The possibly False teachings of OSAS and Eternal Security

[nChrist]

What I am getting from Butero, and it is a point I haven't seen adequately addressed, is that ES hinges on the fact that a genuine Christian has been transformed and will continue to live for God. Under this understanding of ES, where is the security for backsliders? I agree, in part, that you can hardly call it security if at some future point in time, you might backslide, indicating you were actually never born again. ES, OSAS, anti-OSAS, whatever.... this issue of people of faith living for a time in the world needs to be addressed and I don't think it has been addressed adequately by either side.

OSAS is a TRUE statement that doesn't need to be watered down - because of the Promises of God. It's just that simple and the end of the story because God always keeps His Promises.

[~candice~]

What I am getting from Butero, and it is a point I haven't seen adequately addressed, is that ES hinges on the fact that a genuine Christian has been transformed and will continue to live for God. Under this understanding of ES, where is the security for backsliders? I agree, in part, that you can hardly call it security if at some future point in time, you might backslide, indicating you were actually never born again. ES, OSAS, anti-OSAS, whatever.... this issue of people of faith living for a time in the world needs to be addressed and I don't think it has been addressed adequately by either side.

OSAS is a TRUE statement that doesn't need to be watered down - because of the Promises of God. It's just that simple and the end of the story because God always keeps His Promises.

You are using OSAS a way differently to Shiloh. Shiloh defines it as being able to sin as much as you want after salvation and being saved. I for one agree with your definition.

[OneLight]

I can remember the first time I heard Once Saved, Always Saved. It was like music to my ears when it was explained that if you follow God, accept the salvation brought by Jesus, and allow Jesus to be Lord of your life, you will make it to heaven. Then when I spoke to someone who did not believe in OSAS, they asked me the same question Shiloh is asking. Can I use my salvation as a ticket to continue to live in sin the rest of my life. The answer was No, because that would be in contradiction to living a life where you love the Lord you God with all your heart, all you soul, all your mind and all you strength.

As I continue to think about this, I am still convinced that if you are a true Christian, you will turn from sin every time, trying to stand steadfast in Him. In this, I agree with Shiloh and against those who feel they can life a life of a dog and still enter into His rest. Yet, I am also of the belief that if I am a true Christian, I will always remain saved.

It all depends on how the term is defined. I believe that is the key to solving this issue here, what is the definition each of us are using? Are they the same, or are we going off on our own definition, causing discord because of this?

[~candice~]

What I am getting from Butero, and it is a point I haven't seen adequately addressed, is that ES hinges on the fact that a genuine Christian has been transformed and will continue to live for God. Under this understanding of ES, where is the security for backsliders? I agree, in part, that you can hardly call it security if at some future point in time, you might backslide, indicating you were actually never born again. ES, OSAS, anti-OSAS, whatever.... this issue of people of faith living for a time in the world needs to be addressed and I don't think it has been addressed adequately by either side.

OSAS is a TRUE statement that doesn't need to be watered down - because of the Promises of God. It's just that simple and the end of the story because God always keeps His Promises.

You are using OSAS a way differently to Shiloh. Shiloh defines it as being able to sin as much as you want after salvation and being saved. I for one agree with your definition.

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that N'Christ is saying just that. He is saying that if you get saved, you can continue to sin and are guaranteed you will remain saved. That is differen't than what Shiloh is saying. Is that really what you believe?

No Butero .

I believe OSAS is just that, once saved you will be permanently saved. That is it's name, that is how it is defined. I think it is unfair when people tag "and then you can sin as much as you want after salvation" to this definition as well. I define OSAS as a permanency of salvation after that initial first saving faith. In that sense I struggle to see the difference between MY definition of OSAS (which is just what the acronym stands for) and ES. And I don't believe either of them. I hope tat clarifies my position, I don't intend to silence anyone or accuse anyone... I just think we'd all make headway in the discussion if the terms were more clearly defined because some of us seem to be using different definitions for the same acronyms.

[Botz]

I can remember the first time I heard Once Saved, Always Saved. It was like music to my ears when it was explained that if you follow God, accept the salvation brought by Jesus, and allow Jesus to be Lord of your life, you will make it to heaven. Then when I spoke to someone who did not believe in OSAS, they asked me the same question Shiloh is asking. Can I use my salvation as a ticket to continue to live in sin the rest of my life. The answer was No, because that would be in contradiction to living a life where you love the Lord you God with all your heart, all you soul, all your mind and all you strength.

