The Doctrine of OSAS

[williemac]

You're free to believe that I suppose. But for the purpose of conversation, perhaps you could address the passages in scripture that show that on our own we are hopeless, sinful and dead. Perhaps you could explain, if we could 'do it ourselves' why Christ had to come, and after him, why it was necessary for the Holy Spirit to come and work within us? How is that to become a Christian our nature has to change so radically that it is termed 'new birth'. Our physical birth was hardly of our doing, and I truly believe (as I showed in my last post) that the bible tells us that our spiritual birth is not of our doing either...I believe that Christ was making that very point when he used 'birth' as an example of what happens when we become his.

On our own, we cannot produce life nor righteousness. As far as dead, it seems to me that men have three parts to them. 1. a physical body, 2. a soul, and 3. a spirit. The physical body of flesh carries the nature of Adam, is corrupt, corruptible, and carnal. The spiritual part is that which is dead, not carrying the life of God as it was intended. The soul, however, is very much alive and capable of reasoning. This is seen throughout scripture. The question I have for you is when did I ever say we could "do it" on our own? That is not what faith is, and that is not what i am suggesting. In fact, faith for salvation can only be present in the person who knows he cannot do it on his own. Faith is the means by which we receive a free gift from God. If a person thought he could do it on his own, he would have no need to receive life by faith, now would he? In fact, this is actually one of the biggest hurdles facing the religious. There are people who are trying to earn their way into His kingdom. But as far as birth is concerned, you are most likely referring to John 3. You can answer this question yourself by thinking about just how this birth is acquired. Jesus told Nicodemus in 3:16. It is acquired by faith. It is a perversion of the truth to suggest that the new birth happens first before faith happens.

quote:
Trinity" is not a biblical term either, but do you want to deny that the bible clearly teaches it?? And as for there being 'no agreed upon definition'....I would say that they definition is what scripture paints. And as I've pointed out, scripture calls us dead. Thats pretty strong wording for someone supposedly capable 'regenerating' themselves. The bible also says that we are blind and that no one is righteous. No one seeks God, and no one understands. So let me ask you....if we are so 'dead' and 'blind' that we cannot even understand our need to seek God...let alone actually seeking him, how on earth are you proposing that we ourselves do this deed??
I've trotted out the bible verses that back these ideas, I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. I'm not one of these people who refuse to even consider the opposite side, I just like biblical proof that maybe I'm wrong. At the moment, I honestly see scripture telling us that without the work of God in our hearts, we haven't got a hope.

The bible does not say that no one seeks God. Go back and read the context. It is about the fact that no one is righteous. What it says is that no one seeks "after" God. Omitting this word is common with those who argue your side of this debate. But that is not an extra word. It has a purpose. In the context, it is intended to reveal that no one seeks after the righteousness of God. This has nothing to do with the common insult to mankind that is contrived, that mankind is born with hatred for God and no desire to know Him. That is sheer and utter hogwash. In this world and in the bible, the contrary is as plain as your nose. You can trot out all the verses you wish, but if you are misunderstanding them, then what's the use? But here is a passage, since you are asking for one:
Heb.11:6..." But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". There are plenty who believe that He is, but they are not hearing the right message.

And now you are also insulting my intelligence by putting words in my mouth that I am somehow suggesting we regenerate ourselves. I have already addressed that, however. It is something we receive, not do. Faith is passive. It glorifies God.

Quote:
Criteria? Even if God did have a criteria, why would we think we could understand it, or question it? The bible is quite clear. As a Sovereign God, who he chooses to save or damn is for his purposes, his plan, his glory.

You have just given His motive. You have not given His criteria. You answered why, not how.
And I appreciate the passage you are sharing, but they must be filtered through the criteria. O, and yes, it is real convenient to pass over this point and pretend that we couldn't understand His criteria. However, if He told us what it is, then I'm sure we would get it. I gave you a hint to look back and see what it is. He did tell us what it is. Jesus explained it in Luke18:10-14. ...vs. 14 states that those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themselves will be abased. (The context in that passage is about justification.) This is confirmed by James (4:6) who stated that God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. But you can go ahead and ignore this point if you wish to keep your head buried in the sand. This is the criteria that is the issue with all of God's creation. There is only one God. Lucifer was the first offender. He wanted to be as God.
Neither he nor man can do what only God can do. Man cannot produce life nor righteousness. These must be received as a gift of grace (through the new birth). If you've ever been forced in your life to accept charity, you will know how humbling it is. It takes humility to receive life as a freely given gift of grace. This is how God chooses His vessels, my friend. Or do you think it was a lottery? Do you imagine He flips a coin? Or do you also imagine He is capable of purposely creating people with no other purpose or destiny than to be thrown into the fire...just to show off His power? You have to realize that there is a little more to it than that.....Surely!

As for your last point, there is no passage that says the Holy Spirit convicts a believer of sin. We know when we are sinning. And the repentance you are speaking of is after salvation. There is a repentance unto salvation. In fact, in John 16:8,9 Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will convict unbelievers of sin...those who do not believe in Him. This is actually part of the process that leads one to the Savior for the forgiveness of sin. In that passage, Jesus states that the Holy Spirit will convict the world. The gospel is intended to be preached to the whole world. Those who humbly accept the conviction, and desire to be saved, will be drawn to Jesus. God gives grace to the humble.

 

[Rach1370]

Thankyou for supplying bible verses. I usually find discussing God's word helps if we show Gods word!!
You've brought up some good points, I'll try to answer them....

First, let's be clear on one thing. Faith, most simply put, is simply believing what God wants us to believe, whatever it may be.

Genesis 4:7 - Cain was born as "dead in sin" as anyone yet was given a clear choice by God to sin or not to sin. Cain heard, understood and could have believed and obeyed God, but CHOSE not to. Is it because God didn't give Cain the ability to believe what He said? If so, God is a liar because He pretended sincerity and pretended Cain had a choice when he really didn't.

John 5:39-40 - They WOULD NOT come to Him for life because they refused to believe on Him. If the real reason they WOULD NOT come is because they COULD NOT come, then Christ's judgment against them is a lie.

Honestly, I don't know how to answer to these passages...at the moment I'm not sure I can. Not that means there isn't a good answer...it just means I'm not that learned!!

What I would ask about them is this: If, as you say, these passages mean God asking people for something they could not give, because God himself has denied it, means God is a liar....then how do we reconcile such verses as this:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—(Romans 9:17-23, ESV)

Clearly, God does indeed choose to 'harden' and 'damn' some people....and the reason he does it is for his purpose, to show his power, and the riches of his glory. And also, clearly, we have zero right to question his right to do so.

So, while I cannot answer you about the above verses (and I will look into finding an answer if I have time), I have to question your interpretation of them simply based on what I see as a clearly stated opposition to it.

Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing the Word of God, not from first being regenerated by Him to be able to hear it and believe it. Paul would have told us if that were the case. God draws, true, but any and all can hear and believe apart from God enabling them to do so.

This is a good verse for your case also, but again, I must question your interpretation of it, simply because of other verses. Consider just above your verse Paul says this:

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:10, ESV)

So...in this whole passage, Paul lists out the 'order of salvation'....more or less. He says that:

• People will call on Jesus to save them only if they believe he can do so
• Belief in Christ cannot exist without knowledge about him
• One hears about Christ only when someone proclaims the saving message
• The message about Christ will not be proclaimed unless someone is sent by God to do so.

