ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 24:12-13 - WHY IT DISPROVES OSAS

[Ac28]

You know what! You are right! I just realized I am saved and will always be saved since I do have faith and I do believe in Him. I am going to heaven.....right after I rob this bank!

Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth! It was very easy for me to take the place of God and decide that I am saved. It's not up to Him to decide if I enter heaven. I will just kick the door open and let him know that I have arrived.

I've noticed that you never use any scripture to back up your preposterous, dangerous statements.

What part of Paul's gospel can't you understand"
1 Cor 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

What part of Eph 2:8-9 are you having problems understanding?
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and is the only NT author that anyone should be listening to when it comes to today's salvation doctrine for ourselves. James or the 12 won't work since they were only ministers to Israel during the Acts period - they had nothing to do with Gentiles, then or now. Even what Christ said about salvation is not truth for today. If you think that keeping the commandments will get you saved today, I've got this bridge for sale.

When it comes to right division, you are a total failure - 2 Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[tom55]

I've noticed that you never use any scripture to back up your preposterous, dangerous statements.

What part of Paul's gospel can't you understand"
1 Cor 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

What part of Eph 2:8-9 are you having problems understanding?
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and is the only NT author that anyone should be listening to when it comes to today's salvation doctrine for ourselves. James or the 12 won't work since they were only ministers to Israel during the Acts period - they had nothing to do with Gentiles, then or now. Even what Christ said about salvation is not truth for today. If you think that keeping the commandments will get you saved today, I've got this bridge for sale.

When it comes to right division, you are a total failure - 2 Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I agree with you. My statement that I am saved and will always be saved is a preposterous and dangerous statement. Which backs up my original statement: Anyone who believes they are OSAS is in danger of loosing their salvation.

As you know it doesn't matter what Scripture verse I quote (and there are many) that destroys the OSAS theory. The OSAS believers will never admit they are wrong. So why quote scripture? The only thing I can do is pray for them and hope they change from Saul to Paul.

 

[tom55]

Its pretty funny that when some hear of grace and being free from a law that no one has ever been able to keep... They rejoice and move deeper into God. Then there are others who want to rob banks.

Real children of God can handle grace.... Others... Well perhaps its best that they stay under the law.

Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"?

 

[FHII]

Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"?

My Father!

Nonetheless it's true. Real Children of God can and will be able to handle grace. What objection do you have to this truth?

 

[tom55]

My Father!

Nonetheless it's true. Real Children of God can and will be able to handle grace. What objection do you have to this truth?

Finally. We have found the only infallible person on earth. And it is......FHII....Our new Pope?

 

[FHII]

Finally. We have found the only infallible person on earth. And it is......FHII....Our new Pope?

That is an utterly rediculous response Tom.

1. Let's go back to your first response to me. Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were? When did i say i had it? I don't understand why you asked the question in the first place.

2. As a result i answered my father: God! He gave the word and thus we can know who his sheep are. If the Bible doesn't do this, what's its purpose?

3. NOW let's revisit my first post. I said the Children of God will know how to handle grace and the others would rob banks (as you identified yourself as being.... Though i do understand it was probably sarcasm).

Again, what do you disagree with in that statement? I'm not even sure if you believe in grace so it may be a moot question.

4. Now to your last response.... Where on earth do you get the notion that i am or believe to be infallible? Those that profess they need and believe in grace DO SO because they realize they are fallible.

Its rediculous. I see no logic in your line of thinking.

 

[Ac28]

The most dangerous belief is when you disbelieve OSAS. You spend your life in doubt which is really stupid. Whether you like it or not, Paul is your only apostle for today and he says "....be followers of me". Paul's god-breathed doctrine is emphatic about the truth of OSAS. You can't miss it.

 

[StanJ]

The most dangerous belief is when you disbelieve OSAS. You spend your life in doubt which is really stupid. Whether you like it or not, Paul is your only apostle for today and he says "....be followers of me". Paul's god-breathed doctrine is emphatic about the truth of OSAS. You can't miss it.