As I continue to think about this, I am still convinced that if you are a true Christian, you will turn from sin every time, trying to stand steadfast in Him. In this, I agree with Shiloh and against those who feel they can life a life of a dog and still enter into His rest. Yet, I am also of the belief that if I am a true Christian, I will always remain saved.

It all depends on how the term is defined. I believe that is the key to solving this issue here, what is the definition each of us are using? Are they the same, or are we going off on our own definition, causing discord because of this?

I can see why the first time you heard the OSAS doctrine it was like music to your ears because it tickled them.

Forgive me if I just jump in and answer this first point you make....and if I may say so, the conclusion you draw is pretty uncharitable.

If it was me you were addressing, I would respond and tell you that hearing such a teaching was like a breath of fresh air because it struck a chord in my heart that suddenly melted all of

my striving to live a good life as a Believer, it took away something of the heaviness I had struggled under, especially when I sinned a few times, so much so that I wondered if I really

was saved. That statement helped express the enormity of the Saviours love for me as an individual and began to line up with the Word of G-d so much more than I had ever seen in

the past...I could see clearly that my state of salvation was an eternal gift given to me when I believed on Jesus, and that I NEVER had to fear again that I would be back in the state

of sin and unbelief that I knew before I was saved....it was a lovely cleansing word of truth, and far from giving me license to do what I liked, even sinning, was the motivation to try

and follow Jesus with all my heart...and to know that if I fell I had an Advocate with the Father.

I came to understand that when the Word of G-d said I had been 'reborn'...then I had actually been reborn, and nothing could unbirth me.

I came to see that no one could pluck me from my Fathers hand.

I realised that there was no condemnation held over me or put to my account.

I was actually free to rejoice in my salvation in fulness of joy, and to know that G-d loved me and rejoiced over me, because

He saw an individual washed in the Saviours blood, a sheep of the Shepherd.

My ears were not 'tickled' my ears heard, and my spirit rejoiced in G-d my Saviour.

[Guest shiloh357]

Please Shiloh give me your defense of your OSAS doctrine and also please give me your interpretation on this commentary by truthinscripture.com , i would really appreciate it.

I am not defending OSAS. I believe in Eternal Security and they are two completely different points of view. Unfortunately, people like you refuse to take the time to understand the difference. You just want to lump the two views together as if they were the same thing, and as I discussed above, they are not.

Hebrews 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

That verse is not talking about salvation. Salvation is not a reward. Salvation is not the result of endurance. Salvaton is a gift of God's grace that is given freely. We do not earn or "win" salvation.

Rev 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

The promise of eternal life can be received right now when you believe in Jesus with a pure heart. To actually attain the promise we must do the will of God and endure to the very end to be saved. The will of God is described as listening to God’s son and being purified of all sin. Unless we overcome sin in our lives, Jesus will indeed erase our names from the Book of Life and we will not enter the Kingdom of God.

That is not what Jesus is saying. The verse says that the person who OVERCOMES shall not have their name erased. The person who overcomes is the person who believes and trusts in Jesus Christ (I John 5:4-5). The word for "will not" is a double negative that means "I will not, no, never..." meaning that the person who receives Jesus will NEVER have his name removed from the Lamb's book of life. It is not a warning about losing salvation. It is an assurance that the Christian will NEVER have His Name removed from the book of life.

SEcondly the author makes another glaring theological error. He draws a false dichotomy between receiving salvation and obtaining salvation. There is no such teaching in Scripture. The Bible says I can KNOW TODAY that HAVE salvation:

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

(1Jn 5:10-13)

In addition the believer has the Holy Spirit within himself testifying that he is a child of God. Ephesians 1;14 teaches that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our inheritance. The notion that obtain salvation at a later time AFTER we receive it is unbiblical. Eternal life is NOW it is present tense and the authentic beleiver has eternal life today as a personal possession.

This "commentary" is a theological trainwreck.

I don't have the time to respond to all of it at this moment, as it is quite long, but will revisit today, as I have opportunity.

You said quote "That is not what Jesus is saying. The verse says that the person who OVERCOMES shall not have their name erased. The person who overcomes is the person who believes and trusts in Jesus Christ (I John 5:4-5). " Why do you gloss over the word "overcomes" which is a continual and means to endure to the finish ? Why would you think that Rev3:5 is not one whole sentence and think Christ was not meaning what HE actually said regarding being blotted out of the book of Life ? You must be in the book of life first before you can be blotted out, right ? Is Christ JESUS just bluffing or is HE saying here what HE actually does not mean ?