But wait a minute...he also tells us that:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23, ESV)

as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God. (Romans 3:10-11, ESV)

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:22-23, ESV)

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4, ESV)

And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, (Ezekiel 11:19, ESV)

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— (Ephesians 2:1-5, ESV)

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:7-9, ESV)

So I guess what I'm asking here is this: how do we reconcile both lots of verses? How do we say "we are able to come to God ourselves" when we have the above verses telling us that we cannot?
Because its all well and good you showing me verses that I cannot answer yet....but you must see that just because I don't understand something, it's still not enough for me to swerve away from verses I see very clearly. I must have biblically sound reasons to harmonize both sets of verses...so please, by all means, explain away. As I said, I am open to reason...but it must be reason from scripture...a clear reading of both sides.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - Faith is excluded as "the gift" because [a] faith is never said to be "of works" but salvation (wrongly) is, and salvation is "not of ourselves" but faith is of ourselves, else the urgings to believe and be saved and the warnings for not doing so are lies.

Ok....I'm not following you here. Are you saying that the passage is calling the 'gift' salvation because salvation, and not faith, is what is often wrongly attributed to 'works"?

I would agree with you on that, but I would also disagree...because it appears to me that right now you ARE attributing faith to works...mainly, yours. My understanding of what you're debating for, is that you are capable of coming yourself, to saving faith. If it's something done by you...doesn't it make it works done by you??

And they are only lies if you believe God doesn't have the divine and sovereign right to do as he chooses in everything. It's only a lie if we think 'saving people' is God's ultimate purpose in everything. Its not, actually....it's to bring glory to himself, as we see in: Romans 9:17-23 and Eph 1. If we 'plug' that into our life view and our understanding of scripture, life the universe and everything, then it most certainly doesn't make God a liar.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 - Those who perish here are said to perish because they CHOSE not receive a love of the truth and CHOSE not believe the truth, but rather clung to the pleasures of unrighteousness. They CHOSE to not be saved when they had the opportunity, meaning God COULD NOT force saving faith upon them. If God is love and COULD force saving faith upon men, would He not do so for all? I believe He would. But He doesn't. So it is throughout Scripture - God wants to be believed but man is free to believe Him or not, at his peril.

Again, we go back to Romans 9:17-23 where it tells us that God 'hardens' who he chooses...prepares for wrath who he chooses....that it is his right to do so, and it will ultimately show his glory.

God draws, but does He make anyone believe Him? That's not even the right question: Does He need to? No, doing so would negate saving faith as the Bible describes it and make it a sham. It likewise makes condemnation for LACK of faith a sham, too, because neither one is genuine and God would be a liar.

So to say God must regenerate anyone before they can truly hear and truly trust what He says is a false gospel because that not only isn't how the Bible says one is saved, it also removes human all responsibility - saved or lost - from the equation. The Bible says faith is a capacity all people have; what they CHOOSE to do or not do with it is the real issue.

See, I totally disagree. To me, coming to God on my own back gives me something to be proud in, something to boast in. And the bible is very clear that everything we have in regards to salvation, or even ongoing breath, is a gift from to, in order for us to praise and glorify him.

I may not be able to answer again, as I'm back into schooling my son (he has autism and I have to homeschool him)...so I get kinda busy. But thanks for the conversation and debate...and I will certainly look into those passages above...either way I'd like to have an answer for them!!

On our own, we cannot produce life nor righteousness. As far as dead, it seems to me that men have three parts to them. 1. a physical body, 2. a soul, and 3. a spirit. The physical body of flesh carries the nature of Adam, is corrupt, corruptible, and carnal. The spiritual part is that which is dead, not carrying the life of God as it was intended. The soul, however, is very much alive and capable of reasoning. This is seen throughout scripture. The question I have for you is when did I ever say we could "do it" on our own? That is not what faith is, and that is not what i am suggesting. In fact, faith for salvation can only be present in the person who knows he cannot do it on his own. Faith is the means by which we receive a free gift from God. If a person thought he could do it on his own, he would have no need to receive life by faith, now would he? In fact, this is actually one of the biggest hurdles facing the religious. There are people who are trying to earn their way into His kingdom. But as far as birth is concerned, you are most likely referring to John 3. You can answer this question yourself by thinking about just how this birth is acquired. Jesus told Nicodemus in 3:16. It is acquired by faith. It is a perversion of the truth to suggest that the new birth happens first before faith happens.

Ok...you have my attention. Some interesting thoughts here...some I've never considered before, some I actually agree with. I'm wondering if perhaps you could walk through the general idea here a little bit better for me??
Oh...and it wasn't my intention to 'put words in your mouth'....I tend to try and repeat what I see people saying...usually they then tell me straight up if I understood it wrong!!!

quote:
Trinity" is not a biblical term either, but do you want to deny that the bible clearly teaches it?? And as for there being 'no agreed upon definition'....I would say that they definition is what scripture paints. And as I've pointed out, scripture calls us dead. Thats pretty strong wording for someone supposedly capable 'regenerating' themselves. The bible also says that we are blind and that no one is righteous. No one seeks God, and no one understands. So let me ask you....if we are so 'dead' and 'blind' that we cannot even understand our need to seek God...let alone actually seeking him, how on earth are you proposing that we ourselves do this deed??
I've trotted out the bible verses that back these ideas, I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. I'm not one of these people who refuse to even consider the opposite side, I just like biblical proof that maybe I'm wrong. At the moment, I honestly see scripture telling us that without the work of God in our hearts, we haven't got a hope.

The bible does not say that no one seeks God. Go back and read the context. It is about the fact that no one is righteous. What it says is that no one seeks "after" God. Omitting this word is common with those who argue your side of this debate. But that is not an extra word. It has a purpose. In the context, it is intended to reveal that no one seeks after the righteousness of God. This has nothing to do with the common insult to mankind that is contrived, that mankind is born with hatred for God and no desire to know Him. That is sheer and utter hogwash. In this world and in the bible, the contrary is as plain as your nose. You can trot out all the verses you wish, but if you are misunderstanding them, then what's the use? But here is a passage, since you are asking for one:
Heb.11:6..." But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". There are plenty who believe that He is, but they are not hearing the right message.

Well this is interesting. Because in the ESV it's definitely says "no one seeks FOR God". But you are right...in the KJV it says "no one seeks AFTER God". I looked up the Strongs number for the Greek translation, and it says: "seek out, seek out after, require." It's got both there...so that's not much help!! Because you're right...the different words do change the general meaning of the text. Could still be seen my way, but more naturally your way. Not sure where it leaves us really, in the whole debate of the thing.

I dunno about the whole "man hates God and has no desire to know him"...you honestly think it's hogwash? I think the bible has some pretty strong language as to how 'evil' mankand is. I mean think about it...we replaced God with ourselves...not only did we have the urge and stupidity to do it, we actually believed we could! I dunno...think you might have some work to do to convince me that man, at base, does actually want to know God....especially when every god they try to set up is something that opposes the one true God.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good. (Psalm 14:1, ESV)

The Hebrew verse is a good one, but I'm still wondering how you harmonize it with all the other verses that suggest that unless God does a work in our hearts. Although at this point, I'm starting to wonder if I ever really 'got' what you were say...which brings me back to my point above....can you please go over it with a little more detail.....

