Once Saved, Always Saved?

[Wrangler]

You'd have a point if it actually said habitual. Of course, it doesn't.

It does in my translation.

I'd reject OSAS if 1 Peter 1:23 (just one example) wasn't in the scriptures.

Not an answer to my question. A person forced to change their mind is of the same opinion still.

 

[Wrangler]

As I mentioned in some other post, the word "habitual" is not there.

OK. Let’s examine this claim by perusing a few translations.

KJ21
For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
ASV
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
AMP
For if we go on willfully and deliberately sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice [to atone] for our sins [that is, no further offering to anticipate],
AMPC
For if we go on deliberately and willingly sinning after once acquiring the knowledge of the Truth, there is no longer any sacrifice left to atone for [our] sins [no further offering to which to look forward].
BRG
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

OK. Willfil rather than habitual in these translations. You are still denying the verse is an EXACT answer to your question; there is sin that Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t cover.

 

[mailmandan]

It seems you might be going more by preconceived ideas instead of the context of Hebrews. It's never a good idea to build a doctrine on one or two verses.

Context is key along with properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine. Now if the word 'sanctified' in Hebrews 10:29 is used to describe saved people who lost their salvation as eternal IN-securists teach, then we have a contradiction because the writer of Hebrews in verse 10 said "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and in verse 14, we read, "perfected for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14) So, in Hebrews 10:10, we clearly read ..WE have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. In Hebrews 10:14, we read - For by one offering He has perfected for all time THOSE who are sanctified. To go from sanctified back to un-sanctified would be in contradiction here.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved" and/or "lost their salvation." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 "on the surface" appears to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

Strong's Concordance
hagiazó: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Original Word: ἁγιάζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hagiazó
Phonetic Spelling: (hag-ee-ad'-zo)
Definition: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Usage: I make holy, treat as holy, set apart as holy, sanctify, hallow, purify.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse (and by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the seventh day was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), Moses saved the people after coming down off the mountain (Exodus 19:14), the priests and the Levites saved themselves (1 Chronicles 15:14), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36), the Son saved Himself (John 17:19) and many other things that do not line up with scripture. *Hermeneutics.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to make believers/nominal Christians, not saved people: But WE are not of those who draw back to perdition, but OF THOSE who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the CONTEXT, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as a professing believer, but later renounce their identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the Hebrew community of believers was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

1 John 1:10,

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.​

How do you see that fit in with Hebrews 10:26? Can you honestly say you have never sinned knowingly? Or are all of your sins accidental?

As I previously said, to "sin willfully" here carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows willful, continuous action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

This is Circular Reasoning.
P1. People who do X are not ’genuinely converted.’P2. Person A did X.C. Person A is not ’genuinely converted.’

Bottom line is these people will do or say anything to protect their precious heretical OSAS doctrine.

Including throwing their own momma under the bus if they have to!

 

[rockytopva]

Bottom line is these people will do or say anything to protect their precious heretical OSAS doctrine.

Including throwing their own momma under the bus if they have to!

School bus here we come! John Calvin famously declared, "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail,"

 

[JustMe]

This is Circular Reasoning.

P1. People who do X are not ’genuinely converted.’​

P2. Person A did X.​

C. Person A is not ’genuinely converted.’​

I assume you are referring to Hebrews 10:26, since you did not even bother to label it. Your "X" seems to represent sin, or what you consider to be its equivalent, without any clarification and with considerable negligence and lack of foresight.

Your simplistic classroom logic is meaningless and self-serving, created for your own entertainment. It does not demonstrate any insight or maturity that would indicate you understand or know the verse in question. You merely see an opportunity to mock carefully chosen words through misapplication or misdirection. As if you truly care—you appear to hold a personal bias with a strong agenda to condemn sincere believers.

