OSAS Question

[Eternally Grateful]

Okay, fair enough. Let's return to the topic.

In my view OSAS fails on the premise "once saved", rather than the conclusion "always saved." The argument against OSAS follows two distinct tracts: 1) OSAS can't be true otherwise Jesus and the apostles wouldn't warn people against falling away. 2) OSAS can't be true because the confirmation of true and genuine faith relies on factors other than verbal affirmation.

Your initial post touches on the second line of argument. And without disagreeing with your view, I would like to point out that arguments against OSAS are not actually arguments against OSAS. But rather, the dispute centers on a different premise: "once believed always saved", which is the topic of your initial post in this thread. I'd say that both argument tracts make this faulty assumption.

Ironically, both sides of the debate take it as given that belief is immediately rewarded with salvation, and the question is whether or not that initial award (promise) of salvation can be rescinded. In my view, the Bible does not actually teach us that belief is immediately rewarded with salvation. The notion that immediate salvation upon belief should not be taken as granted. Such a notion must be proven from scripture and I don't think the premise will bear under the facts.

Some have pointed out, even in this thread, that those who fall away were never saved in the first place. One could argue that salvation always remains a promise and isn't actualized until glorification, but I think the Bible finds a middle ground where glorification becomes the terminus of a life lived in sanctification, and by sanctification I don't mean "doing holy and good things", I mean, "having the right attitude and perspective." Having the proper inwardness is also a gift of salvation, which will find it's goal in glorification.

Instead of "justification by faith alone", our slogan should be "salvation by sanctification." We are not "saved" past tense. We are "being saved" present tense continuous action, and the essence of salvation is what Paul calls "enlightenment." (not the modern definition.) Ephesians 1:1-19

The Bible says

1. we have been saved, (eternal salvation) not by our righteous works, it by Gods mercy this is called justification or positional sanctificarion

2. we are being saved from the power of sin, as we grow in our saved state and work out the salvation in us, god, who perfected us by one sacrifice, continues in sanctification or as paul said, he who began a good work will complete that work until the day of Christ. this is called conditional sanctification or christian growth

3. we will be saved, from all the results of sin and from the ability to even commit sin, this is called glorification it is where the 1st two types of salvation meet, it is where the thing God said he will complete is finished, it is where our justification and sanctificarion meet as one and is complete

the problem is, many want to mix the first two, and claim unless number 2 is met, then number one will fail (salvation can be lost)

in a nutshell, that is the argument,

#1 is by grace through faith alone
#2 is by God working in us and us working to trust in him. Ie, the works paul mentioned in eph 2:10 in which all Christians will do, although many will reach greater levels than others, many may remain babes, but they are not without work,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Paul's analogy is making a point about Israel taken as a whole, and as it is with all generalities, what is true of the group is not necessarily true of each and every member of the group. He is making the same point about The Gentile nations, taken as a whole.

Amen, he is telling Gentiles not to get puffed up, in essence just as Israel failed, the Gentiles will fail in the same way

sadly we see it today

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Paul's analogy is making a point about Israel taken as a whole

I'm not arguing that point. It's for the very reason that Paul is talking about Israel as a nation that Romans 11:29 does not mean once a person is saved they are always saved. The calling and gifting of the nation itself—composed of different people throughout history—is irrevocable. Paul himself being proof that the calling and gifting of the nation of Israel still stands and will never be taken away. Meanwhile, we have millions of Jews in hell today who are not participating in the calling and gifting of Israel, even though it's irrevocable, wondering why Osas says they can't lose their calling and gifting.

The plan will never change. Who's included in the plan can and does change. That's why we're exhorted to keep believing. The writer of Hebrews talks about this same thing in Hebrews 6:17-18. And because it's a plan set in place by the word of God himself and will never fail we would do good to continue to believe in so great a hope—Hebrews 10:23. People can't 'see' this anymore in the scriptures because of the powerful indoctrination of Osas thought.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

the problem is, many want to mix the first two, and claim unless number 2 is met, then number one will fail (salvation can be lost)

If number 2 is not met because a person has stopped believing they will in fact lose their salvation. Osas comes down to whether or not a true believer can ever stop believing. I don't labor over that question. I just go with the Bible that says we are to continue to believe to the very end because the hope that we confess is so great. The implication being, you'll lose that hope if you don't continue to believe. IMO, Osas is a horrible distraction to this simple counsel in scripture—keep believing.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm not arguing that point. It's for the very reason that Paul is talking about Israel as a nation that Romans 11:29 does not mean once a person is saved they are always saved. The calling and gifting of the nation itself—composed of different people throughout history—is irrevocable. Paul himself being proof that the calling and gifting of the nation of Israel still stands and will never be taken away. Meanwhile, we have millions of Jews in hell today who are not participating in the calling and gifting of Israel, even though it's irrevocable, wondering why Osas says they can't lose their calling and gifting.

