The Doctrine of OSAS

[The_highwayman]

What do Matt 10, John 15.1-6, Luke 9-57.62, 1 John chapters 1-5,Hebrews 5.11-14 6.1-12, Rev 2, 3 and 21 have all in common?

Jesus speaks very clearly yet very quickly on the subject of abiding, enduring and overcoming.

NO where in the BIble does it state your salvation is guranteed. Most OSAS supporters use the letters of Paul to support their theory.
The one most used is Romans 8.38-39
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Using this passage in Romans 8 to support your OSAS arugment is not only clearly out of context and gross negligence, but could even be considered private interpretation of scripture.

WHY?

Easy, Paul used the word Salvation 20x in all his letters. He uses the word salvation 4x in Romans[Rom 1.16, Rom 10.10, Rom 11.11, Rom 13.1] Each time in the Book of Romans Paul uses the same word , which is sōtēria and each time it is used in context with personal salvation from God.

So this establishes the fact Paul knew of the word salvation and he used it once before Romans 8 and 3x after Romans 8. If we apply proper Bible sutdy methods and proper Hermenutics, then we know that Paul is NOT talking about Salvation or sōtēria in Rom 8.38-39.

WHY?

Because he is talking about the victories we gain because of Christs LOVE towards us. The passage has NOTHING to do with salvation, one must go to Vs. 34-37 to gain CONTEXT of the victories we win against everyone who comes against us. We win those victories because Christ is with us and because of the LOVE of Christ and then you gain the true understanding of Vs. 38-39.

Since it is clearly established Paul used the word salvation 4x in Romans and in proper context, then one must see that if Paulw as tlaking about slavation in Vs. 38-39 he would ahve wrote:
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the Salvation of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Instead he wrote it as:

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again we have men using personal , private interpretation without applying context, which now has led to a false doctrine.

People please remember this: A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

 

[justaname]

What do Matt 10, John 15.1-6, Luke 9-57.62, 1 John chapters 1-5,Hebrews 5.11-14 6.1-12, Rev 2, 3 and 21 have all in common?

Jesus speaks very clearly yet very quickly on the subject of abiding, enduring and overcoming.

NO where in the BIble does it state your salvation is guranteed. Most OSAS supporters use the letters of Paul to support their theory.
The one most used is Romans 8.38-39
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Using this passage in Romans 8 to support your OSAS arugment is not only clearly out of context and gross negligence, but could even be considered private interpretation of scripture.

WHY?

Easy, Paul used the word Salvation 20x in all his letters. He uses the word salvation 4x in Romans[Rom 1.16, Rom 10.10, Rom 11.11, Rom 13.1] Each time in the Book of Romans Paul uses the same word , which is sōtēria and each time it is used in context with personal salvation from God.

So this establishes the fact Paul knew of the word salvation and he used it once before Romans 8 and 3x after Romans 8. If we apply proper Bible sutdy methods and proper Hermenutics, then we know that Paul is NOT talking about Salvation or sōtēria in Rom 8.38-39.

WHY?

Because he is talking about the victories we gain because of Christs LOVE towards us. The passage has NOTHING to do with salvation, one must go to Vs. 34-37 to gain CONTEXT of the victories we win against everyone who comes against us. We win those victories because Christ is with us and because of the LOVE of Christ and then you gain the true understanding of Vs. 38-39.

Since it is clearly established Paul used the word salvation 4x in Romans and in proper context, then one must see that if Paulw as tlaking about slavation in Vs. 38-39 he would ahve wrote:
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the Salvation of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Instead he wrote it as:

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again we have men using personal , private interpretation without applying context, which now has led to a false doctrine.

People please remember this: A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

This is another straw man argument, but with that said please look to post #249

Zero in on this caption, "God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

 

[The_highwayman]

This is another straw man argument, but with that said please look to post #249

Zero in on this caption, "God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

justaname,

You statmetn says everything that is wrong with your doctrine.

Be blessed!

 

[justaname]

justaname,

You statmetn says everything that is wrong with your doctrine.
Be blessed!

Well it is not my doctrine, it is a doctrine of the church.

Would you care to expand on your statement?

 

[The_highwayman]

Well it is not my doctrine, it is a doctrine of the church.

