Is OSAS true

[Abigailwc]

Those who believe in ES/OSAS do not adhere to the freedom to sin crude. We adhere to the truth that once a person REALLY accepts Christ with their heart, soul and mind, they are saved, no matter what. That is what the Bible teaches. HOWEVER, we also believe that if you continue in your sinful ways, continue to willfully sin and not have had a permanent life changing experience through the Holy Spirit, that you were never saved in the first place and have no salvation in you. We believe that once a person is truly saved, they are unable to walk away, because their lives have been wholly changed through surrender. Even if one should "back-slide" they remain redeemed by the Blood. Like the Prodigal son.

Everyone does receive judgment from the Lord. But the Saints' judgment is through the Blood and deals only with the treasures laid up in heaven. Those remaining are judged through the Law. There is no comparison between the two.

...

[EricH]

There is no such doctrine as OSAS. There is only a doctrine call Perseverance of the Saints. OSAS is a strawman arguement

Tell that to all those that stake their lives on it.

OSAS is what YOU call it. You pervert what we believe and assign values to us that we do not profess. You put the lie in our mouths and then argue against it.

Call it perseverance of the saints, eternal security, OSAS, Free Grace, Easy believism, call it anything you want it is still false doctrine, that produces nothing but bad fruit, and sends many to hell unsuspecting.

OK, Please articulate Perseverance of the Saints for me. Since you say it is false, I would expect you understand it completely and would never pronounce something false until you had a complete understanding of it. By the way, it is a logical fallacy to argue against a doctrine based on potential bad outcomes of believing the doctrine. Something may be true even if it produces bad outcomes.

This is the Wikipedia definition ( I am sure you will deny its validity) Perseverance of the saints is a controversial Christian teaching that none who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith.

Here is a definition that should satisfy you....

Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation.

I understand both sides of the teaching and they are both false, any teaching that denies the free will of the man to choose or reject God whether before or after salvation is false.

That is not a complete definition of the doctrine. Nor does Perseverance of the saints address "free-will". Wikipedia is a user generated encyclopedia and is only as good as the person who writes the article. Your methodology seems to be that you have established "free-will" as the most important doctrine that every other doctrine must measure up to. This is actually a methodological error known as reductionalism. It is basically making one doctrine the "main thing" and forcing all others to fit it.

[EricH]

There is no such doctrine as OSAS. There is only a doctrine call Perseverance of the Saints. OSAS is a strawman arguement

Tell that to all those that stake their lives on it.

OSAS is what YOU call it. You pervert what we believe and assign values to us that we do not profess. You put the lie in our mouths and then argue against it.

Call it perseverance of the saints, eternal security, OSAS, Free Grace, Easy believism, call it anything you want it is still false doctrine, that produces nothing but bad fruit, and sends many to hell unsuspecting.

OK, Please articulate Perseverance of the Saints for me. Since you say it is false, I would expect you understand it completely and would never pronounce something false until you had a complete understanding of it. By the way, it is a logical fallacy to argue against a doctrine based on potential bad outcomes of believing the doctrine. Something may be true even if it produces bad outcomes.

This is the Wikipedia definition ( I am sure you will deny its validity) Perseverance of the saints is a controversial Christian teaching that none who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith.

Here is a definition that should satisfy you....

Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation.

I understand both sides of the teaching and they are both false, any teaching that denies the free will of the man to choose or reject God whether before or after salvation is false.

That is not a complete definition of the doctrine. Nor does Perseverance of the saints address "free-will". Wikipedia is a user generated encyclopedia and is only as good as the person who writes the article. Your methodology seems to be that you have established "free-will" as the most important doctrine that every other doctrine must measure up to. This is actually a methodological error known as reductionalism. It is basically making one doctrine the "main thing" and forcing all others to fit it.

The fact is the perseverance of the saints is not true because we can decide to walk away from our faith after salvation, plain and simple.

Although free will is not the ''biggest'' and ''most important'' doctrine it is truth, and the calvinistic doctrines (including perseverance of the saints) that eliminate free will from the equation are false.

