The Doctrine of OSAS

[justaname]

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, - Jude 1:24

If God is not sovereign over our decisions then He can't keep us from stumbling...

I will trust His promises over your free will...

I hope you see posts like this are pointless, we could banter forever. If God will not intervene in the lives of men, but leave them to their free will, then He can't promise anything.

The truth is like Iforrest is saying is God is sovereign over men and we make our decisions based on our greatest desire. This is what the Scriptures teach.

God is in the throne not free will!

 

[Barrd]

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, - Jude 1:24

If God is not sovereign over our decisions then He can't keep us from stumbling...

I will trust His promises over your free will...

I hope you see posts like this are pointless, we could banter forever. If God will not intervene in the lives of men, but leave them to their free will, then He can't promise anything.

The truth is like Iforrest is saying is God is sovereign over men and we make our decisions based on our greatest desire. This is what the Scriptures teach.

God is in the throne not free will!

Excuse me, Justaname, but first of all, that post was not directed at you. You may answer it, of course...but we both know that your answer will be the same ol' same 'ol. No point in my even reading your posts...they are all pretty much the same.
And second, you did not deal with the scriptures that I posted. Of course, that is not unusual with you. If it doesn't agree with you, you ignore it.
However, those verses...and a host of others that refute predestination, and OSAS...are there, and they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

And finally...you and I are definitely NOT going to "banter forever". There is very little point in continuing any dialogue with you. You totally refuse to have an honest debate...you are here to tell everyone else what you think and why you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You, and you alone, hold the keys to interpret the Word of God....and after only ten short years of actually reading the Bible.

No more for me, thanks. I'm driving...

 

[ladodgers6]

You mean don't do as you do but only as you say?

Funny, as I was going to say the same thing to you about this post which doesn't address a thing from my post, which it purports to address.

Well sorry if you feel that way. I was having problem inserting quotes. And I believe that I am on track to the issues at hand. Because this thread this about OSAS, correct. You do not believe in this and I am saying then to explain Romans 9. I will answer any question you have for me. Fire away. And while I am answering your questions, please address Romans 9. Deal????

 

[justaname]

Excuse me, Justaname, but first of all, that post was not directed at you. You may answer it, of course...but we both know that your answer will be the same ol' same 'ol. No point in my even reading your posts...they are all pretty much the same.
And second, you did not deal with the scriptures that I posted. Of course, that is not unusual with you. If it doesn't agree with you, you ignore it.
However, those verses...and a host of others that refute predestination, and OSAS...are there, and they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

And finally...you and I are definitely NOT going to "banter forever". There is very little point in continuing any dialogue with you. You totally refuse to have an honest debate...you are here to tell everyone else what you think and why you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You, and you alone, hold the keys to interpret the Word of God....and after only ten short years of actually reading the Bible.

No more for me, thanks. I'm driving...

I wonder if anyone else sees the irony of this post.

Barrd,

If you remember correctly I terminated the discussion before you ever did because you said you can read the Bible for yourself and do not listen to the opinions of other people. Does that sound anything like holding the keys of interpretation? Now you are stating you don't even read my posts...

You like to post scriptures you feel refute the scriptures I post. The issue rests that scripture does not refute scripture. Have you ever stopped to think you might be interpreting something wrong...Ohh never mind that question.

You simply ignore all of Romans 9, all of the scripture that speaks to God's sovereignty over humanity, and anything dealing with predestination and election.

Your debate style is deplorable at best as you continually use ad hominem, straw-man, and red herring fallacies yet you call me dishonest.

This post is a sub conscience post about yourself!

I was happy being done a long time ago, yet out of courtesy I continued to answer your posts.

Shalom. May the God of All, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ bless you will all wisdom and understanding in your pursuits in contemplating the Scriptures.

In the Love of Christ,
justaname

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

You changed the definition of predestination to suit your doctrine. I called you on it, and now you say it's a matter of if you understand the words.

Do you want me to agree with your personal definition here?

Not at all. You tried to ram it into a different connotation, in which it is NOT used. Square peg, round hole and all that.
I want you to understand what the scriptures convey, and that does not seem possible given your inculcation.
Obviously you learned your dogma before you learned how to read scripture exegetically.

 

[StanJ]

The problem is there are many actual scenarios I don't hold to. What makes me beholden to this straw-man she is building?

I do not and have not held to double predestination.
Predestination is the believer being conformed into Christ's image.

Good, then don't use it in ANY other fashion and we'll be fine, as this does NOT support anything about ES or SE.