Well then give us just one scripture that supports OSAS, clearly!

 

[tom55]

That is an utterly rediculous response Tom.

1. Let's go back to your first response to me. Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were? When did i say i had it? I don't understand why you asked the question in the first place.

I asked: Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"? NOT Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were? (You misquoted me!!)

Because YOU said: Real children of God can handle grace.... Others... Well perhaps its best that they stay under the law.

2. As a result i answered my father: God! He gave the word and thus we can know who his sheep are. If the Bible doesn't do this, what's its purpose?

It seems to me YOU are saying that the bible gives us the knowledge to discern the sheep from the goats? Maybe there are goats acting like sheep and we can't discern them? I thought in Matthew it said HE would discern the sheep from the goats. But if you feel comfortable doing it, go ahead!
3. NOW let's revisit my first post. I said the Children of God will know how to handle grace and the others would rob banks (as you identified yourself as being.... Though i do understand it was probably sarcasm).

Again, what do you disagree with in that statement? I'm not even sure if you believe in grace so it may be a moot question.

In your first post you actually said, "Real children of God can handle grace.... Others... Well perhaps its best that they stay under the law." (you misquoted yourself)

Yes, I was being sarcastic! If I am OSAS then I can rob a bank, get shot and killed on the way out of the bank, and still go to heaven. That is how ridiculous the OSAS theory/false teaching is

I believe in the grace of God. It is very clear in scripture.

When you contrast the "real children of God" to "Others" that suggest YOU are making a judgment on who are the sheep and the goats. That is how I read your statement but I could be taking it wrong. I hope you can see my point of view.

4. Now to your last response.... Where on earth do you get the notion that i am or believe to be infallible? Those that profess they need and believe in grace DO SO because they realize they are fallible.

Its rediculous. I see no logic in your line of thinking.

If YOU decide who the "real children of God" are and who the "others" are does that not make you infallible since you are making such a definitive statement? Are we not all children of God?

According to you 'real children of God' = being able to handle grace.

Others = it's best they stay under the law

YOU have separated Gods people and decided those that can handle grace are children of God....everyone else are not!

At least that's how I read your post!!

 

[FHII]

That is an utterly rediculous response Tom.

1. Let's go back to your first response to me. Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were? When did i say i had it? I don't understand why you asked the question in the first place.

I asked: Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"? NOT Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were? (You misquoted me!!)

Because YOU said: Real children of God can handle grace.... Others... Well perhaps its best that they stay under the law.

2. As a result i answered my father: God! He gave the word and thus we can know who his sheep are. If the Bible doesn't do this, what's its purpose?

It seems to me YOU are saying that the bible gives us the knowledge to discern the sheep from the goats? Maybe there are goats acting like sheep and we can't discern them? I thought in Matthew it said HE would discern the sheep from the goats. But if you feel comfortable doing it, go ahead!
3. NOW let's revisit my first post. I said the Children of God will know how to handle grace and the others would rob banks (as you identified yourself as being.... Though i do understand it was probably sarcasm).

Again, what do you disagree with in that statement? I'm not even sure if you believe in grace so it may be a moot question.

In your first post you actually said, "Real children of God can handle grace.... Others... Well perhaps its best that they stay under the law." (you misquoted yourself)

Yes, I was being sarcastic! If I am OSAS then I can rob a bank, get shot and killed on the way out of the bank, and still go to heaven. That is how ridiculous the OSAS theory/false teaching is

I believe in the grace of God. It is very clear in scripture.

When you contrast the "real children of God" to "Others" that suggest YOU are making a judgment on who are the sheep and the goats. That is how I read your statement but I could be taking it wrong. I hope you can see my point of view.

4. Now to your last response.... Where on earth do you get the notion that i am or believe to be infallible? Those that profess they need and believe in grace DO SO because they realize they are fallible.

Its rediculous. I see no logic in your line of thinking.

If YOU decide who the "real children of God" are and who the "others" are does that not make you infallible since you are making such a definitive statement? Are we not all children of God?