I don't understand your logic above, so it is hard for me to respond to it. It seems that you have simply decided that free will as you define it is true, and the anything that does not fit your definition of it must be false. That sounds like you have made free will the measuring rod to me. It also seems like you have grouped any doctrine that Calvin touched together and assumed they all address the "free-will" issue and simply rejected them Carte Blanche. Your statement above that Perseverance of the Saints can't be true because we can't decide... is not really a biblical reason that it can't be true. It is a philisophical reason (it goes against your concept of free-will). And it is based on an incomplete definition of the Doctrine of Perseverence of the Saints

[Abigailwc]

Once we are His, nobody can claim we are not His anymore. God promised He will not do it! He promised that He will never leave us nor forsake us. God's children are new creatures, born again of the Holy Spirit, calling Him Abba Father.

The enemy must have a good laugh at all these discussions. He is probably very happy for those who are spreading doubts and fears in the hearts of God's children. However, the victory over Satan has already been won at the Cross and by faith in their Heavenly Father, God's children will overcome.

Praise the Lord!

[Abigailwc]

Once we are His, nobody can claim we are not His anymore. God promised He will not do it! He promised that He will never leave us nor forsake us. God's children are new creatures, born again of the Holy Spirit, calling Him Abba Father.

Never said God would leave us, what I said is that we are free to leave Him if we choose.

The enemy must have a good laugh at all these discussions. He is probably very happy for those who are spreading doubts and fears in the hearts of God's children. However, the victory over Satan has already been won at the Cross and by faith in their Heavenly Father, God's children will overcome.

Praise the Lord!

Although I do not believe in the doctrine of eternal security, I have no fear, I am totally secure in my salvation.

If you believe that God never leaves us, then you should believe in eternal security in our eternal Father.

[Abigailwc]

I cannot believe in eternal security, because scripture teaches we can turn from God. Matter of fact scriptures says we are better off never being saved than turning from our salvation after once receiving it. Pretty clear, there is no eternal security in scripture. I must believe God over man.

Where is that scripture?

[godrulz]

The Bible teaches conditional vs unconditional eternal security. Believers are secure, but it is possible to revert to godless unbelief and fall away. God is faithful, but we can become faithless.

[lydia81]

Who does not have eternal security:

Those who profess but do not repent (Lk. 3:7-14) Acts 26:20. Those who have merer intellectual assent (Jn 2:23-25) James 2:17-20) Those who have self-willled faith, only believing what they want to believe rather than the testimony of the Scriptures (jn 6:60-66) and those who have religious zeal apart from the gospel (Ro 10:1-4)

HOWEVER; if the disobedient Christian doesn't lose his salvation he will be out of fellowship with the Lord and his people (1 Jn 1:3-7). the sinning Christian is helped and loved by the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Jn 2:1-2) The sinning Christian is chastened by the Father (He. 12:5-11). The sinning Christian loses irreplaceable opportunities for service and fruit (Ep. 5:14-17) (mt. 9:36-38) (1 th. 5:4-10). The sinning Christian can be forgiven, but he cannot regain the lost opportunities and the hurt he has caused by his sin. The sinning Christian will suffer loss at the judgement seat of Christ (1 Co. 3:11-15) (2 Co 5:10) (1 Ti. 6:17-19) (1 Jn 2:28)

[Abigailwc]

Ezekiel 33, none of the verses you mentioned have to do with losing one's salvation.

[Massorite]

Is Once Saved Always Saved true.

I know that my only hope is Jesus. I know that salvation can come by no other way.

But can I lose it.

If my life doesn't produce good fruit?

Will Christ reject me if I don't forgive my fellow brother for wronging me.

I was born again at 22. I truely believe that when I asked him to be my Lord and saved me, that I meant it, every word.

What if when I asking him to be my Lord and Savior, the answer was no.

I have so many question and would like to hear your thoughts of both sides of the coin.

Is Once Saved Always Saved, true or not.

Yes salvation can be lost. One can't get saved and live like hell the rest of their life and expect to go to heaven. We have to fight the good fight, endure to the end of the world or our lives. We will never cross the finish line if we quit half way through the race and guess what. If you don't cross the finish line you don,t get the reward.

Why do you think the word of God us about the great falling away in 2 Thess 2:3? The words "falling away "are speaking of a great departure from the faith". Which means the a great many Christians who are saved and believe in Christ are going to stop believing that Jesus was the son of God and cast Him out of their lives. Do you think that will still go to heaven or do you think they will recieve their just rewards?

There is no scriptural proof written anywhere in the bible that supports the idea of OSAS and if it not clearly written in the word of God it is not.