veteran said:
Your very welcome.
I hear a lot of preachers tell a believer they are "saved" when they believe on Jesus and are baptized in His Name. And the preachers on the OSAS doctrines especially say that to new believers.
So how is it you say those that have believed and been baptized are not saved? Aren't you yourself admitting to a condition for Salvation when you say that, which of course is the opposite of the OSAS doctrines?
Okay....as Dodo has been saying...only God truly knows a persons heart, and whether it has been regenerated or not. A pastor works on what people tell him. If a person tells him he "accepts Christ as Saviour and believes" then...not being God, the pastor has to believe him. On years of aquaintence the pastor might determine the truth behind such claim based on the 'fruit' this person is growing and showing.
So just because a Pastor tells a person 'they are saved' does not actually make it so. And I find it very, very hard to believe that you don't know (personally or have heard of) many people who are in the Church who claim to follow Jesus, but just don't grow 'good' fruit. We know from all Paul's warnings, Christ's as well, that these people are in the Church. Why? Good question...some becuase they like the culture, some because they want to belong somewhere, some because they grew up there and all their friends and family are there...and some because they are wolves. How many 'pastors' have you seen who talks the talk perfectly, but are clearly in it for the fame, money or followers? They exist, and they are not reborn into Christ.
For 'true' belief, one must 'believe' of course. But here we're talking about faith...having faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Paul tells us that having a true, redeeming faith in Christ is a gift itself: Eph 2:8-10.
God touches our hearts, giving us believing faith and regenerating us....new birth. And this new birth leads to repentence...true repentence and a desire to walk in sanctification. Sadly....many people who call on Jesus' name, do not have this change at the heart level. They may say they do, but they do not.
Also....I sort of feel I should point out....you really didn't reply to my answer on the 1 John passage. Because biblically there is no reason to suppose it's talking about 'losing' our salvation...as I laid it all out. And I also feel the need to say, as I didn't in my previous post, that you said you feel the passage to be the 'harmonizing' verse that I was asking for. The passages that make both 'warning' and 'assurance' verses mesh together. Even if I think that the 1 John passage spoke of being able to lose our salvation, it in no way addresses how we go on to ignore, or supersede all the verses that speak of assurance. And it's that point right there that can make, or break this discussion.
Prentis said:
I am sorry if you took offense Rach, and I concede this: I might not of been clear on the fact that OSAS leads many to despise the cross, but I do believe that you can doctrinally hold the OSAS view and accept the cross presented you and it's suffering.
If that is your case, that is good. But then I'm speaking to you on a doctrinal basis: while OSAS might not have led you to hold back from God, what is it teaching others when we present it as truth? How is our doctrine leading others who might not have had the same revelation of God as us, of his love, his nature, and might not be so moved as us to be crucified with him? How many gladly take on a free eternal salvation that is offered them selfishly, for their own safety? Meanwhile, Christ speaking to the disciples says 'whoever will follow me must take up his own cross', if we omit this from our teaching, how can we expect to make true disciples. True doctrine needs to work for anyone who believes after hearing, whether he has experienced anything of God or not.
We could, on the first day, preach of OSAS, and then the next day about taking up our own cross. But how many would, after believing they have received a free salvation, come back the second day to hear the message of the cross? If we take the example of the ten lepers, probably one out of ten.
This is why we must preach Christ crucified. We must die with him also, and it is imperative that we preach this truth along with the gospel, because it is indeed the gospel, it is an inseparable part of it.
I agree that correct doctrine is very, very important...thats why we're debating here. But the question is, isn't it, which IS the correct doctrine. Because correct doctrine needs to mesh perfectly...in one accord with all of scripture, with one intent...to glorify God as maker, redeemer...as everything.
My point is...I think you perhaps misunderstand the guts behind OSAS...because taught biblically, it is not in danger of making people 'ignore the message of taking up our crosses'.
I have never heard, even once, that following Jesus is going to be easy, fluffy and empty of suffering. Which is good, as my life would have made a lie of such preaching. There are enough verses in scripture to make it plain that loving and following Jesus will not just require us to 'take up our crosses', but force us to. And yet, despite that, we take the load with joy...because we have (presently) and will have (in glory) something so much better then whatever we are suffering through now.
I do understand your concern for harmonize the verses you consider of 'assurance' and those you consider 'warnings'. But if we make the assurance unquestionable, we make some of the warnings verse false. Some say directly, 'brethren', and say "lest you depart from the living God", that is being there already, you depart, leave.
