In response to a question I was asked. Who created OSAS.

[PeterAndroz]

You ask as if you heard nothing I said.

So I will ask again: Which Scott are your referring to, the old Scott born of the flesh, a sinner, or the new Scott who is born of the spirit of God, who is a completely new creation and has a new name?

The 'Scott' who's fingers wrote the above

 

[PS95]

In response to a question I was asked. Who created OSAS.​

--Short answer would be 5th Century- Augustine of Hippo but not quite the the osas of today, Instead, he taught grace to persevere in faith until the end.--

--- then all they way to Calvin---- middle 16th Century- again perseverance of the saints-

---Southern Baptists & Plymouth Brethren Late 19th- Early 20th Centuries- they slowly began downplaying the necessity of ongoing perseverance or good works as evidence of true faith and used terms like OSAS & eternal security.

---- Teachers like Darby/Scofield--Lewis Sperry Chafer (early 20th century) and later Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges
(Dallas Theo Seminary) took a hard stance.-
Some within that camp above say that a person who has made a "decision" for Christ is eternally saved, even if they live a life void of spiritual fruit or appear to abandon their faith.

It is a point of debate- many Reformed and evangelicals still hold that genuine saving faith will produce good works and perseverance.
(John MacArthur took a lot of heat from Hodges for teaching Lordship which maintains obedience / fruits as evidence of said salvation)

It's a later doctrine and seems to keep spiraling lower.

The early Church Fathers ( Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian) did not teach "unconditional eternal security" as understood by modern OSAS.
Many of their writings suggest that believers could, through heavy sinning or apostasy, forfeit their salvation & they stressed the need for ongoing faith and obedience.

Some scholars say that early forms of eternal security were in Gnostic heresies, the Gnostics that the Church Fathers refuted. I have never looked deeply into that. I probably won't.

AS I see it, we are to abide in him which means remain in the faith. Does that cause me fear. Not at all. Do I feel secure? Yep.

 

[PeterAndroz]

--Short answer would be 5th Century- Augustine of Hippo but not quite the the osas of today, Instead, he taught grace to persevere in faith until the end.--

--- then all they way to Calvin---- middle 16th Century- again perseverance of the saints-

---Southern Baptists & Plymouth Brethren Late 19th- Early 20th Centuries- they slowly began downplaying the necessity of ongoing perseverance or good works as evidence of true faith and used terms like OSAS & eternal security.

---- Teachers like Darby/Scofield--Lewis Sperry Chafer (early 20th century) and later Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges
(Dallas Theo Seminary) took a hard stance.-
Some within that camp above say that a person who has made a "decision" for Christ is eternally saved, even if they live a life void of spiritual fruit or appear to abandon their faith.

It is a point of debate- many Reformed and evangelicals still hold that genuine saving faith will produce good works and perseverance.
(John MacArthur took a lot of heat from Hodges for teaching Lordship which maintains obedience / fruits as evidence of said salvation)

It's a later doctrine and seems to keep spiraling lower.

The early Church Fathers ( Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian) did not teach "unconditional eternal security" as understood by modern OSAS.
Many of their writings suggest that believers could, through heavy sinning or apostasy, forfeit their salvation & they stressed the need for ongoing faith and obedience.

Some scholars say that early forms of eternal security were in Gnostic heresies, the Gnostics that the Church Fathers refuted. I have never looked deeply into that. I probably won't.

AS I see it, we are to abide in him which means remain in the faith. Does that cause me fear. Not at all. Do I feel secure? Yep.

To become UNsaved an Eph 4:30 SEALED believer needs to have the HS taken away from them.
From Paul, please list the ACTIONS required for that to happen.

 

[Jay Ross]

When people talk about God making a person a "new creation" they are in fact saying that God does not respect the original person who He is refreshing over time and that He is not even attempting to make a new person in place of the old person.

God wants us to renew our mind and to then put on the refurbished personhood that He has intended us to become from the beginning of time.

A brand-new, unused and hardened wineskin is not capable of holding recently squeezed grape juice unless the wineskin has been reworked to make it soft and pliable so that it can store the grape juice within that wine skin without bursting the wineskin.

The "neo" new/fresh grape juice can only be stored in refreshed wineskins that have been worked so that they become soft and scuttle again so as to hold the fermenting grape juice without bursting.

This is the difference between "neos" and "kanios" where the "kanios" wineskins have been treated with care so that they can do the job they were intended to do by God.

Oh well, let us believe that we can encourage people to become the person that God intended them to become without failing.

Shalom

 

[PS95]

To become UNsaved an Eph 4:30 SEALED believer needs to have the HS taken away from them.
From Paul, please list the ACTIONS required for that to happen.