The interpretation of Hebrews 10:26, particularly the concept of "willful sin," reveals that logical analysis alone is insufficient for understanding its full theological and contextual depth. While logic may suggest that all sin involves the will and thus is "willful" in a basic sense, the Greek term hekousios used in this verse denotes a deliberate, eager, and persistent pattern of sin rather than mere volition. This distinction is critical, as the passage refers not to isolated acts of sin but to a settled, ongoing rejection of Christ and His sacrifice, evidenced by a refusal to repent and a deliberate turning away from Christian fellowship.

As some have said already, this verse is a warning to people who just heard (and mentally absorbed) the gospel and it full meaning, and would ignore it, run from it and continue their old life, willfully sinning as before.

 

[Wrangler]

Funny to see you reject and embrace logic in the same post.

I assume you are referring to Hebrews 10:26, since you did not even bother to label it. Your "X" seems to represent sin, or what you consider to be its equivalent, without any clarification and with considerable negligence and lack of foresight.

This is because context is NOT necessary in logic, which is part of its power. All that is necessary is word integrity, I.e., definition. (Mike Tyson is ‘the baddest’ boxer on the planet meaning very good.)

By contrast, Context is essential to morality.

While logic may suggest that all sin involves the will and thus is "willful" in a basic sense, the Greek term hekousios used in this verse denotes a deliberate, eager, and persistent pattern of sin rather than mere volition.

It is not logic that suggests this; It is definition that allows or rejects it, as I pointed out.

The above is my point in posts with @Rich R. I used the word ‘habitual,‘ which is essentially synonymous with your word choice of meaning, ‘persistent.‘

Stepping back from the weeds of definitions of ancient languages in translation, one cannot believe almighty God sent his son to die horribly on a cross to give license to sin. I trust we agree That there is a difference, a moral difference, between these 2 sets of conditions that Hebrews 10:26 parses:

1. Someone who loses emotional control momentarily, feels guilty, repents and asks for forgiveness with each step.
2. Someone who enjoys sinning, feels no guilt, doesn’t repent or ask for forgiveness with each misstep.

 

[PinSeeker]

If OSAS is true I'll be fine.

You will. <smile> Even if you now, or at any time past or future, think it necessary to be... re-saved... <smile> ...or that any of your previous "savings," uh, "didn't take." <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Jack.

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by his Son..."

All that is saying is...

Uh-oh. That's... definitely an immediate concern when one starts his analysis of just about anything in God's Word by saying, "All that is saying is"... <smile>

...that the author was speaking to Jewish Christians.

Well, Jews of God, yes. But just Christians of Jewish ethnicity, absolutely not.

Unlike Paul's letters...

Wait, are you talking about the same Paul that may ~ may, because we can't say for sure ~ be the author Hebrews? But even if he's not, the "unlike Paul's letters" is a little concerning, too... <smile> ...because... well, read on. <smile>

...the OT is full of OT references to "the fathers."

Well sure it is. So you would... postulate that the Old Testament "fathers" were different from those described by the writer of Hebrews as those who God spoke to then through the prophets? Surely not. And they are our fathers, as the writer of Hebrews says.

Nope! Hold your comments here. Read on... <smile>

Clearly this opening verse informs us that the audience was Jews who were born again.

Ah! Well I agree. True Jews of God. Members of His elect, all those of God's Israel, who, as Paul says in Romans 2:28-29, are those who are Jews not necessarily outwardly but rather inwardly, in whom circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, whose praise is not from man but from God. So yes, all true Jews, who are born again, and thus of God. Jews of God and those born again of the Spirit... those are not two different groups or merely partially overlapping groups, as in a Venn diagram. Those are two different ways of describing the exact same group of people, people of every tongue, tribe, and people group.

However, they were in danger of falling back into the law, so the author was telling them that salvation is in Jesus alone.

Ah, I would partially agree here. Yes, he was telling them that salvation is in Christ alone, for sure. But the error many of them were falling into was thinking salvation was in Jesus plus the law of Moses.

They were already saved, so why go back?

That wasn't the problem. Or, not necessarily the problem, per se, but, well, see above.

If read without preconceived ideas, with open eyes, that is the thrust of the whole book.