Would you care to expand on your statement?

No sir, it is not a church doctrine or even Biblical.

"God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

This statement without any controversy refutes the entire plan of salvation!

no further expansion is needed son

 

[justaname]

No sir, it is not a church doctrine or even Biblical.

"God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

This statement without any controversy refutes the entire plan of salvation!

no further expansion is needed son

I in no way see how that statement refutes God's plan for salvation.

You will need to support your argument, otherwise it will be accepted as opinion.

As far as this being a church doctrine, the Westminster Confession of Faith gives the following statement on this doctrine:

They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I in no way see how that statement refutes God's plan for salvation.

You will need to support your argument, otherwise it will be accepted as opinion.

As far as this being a church doctrine, the Westminster Confession of Faith gives the following statement on this doctrine:

They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

Then say it's a doctrine of reformed congregations (as they call themselves) not a church doctrine. Christians have been around for 2000 years and a lot longer than John Calvin, and it can't be demonstrated that the perseverance teaching has precedent in antiquity. So it's a broad and presumptive claim that TULIP is a 'church' doctrine.

 

[justaname]

Then say it's a doctrine of reformed congregations (as they call themselves) not a church doctrine. Christians have been around for 2000 years and a lot longer than John Calvin, and it can't be demonstrated that the perseverance teaching has precedent in antiquity. So it's a broad and presumptive claim that TULIP is a 'church' doctrine.

This is not a thread on the definition of the church, please start another thread for that topic. I never claimed "TULIP" is a church doctrine, and to discount your claim for antiquity simply look to scripture.

Philippians 1:6
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

John 10:27-29
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

This is not a thread on the definition of the church, please start another thread for that topic. I never claimed "TULIP" is a church doctrine, and to discount your claim for antiquity simply look to scripture.

Philippians 1:6
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

John 10:27-29
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

I don't need to start another thread. You were the one who called it a church doctrine. That's one. Two, it's you Protestants who think the KJV bible fell out of the sky last week and live in complete denial that Christians have been reading the same Bible for 2000 years and have never seen such ridiculous notions as OSAS, the "rapture" or any of the other conventional circus acts.

 

[justaname]

I don't need to start another thread. You were the one who called it a church doctrine. That's one. Two, it's you Protestants who think the KJV bible fell out of the sky last week and live in complete denial that Christians have been reading the same Bible for 2000 years and have never seen such ridiculous notions as OSAS, the "rapture" or any of the other conventional circus acts.

That is because it is a church doctrine.

With all due respect you are derailing this thread and slandering Protestants. Start your own thread or stay on topic.

I have two great verses I just posted you can comment on...why not speak to those. How do Catholic commentators interpret these?

 

[The_highwayman]

I in no way see how that statement refutes God's plan for salvation.

You will need to support your argument, otherwise it will be accepted as opinion.

As far as this being a church doctrine, the Westminster Confession of Faith gives the following statement on this doctrine:

They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

justaname,
once again you stated:
"God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

Not only does this statement completely refute the plan of Salvation, which is based on faith, but it also makes God contradict himself and therefore call's him unholy and a liar.

God demands our faith through our entire walk with him, I mean really why not read all of Hebrews 11

Heb 11.6 WIthout faith you cannot please God or even come to believe that he is. So how can you state that if I dont have faith in God, I will still be preserved by God for eternity?

Eph 2.8 You are saved by grace, through your faith. You said a state of grace is something you cannot fall out of. Grace is not salvation, the greek word for grace is charis and it means unmerited favor. This same unmerited favor combined with his love for mankind is why he sent his only begotten son. The real point is that we must have faith to be saved and you state matter of factly , that if I lose my faith, I am still preserved and that violates the law of first belief/faith. Abraham staggered not at the promises of God, through unbelief, but was fully persuaded, that what God said he could do, he would do and God imputed that unwaivering faith into righteousness and Abrahama was called God's friend.

Heb 6.6-8 & John 10.27-29 If you have lost your faith, because you have quenched or rejected the voice of the shepherd and go your own way, nobody has plucked you out of God's hand, but you have fallen away and it is harder for you to come back.