However, consider that we are given assurance of protection in him. The great ark of our salvation does promise and assure protection, but only in himself. We have assurance that in him there is safety, if we make him our tower, yes we are safe, in the tower.
The verses of 'assurance' assure safety in him, they 'omit' (so to speak) the fact that it is precisely dependent upon our abiding and remaining under his protection. They can do this because it is in the rest of scripture, and because the context often makes it clear. I have found it impossible to make the promises unconditional without making the warnings false, but have found great clarity when the promises are given proper context: it gives full meaning both to the promises and to the warnings. Reading it this way, I've found the promises to be exceeding great and the warnings fearful (inspiring the fear of God we are called to).
Israel also received great promises, but Jesus said "how longed to gather you under my wings, but you would not". Jesus goes on "behold, your house is left desolate". They had similar promises of protection and prosperity (in a less spiritual way, more physical, but still real promises), and yet because they would not make God their ark, judgment happened upon them.
Are we better than them? Are we God's favorites so that even if we disobey as they did, we do not receive the same punishment? There lies my contention. God is no respecter of persons, we are only safe if we allow him to gather under his wings, and learn to abide and remain there.
Blessings!
Ok...I'm not sure that I disagree with you hugely here....but we still reach a different outcome. I agree that our security is entirely in Christ. It's because of Christ that we can be sure. And I must point out that being 'sure' doesn't stop us in the walk of sanctification...from confessing our sins and by the Spirit's help becoming more holy and Christ like.
I'm sure everyone here has gone through the 'assurance' verses again and again, so I won't again, but do keep in mind how many there are, and the sort of language that is used. Assurance, have, is, are, hope, given.....all in the here and now. And then there are the ones that say 'nothing' can take us from Christ once he has us....this list is complete...nothing, even ourselves, can rip us away from him. Very strong language and messages. Hard to ignore, and hard to supersede them with 'warning' verses as you would have us do.
So...let me try and put together a rational arguement of why those of us who believe in the perserverance of the saints, do it the other way around. How we take the 'assurance' passages and what you believe as 'warning' passages, as basically the same message....and here I will use some content by Wayne Grudem, as I feel he says it excellently, and I feel I've been struggling to put it in a way that explains clearly what I believe...
Consider the statement: "The perseverance of the saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again."
While scripture repeatedly emphaizes that those who are truly born again will persevere to the end and will certainly have eternal life in heaven with God (see all those passages in the thread above!!), there are other passages that speak of the necessity of continuing in faith throughout life....these are the passages that you claim deny eternal security. These passages make us realise that what Peter said in 1 Peter 1:5 is true, namely, the God does not guard us
apart from our faith, but only by working through our faith so that he enables us to continue to believe in him. In this way, those who continue to trust in Christ gain assurance that God is working in them and guarding them.
One example of this kind of passage is J
ohn 8:31-32: "Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, 'If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.'" Jesus here is giving a warning that one evidence of genuine faith is continuing in his word, that is, continuing to believe what he says and living a life of obedience to his commands (santification).
Paul says to the Colossian Christians that Christ has reconciled them to God, "
in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard" (Col 1:22-23). It is only natural that Paul and the other NT writers would speak this way, for they are addressing groups of people who profess to be Christians, without being able to know the actual state of every person's heart. There may have been people at Colossae who had joing in the fellowship of the church, and perhaps even professed that they had faith in Christ and had been baptized into membership of the church, but who never had true saving faith. How is Paul to distinguish such people from true believers? How can he avoid giving them false assurance, assurance that they will be saved eternally when if fact they will not, unless they come to true repentance and faith? Paul knos that those whose faith is not real will eventually fall away from participation in the fellowship of the church. Therfore he tells his readers that they will ultimately be saved, "provided that you continue in the faith". Those who continue show thereby that they are genuine belivers. But those who do not continue in the faith show that there was no genuine faith in their hearts in the first place.
I could go on, Wayne has a brilliant chapter on it, and it goes thouroughly through each 'warning' verse, and some others as well. But this post is already too long. My point, I think, is that perseverance of the saints, or OSAS is a very biblically sound belief, and it doesn't contract other passages. My concern with denying this doctrine, is that I haven't, as yet, seen any sort of proof that biblically explains how it can be false.