And now you are also insulting my intelligence by putting words in my mouth that I am somehow suggesting we regenerate ourselves. I have already addressed that, however. It is something we receive, not do. Faith is passive. It glorifies God.

Quote:
Criteria? Even if God did have a criteria, why would we think we could understand it, or question it? The bible is quite clear. As a Sovereign God, who he chooses to save or damn is for his purposes, his plan, his glory.

You have just given His motive. You have not given His criteria. You answered why, not how.
And I appreciate the passage you are sharing, but they must be filtered through the criteria. O, and yes, it is real convenient to pass over this point and pretend that we couldn't understand His criteria. However, if He told us what it is, then I'm sure we would get it. I gave you a hint to look back and see what it is. He did tell us what it is. Jesus explained it in Luke18:10-14. ...vs. 14 states that those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themselves will be abased. (The context in that passage is about justification.) This is confirmed by James (4:6) who stated that God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. But you can go ahead and ignore this point if you wish to keep your head buried in the sand. This is the criteria that is the issue with all of God's creation. There is only one God. Lucifer was the first offender. He wanted to be as God.

It is not, nor ever has been, my intention to question your intelligence. Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just repeating what I understood you were saying. I'll apologise if I was wrong.

So....the part I bolded...you're saying that (and I'm thinking this is part of your all over point....don't hate the people who take a while to get where you are!) that the first step is to realise that we're totally broken and cannot do what is needed to 'fix' ourselves....that's where the knowledge of our need for God blossoms?? Okay...I get that. Stretch the idea and point for me...I'm on the cusp of getting it...

And by the by....I'm not one of these people who "has my head buried in the sand" cause I like my spot irrespective of the sand dissolving around me because of the incoming wave!

Neither he nor man can do what only God can do. Man cannot produce life nor righteousness. These must be received as a gift of grace (through the new birth). If you've ever been forced in your life to accept charity, you will know how humbling it is. It takes humility to receive life as a freely given gift of grace. This is how God chooses His vessels, my friend. Or do you think it was a lottery? Do you imagine He flips a coin? Or do you also imagine He is capable of purposely creating people with no other purpose or destiny than to be thrown into the fire...just to show off His power? You have to realize that there is a little more to it than that.....Surely!

Ok...the first bit I get (yes I have recieved charity...yes it was humbling), and even agree with.
The second....I agree it sounds harsh, but it's what I see Romans 9:17-23 saying. How else do you interpret such language, such meanings? It all seems fairly clear to me...
See, here's the thing. As much as I enjoy theology, and as much as I have grown a lot in the last several years, I don't have what you'd call an astounding intellect. Does it make sense to me that God would choose to send people to hell? Not really. But there is one thing I clearly understand....God is so far beyond my understanding it would be sheer idiocy to try to understand his purposes. I also know that he's totally in control, and that he is a perfect and just God. So...when I come to a passage like Rom 9 that seems to be so clearly saying something....I accept it cause I know that whether we call it fair or unfair, just or unjust...God's got it, and given his nature, that's good enough.
Now, that may be incredibly immature of me, terribly stupid...I don't know, but I trust God, and I trust the leading and urging of the Holy Spirit, and until he leads me to a different understanding, I call it how I see it. Of course, could be that he's having you lead me to that new understanding....but that's exactly why I stay open to these sort of things. I'm careful, and I'm prayful...but I'm open to learning what God says...always.

As for your last point, there is no passage that says the Holy Spirit convicts a believer of sin. We know when we are sinning. And the repentance you are speaking of is after salvation. There is a repentance unto salvation. In fact, in John 16:8,9 Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will convict unbelievers of sin...those who do not believe in Him. This is actually part of the process that leads one to the Savior for the forgiveness of sin. In that passage, Jesus states that the Holy Spirit will convict the world. The gospel is intended to be preached to the whole world. Those who humbly accept the conviction, and desire to be saved, will be drawn to Jesus. God gives grace to the humble.

There are most certainly passages that state the Spirit is at work within us and that we can and need to, listen to him and work with him.

(John 16:7-9, ESV), (Hebrews 4:12, ESV), (Galatians 5:16-26, ESV), (Acts 7:51, ESV)

Sorry...gotta go....family issues...!

 

[FHII]

Folks, the OSAS issue is not identical to the issue of Calvinism.

Whereas as the former is a feature of the latter, plenty of churches accept the former without accepting the latter.

Glad to hear someone say that! I actually have studied Calvin -- his writings, not just biographies or a wikipedia article, but got down into what he actually wrote -- and not only are many of the things people say OSAS means, but what many things labelled "Calvinism", he didn't preach! In other words, Calvin wasn't a Calvinist!

He did believe in predestination, and quotes from the Bible. You folks should realize he probably published dozens of essays and books and thousands of chapters.... Only 3 that I could find directly deal with predestination. Furthermore, I can't recall details, but he often contradicted himself on the issue.

 

[musterion]

Folks, the OSAS issue is not identical to the issue of Calvinism.

Whereas as the former is a feature of the latter, plenty of churches accept the former without accepting the latter.

You're right, but Rach asked for a reply to what she posted, and her interpretations are heavily weighted in Reformed theology. I had to respond in that context. So I'll just wrap myself up for now with this:

Unconditional Eternal Security in Christ =/= Perseverance of the Saints.

Two supeficially similar but fundamentally different doctrines.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Folks, the OSAS issue is not identical to the issue of Calvinism.

Whereas as the former is a feature of the latter, plenty of churches accept the former without accepting the latter.

Yes...but...

As I pointed out to Rach, Calvinism is the logical conclusion of OSAS. OSAS that doesn't lead to Calvinism is just half baked; not thought out to its logical conclusion. You can't remove freewill after salvation unless you remove it before salvation as well, as the Calvinists have done. Clinging to OSAS while trying to ignore the natural conclusions of it is, well.....

 

[williemac]

I have been really impressed with Rach in his honesty and humility. He is open to correction, as we all should be, and I have underestimated his integrity.
My own take on osas is that it is true from God's side. He intends to honor His promise and has assured us in John 5:24 that we will not come under judgment. But as the above reply states, Calvinism has removed what is referred to as 'free will", both before and after salvation. That conclusion contradicts a whole ton of scripture. I personally don't like calling it free will because I have observed that the term has no agreed upon definition or application.
The Calvinist approach recognizes that man is incapable of righteousness. But various passages that are observations concerning mankind are taken by them to be descriptions of an inherited nature. They feel that mankind is locked into his dilemma and therefore needs a change in nature before he can come to God. They are incorrect. How is it possible that a person can inherit through dna, hatred for God? That is ridiculous. And it doesn't play out that way in the world. If they were correct in their conclusion concerning depravity, then the world would be 100 times more evil and corrupt than it is.
No, the inheritance of sin comes from being born without God and without life (ie: satisfaction, fulfillment, joy, peace, etc.). The soul then naturally tries to replace these, trying to find them with other things. But the only things available in the world are natural things, which appeal to the flesh.

But the soul has the ability to think, reason, and respond. Therefore the gospel appeals to that part of us. If we could not respond to it, then the advertising world would not exist. We can be sold on a concept or a product. In so many words, the gospel offers both. But the strength of the gospel is love. God draws us with His infinite and indescribable love. This is a far cry from the Calvinist concept that He uses manipulation, or pre-programming, as it were.