Sorry, but "overcome" does not mean endure to the finish (end). The "overcome" is defined by Scripture as believing and trusting in Jesus. It has nothing to do with enduring to the end. It does possess of a continuous sense, but it refers not to a continuous act, butto exist a continuous, present tense state of victory. Once you have ovecome by playing your trust and faith in Christ, you will live in a perpetualy victorious state in which your name will never be blotted out of the book of life. Revelation 3:5 is simply an affirmation of the eternal truth that our victory over death and sin is found in Christ and not in human effort or merit.

To me the English language speaks for itself WITHOUT need for interpretation or " this is what this means and that is what that means" arguments....

You simply don't want anyone to confuse you with the facts...

You are interpreting the passage each time you come on here and offer your opinion on what the text means. You are interpretting every bit as much as anyone else is. The problem is that you are applying a very shallow, face-value approach to the text in English. Your arguments can't stand up to scrutiny when we examine the Greek text in which the author actually penned the text. When we examine what the author intended to say from the Greek we discover that it is not enough to apply a shallow face-value approach to the english text.

[Guest]

Sometimes

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1-2

I Think One

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Hebrews 10:15-17

Is Pulled Hither And Yon

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

By This Or By That

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: Ephesians 4:14

Leaving One

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

With But Two Choices

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

To Sink

Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth.

But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.

And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.

And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him. Luke 8:22-25

Or To Stand Upon The Rock

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 1 Peter 2:5-11

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Arthur Durnan]

Jesus never once offers anyone a temporal salvation. In every instance, He offers us an everlasting salvation, "Not for the years of time alone, but for eternity!" There is no such thing anywhere in Holy Scripture where it declares that one must be saved, then later "re-saved". And later, "re-saved again." It is never "born thrice," but only born twice....firstly in your mother's womb, lastly via the miracle of the New Birth of God as in John Chapter Three. There is not one instance anywhere in Holy Writ of someone by name being first saved, then "re-lost." I love the debilitating philosophy of "temporal" salvation, but then I also love novocaine shots too! HALP!

[Guest shiloh357]

What I am getting from Butero, and it is a point I haven't seen adequately addressed, is that ES hinges on the fact that a genuine Christian has been transformed and will continue to live for God. Under this understanding of ES, where is the security for backsliders? I agree, in part, that you can hardly call it security if at some future point in time, you might backslide, indicating you were actually never born again. ES, OSAS, anti-OSAS, whatever.... this issue of people of faith living for a time in the world needs to be addressed and I don't think it has been addressed adequately by either side.

OSAS is a TRUE statement that doesn't need to be watered down - because of the Promises of God. It's just that simple and the end of the story because God always keeps His Promises.

You are using OSAS a way differently to Shiloh. Shiloh defines it as being able to sin as much as you want after salvation and being saved. I for one agree with your definition.

No, I am simply willing to be up front about the way the overwhelming majority of anti-ES folks define it. nChrist is defining ES not OSAS.

[Guest shiloh357]

I believe OSAS is just that, once saved you will be permanently saved. That is it's name, that is how it is defined. I think it is unfair when people tag "and then you can sin as much as you want after salvation" to this definition as well. I define OSAS as a permanency of salvation after that initial first saving faith. In that sense I struggle to see the difference between MY definition of OSAS (which is just what the acronym stands for) and ES. And I don't believe either of them.

The difference in how they are defeined is that OSAS is not based on the promises of God, nor does it stem from the authenticity of one's profession of faith. OSAS is a lay "doctrine" (if you can call it a doctrine at all; I do not). OSAS is man-ward. ES is God-ward. That is OSAS is no a "doctrine." I guess a definition of doctrine is needed. "Doctrine" properly understood are those biblical teachings that form the foundation for practical Christian living. Donctrine always points man to God in terms of its origin and focus. Doctrine on practical level amounts to living out biblical truth. OSAS does not have its origin in the Bible. OSAS is man-focused. It is about how man can live in sin still remain saved.

Eternal Security is God-focused, in that it is predicated firstly on the faithfulness of God to His word. ES points to God and His faitfulness and grace, not to man. Eternal Security has nothing to say about sinful living. It's message is that all who have truly trusted in Christ have no fear of God changing His mind, thus they are "eternally secure" because God is faithful and never breaks His word. It assumes that you are genuine believer and that you are living for the Lord. In eternal security, holiness and godly living are a given.

Anyone who believes that salvatoin at any point is something that must be easrned or maintained by us, is operating from a man-centered focus and not a God-centered focus.