According to you 'real children of God' = being able to handle grace.

Others = it's best they stay under the law

YOU have separated Gods people and decided those that can handle grace are children of God....everyone else are not!

At least that's how I read your post!!

Once again ridiculous. Not a whole lot of difference between:

1. I asked: Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"?
2. NOT Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were?

Seriously.... You're saying I misquoted you isn't that big of a deal... There isn't a big difference.

So I misquoted myself? No... I said something different in order to show you who should stay under the law.... People who say they want to rob banks. That's you. You said that. Sarcastic or not, that's your mindset.

 

[lforrest]

Once again ridiculous. Not a whole lot of difference between:

1. I asked: Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"?
2. NOT Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were?

Seriously.... You're saying I misquoted you isn't that big of a deal... There isn't a big difference.

So I misquoted myself? No... I said something different in order to show you who should stay under the law.... People who say they want to rob banks. That's you. You said that. Sarcastic or not, that's your mindset.

There couldn't be a more cliche example of evil than robbing banks. Just because he was able to think of that doesn't mean it is his mindset.

 

[tom55]

Once again ridiculous. Not a whole lot of difference between:

1. I asked: Who gave you the authority to determine who are the "Real children of God"?
2. NOT Who gave me authority to know who the sons of god were?

Seriously.... You're saying I misquoted you isn't that big of a deal... There isn't a big difference.

So I misquoted myself? No... I said something different in order to show you who should stay under the law.... People who say they want to rob banks. That's you. You said that. Sarcastic or not, that's your mindset.

Got it. Misquoting someone is no big deal. Remember that in our future conversations!!

I gave the perfect scenario that destroys the OSAS theory. I am sorry you don't like it and for you to try to make this about my mindset instead of the false theory and heretical teaching of OSAS shows that there is little defense for the OSAS belief. Since OSAS can' be defended logically or scripturaly you attack the messenger instead of defending the OSAS theory. How sad.

 

[FHII]

Got it. Misquoting someone is no big deal. Remember that in our future conversations!!

I gave the perfect scenario that destroys the OSAS theory. I am sorry you don't like it and for you to try to make this about my mindset instead of the false theory and heretical teaching of OSAS shows that there is little defense for the OSAS belief. Since OSAS can' be defended logically or scripturaly you attack the messenger instead of defending the OSAS theory. How sad.

You don't seem to understand the difference between rewording and quoting. What's the difference between the two statements in question? That was my point. I didn't misquote. I reworded the statement in the proper tense.

I got to admit that I allowed myself to be sidetracked from the main point by your assertations (which had very little to do with the main point). My apologies.

Whenever we debate OSAS and/or grace through faith someone always tries to make the same point you do. They always say something like,"well if that's true that means i can rob a bank."

The funny thing is the ones saying that aren't the ones who believe in OSAS, predestination or even grace tbrough faith. Its always those who believe in following the law or those who believe that grace does not cover all sins (including future sins).

So the question is what would a child of God do when learning about the excellent message of grace? Would give thanks to God and draw closer to him through faith or would he think to rob a bank? OR as a third option would he reject grace because he thinks that will lead to robbing a bank?

You tell me... I'm inclined to believe those who even entertain such notions are better off under the law.... Which, chances are, they'd rather be there than under grace.

 

[FHII]

There couldn't be a more cliche example of evil than robbing banks. Just because he was able to think of that doesn't mean it is his mindset.

The mindset is one of giving thanks for grace and moving forward in God vs. One of looking to do evil or thinking others will do evil.