My point is that you can't use Romans 11 to make that point because Paul isn't making that point there. He makes it elsewhere, but not there.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

My point is that you can't use Romans 11 to make that point because Paul isn't making that point there. He makes it elsewhere, but not there.

Yeah, I get that. You're saying it's neither a Osas passage, nor an anti-Osas passage. It is definitely not a Osas passage. But it does point us in the anti-Osas direction. For what good does it do for the believing gentiles to fear that the gentile church as a whole could lose it's position of prominence except that it's talking about loss of salvation for those who don't fear God?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Amen, he is telling Gentiles not to get puffed up, in essence just as Israel failed, the Gentiles will fail in the same way

sadly we see it today

Agreed. The time of the Gentiles is almost over. I welcome revival, but I don't look to hope.

 

[mailmandan]

I know that Wikipedia classifies "perseverance of the saints" as OSAS, but it isn't.

I like the term “preservation of the Saints.” Psalm 37:28 - For the Lord loves justice,
And does not forsake His saints;
They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yeah, I get that. You're saying it's neither a Osas passage, nor an anti-Osas passage. It is definitely not a Osas passage. But it does point us in the anti-Osas direction. For what good does it do for the believing gentiles to fear that the gentile church as a whole could lose it's position of prominence except that it's talking about loss of salvation for those who don't fear God?

Paul's analogy is tricky, at least it is for me. I think Paul is answering the question, "does God no longer consider Israel to be his holy people?" And so the tree doesn't represent salvation as such; the tree represents the "holy people". Who are the original holy people? The patriarchs. These are the root of the tree.

The best explanation that I have read concerning the olive tree analogy was given by my friend and pastor and mentor Jack Crabtree. He points out Paul's assertion that God offered salvation to the Gentiles in order to make them Jealous. And he believes this idea is key to understanding Paul's analogy. Paul is getting this idea from a passage in Deuteronomy.

Romans 11:11
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

Deuteronomy 32:16
‘They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation . . .

Three chapters earlier, Moses tells the people, "Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here today." In other words, Moses anticipated a future generation of people who would abandon their idols and worship the one and true God. Jack refers to this promise as a "transgenerational" promise, one that anticipates that day. Therefore, in line with Paul's analogy, each succeeding generation of Israel that continued to worship idols was cut off the "holy tree" i.e. not a holy people. One day, when they turn to the Lord and give up idolatry they will be grafted in again.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I like the term “preservation of the Saints.” Psalm 37:28 - For the Lord loves justice,
And does not forsake His saints;
They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.

Right, just as Peter said also. "who are protected by the power of God" 1Peter 1:3-9 and 2Peter 1:10-11

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Right, just as Peter said also. "who are protected by the power of God" 1Peter 1:3-9 and 2Peter 1:10-11

"...through faith."

Which instantly rules out the new Osas. It's a joke. It can be ignored. There is no protection of God's power outside of faith in God. So the question of any reasonable Osas argument always comes down to whether or not a true believer can ever stop believing. We just have to settle that in our own minds according to our own station in faith. What's important is what scripture does address directly. Believers are told to keep believing because the promises are so great. Of course, that implies that true believers can stop believing. And it implies that the promises themselves are what are eternal, not the believers possession of the promises in this age (your possession of the eternal promises being conditional on your continued believing). But the important thing is that all true believers heed the exhortation of scripture to keep believing. Because only believing people have the hope of eternal things to come.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

And so the tree doesn't represent salvation as such; the tree represents the "holy people". Who are the original holy people? The patriarchs. These are the root of the tree.

Why would the tree not be Christ? The root being God the Father, and the nourishing life blood of the tree, and it's branches (us), being the Holy Spirit.

 

[CadyandZoe]

"...through faith."

Which instantly rules out the new Osas. It's a joke. It can be ignored. There is no protection of God's power outside of faith in God. So the question of any reasonable Osas argument always comes down to whether or not a true believer can ever stop believing. We just have to settle that in our own minds according to our own station in faith. What's important is what scripture does address directly. Believers are told to keep believing because the promises are so great. Of course, that implies that true believers can stop believing. And it implies that the promises themselves are what are eternal, not the believers possession of the promises in this age (your possession of the eternal promises being conditional on your continued believing). But the important thing is that all true believers heed the exhortation of scripture to keep believing. Because only believing people have the hope of eternal things to come.

I wonder if you have taken the warnings too far? Peter seems very emphatic about the power of God to keep someone believing. Obviously, the warnings imply failure, but this is is logical in the natural. But what if salvation is a miracle? This would imply that the warnings, for some, are the context in which the miracle of salvation makes sense.

It's like this. Could Jesus have produced wine out of thin air? Yes. But he decided to produce wine from water and the context was a wedding. The miracles always seem to be understood within the immediate situation and for a divine purpose or message. Wouldn't we expect the miracle of salvation to take place within the context of challenges to our faith?