The whole supporrt of OSAS is hinged on the single fact that God's care for those he saves is for eternity and I would agree. The single largest error in this damnbale doctrine is that it refuses to admit and address that while no devil in hell can take you out of God's hands, YOU, YOURSELF, can walk away from him and his slavation and you do so at your own peril.

Matt 12.22-32 Letting your faith fail you is simply unbelief in God and that is the unpardonable sin. Just as Jesus told the pharisees of his day, that Blaspheming the Holy Ghost was the unpardonable sin, it is also the same for us today. God says you have to take his gift through unmerited favor & FAITH! You lose your faith, you lose the benefits of the covenant relationship with God.

Rev 21.7-8 says it best about who WILL and who WONT be part of the new heaven & new earth.

It might do you very well to study about why Jesus talked so much about, abiding, overcoming and enduring.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That is because it is a church doctrine.

With all due respect you are derailing this thread and slandering Protestants. Start your own thread or stay on topic.

I have two great verses I just posted you can comment on...why not speak to those. How do Catholic commentators interpret these?

With all due respect, I've been engaging Calvinists in these debates for over a decade and you bring nothing new to the table. The very verses you quote that you think support TULIP don't support anything of the sort except when you look at it with prescribed eyes with a predetermined belief system.

Philippians 1:6
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

This is an example of taking a verse out of context, as if a single verse of scripture exists in a vacuum to support your convoluted theology. Not only was Paul not saying that God will perfect the good work in his audience independent of their ongoing cooperation, but he further drives home the point later in this epistle that we must persist in striving in saying, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling," (2:12)

Then you offer this:

John 10:27-29
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

You do the same thing here, ignoring those teaching of Christ that don't conform to your ideology. In the Parable of the Sower, it is made abundantly clear that some can receive the gospel with great joy and then fall away when persecutions and temptations arise. People are bonded neither to salvation or perdition and never, as long as they live, lose free will to accept salvation or to forfeit it.

The problem with you Calvinists is that you abuse scripture, picking and choosing those things you think support TULIP and studiously ignoring any passages that make clear that our enduring and persistent faith is required of us to be saved in the end, to not turn away, give up, or lapse into delinquency again. You quote Jesus when he says "no one will snatch them out of my hand" and then ignore Jesus when he says, "but he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Mark 13:13) This shows a veiled contempt for scripture, subordinating it to fit your misguided theology rooted in error.

 

[rockytopva]

It is my belief that the churches unraveled in seven ages as presented in the book of Revelation...

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. Can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

The doctrine of OSAS is clearly a sardisean protestant age doctrine.

 

[The_highwayman]

It is my belief that the churches unraveled in seven ages as presented in the book of Revelation...

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. Can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

The doctrine of OSAS is clearly a sardisean protestant age doctrine.

rocky,
Not all protestant denominations believe in OSAS.

 

[justaname]

justaname,
once again you stated:
"God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

Not only does this statement completely refute the plan of Salvation, which is based on faith, but it also makes God contradict himself and therefore call's him unholy and a liar.

God demands our faith through our entire walk with him, I mean really why not read all of Hebrews 11

Heb 11.6 WIthout faith you cannot please God or even come to believe that he is. So how can you state that if I dont have faith in God, I will still be preserved by God for eternity?

Eph 2.8 You are saved by grace, through your faith. You said a state of grace is something you cannot fall out of. Grace is not salvation, the greek word for grace is charis and it means unmerited favor. This same unmerited favor combined with his love for mankind is why he sent his only begotten son. The real point is that we must have faith to be saved and you state matter of factly , that if I lose my faith, I am still preserved and that violates the law of first belief/faith. Abraham staggered not at the promises of God, through unbelief, but was fully persuaded, that what God said he could do, he would do and God imputed that unwaivering faith into righteousness and Abrahama was called God's friend.

Heb 6.6-8 & John 10.27-29 If you have lost your faith, because you have quenched or rejected the voice of the shepherd and go your own way, nobody has plucked you out of God's hand, but you have fallen away and it is harder for you to come back.

The whole supporrt of OSAS is hinged on the single fact that God's care for those he saves is for eternity and I would agree. The single largest error in this damnbale doctrine is that it refuses to admit and address that while no devil in hell can take you out of God's hands, YOU, YOURSELF, can walk away from him and his slavation and you do so at your own peril.