Hmmm... I don't think the problem here is preconceived ideas. <smile> No, specifically, the issue is not realizing who the true Jews of God are... who really makes up the Israel of God... His household. And going back to my citation of Hebrews 1:1-2, the author of Hebrews is speaking to and of all Christians, all in Christ, and by extension is just as relevant to you and me today ~ even Gentile Christians that we are ~ as it was in his (the writer of Hebrews) day:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by his Son, Whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2)​

We are included in what he's saying, obviously, because, yes, he's speaking of all true Jews before Jesus came and referring to them as our fathers ~ so yours and mine, too, even though we are Gentile Christians. God spoke through the prophets in that day, but to us He has spoken to us by Jesus. The continuity of God's people through the ages is irrefutable. When we read anything in the Old Testament about how God protected, led, and loved the Israelites of old, we should understand the intimate connection them and us today. They were our fathers. We are them, and they are us. Their history is our history. God has one people, the Israel of God, and this is exactly what Paul says, to me most clearly in Romans 2, 8, 9, and 11, and in Ephesians 1 and 2, especially the latter half of Ephesians 2 (vv. 11-22), cited above. So, as the writer of Hebrews says in closing:

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that He opened for us through the curtain, that is, through His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He Who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." (Hebrews 10:19-25)​

​

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:1-2)​

Oh, I almost didn't include Galatians 3. Yes, the Galatians were all Gentiles. And Paul says to them, "...the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Don't miss those collective pronouns, Rich. Our fathers. Us. We, we, we. Us, us, we, us, us, us... our faith. Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[PinSeeker]

...SLANDER...

Actually, it's written, mailmandan, so that would mean it's libel. But carry on. <smile>

I mean... I'm just poking fun atcha... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Two things can be true at the same time.

The only way to things that are in opposition to each other can possibly both be true is if the two things are in very different senses.

And this is really the problem here concerning "OSAS." If one does not understand "OSAS" correctly, then yes, that is very wrong... <smile> ...but "OSAS" understood correctly is absolutely Biblical. All God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ.

You just don’t want to except the collapse of OSAS.

Now, you said this to Rich, but I think he accepts the collapse of OSAS ~ and advocates it as wrong. But... he's wrong...

Said differently, what set of words would need to be assembled for you to accept OSAS is a doctrine allowing sin with impunity...

But it is absolutely not that. Many perceive it as so, but "OSAS," if understood correctly, only says there is now no more condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. Which... is exactly what Paul says in Romans 8:1. <smile>

But now consequences for sin... Yes, indeed, there are consequences for sin, even today. But God disciplines those He loves...

...which is anti-Scriptural...

Well... "bad OSAS" is anti-Scriptural, yes. <smile> These people we refer to as antinomians. Yes, those people do believe there are no consequences for sin, and basically, yes, that they can sin all they want. And that is heresy.

But not "good OSAS," who... Well, see above. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'd reject OSAS if 1 Peter 1:23 (just one example) wasn't in the scriptures.

1 Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.​

That's a great one, for sure. And just a couple of sentences earlier, Peter wrote this:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:3-5)

Indeed. How anyone can read such things and think that if one is truly born again of the Spirit of God that he or she can still "lose his or her salvation" is just astonishing.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[mailmandan]

Well... "bad OSAS" is anti-Scriptural, yes. <smile> These people we refer to as antinomians. Yes, those people do believe there are no consequences for sin, and basically, yes, that they can sin all they want. And that is heresy.

Antinomianism certainly is heresy and this article below sums it up.

What is antinomianism? | GotQuestions.org

What is antinomianism (anti nomianism)? What do antinomians believe? If Christians are not under the Old Testament Law, what is to stop Christians from living however they want?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[JustMe]

Funny to see you reject and embrace logic in the same post.


This is because context is NOT necessary in logic, which is part of its power. All that is necessary is word integrity, I.e., definition. (Mike Tyson is ‘the baddest’ boxer on the planet meaning very good.)

By contrast, Context is essential to morality.