 

[StanJ]

I believe that I am on track to the issues at hand. Because this thread this about OSAS, correct. You do not believe in this and I am saying then to explain Romans 9. I will answer any question you have for me. Fire away. And while I am answering your questions, please address Romans 9. Deal????

OK, Rom 9 is dealing with what God DOES choose to do, but it doesn't rule out all other scripture that shows He does this using His foreknowledge of what or who people will be. There are only a few verses to indicates this, but they all clearly do so.
Paul was explaining the OT God to NT believers and showing them how consistent God remained, despite His NC. In the context of what Paul is talking about in Rom 9, which is shown in verse 1-5, and juxtaposed in verses 6-9, then detailed in the remainder of Rom 9. Paul lamented about his own people and that many of them never understood the OC and so had a very hard time understanding and accepting the NC.

 

[justaname]

Good, then don't use it in ANY other fashion and we'll be fine, as this does NOT support anything about ES or SE.

The significance of the passage is the inclusion of glorification with it's subject being God and it's tense being aorist; passive. This passage puts no limitations or conditions on the chain. It shows the natural progression of the believer from God's effectual calling to glorification. Thus all believers given God's effectual calling undergo this process unto completion. This is not the process of the apostate or the unbeliever.

I correlate this with the four soils parable. Only one soil, the fourth or good soil, would have the effectual calling that results in the completion of the chain.

IOW scripture does not present a partial process showing "loss of salvation". My contentions is and has been only those who endure obtain salvation. This passage confirms my contention.

 

[justaname]

Not at all. You tried to ram it into a different connotation, in which it is NOT used. Square peg, round hole and all that.
I want you to understand what the scriptures convey, and that does not seem possible given your inculcation.
Obviously you learned your dogma before you learned how to read scripture exegetically.

When you read stipulations into the Romans passage and change the definition of predestination to suit your doctrine then accuse me of this there is something wrong.

 

[StanJ]

When you read stipulations into the Romans passage and change the definition of predestination to suit your doctrine then accuse me of this there is something wrong.

Now you insist on prevaricating? Didn't you just admit and agree with me as to what 'predestine' means?

 

[StanJ]

The significance of the passage is the inclusion of glorification with it's subject being God and it's tense being aorist; passive. This passage puts no limitations or conditions on the chain. It shows the natural progression of the believer from God's effectual calling to glorification. Thus all believers given God's effectual calling undergo this process unto completion. This is not the process of the apostate or the unbeliever.

I correlate this with the four soils parable. Only one soil, the fourth or good soil, would have the effectual calling that results in the completion of the chain.

IOW scripture does not present a partial process showing "loss of salvation". My contentions is and has been only those who endure obtain salvation. This passage confirms my contention.

It's significant as ALL scripture is and does NOT lend itself to support ANY doctrine of OSAS or SE. It shows how God supernaturally effects salvation, nothing natural about it. It also doesn't say EFFECTUAL calling, those are words from your RT doctrine insinuated in the actual written word.

Again using words outside of God's inspired word, so not applicable nor effective, let alone effectual.

Again what is being discussed here is NOT loss of salvation, but how OSAS is NOT supported nor corroborated in scripture. Your continued effort to use the word LOSS, clearly shows how bound you are to your dogma and NOT God's word.

 

[ATP]

NON-OSAS is not based on reality. Jesus dying for all sins is the reality. Stop watching tv kids.

 

[justaname]

Now you insist on prevaricating? Didn't you just admit and agree with me as to what 'predestine' means?

Here is your personal definition of predestine that I do not agree with...

"Predestined is NOT written in stone, as the 10 commandments were, it signifies that if a man faithfully & obediently responds to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives, they will accomplish God's plan."

​The contextual usage of predestination is being predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. This is the bound or limit of the predestination. In the context it is used God is the subject (acting force) and the one foreknown is the object (passive). Predestination is presented as aorist. Predestined can mean predetermined or determined beforehand. In the context it is presented "predestine" is not contingent on the object at all rather completely reliant on the subject for it's activity.

Now this is relevant because directly before our passage Paul is speaking of the activity of the Holy Spirit. Here he says... and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

​The significant portion is the Holy Spirit interceding for the saints according to the will of God. This then speaks positively for God superseding mans free will. God's sovereignty is brought to the foreground within the text where Paul cries out...And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

All things working together for good. The Holy Spirit interceding according to God's will. God acting for those who are called for His purpose. All of this speaks of God alone because it is according to His purpose. This is where Paul breaks into God's foreknowledge and our chain. Based on God's foreknowledge, His sovereign action is predestining brethren for Christ. After describing the golden chain Paul boasts in the Lord...