Matt 12.22-32 Letting your faith fail you is simply unbelief in God and that is the unpardonable sin. Just as Jesus told the pharisees of his day, that Blaspheming the Holy Ghost was the unpardonable sin, it is also the same for us today. God says you have to take his gift through unmerited favor & FAITH! You lose your faith, you lose the benefits of the covenant relationship with God.

Rev 21.7-8 says it best about who WILL and who WONT be part of the new heaven & new earth.

It might do you very well to study about why Jesus talked so much about, abiding, overcoming and enduring.

The statement is, "God's preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in the faith"

This means you must continue in your faith. Perhaps you should be the one studying.

With all due respect, I've been engaging Calvinists in these debates for over a decade and you bring nothing new to the table. The very verses you quote that you think support TULIP don't support anything of the sort except when you look at it with prescribed eyes with a predetermined belief system.

Philippians 1:6
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

This is an example of taking a verse out of context, as if a single verse of scripture exists in a vacuum to support your convoluted theology. Not only was Paul not saying that God will perfect the good work in his audience independent of their ongoing cooperation, but he further drives home the point later in this epistle that we must persist in striving in saying, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling," (2:12)

Then you offer this:

John 10:27-29
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

You do the same thing here, ignoring those teaching of Christ that don't conform to your ideology. In the Parable of the Sower, it is made abundantly clear that some can receive the gospel with great joy and then fall away when persecutions and temptations arise. People are bonded neither to salvation or perdition and never, as long as they live, lose free will to accept salvation or to forfeit it.

The problem with you Calvinists is that you abuse scripture, picking and choosing those things you think support TULIP and studiously ignoring any passages that make clear that our enduring and persistent faith is required of us to be saved in the end, to not turn away, give up, or lapse into delinquency again. You quote Jesus when he says "no one will snatch them out of my hand" and then ignore Jesus when he says, "but he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Mark 13:13) This shows a veiled contempt for scripture, subordinating it to fit your misguided theology rooted in error.

You have stated nothing about the texts presented only submitted other texts you believe refute these texts. It seems you are the biased one in this dialogue, thereby you are guilty of your own accusations. You want to hold to the idea that you can lose your salvation so bad you ignore the texts that clearly state that is not the case.

In the parable of the sower there is only one soil we would say is "saved." None of the others were saved or were ever going to be saved. In God's infinite knowledge He knows all who are saved and only those He saves are saved. Those who are saved are active in the sanctification process. Just because I submit the fact that God actively protects those He saves and these never lose their salvation, does not mean there is no effort given from the believer.

Here is the direct context of the Philippians verse:

1 Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons:
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all,
5 in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now.
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.
8 For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,
10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;
11 having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.


After verse 11 Paul moves into the body of the letter. Verses 1-11 are greetings or the opening of the letter. So yes within context this verse states confidently God finishes what He starts. Do feel differently about God? If so we need not discuss the matter anymore because you must serve a different god than I do.

Would you care to comment on the verses themselves without bringing up other verses you feel contradict these?

For the record I am not a calvinist nor do I hold to tulip. I am simply a Christian.

I believe Calvin had biblical doctrine that is true, but so did Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and many others. This does not mean I am a follow of them, I am a follower of the Way. So please hold your assumptions to yourself.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

rocky,
Not all protestant denominations believe in OSAS.

This is true.

 

[williemac]

That following the "one faith" (Eph 4:5) that Jesus established would be very difficult, he said: "Exert yourselves vigorously ("vigorously", Greek agonizesthe, meaning "to struggle, to contend with an adversary", from which comes the English word agonize) to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."(Luke 13:24)

To further show that few would be willing to agonize or vigorously struggle to get in through the "narrow door", he said that this "narrow door" would be closed to most, though these would "knock", asking the householder to open the door. But the householder (Jesus Christ) then tells them: "I do not know where you are from. Get away from me, all you workers of lawlessness ! "(Luke 13:27)

