Non-OSAS belief - undermines the cross

[Jonathan_Gale]

John MacArthur's teaching on John 15:1-6, starting from 17:47 to 19:00, the idea of using this portion as proof text to deny OSAS is explicitly denounced.

 

[B-A-C]

John MacArthur's teaching on John 15:1-6, starting from 17:47 to 19:00, the idea of using this portion as proof text to deny OSAS is explicitly denounced.

Of course even though no one else can take you from Jesus's hand, you are free to walk away on your own. Also, even though no one can snatch you from Jesus's hand. He Himself will will have some in His kingdom
thrown out. ( Matt 13:41; ) which of course refutes MacArthur's teaching.

One thing this thread proves... that rarely is anyone's mind ever changed on this subject.
So then, why have the debate at all?

I guess that'll teach me to take a few days off for Thanksgiving. I hope everyone had a great one.

 

[Butch5]

Rom 10:13 Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Please see post 5 and 34. If you have time also read post 10, 13 and 30.

But, this passage doesn't say one can't lose salvation. You're drawing and inference. That assumes you correctly understand the passage. In context Paul is expressing the message that he preaches. He's not even addressing what happens to those who turn away.

Adam did not go off into eternal torment in the lake fire.

In the case of your annihilationist view, Adam did not get burnt and cease to exist after he sinned.

That's not the issue. Adam had eternal life and lost it. Your contention is that it can't be lost. We see it can be.

No, butch, you do not get to dismiss Heb 13:5 just because the same line is mentioned in Joshua and 'Israel sinned'. It describes a factual characteristic of God and that is the reason I quoted it.

Israel was not a born again sanctified person. Please read here What is a Christian and how do you become one? to see the difference between 'Israel' and a born again Christian.

I didn't dismiss it. I put it in context. That's how we should read Scripture. Here is the verse you quoted.

5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 13:4–5.

Paul says, "for he hath said". That tells us that he is quoting what God said somewhere. That somewhere is the book of Joshua. Since Paul is quoting a specific event, the context of that event is important to understanding what Paul is saying. In that event God eft Joshua. That shows that it is not an unconditional statement.

 

[PloughBoy]

Of course even though no one else can take you from Jesus's hand, you are free to walk away on your own. Also, even though no one can snatch you from Jesus's hand. He Himself will will have some in His kingdom
thrown out. ( Matt 13:41; ) which of course refutes MacArthur's teaching.

One thing this thread proves... that rarely is anyone's mind ever changed on this subject.
So then, why have the debate at all?

I guess that'll teach me to take a few days off for Thanksgiving. I hope everyone had a great one.

A SLAVE of God, who has been bought and paid in full by "The BLOOD of HIS SON" is not free to just get up and walk away, The slave owners have "ANGELS" they will come and who can resist The POWERS of GOD!

Evidently you did not get the "MEMO"! The FATHER got Me STRAIGHT long ago, Me, telling Him, what I ain't going do!
He STRAIGHTEN me OUT!

1 Corinthians 6 ASV
"Or Know Ye Not That YOUR BODY is A TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH is in you, which ye have from GOD? and YE ARE NOT YOUR OWN;FOR YE WERE BOUGHT WITH A PRICE: GLORIFY GOD Therefore In Your Body." And When He bought that to my attention, He was Not ASKING! Ands He sure did not sound {That Is A COMMAND}.
Like he was In Love! It SHOOK Like "MT. SINAI"!

Matthew 17 NASB
"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud over shadowed them, And Behold, a voice from the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!” 6When the disciples heard this, They Fell Face Down To The Ground and were TERRIFIED

If you can walk away, you never was really there. You thought and they thought you was there.

We talking About "GOD" and Not a MAN. The only reason the Sun comes up because GOD told it too! And when He Tells You to Go to "NINEVEH" you going! If he personally tells you. You going. Whether you like it or not!

 

[KingJ]

But, this passage doesn't say one can't lose salvation. You're drawing and inference. That assumes you correctly understand the passage. In context Paul is expressing the message that he preaches. He's not even addressing what happens to those who turn away.