It is not logic that suggests this; It is definition that allows or rejects it, as I pointed out.

The above is my point in posts with @Rich R. I used the word ‘habitual,‘ which is essentially synonymous with your word choice of meaning, ‘persistent.‘

Stepping back from the weeds of definitions of ancient languages in translation, one cannot believe almighty God sent his son to die horribly on a cross to give license to sin. I trust we agree That there is a difference, a moral difference, between these 2 sets of conditions that Hebrews 10:26 parses:

1. Someone who loses emotional control momentarily, feels guilty, repents and asks for forgiveness with each step.
2. Someone who enjoys sinning, feels no guilt, doesn’t repent or ask for forgiveness with each misstep.

This is a very confusing reply and wrought with even more newly generated arguments that do not make any sense at all. And you assume to much into my writings that I just consider dribble.

 

[Wrangler]

This is a very confusing reply and wrought with even more newly generated arguments that do not make any sense at all. And you assume to much into my writings that I just consider dribble.

That's fine that you have little comprehension of logic and its application. You just can't escape its consequence.

Inference. Why would Jesus talk about burning branches in a fire that don't produce fruit if OSAS is Biblical?

 

[Rich R]

Not an answer to my question. A person forced to change their mind is of the same opinion still.

What was the question?

 

[Rich R]

OK. Willfil rather than habitual in these translations. You are still denying the verse is an EXACT answer to your question; there is sin that Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t cover.

Yes, I am denying that it is an EXACT answer because it is not any kind of answer let alone an EXACT answer.

 

[Rich R]

Context is key along with properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine. Now if the word 'sanctified' in Hebrews 10:29 is used to describe saved people who lost their salvation as eternal IN-securists teach, then we have a contradiction because the writer of Hebrews in verse 10 said "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and in verse 14, we read, "perfected for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14) So, in Hebrews 10:10, we clearly read ..WE have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. In Hebrews 10:14, we read - For by one offering He has perfected for all time THOSE who are sanctified. To go from sanctified back to un-sanctified would be in contradiction here.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved" and/or "lost their salvation." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 "on the surface" appears to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

Strong's Concordance
hagiazó: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Original Word: ἁγιάζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hagiazó
Phonetic Spelling: (hag-ee-ad'-zo)
Definition: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Usage: I make holy, treat as holy, set apart as holy, sanctify, hallow, purify.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse (and by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the seventh day was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), Moses saved the people after coming down off the mountain (Exodus 19:14), the priests and the Levites saved themselves (1 Chronicles 15:14), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36), the Son saved Himself (John 17:19) and many other things that do not line up with scripture. *Hermeneutics.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to make believers/nominal Christians, not saved people: But WE are not of those who draw back to perdition, but OF THOSE who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the CONTEXT, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as a professing believer, but later renounce their identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the Hebrew community of believers was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

Well, if he wasn't born again, the he couldn't have lost it. Only those born again of incorruptible seed have incorruptible seed.

As I previously said, to "sin willfully" here carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows willful, continuous action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9)

Exactly!

 

[Rich R]

Uh-oh. That's... definitely an immediate concern when one starts his analysis of just about anything in God's Word by saying, "All that is saying is"... <smile>

It's a bigger concern when one starts his analysis with going beyond the simplicity of God's word, adding words, changing words, omitting words. Somehow "incorruptible" gets morphed into "corruptible." "Kept by the power of God" gets changed into "kept by works."

Don't miss those collective pronouns, Rich. Our fathers. Us. We, we, we. Us, us, we, us, us, us... our faith. Goodness gracious.

Were you part of Israel when they disobeyed in the wilderness? No. Those are the we and the us in Hebrews. Hebrews was written to Jews who were born again, but were being pressured to return to the law. Just like the Galatians. They understood they were born again by the spirit, but the thought they would be made perfect by works.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Taken]

I think there will be LOTS of OSASers spending eternity with the Devil who made up the OSAS doctrine.

LOL … nope.

BTW “ARE YOU Saved”?

IF “yes”… How many times?