Jesus does not recognize these ones who make a profession of Christianity but fails to agonize in doing God's will, such as being morally clean in both speech and conduct, faithfully carrying out the commission of preaching "the good news of the kingdom" (Matt 24:14) from "house to house" (Acts 5:42; 20:20), who fail to make known God's name of Jehovah and be his witnesses as Jesus was (Rev 3:14), who fail to be "no part of the world" (John 15:19), and who fail to not be touching the "unclean thing" such as fornication and smoking (2 Cor 6:18, as well as any tobacco and drug abuse), who fail to abstain from the political arena as well as having a "fleshly" view of life.(Rom 8:5), who fail to "abstain from blood", such as blood transfusions (Acts 15:20; Lev 17:10), who fail to discard the "love of money".(Luke 16:13, 14; 1 Tim 6:10)

To these ones, Jesus tells them to "I never knew you ! Get away from me you workers of lawlessness !".(Matt 7:23) At Matthew 7, he furthermore said "by their fruits" a true Christian would be recognized: "Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men."(Matt 7:17-20)

Yes, by their "fruits" or conduct can these be seen as either genuine or counterfeit. Most never "make the grade", producing "rotten fruit", unwilling to "strip off the old personality with its (immoral and unclean) practices, and cloth (themselves) with the new personality."(Col 3:9, 10)

Speaking of fruit, Jesus in His parable of the sower explained that some would hear the word of God and understand it and bear fruit..."some 100, some 60, some 30" . The point I see is that the subject of fruit is not in absolute terms. The only absolute that is unacceptable is the scenario where no fruit happens at all. In the Parable of the talents, the man who dug a hole and buried it, represents one who deliberately refuses to bear fruit.

Otherwise, there are they who are doing better than others and they who bear very little fruit. Both are welcomed into the kingdom. The one whom Jesus casts away is he who He never knew ( as opposed to "used to know" ). We are now talking about those in Christ vs. those not in Christ. Those who are not in Christ, whom He never knew, will be judged both by their works and by their sin, and will be condemned. Those in Christ will not come into judgment, but have passed from death to life (John5:24). The key is whether He knows a person, not how much or little fruit that one is bearing.

As for this very narrow way that some keep quoting Jesus about...did it ever occur to you that He came to solve this problem? He commented on this before He died to take away the sin of the world. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself...why? Because up until that time, the way was too narrow for many to come into the kingdom. But when we want to see this so called "few", we can turn to the revelation of John, who saw a multitude before the throne that no one could number. If this is your idea of a "few", then I'm stumped. God did not promise Abraham that only a "few" would be his descendants.

 

[justaname]

It is my belief that the churches unraveled in seven ages as presented in the book of Revelation...

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. Can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

The doctrine of OSAS is clearly a sardisean protestant age doctrine.

Wow...

I find this amusing on many different levels.

First off the churches listed in the book of Revelation are actual churches in Asia overseen by John the Apostle. Drawing a conclusion to different western churches throughout time is simply a game. With a simple shuffle of the names and you can get any church to fit any other church.

Then the pic you post seems to infer that Protestantism removes something from the scriptures. Perhaps you need to take a deeper look into the reformation.

Then to make the inference that because someone believes in the promises made by God in the holy Scriptures they have no heart...

Well you can judge for yourself.

 

[horsecamp]

Calvinism and OSAS doctrine of men came out of misinterpretation of Scripture examples like Romans 8 thru 11, Ephesians 2, etc., by Paul about the subject of predestination.

There has always existed a group of God's elect servants on this earth, even in Old Testament times, and they were directly in God's service even back then with His hand directly upon them to do His Will, while the rest of Israel fell away and were rebellious by their own free will. It is no different for today in Christ's Church.

Those which are not just 'called' only, but also 'chosen' sent ones, CANNOT and WILL NOT be deceived by the coming pseudo-Christ events for our near future (Matt.24:22-26). Just as God intervened directly with His chosen elect back in OT history, likewise it is that way today too.

But the rest of us believers MUST be tried using our 'own' free-will, and overcome through Christ Jesus. The difference is we can fall away to deception if we allow it when tried, but His elect chosen cannot fall away when they are tried.

PERHAPS ITS TIME TO JUST TAKE THE BIBLE AT FACE VALUE AND BELIEVE BOTH .




