Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

[BobRyan]

Ryrie is suggesting that the doctrines of perseverance and assurance are incompatible. Astonishingly, he wants a doctrine of assurance that allows those who have defected from Christ to be confident of their salvation.

No quantifiable answers to the questions Ryrie raises are available. Indeed, some Christians persist in sin for extended periods of time. But those who do, forfeit their right to genuine assurance. "Serious sin or unwillingness" certainly should cause someone to contemplate carefully the question of whether he or she really loves the Lord. Those who turn away completely (not almost completely, or ninety percent, or fifty percent) demonstrate that they never had true faith.

1. MacArthur addresses explicity - Ryries concern that born again Christians not be deprived of their assurance via the doctrine of perseverance. Ryrie and MacArthur are thus on opposite sides of that fence by MacArthur's own statements above.

2. MacArthur states "SOME CHRISTIANS" persist in sin .. "FORFEIT their RIGHT to genuine assurance" because they "TURN AWAY" completely rather than merely "turning AWAY almost completely".

3. Then MacArthur transitions to the logical 5 point conclusion on pereverance -- saying that those who "TURNED AWAY" from their former state "completely" rather than "almost completely" were never saved to start with. Which is the innexplicable conclusion that Ryrie finds so illogical

Absolutely not. The point MacArthur makes is not about people are "not persevering". He readily states that people can be found in various states of not persevering while still remaining saved. Instead, MacArthur's statement about those who were never saved to begin with is solely applied to the case of a person who totally and finally falls away, not one who is simply "not persevering" at a point in time.

I agree that MacArthur allows for "slips and misses" but he does not allow for the "easy believism" that Ryrie says is the necessary solution for assurance. Ryrie rightly observes that IF you hold up assurance subject to future turning away "completely" then you cannot know if today's assurance is real - until you see that you do not "turn away completely" ten years from today.

BTW I use uppercase letters for emphasis not for heat or volume

Ryrie's protest is summarized in these two questions: "If I come to a fork in the road of my Christian experience and choose the wrong branch and continue on it, does that mean I was never on the Christian road to begin with? For how long can I be fruitless without having a lordship advocate conclude that I was never really saved?"

MacArthur's answer boils down to this:
To the first question, the answer MacArthur gives is, no! A Christian can choose the wrong branch and even continue on it. Therefore, if a person does this, it does not mean they were never on the correct road (ie. no retro deletion for choosing the wrong path and continuing on it).

You will need to show that point beyond doubt - because here is what MacArthur says about the saints ensured to follow the upward course of sanctifiction.

All true believers will be saved to the uttermost. Christ's High Priestly ministry guarantees it. They have been justified, they are being sanctified, and they will be glorified. Not one of them will miss out on any stage of the process, though in this life they all find themselves at different points along the way. The truth has been known historically as the perseverance of the saints.
...
Perseverance means that "those who have true faith can lose that faith neither totally nor finally." It echoes God's promise through Jeremiah: "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me" (32:40

MacArthur on those who turn away completely from their former position -

It is crucial to understand what the biblical doctrine of perseverance does not mean. It does not mean that people who "accept Christ" can then live any way they please without fear of hell.

Notice carefully where Kendall and MacArthur differ

MacArthur

"Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies. But I will not stop there. Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith.

Kendall also writes, "I hope no one will take this as an attack on the Westminster Confession. It is not that." But is precisely that! Kendall expressly argues against Westminster's assertion that faith cannot fail. He believes faith is best characterized as a single look: "one need only see the Sin Bearer once to be saved." This is a full-scale assault against the doctrine of perseverance

...

Those who turn away completely (not almost completely, or ninety percent, or fifty percent) demonstrate that they never had true faith.

Kendal argues IN FAVOR of such a Christian retaining the assurance they had from their conversion experience.

MacArthur "retro-deletes" any assurance they mave have claimed to have -

But lets ignore all that right now and let me ask this. If "retro-deletion" is indeed what a 5 pointer holds, then what is the problem with that position? What difficulties does it raise or what contradictions does it create? In short, how is it objectionable beyond the fact that it doesn't fit within your own system?