The passage says ''everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved''. Do you read it differently?

That's not the issue. Adam had eternal life and lost it. Your contention is that it can't be lost. We see it can be.

That is not what OSAS argues. The OSAS argument is in the word OSAS.

Adam was not a saved Christian.

I didn't dismiss it. I put it in context. That's how we should read Scripture. Here is the verse you quoted.

5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 13:4–5.

Paul says, "for he hath said". That tells us that he is quoting what God said somewhere. That somewhere is the book of Joshua. Since Paul is quoting a specific event, the context of that event is important to understanding what Paul is saying. In that event God eft Joshua. That shows that it is not an unconditional statement.

You are just wanting to argue this point. There are many more passages that state He will not leave nor forsake His people.

 

[KingJ]

Are you kidding? Read the very text you quoted out of. Verses are not biblical neither are they ordain or Inspired by GOD. the text is.

Scripture? Quote it, or stop trolling please.

 

[Waggles]

DEPART or, apostatize. Gr. aphistēmi (S# G868, Luke 2:37; compare S# G646, apostasia, Acts 21:21 g and 2Thess 2:3 g).
Those who support the unqualified doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved," or unconditional eternal security, are in direct denial of another Bible doctrine, the doctrine or teaching of the Bible regarding the possibility and danger of apostasy.
There is much in the Bible on the subject of apostasy, and it cannot simply be ignored or "swept under the rug."
Those who teach unconditional eternal security need to consider whether the direct statements of Scripture affirm apostasy is possible.
One cannot logically be said to depart, fall away, or apostatize from a faith which one never held in the first place.
Paul is addressing these warnings to believers, not unbelievers.
Certainly there would be no point in warning believers against what was impossible.
While the Bible emphatically teaches the eternal security of the believer, and makes the security of salvation in no sense dependent upon good works to stay saved, this security belongs to believers who continue to place their faith in Christ for salvation, not unconditionally to persons who by a single act of faith allegedly "received Christ" but have since departed from the faith doctrinally or morally.
The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury by Jerome H. Smith © 2004

 

[PloughBoy]

Scripture? Quote it, or stop trolling please.

Well, what is scripture and how many kinds are there, and do all Religions have "Scripture"? And that is not a trick question.

How about trolling this work for edification.

The Christian Writer's Manual of Style, Fourth Edition​

https://www.christianbook.com › robert-hudson



Focusing on the unique demands of religious publications, The Christian Writer's Manual of Style is the most detailed and comprehensive guide of its kind.
By: Robert Hudson
Publication Date: 2016
Format: Paperback

 

[B-A-C]

A SLAVE of God, who has been bought and paid in full by "The BLOOD of HIS SON" is not free to just get up and walk away, The slave owners have "ANGELS" they will come and who can resist The POWERS of GOD!

God doesn't force anyone. People have the ability to resist if they choose to.

Acts 7:51; "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

But you're right, you were bought with a price and you belong to the master. The master can do whatever He chooses with you.
Some slaves the Master will have good things to say to.

Matt 25:21; "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'

..other slaves, not so much.

Matt 25:26; "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
Matt 25:30; "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

So then, why have the debate at all?

To let iron sharpen iron.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Of course even though no one else can take you from Jesus's hand, you are free to walk away on your own. Also, even though no one can snatch you from Jesus's hand. He Himself will will have some in His kingdom
thrown out. ( Matt 13:41; ) which of course refutes MacArthur's teaching.

That is known as the one and only unpardonable sin, "blaspheming against the holy spirit". MacArthur points out that a person is like Judas who's been in Yeshua's ministry, but he was never saved in the first place. In another word, he had never abided in Christ. This is the same as the tares among the wheats.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

But, this passage doesn't say one can't lose salvation. You're drawing and inference. That assumes you correctly understand the passage. In context Paul is expressing the message that he preaches. He's not even addressing what happens to those who turn away.