Get what I'm asking?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

He said he stopped believing. He was still saved?

There are only one of two answers. Either they were never saved and only looked like a Christian (Matt and 1 John) or they are saved and backsliding.

Sin is no the issue. It was paid for. If they experienced the new birth, they are a child of God, given eternal life (not probationary eternal life), seared in heavenly places, justified, redeemed, glorified and perfected forever. That is Scripture One cannot become UN-born again. Thien born again, again, then un born again-again and then born again-again-again.

Once a child always a child. They may be a disobedient child, but they are still a child. Or they were never saved to b egini with and when the proper impretus came, they shopwed themselves unsaved.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why would the tree not be Christ? The root being God the Father, and the nourishing life blood of the tree, and it's branches (us), being the Holy Spirit.

What you say is true and that is certainly the point Jesus made with his vine metaphor. Paul, however, is making a different point with his Olive Tree metaphor.

Bear in mind, in this section of Romans Paul is asking, then answering a series of rhetorical questions. So lets look at a couple of verses.

Consider Romans 11:11
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they?

Then Romans 1116
If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.

As we are trying to figure out what Paul means here, we should keep his original question in mind. In other words, when we finally come to the correct interpretation of Romans 11:16, our understanding will be able to answer the question he posed in Romans 11:11. How does verse 16 support the thesis question in verse 11? In other words, though Israel stumbles, as David suggests, the question is whether or not Israel fell to her destruction when she stumbled. Did she stumble so as to fall? Paul says no. And he will explain why? And somehow, verse 16 and following explains it.

The idea that Christ is the tree and God is the root, while true in some sense, seems out of place in Paul's argument here in Romans 11. How does THAT truth answer the question as to why Israel didn't fall to her destruction?

See what I'm saying? The true interpretation of the Olive Tree metaphor needs to address the question Paul raised. That's how I treat my own interpretations. Does my interpretation make sense of the question? If not, I have more work to do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There are only one of two answers. Either they were never saved and only looked like a Christian (Matt and 1 John) or they are saved and backsliding.

Sin is no the issue. It was paid for. If they experienced the new birth, they are a child of God, given eternal life (not probationary eternal life), seared in heavenly places, justified, redeemed, glorified and perfected forever. That is Scripture One cannot become UN-born again. Thien born again, again, then un born again-again and then born again-again-again.

Once a child always a child. They may be a disobedient child, but they are still a child. Or they were never saved to b egini with and when the proper impretus came, they shopwed themselves unsaved.

Your grandkids have a wise grandmother.

 

[kcnalp]

There are only one of two answers. Either they were never saved and only looked like a Christian (Matt and 1 John) or they are saved and backsliding.

Sin is no the issue. It was paid for. If they experienced the new birth, they are a child of God, given eternal life (not probationary eternal life), seared in heavenly places, justified, redeemed, glorified and perfected forever. That is Scripture One cannot become UN-born again. Thien born again, again, then un born again-again and then born again-again-again.

Once a child always a child. They may be a disobedient child, but they are still a child. Or they were never saved to b egini with and when the proper impretus came, they shopwed themselves unsaved.

Saved and backsliding? So you're agreeing that unbelievers will be in Heaven?

 

[Amazed@grace]

The question is, can a true believer stop believing? Settle that and you've settled the Osas debate. What matters is that you do what the Bible tells us to do—keep believing.

Deflection answers the challenge. Thank you.

God will never stop believing in us.
Sovereignty, Omniscience, knew our name before the world was made.
We think God doesn't also know what trials we'll face? That we will backslide?
The anti-eternal Salvation doctrine denies God first. It denies God is Sovereign. It calls his book of eternal life a lie. It insists God lied when he tells us all things are predestined according to his will, his plans, and for his own Glory.
It calls Jesus Gospel false.

God died to bring eternal irrevocable salvation to his elect. To fulfill the prophecy and the promise of Messiah. God cannot deny himself.


2 Timothy 2:13
“If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”

Anti-eternal life doctrine calls that falsity too.

Pray against that which enters into the church and commits to the effort to call God a liar.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Saved and backsliding? So you're agreeing that unbelievers will be in Heaven?

No.

But the belief that saves us is a one time act of faith. A believer can go through doubt and even no longer believe Jesus died for them. If they were trule born again, they are saved! They should and will return from that valley of death, for that is Gods Promise!

They may not look saved during the time of backsliding, but God sees the inside while we can only see the outside asnd guess what is inside. We cannot make that judgment as to their eternal condition, but Scripture does tell us, that when one is saved, they are a new creature and endowed with all the benefits I listed, and they are eternal.

As jesus said, no man may pluck a person out of His hands, and that means we cannot pluck ourselves (unless of course your name is "NO MAN" LOL)

He said He will NEVER leave us or forsake us! Never means never every time!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Deflection answers the challenge.

There is no deflection. There is nothing in Osas that can't be challenged.