Kendal and Ryrie do an excellent job of showing how it negates assurance.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

Is it therefore your contention that once the regeneration takes place, that this recreated individual is, being a new creation, unable to rebel against God via sin?

Not exactly. Unable to rebel can imply that one does not have the faculty to freely will this, or that they are being externally constrained from willing this. In this sense, no they are still able to rebel against God - they have the faculty to will this and nothing external is preventing them from willing to rebel. In fact, because of the corrupt body in which they still reside, they will still sin.

What has changed is their essential nature. Before regeneration they hated God and loved evil at the core of their being. After regeneration they love God and hate evil at the core of their being. They may still be deceived and mired down by the temptations that come from still being tied to the corrupt body, but even while sinning they still, at the core of their being, want to do good. (Rom 7).

If so, then how do you explain the scripture indicating the posibility of falling away?

One can still be deceived. One can still sin. The law of sin is still at work in the body. It is a constant struggle between the new nature that wants to do good and the sin that still resides in the body. One may tire of the struggle or be deceived into thinking that what they really hate is what they really want. Thus a believer may fall away. However, because of their new nature - the nature that loves God at its core - the believer can never totally and finally fall away.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
As Norm Giesler points out - the idea that faith follows regeneration is a flawed argument because it stands Eph 2:8-10 on it's head making it say "for by salvation where you granted faith through grace" - but instead the Word of God actually says "By grace you were saved THROUGH faith" - if you are saved through faith - then faith had to come first.

The problem is that you are equating regeneration with salvation. If regeneration is in some way distinct from salvation (just as election is distinct from both), then Giesler's argument is actually a straw man.

In order to prove that regeneration leads to faith is flawed, you would either have to show
a. that regeneration is equivalent to salvation and then point back to Eph 2:8-10, or
b. show where Scripture indicates that faith precedes or is a necessary condition for regeneration.

If anyone is in Christ (saved) he is a new creation (born-again) - 2Cor 5.

There is no such teaching in all of scripture as "new creation - but not in Christ" or "New Creation - born again but not saved".

In Rev 3 - the OLD man is on the "inside" - alone and without Christ.

Christ said that he stands at the door and knocks - those who open the door - will then find fellowship with Christ - and the New Birth.

Geisler is correct.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

As Norm Giesler points out - the idea that faith follows regeneration is a flawed argument because it stands Eph 2:8-10 on it's head making it say "for by salvation where you granted faith through grace" - but instead the Word of God actually says "By grace you were saved THROUGH faith" - if you are saved through faith - then faith had to come first.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't know anything about Norm,

But your pov has a huge problem with Eph 2. I am surprised you would bring it up. However you did leave out the "not of yourselves" part and the "gift" part. These two facts destroys SDA teaching that your commandment keeping plays a part in your salvation.

 

[steaver]

By "could not" do you mean that the unregenerate isn't allowed to choose God even if they wanted to?

There is no "wanted to" until God "first" makes one aware of a choice to be made.

Rom 10:14¶How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know anything about Norm,

But your pov has a huge problem with Eph 2. I am surprised you would bring it up. However you did leave out the "not of yourselves" part and the "gift" part. These two facts destroys SDA teaching that your commandment keeping plays a part in your salvation.

Steaver -- your habbit of just "making stuff up" is the compelling form of debate that you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Cutter]

Better known as "turning a blind eye to the problems instead of addressing them" - point taken.



Your point dies as soon as the reader remembers that "God created angels" and that "God chose a free will system for his created beings".

Turns out - God actually did Create angels and this IS an example of God's sovereign choice to "sacrifice" in order to preserve free will - choice even though the choice "costs" him 1/3 of His Angels.



Your point dies as soon as the reader remembers that "God created Adam and Eve" and that "God chose a free will system for his created beings".

Turns out - God actually did Create man and this IS an example of God's sovereign choice to "sacrifice" in order to preserve free will - choice even though the choice "costs" him ALL of mankind AND the death of His Son to redeem man.