 

[tom55]

You don't seem to understand the difference between rewording and quoting. What's the difference between the two statements in question? That was my point. I didn't misquote. I reworded the statement in the proper tense.
I got to admit that I allowed myself to be sidetracked from the main point by your assertations (which had very little to do with the main point). My apologies.
Whenever we debate OSAS and/or grace through faith someone always tries to make the same point you do. They always say something like,"well if that's true that means i can rob a bank."
The funny thing is the ones saying that aren't the ones who believe in OSAS, predestination or even grace tbrough faith. Its always those who believe in following the law or those who believe that grace does not cover all sins (including future sins).
So the question is what would a child of God do when learning about the excellent message of grace? Would give thanks to God and draw closer to him through faith or would he think to rob a bank? OR as a third option would he reject grace because he thinks that will lead to robbing a bank?
You tell me... I'm inclined to believe those who even entertain such notions are better off under the law.... Which, chances are, they'd rather be there than under grace.

Apology accepted.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't understand anything you just wrote. The part that says grace covers future sins is not logical or biblical. I really can't debate what you said because I don't understand what you just said.

I THINK you are saying when a child of God learns about the grace He has to offer us that child of God would draw closer to Him and would not even think about robbing a bank? (That's how I decipher your message)

I don't understand your "under the law" analogy either. What law? It seems to me you are saying one can be under the law or under His grace. Is that what you are saying?

 

[FHII]

Apology accepted.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't understand anything you just wrote. The part that says grace covers future sins is not logical or biblical. I really can't debate what you said because I don't understand what you just said.

I THINK you are saying when a child of God learns about the grace He has to offer us that child of God would draw closer to Him and would not even think about robbing a bank? (That's how I decipher your message)

I don't understand your "under the law" analogy either. What law? It seems to me you are saying one can be under the law or under His grace. Is that what you are saying?

I apologize if my postings were confusing. I take responsibility for that and i did find one typo which did make parts of it confusing.

I do believe that all sins of the flesh are covered, including future sins. The very nature of grace through faith is that we are no longer under the law of Moses. Romans 4 says that God will not (future tense) impute sin. Heb 10 says Jesus made one sacrifice for sin for ever. Paul even said all things are lawful but not expedient (even while rebuking the Corinthians).

So if you believe that we are no longer under the law (like thr bible says in many places) how does grace not cover future sins?

Like Paul, by the way, I don't condone any sin.

I also believe that grace and the law of Moses are not compatible. This was a major point of Galatians.

 

[tom55]

I apologize if my postings were confusing. I take responsibility for that and i did find one typo which did make parts of it confusing.
I do believe that all sins of the flesh are covered, including future sins. The very nature of grace through faith is that we are no longer under the law of Moses. Romans 4 says that God will not (future tense) impute sin. Heb 10 says Jesus made one sacrifice for sin for ever. Paul even said all things are lawful but not expedient (even while rebuking the Corinthians).
So if you believe that we are no longer under the law (like thr bible says in many places) how does grace not cover future sins?
Like Paul, by the way, I don't condone any sin.
I also believe that grace and the law of Moses are not compatible. This was a major point of Galatians.

No need to apologize this time. It is not your typo's that have confused me. It is the analogy and the scripture verses you are using to support your belief that are confusing.

None of it makes sense to me. It is not logical nor biblical. I feel like your a saying to me 'Scripture says 2+2=5 so that is proof of OSAS!

Your scriptural math doesn't add up. I can't wrap my head around 2+2=5 when I know it's not true....not matter how much you want to make it true. If you think you can go and commit a sin then die and go directly to heaven before you seek forgiveness here on earth then you have just told God to open the pearly gates....I'm coming in no matter what YOU think. Completely and utterly confusing and not biblical.

Good luck in your math. I will pray for you while you are trying to kick the gates of heaven open telling God he has to let you in even though you are a sinner and you thought all your sins were washed away by his grace when you got saved. (Whatever it means to "get saved")

 

[FHII]

No need to apologize this time. It is not your typo's that have confused me. It is the analogy and the scripture verses you are using to support your belief that are confusing.

None of it makes sense to me. It is not logical nor biblical. I feel like your a saying to me 'Scripture says 2+2=5 so that is proof of OSAS!

Your scriptural math doesn't add up. I can't wrap my head around 2+2=5 when I know it's not true....not matter how much you want to make it true. If you think you can go and commit a sin then die and go directly to heaven before you seek forgiveness here on earth then you have just told God to open the pearly gates....I'm coming in no matter what YOU think. Completely and utterly confusing and not biblical.