That's not the issue. Adam had eternal life and lost it. Your contention is that it can't be lost. We see it can be.

I didn't dismiss it. I put it in context. That's how we should read Scripture. Here is the verse you quoted.

5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 13:4–5.

Paul says, "for he hath said". That tells us that he is quoting what God said somewhere. That somewhere is the book of Joshua. Since Paul is quoting a specific event, the context of that event is important to understanding what Paul is saying. In that event God eft Joshua. That shows that it is not an unconditional statement.

Seriously, man, and everyone who denies OSAS, put down the bible and ask yourself this: if salvation can be lost, what's the point of being saved? Is it worth of giving up everything for a temporary salvation that is contingent upon your behavior? Where is your faith while you lecture on me about faith?

 

[KingJ]

DEPART or, apostatize. Gr. aphistēmi (S# G868, Luke 2:37; compare S# G646, apostasia, Acts 21:21 g and 2Thess 2:3 g).
Those who support the unqualified doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved," or unconditional eternal security, are in direct denial of another Bible doctrine, the doctrine or teaching of the Bible regarding the possibility and danger of apostasy.
There is much in the Bible on the subject of apostasy, and it cannot simply be ignored or "swept under the rug."
Those who teach unconditional eternal security need to consider whether the direct statements of Scripture affirm apostasy is possible.
One cannot logically be said to depart, fall away, or apostatize from a faith which one never held in the first place.
Paul is addressing these warnings to believers, not unbelievers.
Certainly there would be no point in warning believers against what was impossible.
While the Bible emphatically teaches the eternal security of the believer, and makes the security of salvation in no sense dependent upon good works to stay saved, this security belongs to believers who continue to place their faith in Christ for salvation, not unconditionally to persons who by a single act of faith allegedly "received Christ" but have since departed from the faith doctrinally or morally.
The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury by Jerome H. Smith © 2004

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

 

[complete]

 

[Butch5]

Seriously, man, and everyone who denies OSAS, put down the bible and ask yourself this: if salvation can be lost, what's the point of being saved? Is it worth of giving up everything for a temporary salvation that is contingent upon your behavior? Where is your faith while you lecture on me about faith?

Johnathon, this isn't an argument, it's an opinion. Though you may not see any reason for such a salvation doesn't mean there isn't one. A major red flag should be that there is no Scripture that states salvation can't be lost. To make that claim and then argue from inferences doesn't prove the claim. Inferences are subject to error.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Johnathon, this isn't an argument, it's an opinion. Though you may not see any reason for such a salvation doesn't mean there isn't one. A major red flag should be that there is no Scripture that states salvation can't be lost. To make that claim and then argue from inferences doesn't prove the claim. Inferences are subject to error.

Yes it is. I've given you ample amount of examples from the Scripture in my previous posts, but none of that matters because you've probably got the wrong definition of salvation, so I just tried to reason with you. We're not supposed to just brainlessly copy paste scriptures like many of you guys do, we ought to mediate on it and apply it in our lives. The salvation I know was declared on the cross, "IT IS FINISHED!" It was further elaborated in Heb. 9 and 10, that animal sacrifice only temporarily covers sin, his sacrifice paid for all sins of mankind once for all. Your "such a salvation" degrades his perfect atonement for sin to the level of animal sacrifice.

 

[KingJ]

1Cor 9:26; Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
1Cor 9:27; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

... I do this, so I wont be disqualified.

The context of 'disqualified' is not losing salvation. It is to do with not being able to teach.

Take Jimmy Swaggart as an example. Nobody on the face of the planet with more then half a working brain doubts he is en route to heaven. Yet, we know he was disqualified from much witnessing he would have liked to be doing.

'Run', is working for God. Building up rewards in heaven.