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Do you honestly believe God's plan of salvation for these described will fail? Do you not see these only succeed because it is God's plan of success? It is not that us keeping ourselves, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Christ are interceding for our benefit, for the benefit of those who love God and are called according to His purpose! Are you stating they can fail at their intercessory role? Does God fail in His purpose for those He called? I say no. God does not fail and neither do those called according to His purpose. These can never fail because that are already justified by God who is eternal.

It's significant as ALL scripture is and does NOT lend itself to support ANY doctrine of OSAS or SE. It shows how God supernaturally effects salvation, nothing natural about it. It also doesn't say EFFECTUAL calling, those are words from your RT doctrine insinuated in the actual written word.

Again using words outside of God's inspired word, so not applicable nor effective, let alone effectual.

Again what is being discussed here is NOT loss of salvation, but how OSAS is NOT supported nor corroborated in scripture. Your continued effort to use the word LOSS, clearly shows how bound you are to your dogma and NOT God's word.

Post #1431 this is yours...

"The calling is EFFECTIVE, as it comes after one is saved. Whether it remains effective is up to the individual who is called."

Who is prevaricating? You clearly state here the call is effective...

So which way is it? Is the call effective or not?

Speaking a bit on the OSAS subject...

​I have continually said I do not like the language of OSAS, rather I support the perseverance of the saints doctrine. This is corroborated in the scriptures.


The "loss of salvation" issue is something we did agree upon at one point in time, yet I am unclear how you hold this position.

You clearly state in the quote above that the calling is after one is saved. Then you say one does not necessarily stay effective in the calling.

I understand that to mean they are "saved" before they are called, then they no longer are "saved" if they don't continue. Is this correct? I apologize for my ignorance of your position here but this is what I am understanding from your communications.

 

[StanJ]

Here is your personal definition of predestine that I do not agree with...
"Predestined is NOT written in stone, as the 10 commandments were, it signifies that if a man faithfully & obediently responds to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives, they will accomplish God's plan."

​The contextual usage of predestination is being predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. This is the bound or limit of the predestination. In the context it is used God is the subject (acting force) and the one foreknown is the object (passive). Predestination is presented as aorist. Predestined can mean predetermined or determined beforehand. In the context it is presented "predestine" is not contingent on the object at all rather completely reliant on the subject for it's activity.

That is correct, because I wasn't defining it, as I had already done. I was explaining it, which I don't see you trying to do.

That is not only the contextual usage, it is the ONLY usage in scripture. Predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of one's confession of Jesus. It is a plan of action from God to be like His Son, who we are joint heirs with. His Son has already attained, we have NOT and do NOT until we actually do. If we decide to not honour our confession and pursue it in perseverance, we cannot attain what God desires any more than those who do not confess Jesus can attain God's desire that ALL be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) and 1 Tim 2:4 (NIV)
I've already shown you that there is no aorist tense in English, and that those scriptures are rendered in the past tense, as they should be. Pretty basic grammatical rules but if you won't accept that then find a grammar teacher who can teach you, that is not my job.
Using your vernacular to try and teach something that is NOT in the Biblical vernacular is a fools errand and will not work.

 

[StanJ]

Now this is relevant because directly before our passage Paul is speaking of the activity of the Holy Spirit. Here he says... and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

​The significant portion is the Holy Spirit interceding for the saints according to the will of God. This then speaks positively for God superseding mans free will. God's sovereignty is brought to the foreground within the text where Paul cries out...And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

All things working together for good. The Holy Spirit interceding according to God's will. God acting for those who are called for His purpose. All of this speaks of God alone because it is according to His purpose. This is where Paul breaks into God's foreknowledge and our chain. Based on God's foreknowledge, His sovereign action is predestining brethren for Christ. After describing the golden chain Paul boasts in the Lord...

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Do you honestly believe God's plan of salvation for these described will fail? Do you not see these only succeed because it is God's plan of success? It is not that us keeping ourselves, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Christ are interceding for our benefit, for the benefit of those who love God and are called according to His purpose! Are you stating they can fail at their intercessory role? Does God fail in His purpose for those He called? I say no. God does not fail and neither do those called according to His purpose. These can never fail because that are already justified by God who is eternal.


Post #1431 this is yours...

"The calling is EFFECTIVE, as it comes after one is saved. Whether it remains effective is up to the individual who is called."