John recognized three things that are in the world (1John2:16), which are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It occurred to me years ago that these are the three categories of the three temptations of Jesus. My opinion is that God took care of the first two at Calvary, for they involve influences found in this age in the world. But the third is the issue that plagues all who have so called "free will". It is the issue that will determine our destiny. Lucifer made a conscious and eternal decision to leave his created purpose and determine to be as God. The short word for this is "pride".

The Calvinist position misses the mark in my opinion by assuming that man has an inherent hatred for God. The real issue is found in the desire to "be" God. This plays out in various ways. It can be a factor in atheism, for example. But in the religious world, it is seen in self righteousness and self justification. The Galatians were seduced in this area and were said to have fallen from grace by adding justification by law into their faith. This offense is a fruit of the real issue, pride.

In my observation, many who refute osas have fallen prey to the same area as the Galatians. One does this when he suggests that sin can cause the loss of salvation. Sin is transgression of law. By default therefore, the law comes back into the arena if this suggestion is true. For some, I shudder at the thought that this could result to be a self fulfilling doctrine. It is not wrong to abstain from sin, as long as it is for the right reasons. Keeping oneself saved is not only the wrong reason, it is one that is likened to playing with fire.

 

[Dodo_David]

You can't remove freewill after salvation unless you remove it before salvation as well, as the Calvinists have done.

I am still waiting for someone to provide Bible verses which say that God has given man unlimited free will.

Now getting back to the topic of this thread (which is OSAS, not Calvinism), 1 Timothy 4:1-5 says the following:

4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

So, if some will abandon the faith, does that mean that some will lose salvation?

As Ephesians 2:8 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith . . ."

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I have been really impressed with Rach in his honesty and humility. He is open to correction, as we all should be, and I have underestimated his integrity.
My own take on osas is that it is true from God's side. He intends to honor His promise and has assured us in John 5:24 that we will not come under judgment. But as the above reply states, Calvinism has removed what is referred to as 'free will", both before and after salvation. That conclusion contradicts a whole ton of scripture. I personally don't like calling it free will because I have observed that the term has no agreed upon definition or application.
The Calvinist approach recognizes that man is incapable of righteousness. But various passages that are observations concerning mankind are taken by them to be descriptions of an inherited nature. They feel that mankind is locked into his dilemma and therefore needs a change in nature before he can come to God. They are incorrect. How is it possible that a person can inherit through dna, hatred for God? That is ridiculous. And it doesn't play out that way in the world. If they were correct in their conclusion concerning depravity, then the world would be 100 times more evil and corrupt than it is.
No, the inheritance of sin comes from being born without God and without life. The soul then naturally tries to replace these with other things. The only things available in the world are natural things, which appeal to the flesh.

But the soul has the ability to think, reason, and respond. Therefore the gospel appeals to that part of us. If we could not respond to it, then the advertising world would not exist. We can be sold on a concept or a product. In so many words, the gospel offers both. But the strength of the gospel is love. God draws us with His infinite and indescribable love. This is a far cry from the Calvinist concept that He uses manipulation, or pre-programming, as it were.

John recognized three things that are in the world (1John2:16), which are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. It occurred to me years ago that these are the three categories of the three temptations of Jesus. My opinion is that God took care of the first two at Calvary, for they involve influences found in this age in the world. But the third is the issue that plagues all who have so called "free will". It is the issue that will determine our destiny. Lucifer made a conscious and eternal decision to leave his created purpose and determine to be as God. The short word for this is "pride".

The Calvinist position misses the mark in my opinion by assuming that man has an inherent hatred for God. The real issue is found in the desire to "be" God. This plays out in various ways. It can be a factor in atheism, for example. But in the religious world, it is seen in self righteousness and self justification. The Galatians were seduced in this area and were said to have fallen from grace by adding justification by law into their faith. This offense is a fruit of the real issue, pride.

In my observation, many who refute osas have fallen prey to the same area as the Galatians. One does this when he suggests that sin can cause the loss of salvation. Sin is transgression of law. By default therefore, the law comes back into the arena if this suggestion is true. For some, I shudder at the thought that this could result to be a self fulfilling doctrine. It is not wrong to abstain from sin, as long as it is for the right reasons. Keeping oneself saved is not only the wrong reason, it is one that is likened to playing with fire.

I love this post, I'll preface, before getting into where I disagree. Ripping into Calvinism is easy because their rigid and eclectic belief system provides a target rich environment. But attempting to hold onto OSAS while attempting to remain free from the clutches of Calvinism will prove futile. And I see in your post, particularly the last paragraph, a tactic used by OSAS advocates that focuses attention on the foreign things that cannot separate us from God "neither height, nor depth, nor angels, nor daemons," etc while judiciously steering the conversation away from the volition of the individual. Because if we argue that one can come freely to God through Jesus Christ, we cannot escape the fact that one can just as freely abandon that faith. And while I agree with you that no single sin separates us from God, a life of sin and an abandonment of the pursuit of righteousness goes in tandem with one's decision to vacate their own salvation and return to reprobation. So yes, a multitude of sins indicates one's decision not to follow God.

It's often said that those who reject OSAS lack confidence. They say we have a spirit of fear and then proceed to attack that strawman. I submit that we can have confidence when we do what God commands just like somebody who is doing the will of his employer can be confident he won't be fired. "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." (Rev 2:10). People who are following God and go about their lives with justice, mercy, and charity toward their fellow man don't have a fear of losing their salvation. They rest on the promises of God that "we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end". Hebrews 3:14. I have confidence that as long as I don't decide to abandon Christ, my salvation is sure. And I have no intention of ever abandoning Christ.

I am still waiting for someone to provide Bible verses which say that God has given man unlimited free will.

Now getting back to the topic of this thread (which is OSAS, not Calvinism), 1 Timothy 4:1-5 says the following:

It seems more appropriate for you to defend the notion that there are limits on freewill. Are you seriously suggesting that we lose freewill after salvation? That's an audacious claim that puts the burden of Biblical proof squarely on your shoulders. Freewill is so central in characterizing God's relationship to man that the very first man and woman were put in the same garden as a tree that bore fruit they were told not to eat. From the very start, God wanted to be chosen over the alternative. What you'll find in the Bible is that it alludes to freewill over and over again and never places limits on it or suggests it is at some point lost.

I will say this for you out of respect. At least you're addressing the issue that most OSAS defenders are studiously trying to avoid.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Vale of Tears.

"Once justified by God, always justified by God" does NOT naturally lead to Calvinism, particularly 5-point (TULIP) Calvinism. While I was growing up in a Fundamental Baptist church, we were taught that we were to consider ourselves "3-point Calvinists." That is, of the five points:

T stands for total depravity. This does not mean that all persons are as bad as they could possibly be. It means rather that all human beings are affected by sin in every area of thought and conduct so that nothing that comes out of anyone apart from the regenerating grace of God can please God. As far as our relationships to God are concerned, we are all so ruined by sin that no one can properly understand either God or God's ways. Nor do we seek God, unless He is first at work within us to lead us to do so

U stands for unconditional election. An emphasis on election bothers many people, but the problem they feel is not actually with election; it is with depravity. If sinners are as helpless in their depravity as the Bible says they are, unable to know and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them. This is what election means. It is God choosing to save those who, apart from His sovereign choice and subsequent action, certainly would perish.