Your point dies as soon as the reader remembers that "God sovereignly CHOSE Israel" - a chosen race a holy priesthood (yes even AFTER the fall of mankind) - a people for God's Own possession. And that "God chose a free will system for his created beings" in this case seen to be even AFTER the fall of mankind.

Turns out - God actually did Create the nation of Israel and this IS an example of God's sovereign choice to "sacrifice" in order to preserve free will - choice even though the choice "costs" the experience of being rejected by "HIS OWN". "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Hiim not" John 1

[/COLOR]

These are post-cross Christians - making very bad choices and the "cost" for God "soverignly allowing that choice" is that instead of pure Acts 15 Christian church with saved born-again leadershp - the church was in confusion with some leaders saved and some lost and all of them somehow befuddled to the point of going along with some very bad decisions.




I never claimed that God "only gave saved people a choice".

Again - your argument does not make it off the ground.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

Silly me. Here I was thinking that the thread was about OSAS and you have chosen instead to discuss free will.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dw1: However, because of their new nature - the nature that loves God at its core - the believer can never totally and finally fall away.

HP: So here, after all that has been said, we have established absolutely nothing new other than the clear fact that you have not left the Calvinistic/OSAS farm???

 

[steaver]

Steaver -- your habbit of just "making stuff up" is the compelling form of debate that you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

What part of my statement do you find "made up"?

...."But your pov has a huge problem with Eph 2. I am surprised you would bring it up. However you did leave out the "not of yourselves" part and the "gift" part. These two facts destroys SDA teaching that your commandment keeping plays a part in your salvation".....

How about you answer a question and we will see if You believe keeping the commandments plays a part in a Christian's salvation?

A born again believer in Christ chooses to commit adultery engaging in an affair going on for six months knowing full well this is sin. This believer suddenly dies without ever confessing, repenting and asking God for forgiveness of this transgession.

According to your's and SDA pov of scripture, does this believer enter enternal life?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: According to your's and SDA pov of scripture, does this believer enter enternal life?

HP: Why limit this to SDA’s??? What does Scripture say?

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[steaver]

HP: Why limit this to SDA’s??? What does Scripture say?

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

It appears that all of these proof texts are being misconstrued by you.

Here is your problem using these text as supporting your pov...

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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: It appears:

HP: Sorry Steaver, but where in Scripture does it say that those that commit adultery will enter heaven???

 

[steaver]

HP: Sorry Steaver, but where in Scripture does it say that those that commit adultery will enter heaven???

Rom 3:21¶But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, but where in Scripture does it say that those that commit adultery will enter heaven???

 

[Cutter]

Heavenly pilgrim are you a perfect Christian?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Steaver, but where in Scripture does it say that those that commit adultery will enter heaven???

Tell that to Abraham,King David.

 

[DHK]

Steaver, but where in Scripture does it say that those that commit adultery will enter heaven???

Where does it say he won't?
Of course if the adulterer will not enter into heaven, neither will the liar.
And we all know who falls into the category of "a liar."

 

[steaver]

Steaver, but where in Scripture does it say that those that commit adultery will enter heaven???

I already posted one verse...

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Why are you ignoring this ...

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[BobRyan]

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

It appears that all of these proof texts are being misconstrued by you.

Here is your problem using these text as supporting your pov...

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.

Wrong.

HP's quotes are valid - as it turns out.

And the fact that the Law does not invalidate Grace is the very heart of the New Covenant where the Law of God is written on the heart.

The Law as Paul points out in Gal 3 is not "another gospel means of salvation" - and never was.

There has been only ONE gospel in all of time and the Heb 11 list of saints were saved in the same way we are today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A born again believer in Christ chooses to commit adultery engaging in an affair going on for six months knowing full well this is sin. This believer suddenly dies without ever confessing, repenting and asking God for forgiveness of this transgession.

According to your's and SDA pov of scripture, does this believer enter enternal life?

I have a better example - a servant of God is forgiven his entire debt of sin - but then he decides some years later to be unforgiven towards his fellow man - Christ said that the Matt 18 example of "Forgiveness revoked" will apply using these words "SO shall My Father do to each one of you IF YOU do not forgive your brother from your heart".

In your Baptist POV is Christ lying?

in Christ,

Bob