If mistakes of sin disqualified one, then Paul would be disqualified. Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Please remember that the moment the word ''works'' is mentioned anyhwere near salvation, you lose the debate. Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The only way to keep face with a non-OSAS belief is to somehow mask 'works' as not being 'works'. As many are desperately trying to do. One way is to use ''faith' as a stand alone word. 'Have faith, don't lose faith'. That is so embarrasing though as believing God sees value in a human believing the 'unseen is seen' is laughable.

 

[Butch5]

The passage says ''everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved''. Do you read it differently?

He's explaining his message. He's not addressing the issue of turning away. Remember there was an issue where Jews believed they alone would be saved. It's all about the context. The verse isn't an independent thought. Here's the problem you face. Paul also said this,

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 9:24–27.

The same Paul that you're using to try to prove your OSAS argument, himself spoke of the possibility of being castaway if he did not continue to strive for the goal. So, as we analyze the situation, we have your understanding of Romans 10:13 and this passage from 1 Cor. 9. The two are contradictory. That means either Paul contradicted himself, I'm misunderstanding the 1 Cor 9 passage or you're misunderstanding the Romans 10:13 passage. This passage in 1 Cor 9 seems pretty clear. From the "context" we see that Paul is speaking of running the race to win a prize. That prize is what he preached. his goal is to achieve that prize and not be cast away. In Romans 10:13 Paul is simply explaining his message. He's not addressing any objections to his message. He's not addressing those who would reject his message. He's not addressing those who would turn away from his message. He's simply explaining the gospel message that he preaches. To take that one sentence and claim it proves that one can't lose salvation is to take that sentence out of context.

That is not what OSAS argues. The OSAS argument is in the word OSAS.

Adam was not a saved Christian.

I've not heard that argument before, that OSAS only applied to Christians. Given that answer maybe you could define what you mean by saved?

You are just wanting to argue this point. There are many more passages that state He will not leave nor forsake His people.

Not at all. What I'm hoping to do is to help Christians see that this method of proof texting which they've been taught is not a valid way of thinking or reasoning. It's erroneous and has lead to much error in the church. It's one of the reasons we have so many different denominations. It seems everyone wants to grab a verse, put their spin on it, and claim the Bible says xyz. We can claim the Bible means xyz until the cows come home. That doesn't mean that's what the author of said verse really means. What that usually means is we're just wrong. Unless we look at all of what an author said on a given subject and reconcile everything he said, we're not very likely to come to a complete or correct understanding of his position on that subject.

Let's look at this from a different angle. If OSAS is what the Scriptures teach, why then don't we find the church teaching it until the 1500's? Prior to the Reformation the entirety of the church taught that salvation could be lost. That's both the eastern and western branches of the church. So, to hold your position you basically have to say that for 1500 years all Christians were wrong and teaching false doctrine. That includes those who were directly taught by the apostles. Not only that, but you'd also have to hold the position that the Gnositcs, the ones John called the spirit of antichrist, had the correct understanding of Scripture and the church had it all wrong. You'd also have to hold to the idea that all of the church leaders and writers who refuted the Gnostics were wrong and again that the Gnostics had the true doctrine of the Bible. There's another implication that you'd have to grapple with, did the apostles fail? If OSAS is true and the entire church taught that salvation could be lost, what does that say about the apostles? Are we to accept that none of their converts got it right? Are we to believe that of all the converts of the apostles had false doctrine? How could the apostles teach one thing, and all of their converts believe the exact opposite? I think it's more likely that they got it right and that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, let their prior Gnostic beliefs influence their understanding of Scripture

So, I would ask you, are you willing to embrace all of that? If so, I'd be interested in your explanation of how that all occurred. You see, the Reformers put their own spin on these passages and that's how we got the OSAS doctrine. It was first presented through Augustine as Perseverance of the Saints. Now, Augustine was a big player in Church history and yet the Church flatly rejected his idea of Perseverance of the Saints. Luther an Augustinian monk and Calvin, who was a Stoic, and who studied Augustine, brought it back. Since they were basically forming a new church and breaking away from the established church, they had no one to oppose their new spins on Scripture. And so, their new spins on Scripture became the established doctrine of their new denomination. If you read the history the church in this era, you'll find that people didn't have the opportunity to question any of these new doctrines. If they did things didn't go well for them. One man Stephen Servatus challenged Calvin on his doctrines. It cost him his life. So, we see how these doctrines got established, it was through the state and through the sword. It was, believe it or else.