L stands for limited atonement. The name is potentially misleading, for it seems to suggest that reformed people want somehow to restrict the value of Christ's death. This is not the case. The value of Jesus' death is infinite. The question rather is what is the purpose of Christ's death, and what He accomplished in it. Did Christ intend to make salvation no more than possible? Or did He actually save those for whom He died? Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.

I stands for irresistible grace. Left to ourselves we resist the grace of God. But when God works in our hearts, regenerating us and creating a renewed will within, then what was undesirable before becomes highly desirable, and we run to Jesus just as previously we ran away from Him. Fallen sinners do resist God's grace, but His regenerating grace is effectual. It overcomes sin and accomplishes God's purpose.

P stands for perseverance of the saints. A better name might be "the perseverance of God with the saints," but both ideas are actually involved. God perseveres with us, keeping us from falling away, as we would certainly do if He were not with us. But because He perseveres we also persevere. In fact, perseverance is the ultimate proof of election. We persevere because God preserves us from full and final falling away from Him.

-- A portion taken from The Reformed Reader at http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm.

I was taught through reasoning from the Scriptures that we could believe in the Total Depravity of the human race (Isaiah 64:6-7; Romans 1:18-3:20), the Unconditional Election of God's awesome grace (Romans 3:21-6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3), that is, that God CHOSE us unconditionally for we could have done nothing to merit His favor, and the Perseverance of God for His saints (1 Corinthians 1:4-9; Ephesians 2:4-6; 4:20-5:21), but not in the Limited Atonement or the Irresistible Grace. God's Atonement was provided for ALL the world, and God doesn't want a bunch of robots without free choice! (John 3:14-18; Ephesians 2:7-10)

Election and predestination are correct ideas in theology; HOWEVER, the irony is this: GOD DOESN'T SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY HUMAN BEING! Thus, NONE of our belief-system ought to be based on that UNKNOWABLE information! We don't know whom God chooses and who is predestinated to be a child of God, born again, as Yeshua` put it. We only know from a human perspective that "WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life!'

The analogy is taught that one walks through a doorway when one is justified by God. Above the doorway as he is about to go through are written the words, "Whosoever will may come." Once he has walked through the doorway and looks back, he reads the words "Chosen before the foundation of the world."

As for the concept of "Once justified by God, always justified by God," it is important to understand that this is a FAMILY MATTER! We become part of His MISHPACHAH (Hebrew for "FAMILY")! He may DISCIPLINE His children and punish them when they are bad, but He would NEVER abuse His children!

The problem is that many people don't have a good example in life to believe God would be a good Father. They've never had a good father in their dysfunctional families by which to compare, and only know a father whose love was given on a performance basis. God's Love is UNCONDITIONAL LOVE! It's not given or withheld based on how we perform, even if we've had natural fathers who did! It's given to us PURELY on the basis of WHO WE ARE! He looks at us as IN THE MESSIAH, YESHUA` (IN CHRIST JESUS), and we are ACCEPTED IN THE BELOVED! (Ephesians 1:6.)

Now, pay attention:

GOD IS NOT MAD AT US ANYMORE! None of our "righteous deeds" ("filthy rags") were good enough to make us acceptable to God before we were justified by God; it was GOD who justified us, not we ourselves; and it is GOD who keeps us.

IF nothing we could do was good enough for God to choose us and justify us, in spite of our sin, HOW CAN WE THINK THAT ANY SIN WE MIGHT COMMIT AFTER WE'VE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY GOD CAN ANNUL HIS JUSTIFICATION?! What righteous deeds we do NOW, AFTER GOD HAS JUSTIFIED US, would be good enough for God to keep us? What righteous deeds could we do that would impress a THRICE HOLY GOD?! IT'S NOT ABOUT US! IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM AND HIS GRACE TOWARD US AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS!


2 Corinthians 5:20-21
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God (trade places with God).
21 For he (God the Father) hath made him (the Messiah or Christ) to be sin for us, who (the Messiah) knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (the Messiah).
KJV

There you have it. God made Yeshua` to be our sin (although He had none of His own), so that we could be made Yeshua`s righteousness (or rather, the righteousness of God within Him). THAT'S the trade! So, how are you or anyone going to be able to UNDO what God only could do in the first place?! THINK ABOUT IT!


1 John 3:1-3
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
KJV

THIS is why we do righteousness after we've been justified by God. It's not to appease God for any sin we have done since then; it's because we want to emulate Yeshua` in our lives out of love for God and for His Son and because we realize that it was our sins - past, present, and FUTURE - that nailed Him to the cross in our place. Why would we want to sin any longer, knowing that those sins were the nails in His hands and feet, the spear in His side, the whip across His back, or the thorns beaten into His scalp?! THAT'S where repentance and sanctification comes in for the believer.

 

[musterion]

I am still waiting for someone to provide Bible verses which say that God has given man unlimited free will.

The list I gave to Rach the other day works for me. Condemnation for choosing to defy God's will when human will doesn't actually exist makes God's condemnation a cosmic puppetshow...a sham...a lie. No way around that. The only way rejecting His will could be justifiably punished on that basis is if the offender had the genuine capacity to make that choice, but didn't.

 

[Rach1370]

I have been really impressed with Rach in his honesty and humility. He is open to correction, as we all should be, and I have underestimated his integrity.

Thanks...and actually, it's "she".
You see, I'm pretty sure that the bible says that for our entire Christian walk we are to grow in wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Ipso facto....we must be wrong on occasion...or maybe a lot! If we're not open to learning and correction...doesn't that mean we're gonna stall in our walk?

Having said that I'm still not sure about this whole subject....but I am listening with an open heart.

 

[musterion]

God made Yeshua` to be our sin (although He had none of His own), so that we could be made Yeshua`s righteousness (or rather, the righteousness of God within Him). THAT'S the trade! So, how are you or anyone going to be able to UNDO what God only could do in the first place?! THINK ABOUT IT!

Amen, amen and amen!

Romans 7:20 is also a key UESIC verse. If those who are in Christ are dead and raised again in Him, and so are dead to sin and its condemnation, when they DO sin (and we do), where exactly is the sin coming from? It comes from the sin that still dwells within us. It is not "us" (the new men in Christ, the new creations, Paul's "I") who are sinning. That part of us - which is now the REAL "us" - cannot sin for it is of God.

So if we're positionally dead to sin in Christ and raised alive in Him, we're never to die again for sin and cannot be condemned by God for it. And when we do sin, it is truly SIN that does it, not "us."

Point is, we are responsible and can be blamed for letting it happen by not walking by the Spirit, but still, it is not "us" that sinned and so "we" cannot be held to account for it by God as sinners. The sinner part of us - the old man - is reckoned as dead. "We" are no longer him and he is not "us." Ask Paul.

Thus salvation cannot be "sinned away," nor can a new creation "walk away" from the very life source to which it is connected - Christ. Indwelling sin in the form of false doctrine may tempt us that we can, but it's only that - a temptation - and all temptation can be overcome in Christ by His Spirit, and all false doctrine can be ovecome by the mind of Christ, which we also have, but only if we rightly divide His Word.