Who is prevaricating? You clearly state here the call is effective...

So which way is it? Is the call effective or not?

Speaking a bit on the OSAS subject...

​I have continually said I do not like the language of OSAS, rather I support the perseverance of the saints doctrine. This is corroborated in the scriptures.


The "loss of salvation" issue is something we did agree upon at one point in time, yet I am unclear how you hold this position.

You clearly state in the quote above that the calling is after one is saved. Then you say one does not necessarily stay effective in the calling.

I understand that to mean they are "saved" before they are called, then they no longer are "saved" if they don't continue. Is this correct? I apologize for my ignorance of your position here but this is what I am understanding from your communications.

I've addressed all of these points already and find no useful reason to repeat myself as you obviously did not listen or accept what I showed you the first time.

 

[Barrd]

I wonder if anyone else sees the irony of this post.

Barrd,

If you remember correctly I terminated the discussion before you ever did because you said you can read the Bible for yourself and do not listen to the opinions of other people. Does that sound anything like holding the keys of interpretation? Now you are stating you don't even read my posts...

You like to post scriptures you feel refute the scriptures I post. The issue rests that scripture does not refute scripture. Have you ever stopped to think you might be interpreting something wrong...Ohh never mind that question.

You simply ignore all of Romans 9, all of the scripture that speaks to God's sovereignty over humanity, and anything dealing with predestination and election.

Your debate style is deplorable at best as you continually use ad hominem, straw-man, and red herring fallacies yet you call me dishonest.

This post is a sub conscience post about yourself!

I was happy being done a long time ago, yet out of courtesy I continued to answer your posts.

Shalom. May the God of All, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ bless you will all wisdom and understanding in your pursuits in contemplating the Scriptures.

In the Love of Christ,
justaname

Well, Justaname, thank you for your courtesy.
But really, your first decision was the better one.
There is truly no need for you and I to continue to "banter back and forth".

I know in Whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him...He will not lead me into temptation, but will give me the strength I need to resist temptation, and will continue to guide and guard me as I endeavor to obey Him and do the things He has for me to do.

And nothing....no nothing....no website, no scholarly treatise, no twisted scriptures....nothing at all can ever convince me otherwise.

I can't say that it has not been interesting....it has.
And I can't say that you have not made me think....you have.

The funny thing is, I would have said that you like to post scripture that you think proves OSAS, while ignoring the tons of scripture that refute it, and that you have left many of my posts unanswered.
That and you continually refer to sources outside of the Bible, without ever considering the fact that there are extra-Biblical sources that also support my stance...but none of those sources matter. Only the Word of God carries any authority.

Yes, and I did say that I have never been overly concerned about other people's opinion of me. Opinions are only worth as much as the people who hold them. Truly, the only opinion that matters is the Lord's.

But that is neither here nor there.

I know it was not your intention, but you have strengthened my belief that the OSAS doctrine is doctrine of devils....a subtle seduction....and something to be guarded against at all cost! I will not be sucked into that mess, although I can see how it is attractive. As innocent looking as quicksand...but even more dangerous.
And you have definitely strengthened my conviction that the notion of predestination is about as far from God as hell, itself.

Thank you for testing my armour. The fiery darts of the wicked one were not able to pierce it, or even scratch it.

Ahh, well. You can't win 'em all, I guess!

Thank you for a very stimulating debate, and may God, in His infinite mercy, bless you.

 

[justaname]

Thank you both...

 

[StanJ]

Thank you both...

My privilege. B)

 

[ladodgers6]

OK, Rom 9 is dealing with what God DOES choose to do, but it doesn't rule out all other scripture that shows He does this using His foreknowledge of what or who people will be. There are only a few verses to indicates this, but they all clearly do so.
Paul was explaining the OT God to NT believers and showing them how consistent God remained, despite His NC. In the context of what Paul is talking about in Rom 9, which is shown in verse 1-5, and juxtaposed in verses 6-9, then detailed in the remainder of Rom 9. Paul lamented about his own people and that many of them never understood the OC and so had a very hard time understanding and accepting the NC.

I thought and correct me if I am wrong. But I thought when a scripture is not clear enough, we use scripture to interpret scripture. Romans is lucid and concise of God's election. Does he not say that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy & compassion? And it depends NOT on human will. But on God's election so that NO CAN BOAST!!! What question do you have for me.

 

[heretoeternity]

Romans 6.6 and 10.26 say that if we sin or fall away after receiving redemption, there is no further sacrifice available and salvation is lost....seems to negate OSAS doctrines.