On one side, Scripture warns of the real danger of falling from faith. In Jesus’ parable of the sower, he mourns those who “believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away” (Luke 8:13). Paul speaks a powerful warning in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you do not fall.” In 1 Timothy, Paul even mentions Christians by name who “shipwrecked their faith” (1:19).

On the other side are passages that teach our eternal election. In Ephesians 1:4 Paul unveils the wonder that God “chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” In Romans 8:30 Paul weaves what some call the “unbreakable golden chain of our election”: “Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” What begins in eternity continues inevitably to a glorious eternity. Jesus also promises that none of us will slip through his or his Father’s hands (John 10:28,29). We see that portrayed in picture language in Revelation 7 as the exact “number” of the elect arrives home safely. Not one is missing.

..





Reason finds it impossible to see how the man who is convinced that he can fall, that he may fall, that he is in great danger of falling away throughout his earthly life, can also be perfectly sure that he will never fall away.

One answer that Lutheranism gives is that


read whole thing

only two short pages long


http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/august-2004/qa-foot-cross-falling-faith?page=0,0

 

[veteran]

PERHAPS ITS TIME TO JUST TAKE THE BIBLE AT FACE VALUE AND BELIEVE BOTH .

What? Just choose to believe two doctrines that ORIGINATED from men when I 'know' neither one came from God in His Word? I would be denying to take God's Word at face value if I did that! Don't you understand the expression "at face value" that you used? It does NOT mean to blindly follow something, which is how you're using it.

What you're really implying is to take MAN'S DOCTRINES (Calvinism and OSAS) at face value, and not The Bible at face value.

On one side, Scripture warns of the real danger of falling from faith. In Jesus’ parable of the sower, he mourns those who “believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away” (Luke 8:13). Paul speaks a powerful warning in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you do not fall.” In 1 Timothy, Paul even mentions Christians by name who “shipwrecked their faith” (1:19).

On the other side are passages that teach our eternal election. In Ephesians 1:4 Paul unveils the wonder that God “chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” In Romans 8:30 Paul weaves what some call the “unbreakable golden chain of our election”: “Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” What begins in eternity continues inevitably to a glorious eternity. Jesus also promises that none of us will slip through his or his Father’s hands (John 10:28,29). We see that portrayed in picture language in Revelation 7 as the exact “number” of the elect arrives home safely. Not one is missing.

NONE of us have attained to Christ's Salvation just yet, we're all still running the race. That's the first real fact of today that puts both in proper perspective. We have the 'promise' by Faith, but it has not yet been completed simply because Christ has not yet returned and our bodies have not been redeemed yet, nor has His Kingdom of the world to come happened yet.

Another fact: Apostle Paul's statement in Romans 8, "If God be for us, who can be against us," is ONLY... for those who remain faithful in Christ Jesus, even to the end.

NOWHERE in Scripture did Apostle Paul promise anyone that they would be saved regardless if they fell away from Christ. Good thing too, because that decision was not Paul's to make, nor any other man's, but our Lord Jesus' only.

What our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17 settles the matter, because there Jesus declared two separate groups of believers that was His desire that they both become one in Him and The Father. The first group represents His chosen elect that were already owned by The Father when He gave them to Christ (John 17:6 & 18). The second group of John 17:20 represent those that only belong to Him once they believe through the preaching of His chosen sent ones, and that group is still on-going today. It's that second group which are deemed elect also as long as they don't fall away. Afterall, as He said there it's His desire that both become one in Him and The Father. Likewise, it was the Apostle's desire that none within the Church would fall away. Didn't mean it was not possible for those.

Judas Iscariot is a separate case, because the prophecy of our Lord Jesus' betrayal had to be fulfilled, and Judas was ordained to fulfill it we know. But once Judas' place was filled among the 12, it did not change again.

Thusly, with what Paul taught in Rom.8 about the idea of being a predestinated one, the commissiion of Christ's Apostles must be weighed in comparison with the rest of the Church. And that's how both your two examples apply to both groups at the same time. The main difference being if one of the called (not sent or chosen but called only) falls away, then Paul's admonition no longer applies to those, for the fallen will have disconnected themselves from Christ's Church of their own will. Not so with His chosen sent ones who cannot fall away, because He will move them to do His Work by His Will and not their's.