Salvation once obtained is permanent and secure, just the way God designed it.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I was taught through reasoning from the Scriptures that we could believe in the Total Depravity of the human race (Isaiah 64:6-7; Romans 1:18-3:20), the Unconditional Election of God's awesome grace (Romans 3:21-6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3), that is, that God CHOSE us unconditionally for we could have done nothing to merit His favor, and the Perseverance of God for His saints (1 Corinthians 1:4-9; Ephesians 2:4-6; 4:20-5:21), but not in the Limited Atonement or the Irresistible Grace. God's Atonement was provided for ALL the world, and God doesn't want a bunch of robots without free choice! (John 3:14-18; Ephesians 2:7-10)

Election and predestination are correct ideas in theology; HOWEVER, the irony is this: GOD DOESN'T SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY HUMAN BEING! Thus, NONE of our belief-system ought to be based on that UNKNOWABLE information! We don't know whom God chooses and who is predestinated to be a child of God, born again, as Yeshua` put it. We only know from a human perspective that "WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life!'

The analogy is taught that one walks through a doorway when one is justified by God. Above the doorway as he is about to go through are written the words, "Whosoever will may come." Once he has walked through the doorway and looks back, he reads the words "Chosen before the foundation of the world."

So by all this, I gather that you're a Calvinist and not just OSAS. At least it clears up your position.





Now, pay attention:

GOD IS NOT MAD AT US ANYMORE! None of our "righteous deeds" ("filthy rags") were good enough to make us acceptable to God before we were justified by God; it was GOD who justified us, not we ourselves; and it is GOD who keeps us.

Who are you contending with? For Catholics to promote the Biblical view that good works are a necessary element in the life of faith does not mean that we think we can earn our way into heaven or that good works become currency for admission. That's a connection that Protestants make up in their head and never examine the logic of it. Our obligation to good works does not mean that we aren't saved by grace. Even at our very best, Jesus says we are "unprofitable servants," unable to match the price that was paid for us.



IF nothing we could do was good enough for God to choose us and justify us, in spite of our sin, HOW CAN WE THINK THAT ANY SIN WE MIGHT COMMIT AFTER WE'VE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY GOD CAN ANNUL HIS JUSTIFICATION?! What righteous deeds we do NOW, AFTER GOD HAS JUSTIFIED US, would be good enough for God to keep us? What righteous deeds could we do that would impress a THRICE HOLY GOD?! IT'S NOT ABOUT US! IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM AND HIS GRACE TOWARD US AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS!


2 Corinthians 5:20-21
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God (trade places with God).
21 For he (God the Father) hath made him (the Messiah or Christ) to be sin for us, who (the Messiah) knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (the Messiah).
KJV


Using caps and underline does not turn a bad argument into a good one. Your arguments are just the same as everyone trying to defend OSAS. You make it about losing salvation over a single sin and scrupulously ignore the real issue of freewill which is something you Calvinists don't believe in to begin with. You can cite scripture from sunrise to sunset and still not prove that people have lost the volition to abandon the faith they once embraced. You, like all OSAS defenders, cannot prevail in this debate because you cannot take away people's freedom to choose.

 

[musterion]

What I would ask about them is this: If, as you say, these passages mean God asking people for something they could not give, because God himself has denied it, means God is a liar....then how do we reconcile such verses as this: Romans 9:17-23, ESV

God's use of nations, to honor or to dishonor, is the point of Romans 9. Paul makes this clear from the start of this chapter. Note that Paul anticipates objections he'll hear from self-righteous Jews upon the news that Israel AS A NATION has been set aside for the first time since God's dealings with her. They simply won't believe it, and they didn't. Paul uses Pharaoh - the living embodiment of Egypt - to make the point in terms they'd understand (he's also subtly equating their spiritual condition with that of Pharaoh). But Pharaoh's personal salvation was never at issue. Moreover, Pharaoh CHOSE to harden himself before God did. Also, Esau and Jacob represent two NATIONS (it says this) and so their salvation was not the point. It's about nations and how God can do with them as He pleases, for His purposes. Finally, Pharaoh existed long before salvation as we know of it from Paul even existed, so to read back into his history the template of salvation is inaccurate.

Clearly, God does indeed choose to 'harden' and 'damn' some people....and the reason he does it is for his purpose, to show his power, and the riches of his glory. And also, clearly, we have zero right to question his right to do so.

You will search the Scripture in vain for even one example of God damning for eternity anyone who did not first have a genuine ability and opportunity to repent to Him. A just and holy Judge not only would not but cannot do that.

So I guess what I'm asking here is this: how do we reconcile both lots of verses? How do we say "we are able to come to God ourselves" when we have the above verses telling us that we cannot?

There is a balance between God's drawing and calling of individuals to Christ and their ability to accept or to reject Him. I do not know where that balance lies and won't pretend to. All I know is, Paul taught BOTH as true. You ask for these to be harmonized - it's appears they cannot be this side of Heaven, at least not by me and not by anyone I've ever heard of.

Ok....I'm not following you here. Are you saying that the passage is calling the 'gift' salvation because salvation, and not faith, is what is often wrongly attributed to 'works"?

Yes. It is the only noun of the three that fits the descriptors of "the gift."

I would agree with you on that, but I would also disagree...because it appears to me that right now you ARE attributing faith to works...mainly, yours. My understanding of what you're debating for, is that you are capable of coming yourself, to saving faith. If it's something done by you...doesn't it make it works done by you??

Why do you believe saving faith must equal work if it was not given by God? Now you've completely baffled me.

And they are only lies if you believe God doesn't have the divine and sovereign right to do as he chooses in everything. It's only a lie if we think 'saving people' is God's ultimate purpose in everything. Its not, actually....it's to bring glory to himself, as we see in: Romans 9:17-23 and Eph 1. If we 'plug' that into our life view and our understanding of scripture, life the universe and everything, then it most certainly doesn't make God a liar.

Two questions:

1. Can God do anything that denies or contradicts what He has told us about His own character?

2. If I - a mere human - had the unquestioned power and authority to condemn you for something you did not do...but what you didn't know is that I secretly MADE you unable to do it JUST SO I COULD CONDEMN YOU FOR NOT DOING IT...would I be a righteous and just judge?

See, I totally disagree. To me, coming to God on my own back gives me something to be proud in, something to boast in.

Not me. All I did was believe what He told me to believe because I was utterly powerless to alleviate my own conviction for sin. What possible pride could someone take in grabbing a proffered rope out of a flooding pit, or a life preserver from freezing water? I obeyed God's command to repent. How do you get even the possibility of pride out of that? I don't get you at all here.

And the bible is very clear that everything we have in regards to salvation...is a gift from to, in order for us to praise and glorify him.

I might agree with that if you provide clear chapter and verse...I'd want to see the exact context with regard to timing of saving faith.

I may not be able to answer again, as I'm back into schooling my son (he has autism and I have to homeschool him)...so I get kinda busy.

Interesting...I work with just such children.

NOW I'm off to bed...or to walmart to do shopping...haven't decided...

 

[Dodo_David]

It seems more appropriate for you to defend the notion that there are limits on freewill.

Ah, you are begging the question by asking me to do away with something that you have yet to prove with Scriptures.

Does God have the ability and the authority to manipulate a man's will?

Of course He has. That is why in Exodus 4:21 God tells Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

By the way, I researched what "harden his heart" means in Exodus 4:21, and it is not a good thing.

Again, what Bible verses say the God has granted all people with unlimited free will?

Also, I am still waiting for someone to explain 1 Timothy 4:1, which says, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith . . ."

If people are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), and if people can abandon the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), then what requires God the Father to preserve the salvation of people who have abandoned the faith. Doesn't God have the ability and the authority to withhold eternal life from people who abandon the faith?