I don't reply to you for a reason. It's simply because of this Paul only nonsense. I've had my share of that on this forum.
There is but one gospel, and since you persist in teaching there are two--- it's you who is teaching a new gospel. Paul said, let them be accursed.
He sure didn't say that about Peter and John!

 

[ScottA]

The 'Scott' who's fingers wrote the above

Oh, no, surely not.
No Jesus, I am sure he didn't actually mean any offensive against You.
Well, to me I suppose.
I'm not sure, he didn't say whether he meant it against the old me, or the new me.
Yeah, I know, but he can't see You.
Well, yeah, he probably has read about You coming into those who are Yours.
Yeah, I suppose he probably also read about it being unto You...but...
Yes, that is what You said.
I know.
Okay, yeah, I know your word is true, so sure, I suppose--okay then--I really wish he hadn't done that, I'm sure he didn't mean to and just didn't know any better.
I see.
Thank you!

 

[PeterAndroz]

Oh, no, surely not.
No Jesus, I am sure he didn't actually mean any offensive against You.
Well, to me I suppose.
I'm not sure, he didn't say whether he meant it against the old me, or the new me.
Yeah, I know, but he can't see You.
Well, yeah, he probably has read about You coming into those who are Yours.
Yeah, I suppose he probably also read about it being unto You...but...
Yes, that is what You said.
I know.
Okay, yeah, I know your word is true, so sure, I suppose--okay then--I really wish he hadn't done that, I'm sure he didn't mean to and just didn't know any better.
I see.
Thank you!

Christ did not word how to be saved so that only the elite can understand.
His message through Paul for today is clear and simple and easily understood by even the simplest person which is fortunate for me.
Hear the gospel
believe the gospel
trust the gospel
result = enter Heaven
Actions are not an entry requirement they result in eternal rewards/loss and not gate opening

 

[Armour of God]

I don't understand how anyone can say
"I am saved" speaking in the past tense.
It's grammatically incorrect.

Salvation is something that happens after we die, in the future.
The correct way would be to say
"I will be saved".

No one is already saved while they are here on earth, it's a future event, not one of the past or present.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

TULIP?

No, I would not say this.. Eternal security was around long before the term TULIp as it relates to 5 points was even though of

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Has anyone ever actually met a person that claims to be saved that has said "Now I am saved, it doesn't matter how I live my life. I can sin as much as I want. I'll still be saved?"

I don't know of any. It's hard to believe they even exist. Which I say, because a person who is actually saved, who has been changed, who is a new creation--would never say such a thing.

So it would appear that is not even the issue. I would say the actual issue lies rather with the accuser--I mean those who claim saved people do such a thing, and want to pronounce their condemnation upon them. They are casting the first stone against the counsel of Christ.

Perhaps those who are guilty of this know who they are, perhaps not. But they too are in trouble. There is much written of them also.

But the acronym is just a premise anyway...saying pretty much what Jesus said: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand." John 10:29

Is this really so difficult? Who here believes that one not given to Jesus by the Father is even saved?

The question then is rather: Has the person accused been given to Jesus by the Father? Beyond that--no one should ever go making accusations--and if that is the accusation...those who accuse are also on trial.

Sadly I truly believe it all comes down to the Calvin/Arminian debate. It is the term itself. which causes the backlash.

It comes down as you said to the facts.

Is he who believes not condemned? Do they have eternal life? Will them come to judgment or have the passed from death to live (john 3 and John 5)

is the one who does not believe already in a condemned state, becayse they have not believed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That non sequitur is God's end of the deal - same story, different day. Meanwhile, can divine seals be broken? Yes, just ask Israel.

But Gods seal on Israel is not broken. God is not done with them, He will restore them, They are under Gods chastening now. Like a true believer may be under his chastening. That seal can not be broken.

You are the only one who can break the Holy Spirit's seal because you are the one who has been sealed. God desires that all be saved, but salvation is a covenant.

The cpovenant God made with abraham is an I WILL covenant. God said I will. He did not say I will as long as you will. Same with our salvation. Jesus said when you recieve him, He will.. (he will not force it on you) He also said the seal of the spirit lasts until the day of redemption. which is ressurection day. He did not say unless you do not.. He said I will

In the end, the Calvinistic spin is yet another fleshly variation of the Gospel of Greasy Grace.

this is not about calvinism. Lets try not to discuss it in here. I want to discuss what does Gods word say

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You ask as if you heard nothing I said.

So I will ask again: Which Scott are your referring to, the old Scott born of the flesh, a sinner, or the new Scott who is born of the spirit of God, who is a completely new creation and has a new name?

both

 

[Eternally Grateful]

--Short answer would be 5th Century- Augustine of Hippo but not quite the the osas of today, Instead, he taught grace to persevere in faith until the end.--

--- then all they way to Calvin---- middle 16th Century- again perseverance of the saints-

---Southern Baptists & Plymouth Brethren Late 19th- Early 20th Centuries- they slowly began downplaying the necessity of ongoing perseverance or good works as evidence of true faith and used terms like OSAS & eternal security.

