OSAS Revamps it's Image: Not Sinners nor Saints

[robert derrick]

Some OSAS Believers have officially transformed their image from being the self-proclaimed unrighteous sinners of modern Christianity. They now declare they are not sinners just like the saints, but not being saints.

By devising a special maps and clues like a Scriptural playfair cipher, they have found their own national treasure of righteousness by grace.

Since they have already declared the law of Chris to be dead to them, having crawled out from under that Rock by grace, they have realized they don't have to call themselves sinners anymore, and in fact cannot sin against God.

Since sin is by transgression of the law, and they reject that law to do it, then how can they possibly sin? They're not just out from under the law of that Rock, but they've done away with doing it altogether: No more Rock to do, no more Rock to sin against.

But they are not saints either, because they still do the works of the flesh. The great key to their ciphering, is that since they are not under the law, God cannot possibly call them sinners while doing the works of the flesh, but only wrong-doers.

Others doing the works of the flesh, however, can still be called sinners by God.

And so, the newly reformed OSAS is: They cannot be called sinners by God nor man, nor can they even sin against God, but only do wrong with man.

Their unrighteous deeds don't have the stink of sin on them like others, but rather are perfumed with grace.

The only difference now between OSAS believers and saints, is that saints also know the evil deeds of the flesh is still unrighteously sinning against God, and any doers thereof whether sinner or saint, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

The God of OSAS is a respecter of persons, but not the Lord and God Jesus Christ of the saints.

 

[Wrangler]

There is another thread that talks about the benefits of believing something one way or another. I like such risk analysis thinking.

Given, we are saved by grace and not works, what is the benefit of believing OSAS v NOSAS?

I embrace NOSAS and believe the benefit is humility. Humility in striving for sanctification. Humility in being more Christ like. So, the benefit of NOSAS is virtue.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a benefit to OSAS, which is psychological confidence. I write psychological because it is not intellectual confidence or the confidence that comes from doing. No matter how wretched ones subsequent behavior is, they've convinced themselves it matters not in the final analysis.

I conclude this benefit is false, a benefit of psychosis, of convincing oneself of what one knows is not true. Choices matter. In what way they matter cannot be up to doctrine but up to the Creator. My $0.02.

 

[robert derrick]

There is another thread that talks about the benefits of believing something one way or another. I like such risk analysis thinking.

Given, we are saved by grace and not works, what is the benefit of believing OSAS v NOSAS?

I embrace NOSAS and believe the benefit is humility. Humility in striving for sanctification. Humility in being more Christ like. So, the benefit of NOSAS is virtue.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a benefit to OSAS, which is psychological confidence. I write psychological because it is not intellectual confidence or the confidence that comes from doing. No matter how wretched ones subsequent behavior is, they've convinced themselves it matters not in the final analysis.

I conclude this benefit is false, a benefit of psychosis, of convincing oneself of what one knows is not true. Choices matter. In what way they matter cannot be up to doctrine but up to the Creator. My $0.02.

Your response proves you don't have to believe Jesus is Lord and God, to have enough sense not to be a spiritual psychotic. The definition of a seared conscience with itchy ears for delusion, has to be anyone that convinces himself his sinning doesn't stink as bad in the nostrils of the Lord as that of others. Especially when those others, such as me and you, have enough sound mind to know if we sin, our sinning is just a stinking devilish as anyone else doing the same thing.

I give honor to whom honor is due: You make good points here.

There is another thread that talks about the benefits of believing something one way or another. I like such risk analysis thinking.

I prefer knowing the truth of Scripture and doing it.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Given, we are saved by grace and not works, what is the benefit of believing OSAS v NOSAS?

NOSAS is cute. We got no sas with God.

I embrace NOSAS and believe the benefit is humility. Humility in striving for sanctification. Humility in being more Christ like. So, the benefit of NOSAS is virtue.

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a benefit to OSAS, which is psychological confidence. I write psychological because it is not intellectual confidence or the confidence that comes from doing. No matter how wretched ones subsequent behavior is, they've convinced themselves it matters not in the final analysis.

I conclude this benefit is false, a benefit of psychosis, of convincing oneself of what one knows is not true. Choices matter. In what way they matter cannot be up to doctrine but up to the Creator. My $0.02.

Agree. It is all about self-convincing despite what we are doing. The reject the plain teaching that a tree is what it is producing. All their time is spent in how to reject James 2:24.

They are now moving beyond any sense whatsoever. They have departed from convincing themselves they are sinners saved by grace through faith alone, to simply declaring they are not sinners anymore and cannot sin, because they reject having anything to do with the law of Christ on paper.