I am not a defender of OSAS or of Calvinism. I am a defender of God's omnipotence and complete sovereignty.

 

[musterion]

Ah, you are begging the question by asking me to do away with something that you have yet to prove with Scriptures.

Does God have the ability and the authority to manipulate a man's will?

Of course He has. That is why in Exodus 4:21 God tells Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

By the way, I researched what "harden his heart" means in Exodus 4:21, and it is not a good thing.

Again, what Bible verses say the God has granted all people with unlimited free will?

Also, I am still waiting for someone to explain 1 Timothy 4:1, which says, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith . . ."

If people are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), and if people can abandon the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), then what requires God the Father to preserve the salvation of people who have abandoned the faith. Doesn't God have the ability and the authority to withhold eternal life from people who abandon the faith?

I am not a defender of OSAS or of Calvinism. I am a defender of God's omnipotence and complete sovereignty.

I was going to answer that but thought you were directing it at Vale, who I cannot see. Is it up for grabs?

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, This Vale Of Tears.

I was taught through reasoning from the Scriptures that we could believe in the Total Depravity of the human race (Isaiah 64:6-7; Romans 1:18-3:20), the Unconditional Election of God's awesome grace (Romans 3:21-6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3), that is, that God CHOSE us unconditionally for we could have done nothing to merit His favor, and the Perseverance of God for His saints (1 Corinthians 1:4-9; Ephesians 2:4-6; 4:20-5:21), but not in the Limited Atonement or the Irresistible Grace. God's Atonement was provided for ALL the world, and God doesn't want a bunch of robots without free choice! (John 3:14-18; Ephesians 2:7-10)

Election and predestination are correct ideas in theology; HOWEVER, the irony is this: GOD DOESN'T SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY HUMAN BEING! Thus, NONE of our belief-system ought to be based on that UNKNOWABLE information! We don't know whom God chooses and who is predestinated to be a child of God, born again, as Yeshua` put it. We only know from a human perspective that "WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life!'

The analogy is taught that one walks through a doorway when one is justified by God. Above the doorway as he is about to go through are written the words, "Whosoever will may come." Once he has walked through the doorway and looks back, he reads the words "Chosen before the foundation of the world."

So by all this, I gather that you're a Calvinist and not just OSAS. At least it clears up your position.


NO! I may be a "THREE-point Calvinist" for lack of a better classification, but be careful in your pigeon-holing. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be labeled and discarded. Please don't do that to me, either! I only agree with the Reformed Theologians on those three points; I am NOT a five-point Calvinist. I don't believe in T.U.L.I.P. At most, I believe in T.U.P. (or, if we put them in reverse order, P.U.T.?).

And, I'll say it again for the slow-learners: "Salvation" is the WRONG WORD for God's justification of an individual. One may use "born again" or "God's justification," but "salvation" is actually a different term in the Scriptures, particularly in passages that have to do with prophecy. Therefore, the pseudo-term "OSAS" is in error. It should be "Once Justified By God, Always Justified By God." (OJBGAJBG?)


Now, pay attention:

GOD IS NOT MAD AT US ANYMORE! None of our "righteous deeds" ("filthy rags") were good enough to make us acceptable to God before we were justified by God; it was GOD who justified us, not we ourselves; and it is GOD who keeps us.

Who are you contending with? For Catholics to promote the Biblical view that good works are a necessary element in the life of faith does not mean that we think we can earn our way into heaven or that good works become currency for admission. That's a connection that Protestants make up in their head and never examine the logic of it. Our obligation to good works does not mean that we aren't saved by grace. Even at our very best, Jesus says we are "unprofitable servants," unable to match the price that was paid for us.

I'm only contending with anyone who adheres to such a "Need for Deeds" mentality, not necessarily you or any one else who believes as you. I'm in total agreement with you about not being "break-even slaves." See, I'm of the opinion and respond in such a way for all who may be reading these posts. I know that many participate in forums just to read without posting themselves. Some call it "lurking," but I tend to think of it more as "learning," and that's okay. So, please don't think that everything I say is directed at you.

IF nothing we could do was good enough for God to choose us and justify us, in spite of our sin, HOW CAN WE THINK THAT ANY SIN WE MIGHT COMMIT AFTER WE'VE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY GOD CAN ANNUL HIS JUSTIFICATION?! What righteous deeds we do NOW, AFTER GOD HAS JUSTIFIED US, would be good enough for God to keep us? What righteous deeds could we do that would impress a THRICE HOLY GOD?! IT'S NOT ABOUT US! IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM AND HIS GRACE TOWARD US AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS!


2 Corinthians 5:20-21
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God (trade places with God).
21 For he (God the Father) hath made him (the Messiah or Christ) to be sin for us, who (the Messiah) knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (the Messiah).
KJV


Using caps and underline does not turn a bad argument into a good one. Your arguments are just the same as everyone trying to defend OSAS. You make it about losing salvation over a single sin and scrupulously ignore the real issue of freewill which is something you Calvinists don't believe in to begin with. You can cite scripture from sunrise to sunset and still not prove that people have lost the volition to abandon the faith they once embraced. You, like all OSAS defenders, cannot prevail in this debate because you cannot take away people's freedom to choose.

Yeah, I know. It's just a habit for me to use caps and underlining for levels of emphasis in what I write. I don't use caps for screaming. I try to type well enough that there is no second-guessing what I'm trying to say, but written words don't have the vocal components that the spoken words have.

Regarding "defending OJBG,AJBG" (erroneously labeled "OSAS"), we can do NOTHING to keep our Justification by God, because there was NOTHING we could do to acquire our Justification by God in the first place! So, really, it has NOTHING to do with our "free will" or our "freedom to choose." Our "freedom to choose" is more about how we as sinners under the Holy Spirit's conviction respond to that conviction. When one sees his need for God to step in and perform that which we cannot perform for ourselves, it is one step closer to the New Birth. When one is "born again" (John 3:3-8), it is a once-in-a-lifetime event, just as his physical birth is a once-in-a-lifetime event. In the same way, the giving of the Ruach haQodesh (the Holy Spirit) in response to that birth is a once-in-a-lifetime event, occurring at that moment of the New Birth.



Luke 18:10-14
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

KJV

 

[Rach1370]

God's use of nations, to honor or to dishonor, is the point of Romans 9. Paul makes this clear from the start of this chapter. Note that Paul anticipates objections he'll hear from self-righteous Jews upon the news that Israel AS A NATION has been set aside for the first time since God's dealings with her. They simply won't believe it, and they didn't. Paul uses Pharaoh - the living embodiment of Egypt - to make the point in terms they'd understand (he's also subtly equating their spiritual condition with that of Pharaoh). But Pharaoh's personal salvation was never at issue. Moreover, Pharaoh CHOSE to harden himself before God did. Also, Esau and Jacob represent two NATIONS (it says this) and so their salvation was not the point. It's about nations and how God can do with them as He pleases, for His purposes. Finally, Pharaoh existed long before salvation as we know of it from Paul even existed, so to read back into his history the template of salvation is inaccurate.

Mmmm, me thinks we've gone around this particular merry-go-round before.
I think my point then, as it is now...how can you say those verses only apply to nations, when it uses individuals to make the point? (You may say 'Pharaoh' represents Egypt...but he is clearly only one person...a person who God hardened to achieve his purposes). Clearly God can and does choose to apply that 'idea' to individuals, cause they're right there in those passages, making a 'national' point...and, I contend, a personal one as well.