---- Teachers like Darby/Scofield--Lewis Sperry Chafer (early 20th century) and later Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges
(Dallas Theo Seminary) took a hard stance.-
Some within that camp above say that a person who has made a "decision" for Christ is eternally saved, even if they live a life void of spiritual fruit or appear to abandon their faith.

It is a point of debate- many Reformed and evangelicals still hold that genuine saving faith will produce good works and perseverance.
(John MacArthur took a lot of heat from Hodges for teaching Lordship which maintains obedience / fruits as evidence of said salvation)

It's a later doctrine and seems to keep spiraling lower.

The early Church Fathers ( Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian) did not teach "unconditional eternal security" as understood by modern OSAS.
Many of their writings suggest that believers could, through heavy sinning or apostasy, forfeit their salvation & they stressed the need for ongoing faith and obedience.

Some scholars say that early forms of eternal security were in Gnostic heresies, the Gnostics that the Church Fathers refuted. I have never looked deeply into that. I probably won't.

AS I see it, we are to abide in him which means remain in the faith. Does that cause me fear. Not at all. Do I feel secure? Yep.

I love the fact that a doctrine that states we can not save ourselves. states a person will persevere to the end.

Thats alot of work. what does it look like?

Is it perfection?
Is it that we do not commit certain sins?
Is there a sin limit before God will take his salvation back?

 

[David Lamb]

Has anyone ever actually met a person that claims to be saved that has said "Now I am saved, it doesn't matter how I live my life. I can sin as much as I want. I'll still be saved?"

I don't know of any. It's hard to believe they even exist. Which I say, because a person who is actually saved, who has been changed, who is a new creation--would never say such a thing.

So it would appear that is not even the issue. I would say the actual issue lies rather with the accuser--I mean those who claim saved people do such a thing, and want to pronounce their condemnation upon them. They are casting the first stone against the counsel of Christ.

Perhaps those who are guilty of this know who they are, perhaps not. But they too are in trouble. There is much written of them also.

But the acronym is just a premise anyway...saying pretty much what Jesus said: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand." John 10:29

Is this really so difficult? Who here believes that one not given to Jesus by the Father is even saved?

The question then is rather: Has the person accused been given to Jesus by the Father? Beyond that--no one should ever go making accusations--and if that is the accusation...those who accuse are also on trial.

I have certainly never met anybody who says that. However, I have seen people argue against the perseverance of the saints ("OSAS" if you like), saying that people who believe such things are led to live as though sinning didn't matter to them.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't understand how anyone can say
"I am saved" speaking in the past tense.
It's grammatically incorrect.

Salvation is something that happens after we die, in the future.
The correct way would be to say
"I will be saved".

No one is already saved while they are here on earth, it's a future event, not one of the past or present.

this would be error. And this would be not holding to the promise of God.

Paul says in Eph 2: 8, for it is by grace we have been saved. the word saved is in the perfect tense. it is a completed act.

He says in titus 3. It is not by our good deeds we have done, but by his mercy he saved us.. (It does not say he will save us)

In romans 8, again For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? Again, past tense.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I have certainly never met anybody who says that. However, I have seen people argue against the perseverance of the saints ("OSAS" if you like), saying that people who believe such things are led to live as though sinning didn't matter to them.

Do we persevere. or will God keep us from falling?

Jude 24
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,

 

[ScottA]

Christ did not word how to be saved so that only the elite can understand.
His message through Paul for today is clear and simple and easily understood by even the simplest person which is fortunate for me.
Hear the gospel
believe the gospel
trust the gospel
result = enter Heaven
Actions are not an entry requirement they result in eternal rewards/loss and not gate opening

That's fine...but then you shouldn't ask questions or make assumptions or judgments about things the scriptures explain in more detail (like being born again and having more than one body).

 

[ScottA]

No, I would not say this.. Eternal security was around long before the term TULIp as it relates to 5 points was even though of

I just didn't know what it stood for.

 

[ScottA]

Sadly I truly believe it all comes down to the Calvin/Arminian debate. It is the term itself. which causes the backlash.

It comes down as you said to the facts.

Is he who believes not condemned? Do they have eternal life? Will them come to judgment or have the passed from death to live (john 3 and John 5)

is the one who does not believe already in a condemned state, becayse they have not believed.

My point was-- No Christian should even be asking such questions. Do people not know that by inserting themselves into such matters, they too enter into the same judgment before God?

At minimum they will be told something like this:

"Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”"

 

[Eternally Grateful]

My point was-- No Christian should even be asking such questions. Do people not know that by inserting themselves into such matters, they too enter into the same judgment before God?

human nature.