Good luck in your math. I will pray for you while you are trying to kick the gates of heaven open telling God he has to let you in even though you are a sinner and you thought all your sins were washed away by his grace when you got saved. (Whatever it means to "get saved")

Your arguement isn't with me then, its with every book of the NT from Romans to Hebrews. It says everal times that we aren't under the law but under grace. I won't list them all because I'm sure you've heard it before, but they are there.

I do believe in repenting of your sins and i don't know too nany Christians who don't believe in repenting. So let me ask you which sins should we repent from? The serious ones? All of them? How about only the ones we know of or acknowledge we are guilty of?

If your answer is like mine, its all of them: big ones,little one, the ones we remember, the ones we don't, etc.... How are going to do that? Do have time to repent for each one individually?

The answer is you can't. Nor is it humanly possible to stop sinning after you have (if you could).

God has made away for us by removing the law so we won't be held accountable. Yes, we still have to start the process with repentance and asking for forgiveness and we have to hold fast to faith, but grace covers all sins of the flesh.

Thats not my math, its what the Bible says. Now you can say its not biblical, but in my last post I gave just a few of the many verses that state otherwise: to which you didn't address.

 

[tom55]

Your arguement isn't with me then, its with every book of the NT from Romans to Hebrews. It says everal times that we aren't under the law but under grace. I won't list them all because I'm sure you've heard it before, but they are there.

I do believe in repenting of your sins and i don't know too nany Christians who don't believe in repenting. So let me ask you which sins should we repent from? The serious ones? All of them? How about only the ones we know of or acknowledge we are guilty of?

If your answer is like mine, its all of them: big ones,little one, the ones we remember, the ones we don't, etc.... How are going to do that? Do have time to repent for each one individually?

The answer is you can't. Nor is it humanly possible to stop sinning after you have (if you could).

God has made away for us by removing the law so we won't be held accountable. Yes, we still have to start the process with repentance and asking for forgiveness and we have to hold fast to faith, but grace covers all sins of the flesh.

Thats not my math, its what the Bible says. Now you can say its not biblical, but in my last post I gave just a few of the many verses that state otherwise: to which you didn't address.

Thank you for not listing them. I think we are both well read enough on the subject that we both know the case for and against the OSAS belief.

I could also quote scripture that would convince someone who doesn't know the bible that Paul hated Christians and Peter is Satan who denied Jesus. That person would then walk away convinced I am right. However, when one looks at the entirety of scripture one knows that those statements are not true. The same with the OSAS belief. When one looks at the entirety of scripture, instead of just the parts the support what you believe to be true, one clearly see's that the OSAS false doctrine falls apart.

Your own statement destroys the OSAS false belief. You said that you believe in repenting of your sins. So I ask you: Why repent if you are OSAS? There is no need to repent.

To answer your question of which sins should we repent from; The serious ones; all of them or only the ones we know of or acknowledge we are guilty of? I agree with your answer: All of them, individually with true repentance.

But why repent and ask for forgiveness if you are already saved? If your OSAS then you are guaranteed entry into heaven.

 

[FHII]

I don't consider myself OSAS. I'm more one to believe in predestination (which is in the Bible) and grace through faith alone ( which also is in the Bible). But OSAS is pretty close to what I believe.

We repent when our time comes to do so because God said to. That's what starts the process and if we are predestined children then God also predestined us to repent.

Are you sure you remember each and every one or your sins? How many times a day do you suppose you sin? 20? Well for arguements sake, take that number × 365 × your age. Sure you got them all?

You are talking to a person who reads a minimum of 3 chapters to understand just one verse. I'm not like some who take a verse like Romans 6:15 and use it to support a false stance without reading all of chapters 5, 6 and 7 (and more if necessary). So anytime you think I'm taking a verse out of context, feel free to throw staffs down and see which buds almonds.