The true gospel of the cross is the divine gut-check and ultimate reality doctrine: We are what we are in sight of God, by what we are currently thinking and doing now. Yesterday is past, and tomorrow doesn't matter, because it may not come. And it works both ways, whether forgiven of yesterday's sinning and doing righteously now, or yesterday's righteousness forgotten by sinning now.

Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered.

The lying doctrine of blind grace absolutely rejects this simple deceleration of God's word.

If we are lusting for sin now, we are sinning now. Physical sinning is only a manifestation of spiritually sinning. And so it is with righteousness, which can only be done from a pure heart.

Jesus Christ does not dwell, sup, or fellowship with anyone, while they are spiritually sinning with lust in the heart. And He will dwell, sup, and fellowship with anyone who repents for His sake, to purify their spirit and life in the flesh.

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

 

[Wrangler]

They have departed from convincing themselves they are sinners saved by grace through faith alone, to simply declaring they are not sinners anymore and cannot sin, because they reject having anything to do with the law of Christ on paper.

To properly summarize the OSAS doctrine, we cannot ever forget their ex post facto rationalization; that if anyone does sin in the future, they were never 'really' saved to begin with.

This violates hypothesis testing of the scientific method. If a hypothesis is valid, it must have a rejection criteria. Otherwise, it is inherently flawed, like trinitarianism. Today one asserted that something is NOT diametrically opposed to trinitarianism. I asked what is. No answer. If there is no scenario that would invalidate the claim, it cannot be a validate claim. This is basic epistemology.

We can examine the ranges of no one is saved, everyone is saved and ask for evidence that anyone is saved. To bring it to a simple and tangible example, I suppose a drowning man.

Jesus throws him a life saver. The drowning man must chose to grab hold of the life saver. The boat back to the shore tips over and the man finds himself drowning once more.
Once done, once saved, to assert the drowning man can never again find himself in such a scenario is to deny the risks of life.​

Q. Can a man, once saved, be in mortal danger again?
A. Yes. See above scenario.

The OSAS crowd cannot produce a scenario where what they assert can be true without invoking their ex post facto rationalization.

 

[ScottA]

To properly summarize the OSAS doctrine, we cannot ever forget their ex post facto rationalization; that if anyone does sin in the future, they were never 'really' saved to begin with.

That is an interesting take on the ex post facto rationale.

I have used the term myself before regarding salvation, but not at all in that manner. But rather that by faith it can be believed that just as we "were' crucified with Christ, "It is finished" also means that it is indeed finished.

Granted, that takes a great amount more understanding of God and the realization that Time is an illusion both forwards and backwards from the one event of Christ upon which all things rest. Without which one has a choice to make: 1) believe all that is written and believed and taught as interpreted by those who do not fully grasp the nature of God and His creation which He has cast through the prism of the Light of Christ; 2) to press on "leaving behind the elementary principles of Christ" to know Him more and more accurately according to the eternal nature of God beyond this world and its ways; or 3) go about pointing out and judging the speck in our brother's eye.

 

[Wrangler]

I have used the term myself before regarding salvation, but not at all in that manner. But rather that by faith it can be believed that just as we "were' crucified with Christ, "It is finished" also means that it is indeed finished.

I believe it is very simple. Perhaps the simplicity comes from me being a binary thinker. Is "It is finished" to mean universalism is correct doctrine?

1. Yes
2. No.

If yes, then > OSAS is correct doctrine. If no, why not? The simple answer is that it takes action on our part.

the realization that Time is an illusion

What? Action takes place through time. The only way it can be 'finished' is that time is NOT an illusion.

 

[ScottA]

I believe it is very simple. Perhaps the simplicity comes from me being a binary thinker. Is "It is finished" to mean universalism is correct doctrine?

1. Yes
2. No.

If yes, then > OSAS is correct doctrine. If no, why not? The simple answer is that it takes action on our part.

That is not the correct question.

The correct question would be to ask: Is God and the means of His salvation, of this world or not of this world?

What? Action takes place through time. The only way it can be 'finished' is that time is NOT an illusion.

No, but that is the error of your scientific approach--you have not factored in the timeless or eternal nature of God. In which case, all His acts in time, are only acts (creations) made to demonstrate His eternal truth on which time actually has no bearing.

 

[Wrangler]

That is not the correct question.

 

[ScottA]

Answer the [correct] question...or shall I assume you know I have stumped you already?

But, seriously, you are on to it, please continue.

 

[Wrangler]

No, but that is the error of your scientific approach--you have not factored in the timeless or eternal nature of God. In which case, all His acts in time, are only acts (creations) made to demonstrate His eternal truth on which time actually has no bearing.