You say that Paul "makes it clear" that he is talking of nations at the start of the chapter...but what he is really doing is saying that just because one belongs to "a nation" (Israel for eg), does not mean that you are garunteed salvation under the promise to Abraham. He's actually breaking it down from 'nations', into individual status, and then using the individuals to again build a nation. He's saying that ethnic, blood related 'Israel' (Jews) were not all meant for the promise. The promise comes to each individual (Jew or Gentile) that comes to Christ...and they form the 'true Israel'.

Israel...AS A NATION as you say, has not been entirely dismissed...Paul makes it clear that there is a very definate 'remnant' within ethnic Israel...always has been, always will be...and in that very way God's promise to 'ethnic Israel' has been kept....it's been kept with and through indivuals.

I mean really...even if Paul IS addressing only 'the nation'...what and who do you think a 'nation' is made up of. If Paul is discussing God's divine right to 'damm' a nation...then he is still damning people...in fact...a lot of them. It makes no difference to the point at hand....either God has the right to 'harden' a single person, or a whole nation of them...either way, he still does it, and it's still his right.

So I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your point here, which means my question is stil valid....

You will search the Scripture in vain for even one example of God damning for eternity anyone who did not first have a genuine ability and opportunity to repent to Him. A just and holy Judge not only would not but cannot do that.

Ah....Romans 9? Judas? Judas was one of the twelve...you would think he had opportunity plenty. But what he did...what the Jews, and Pilate did...was all part of God's plan. Now...does that mean 'predestination'...'predamned'....dunno, and that's not this particular topic.

And honestly...I'm not particualry worried that I don't have an exact verse stating that God won't eternally damn someone without giving them a running chance. I'm also not worried that there is no exact verse that refers to the Trinity. My point all along, has been that the SUM of intent from many verses, seems to me to teach that God will save who he wills and damn who he wills. It also seems to me that declaring God can't do something because it doesn't seem 'right' to us, is just wrong, and unbiblical. God can...must...do anything that displays his glory, and brings praise to him for it.
So when the bible says something like this:

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11, ESV)

“For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:17-18, ESV)

I'd say we need to give Sovereingty where it is due.

There is a balance between God's drawing and calling of individuals to Christ and their ability to accept or to reject Him. I do not know where that balance lies and won't pretend to. All I know is, Paul taught BOTH as true. You ask for these to be harmonized - it's appears they cannot be this side of Heaven, at least not by me and not by anyone I've ever heard of.

You see, the reason that I'm currently on the side of 'eternal security' or 'perseverance of the saints' or whatever you want to call it. (although at this point I'm starting to get confused as to whether we're discussing that or predestination), is because I see it harmonizing much more clearly. Yeah there are still things I cannot answer (no real surprise there, I'm not exactly an expert on the subject!), but as a whole, I just cant seem to ignore these two facts: eternal security or perseverance has many, many passages that seem clear and very strong, and the other side only seems to bring more questions than answers. That's where I sit at the moment, but I'm not about to deny I could be wrong. I'm studying and praying and talking about it with you guys.
But really:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,(1 John 5:1a)

Hard to ignore...

Yes. It is the only noun of the three that fits the descriptors of "the gift."


Why do you believe saving faith must equal work if it was not given by God? Now you've completely baffled me.

Mmmm....maybe we've managed to baffle each other....
I think my point is this: If I can pat myself on my back and say "yay me, I saw, all on my own, that I needed God, and all by myself managed change the base nature of my heart to know/understand/accept Jesus" then it has been done by me, and not God. And therefore I can boast about such a thing. And the bible says that our salvation...from start to end, is not something we can boast about, it's all from him.

So...that's what I meant. Of course I'm currently digesting the point from Williemac...about how faith is not really 'salvation' but just the recognising that we are sinners. I think that was his point anyway. If that point is true, than my point is moot. I'm still not totally sold on the notion of "saving faith" being what he was talking about. I'm wondering if it might be beneficial to have a 'throw down' over basic terms and their meanings!!

Two questions:

1. Can God do anything that denies or contradicts what He has told us about His own character?

I want to say "God can do anything"...but I know what you're getting at. God will not act contrary to his nature. He will not sin, etc. But....while I enjoy reading into the character and nature of God, I still think that what we can learn from scripture, and learn in general, is limited by two things: how much God has actually given us, information wise, in scripture; and our ability to comprehend what he's told us. It's easy to say "God is outside of time", but for creatures so bound to the laws of time and space, how can we truly understand such a concept?
When saying that God is love, or God is just, we are basing it on our own notion of love or justice. We cannot truly concieve of what God's love or Justice looks like...first, because we cannot love like him, and second, because we cannot really know how bad sin is to him. When we 'sin' against someone, we 'wrong' them. We let them down, or hurt their feelings. For God, the betrayal of sin from us against his is cosmic treason.
I just think it's wiser not to declare that God, in his 'just' nature, can or cannot do something...especially when we have scripture suggesting that he can.

2. If I - a mere human - had the unquestioned power and authority to condemn you for something you did not do...but what you didn't know is that I secretly MADE you unable to do it JUST SO I COULD CONDEMN YOU FOR NOT DOING IT...would I be a righteous and just judge?

I'm sorry, but again....that just cannot compare to what we're talking about here. You're questioning God's Just nature, his loving nature, and his Sovereign nature, based on human standards. If the above scenario took place, here, on earth, with people involved on both sides (read both sinners), and the 'judge' pulling the strings was doing what he was doing for a power kick, then yeah...totally unjust.
But you're not calculating God in. He is not human, and he is not out for a power kick. He is out for his own name...for the glory of his name, for the glory of his nature. It IS just for him to seek such things. If he didn't seek utter glory for the utter glorious, then he wouldn't be a good, holy, God. But he is those things, he is holy, he is glorious, and he is just in seeking those things. And he is just in his response to sin against him. It's for him to judge...the sin is against him and no one else, so no one else has the right (or knowledge) of what is right and just to do for the magnitude of the crime.

Not me. All I did was believe what He told me to believe because I was utterly powerless to alleviate my own conviction for sin. What possible pride could someone take in grabbing a proffered rope out of a flooding pit, or a life preserver from freezing water? I obeyed God's command to repent. How do you get even the possibility of pride out of that? I don't get you at all here.

See...here's where I think we might have a basic confusion on terms....I don't think we're talking about the same 'moment' in the salvation process....yeah...definitely need a 'term definition' post....

I might agree with that if you provide clear chapter and verse...I'd want to see the exact context with regard to timing of saving faith.

Interesting...I work with just such children.

NOW I'm off to bed...or to walmart to do shopping...haven't decided.

Yeah, see....different pages of the same process...maybe....
I'll try and get my act together tomorrow and put a post up with definitons in it.....probably will help!!

 

[musterion]

Okay Rach, you win. Just like last time we spoke, I tried giving you the straightest answers I could but when I ask you straight questions, you dodge them and claim they're not relevant. You're not dealing fairly or honestly with me here, so I'm out. So long.

 

[Dodo_David]

Okay Rach, you win. Just like last time we spoke, I tried giving you the straightest answers I could but when I ask you straight questions, you dodge them and claim they're not relevant. You're not dealing fairly or honestly with me here, so I'm out. So long.

Rach didn't dodge anything. She simply didn't answer you in the way that you wanted to be answered.