This is one of the reasons studying church history is so important. We get to see where and how certain doctrines came into being. It's really hard to accept that a doctrine not taught by the church until the 1550's could possibly have come from the apostles.

 

[Butch5]

Yes it is. I've given you ample amount of examples from the Scripture in my previous posts, but none of that matters because you've probably got the wrong definition of salvation, so I just tried to reason with you. We're not supposed to just brainlessly copy paste scriptures like many of you guys do, we ought to mediate on it and apply it in our lives. The salvation I know was declared on the cross, "IT IS FINISHED!" It was further elaborated in Heb. 9 and 10, that animal sacrifice only temporarily covers sin, his sacrifice paid for all sins of mankind once for all. Your "such a salvation" degrades his perfect atonement for sin to the level of animal sacrifice.

But, that assumes your understanding of those passages is correct. You've not presented anything that "states" salvation can't be lost. I think we all accept that the Scriptures are inerrant. Based on that, they are facts. The question is, how do we understand those facts? In another post, I gave an example of two scientists. They both look at the same fossil and draw two completely different conclusions, why? They both have the same degrees, they both went to the same school, etc. The only different is that one is a creationist and the other an evolutionist. It's the presuppositions that they bring to the evidence. One presupposes that God exists and the other doesn't. These presuppositions lead them to completely different conclusions from the same evidence. So, it's not the evidence that needs to be examined, it's the presuppositions. It's the same here. The Scriptures are the evidence, the presuppositions determine how one interprets that evidence. To solve this, we need to establish which, if either, set of presuppositions is correct. That's why these debates go on and on without any reconciliation. Each side has their presuppositions and sees the scriptures through that lens. The problem is they don't prove their presuppositions are correct. That's why I keep making the point that there is nothing that "states" that salvation can't be lost. We don't have a clear statement saying that. That means everything used is inference, interpretation, or opinion, all of which are based on presuppositions which are subject to error.

Also, if you look at the last part of post 238 there some other reasons to reconsider your position.

 

[Brother-Paul]

An ekklasia is a CALLED OUT ASSEMBLY. It could be an assembly called out for any business, could be a committee, an expert panel, a task force, a board, a council. A church, though, is called out to worship God and learn His Torah. Church wasn't born on Pentecost, it was born when Abraham was called out in Gen. 12:1-3, and all God's people are heirs of Abraham (Gal. 3:28-29).

Greetings

The ekklesia, the church, the body of Christ G1537

Greek Word: ἐκκλησία
Transliteration: ekklēsia
Phonetic Pronunciation: ek-klay-see’-ah
Root: from a compound of <G1537> and a derivative of <G2564>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 3:501,394
Part of Speech: n f
Vine’s Words: Assembly, Congregation

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
church 115
assembly 3
[Total Count: 118]

from a compound of <G1537> (ek) and a derivative of <G2564> (kaleo); a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):- assembly, church.

James Strong, “Ἐκκλησία,” Strong’s Talking Greek and Hebrew Dictionary

The Greek term for “church” is ekklesia (found 114 times in the New Testament). In the New Testament context, the word is employed in four senses:

1. It represents the body of Christ worldwide, [regardless of, age, sex, colour, tongue, jew or gentile] over which the Lord functions as head (Mt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:15).
2. The expression can refer to God’s people in a given region , Judia, Samaria, even to the ends of the earth, [God's people those who are born again from above, who abide in Him]
3. Frequently, it depicted a local congregation of Christians (1 Cor. 1:2; To the church [ekklesia] of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified [set apart] in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place [worldwide] call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord
4. It could also signify a group of the Lord’s people assembled for worship [assembly of those set apart, born again, the abiding in Christ ones - Lord's people]