My scientific approach? You are the one who is simultaneously claiming 'it is finished" AND time actually has no bearing.

Answer the [correct] question.

Answer the question I asked first, even though you deem it inferior to your own.

Is "It is finished" to mean universalism is correct doctrine?

1. Yes
2. No.

 

[ScottA]

My scientific approach? You are the one who is simultaneously claiming 'it is finished" AND time actually has no bearing.

Answer the question I asked first, even though you deem it inferior to your own.

Is "It is finished" to mean universalism is correct doctrine?

No...it means many things, but not that.

Your turn. Now answer the correct question.

 

[Wrangler]

God is in heaven and not Earth. So, obviously, his ways are higher than our ways, not of this world.

 

[ScottA]

God is in heaven and not Earth. So, obviously, his ways are higher than our ways, not of this world.

Okay, and how does that work in the yes or no question approach you spoke of above?

Let me put it this way: If sin is of this world of time, and salvation is not, can time have any bearing on it? ​

In your yes/no scientific approach, what would yes mean, and what would no mean?​

 

[Enoch111]

Some OSAS Believers have officially transformed their image from being the self-proclaimed unrighteous sinners of modern Christianity.

Enough of this baloney about OSAS. Since you are OBSESSED with this, you need to ask yourself exactly what your problem is. Or visit a shrink.

 

[robert derrick]

God is in heaven and not Earth. So, obviously, his ways are higher than our ways, not of this world.

You do realize you are trying to argue with someone who thinks our time on this earth is all an illusion, which means what we do is not real, and so God cannot judge us by what we do, but only by what we can imagine. Which of course is the illusion of man's dead faith alone.

It is not true, that if we can imagine it, it can become real, when there is no necessary doing to make it real.

There comes a point where intellectual exercise alone is not spiritually healthy.

 

[robert derrick]

Granted, that takes a great amount more understanding of God and the realization that Time is an illusion both forwards and backwards from the one event of Christ upon which all things rest.

This is exactly how the grand new OSAS delusion of this thread has come to pass. OSAS believers have completely separated themselves from firm ground of deeds to fly high in the air of illusional time.

And so now, they imagine they can now stop calling themselves sinners, and say they cannot even sin, because they think they can change the definition of sin to their own liking, without any truth of Scripture to it.

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

And exactly what have they done, to make that imagination of change into a reality, and not just an illusion of their own minds? Nothing. They still live the say old way they have before: unrighteous workers of the flesh, just like everyone else sinning against God.

Only now they declare God cannot call them sinners like others doing the same.

We certainly do see the speaking of great words about a time of illusion. Time is made the illusion itself. And trying to rightly divide that time of OSAS illusion from Scripture of truth is easy, but also can quickly become great weariness of the saints' flesh and bones:

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.

These are truly sweet words to remember, especially when dealing with OSAS' imaginative grand illusions of their own spiritualized time of times and dividing of time.

 

[Wrangler]

Let me put it this way: If sin is of this world of time, and salvation is not, can time have any bearing on it?

I know you think this is a profound line of questions but I do not. How's that for binary?

You are asking a relational questions about things that are not related. For some reason, your orientation is above your pay grade, a timeless God, when your existence if a function of time. So, your question amounts to a variant of 'what is the color of orange.'

 

[robert derrick]

I know you think this is a profound line of questions but I do not. How's that for binary?

You are asking a relational questions about things that are not related. For some reason, your orientation is above your pay grade, a timeless God, when your existence if a function of time. So, your question amounts to a variant of 'what is the color of orange.'

And so, you see my point. 'Of this world' is understandable to the average spiritual babe, but of this world 'of time'?

It's Timothy Leary of Christian spiritism. They've developed their own mystic code speak.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.

This violates hypothesis testing of the scientific method. If a hypothesis is valid, it must have a rejection criteria. Otherwise, it is inherently flawed, like trinitarianism. Today one asserted that something is NOT diametrically opposed to trinitarianism. I asked what is. No answer. If there is no scenario that would invalidate the claim, it cannot be a validate claim. This is basic epistemology.

So, I'm always up to something new.
1. What is 'rejection criteria'.
2. What is 'something not diametrically opposes to trinitarianism'.
3. How does not having a scenario that invalidates a claim, make a claim invalid.

I can look up epistemology.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

The enemy is busy. And hungry for our attention while there's still time.

 

[Taken]

Some OSAS Believers have officially transformed their image from being the self-proclaimed unrighteous sinners of modern Christianity. They now declare they are not sinners just like the saints, but not being saints.

LOL...funny how all your anti-Salvation OP’s are always you responding to yourself...

...I'm always up to something new.

Ya shoulda considered Jesus’ NEW teaching.