without clarifying and then rejecting answers which don't fit that particular meaning. Thats a loaded question. Great for starting conversations, not so good for doctrinal discussion.

If you were to stand before God right now, and He were to ask you: "Why should I allow you to enter into my heaven?" What would you answer?

My answer? Ok I will play along...
You should allow me into heaven because you are a God of mercy and righteousness who knows all things and who's judgments are always just.

That is a perfect legitimate question, and it is very precise. We do not gain heaven on our own merit. We do not gain heaven on the basis of our works. If you think that we do you are lost. You need Christ. It is Christ that saves, not we that save ourselves.

Its like you read the first couple sentences of my post and skipped over the rest. I gave several reasons why its not that precise. Please do me the favor of dealing with my arguments before simply jumping back to your (unsupported as of yet) assertion.

 

[DHK]

My answer? Ok I will play along...
You should allow me into heaven because you are a God of mercy and righteousness who knows all things and who's judgments are always just.

If I broke the law (let's say by speeding); if the speed limit was 30 mph, and I went 60 mph through that zone, then the police pull me over and start to issue me a ticket for breaking the law. If I tell him that the law is always just, but ask for mercy any way, what do you think he would do.
He would think I am crazy. I am asking for mercy based on a just law.

I have broken God's law. I must pay the penalty. The penalty is eternal death, or eternal separation in a place called Hell. There is no mercy. Unless I accept the payment that Christ already paid on my behalf I must pay that penalty myself and go to hell. Thankfully Christ paid it for me. If I trust Him He will clothe me in His righteousness. He will justify me. He will put me in that position whereupon God will see me "just as if I never sinned." I will stand holy before God.

An unholy person cannot stand before a holy God. They need the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to do so. Unless one trusts Christ as Savior and has that righteousness, they can in no way enter into God's heaven.
Asking for mercy based on God's law will not do it. God's law only condemns.

 

[dwmoeller1]

If I broke the law (let's say by speeding); if the speed limit was 30 mph, and I went 60 mph through that zone, then the police pull me over and start to issue me a ticket for breaking the law. If I tell him that the law is always just, but ask for mercy any way, what do you think he would do.
He would think I am crazy. I am asking for mercy based on a just law.

I didn't ask for mercy. I merely "reminded" God of His nature and left the judgement up to him. What is objectionable about that?

If however, I had already received immunity for past and present violations and I knew that the cop knew this fact, then when he asks me why he should let me go, I will just remind him of his just nature knowing he will remember the immunity I have and make the proper judgement. Why should my reason have to include reasons which I know he already knows?

I have broken God's law. I must pay the penalty. The penalty is eternal death, or eternal separation in a place called Hell. There is no mercy. Unless I accept the payment that Christ already paid on my behalf I must pay that penalty myself and go to hell. Thankfully Christ paid it for me. If I trust Him He will clothe me in His righteousness. He will justify me. He will put me in that position whereupon God will see me "just as if I never sinned." I will stand holy before God.

An unholy person cannot stand before a holy God. They need the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to do so. Unless one trusts Christ as Savior and has that righteousness, they can in no way enter into God's heaven.
Asking for mercy based on God's law will not do it. God's law only condemns.

Right. How does this contradict my answer. If I am a believer, I can know by His nature (mercy, omniscience, righteous judge) that He will judge accordingly.

See, you are looking at the question in a narrow way. Yeah, i know what sort of answer you are hoping for (I went through EE ) But I chose to look at the question in the way that comes more naturally to me and answer it on that basis. You find fault with my answer not because it is false or objectionable, but because it doesn't fit your narrow view of the question.

But like I said, I gave detailed reasons why the question is problematic as you are trying to use it. Deal with my reasoning please. Demonstrate that the other views I proposed are unreasonable and that your view is the only reasonable way to take the question. For now I assert again (based on support already given) that the question is just too imprecise, too ambiguous to use in the manner you trying.

 

[DHK]

Did Christ die for the sins of the whole world? Yes.
Does God offer forgiveness of sins an eternal life to everyone? Yes.
Are some people still judged and sent to hell? Yes
Therefore, I can only conclude that forgiveness is conditional upon something. If everyone *could* be forgiven, but not everyone *is* forgiven, then forgiveness is obviously conditional.

Let's define a condition.
When a transaction is made it is conditioned on something that one or each party does. I may buy a house, conditioned on the seller meeting certain requirements. He may have to fix certain things. He will have to do...
Belief is not a condition. It is not something you do. It does not fall in the realm of conditions.

If forgiveness is not conditional, then everyone should be forgiven.

All who believe will be forgiven.

As to Scripture there are numerous verses showing that salvation is conditional. For instance: Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. This is a conditional statement - in effect "IF you believe, THEN you will be saved."

Belief is not a condition. Salvation is a free gift. Therefore it is unconditional. No free gift ever yet had condition. I must receive it by faith. That is not a condition. There is nothing that I do to receive it. There is no work involved, and therefore no condition.

Now, what salvation is NOT conditional upon is works or obedience to the law. It is however, clearly conditional upon belief and repentance. Those who don't believe and repent won't be saved - those who do will be saved. Really, how can you consider this basic doctrine to be exceptionable?

It is not conditioned on repentance per se. Repentance is simply a change of mind with respect to one's attitude to God. Repentance is toward God.
If one thinks of repentance as repenting from one's sin then that is works, and is not in God's plan of salvation. Biblical repentance, in reference to salvation, is simply the flip side of faith. When one puts their faith in Christ he has repented.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Let's define a condition.
When a transaction is made it is conditioned on something that one or each party does. I may buy a house, conditioned on the seller meeting certain requirements. He may have to fix certain things. He will have to do...

Ok, its good to define terms since we have a very different use for this word. Let me explain what I mean by "conditional". Conditional: subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition. Condition: something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else.

When something is conditioned, it is based on something that something that is essential. What that something is may be something someone does, or just something that is. The key is the occurrence, not whether someone is doing something or not.

A conditional is something that can be stated in terms of if...then. So, for instance, thunder is conditional upon lighting. If lighting doesn't occur, then neither will thunder. Contrapositively, If thunder occured, then lighting occured as well.

So, by my meaning of the "conditional" when I say that salvation is conditional that means that some things must occur before it is a reality for a person. It doesn't really matter if you see belief as being an action or something somebody does, all that matters for my logic is that it must *occur* before/with salvation. If it helps, every time you see me say "conditional" just insert "if/then proposition". Salvation is an if/then proposition. It only occurs IF something occurs before/with it.

Make sense?

All who believe will be forgiven.

IOW, If one believes, then one will be forgiven. This is called a conditional statement FWIW.

Belief is not a condition. Salvation is a free gift. Therefore it is unconditional. No free gift ever yet had condition. I must receive it by faith. That is not a condition.

FWIW, election is the only part of the process salvation which isn't conditional.

By my meaning of the word "conditional" belief/repentance *is* a condition. I am not insisting that my definition is the only right one (although it is certainly one right one - after all, my definitions are pulled from the dictionary), or that yours is wrong. I merely point out what *I* meant by it and ask that, given my explanation, reevaluate my argument based on the meaning I was assigning to the word.

So I am back to Scripture again. Paul gives the proposition that: If you believe on the Lord, then you will be saved. Thats a conditional proposition.

But anyways, feel free to use your own terms. The basic logic of that posts still stands. Now no more claims can be made that Matt 18 is being skipped over or ignored.

 

[DHK]

But anyways, feel free to use your own terms. The basic logic of that posts still stands. Now no more claims can be made that Matt 18 is being skipped over or ignored.

The doctrine that Bob pulls from the parable given in Mat.18 can be ignored (forgiveness revoked) because:
1. That is not the focus of the parable.
2. That is not the teaching of the parable.
3. That is "his doctrine" being pulled out of the parable not supported elsewhere by the Bible.

Parables support doctrine, not teach doctrine.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The doctrine that Bob pulls from the parable given in Mat.18 can be ignored (forgiveness revoked) because:
1. That is not the focus of the parable.
2. That is not the teaching of the parable.

Both of which may be true, yet considering that Christ was dealing with the nature of the kingdom and forgiveness, the fact that Christ includes a line of events which seems contradictory to what would be expected by OSAS, it would, at the least, seem specious to gloss over it like this. IOW, it may not be the focus or explicit teaching, but it may indicate something about "God's economy". It can't be simply ignored by pooh-poohing it. Esp. not when it can be dealt with logically and concisely and within Bob's own parameters.

They may make too much out of it, but its not reasonable to make too little. For one, even though I agree with you, it *does* look like a blow off.

3. That is "his doctrine" being pulled out of the parable not supported elsewhere by the Bible.

So take the time and effort to demonstrate its faults, rather than just gloss over it with unsupported assertions. He may be taking it too far but not so far as to deserve only a passing answer. And I say this as one who agrees that he is wrong.

Just saying....

 

[DHK]

So take the time and effort to demonstrate its faults, rather than just gloss over it with unsupported assertions. He may be taking it too far but not so far as to deserve only a passing answer. And I say this as one who agrees that he is wrong.

Just saying....

Many of us on this board, including myself, having been doing that for a number of years. Bob rejects our explanations and our Scriptural rebuttals. That is why I did not bother to repost it again. I know you are knew here. But it is old hat to many who have been here for a while.

 

[steaver]

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.

"Saved" is "born again". Spirit giving birth to spirit. This cannot occur without a "knowledge" provided by God of Jesus Christ being the "way the truth and the life".

Mat 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Regeneration is "revealed truth" directly into one's spirit. It is "knowledge". The lost cannot understand the born of God, they must "experience" the rebirth in order to "know" Jesus Christ.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Jhn 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God;

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

It is an impossibility for one to be born of God according to the scriptures and then decide not to believe anymore.

One cannot stop believing in that which they have personal absolute knowledge of is a truth.

I know whom I have believed in. The only way I can know Him is through the rebirth.

These facts refute any possibility that a born of God believer can stop believing.

Sin is transgession of the law. The law cannot disannul faith.

Gal 3:17And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect

Christ has perfected forever those who are born of God;

Hbr 10:14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

What does this leave the anti-osas camp with?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Many of us on this board, including myself, having been doing that for a number of years. Bob rejects our explanations and our Scriptural rebuttals. That is why I did not bother to repost it again. I know you are knew here. But it is old hat to many who have been here for a while.

Ok, understood.

 

[dwmoeller1]

"Saved" is "born again". Spirit giving birth to spirit. This cannot occur without a "knowledge" provided by God of Jesus Christ being the "way the truth and the life".

Mat 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Regeneration is "revealed truth" directly into one's spirit. It is "knowledge". The lost cannot understand the born of God, they must "experience" the rebirth in order to "know" Jesus Christ.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Jhn 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God;

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

It is an impossibility for one to be born of God according to the scriptures and then decide not to believe anymore.

One cannot stop believing in that which they have personal absolute knowledge of is a truth.

I know whom I have believed in. The only way I can know Him is through the rebirth.

These facts refute any possibility that a born of God believer can stop believing.

Sin is transgession of the law. The law cannot disannul faith.

Gal 3:17And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect

Christ has perfected forever those who are born of God;

Hbr 10:14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

What does this leave the anti-osas camp with?

This is a substantially different argument than the "you can't lose your salvation thus OSAS". Since my goal is not to argue against the fact that the truly saved will always be saved (since I agree with it), I will simply recognize the above as a substantial argument without any glaring fallacies and leave it at that (for now at least).

However two things
1. I want it to be recognized that one can agree with everything you said and still not hold to a OSAS doctrine. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints also agrees with everything you say, yet still finds fault with OSAS on some other points. So, while I would probably agree with a well reasoned OSAS position for that I would a free-will position, I still am technically anti-OSAS.

2. For the oldies here you have probably dealt with it before, but for my sake can someone give at least the outline of how the OSAS position would deal with Heb 6:1-8.

 

[steaver]

2. For the oldies here you have probably dealt with it before, but for my sake can someone give at least the outline of how the OSAS position would deal with Heb 6:1-8.

Check out the "Perfection" thread. It is a good read!

:wavey: