enoob57 Posted February 7, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,387 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,563 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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? Our own definition of what? You have to have a word to have a definition. What word are we defining differently, and who is to say which person is correct? Anyone in this debate on any side of the issue could be accused of causing discord including you. The truth of the matter is, from what I have read, everyone here believes in the scriptures. They are just interpreting them different. Take you for instance. If you agree with Shiloh, you disagree with N'Christ, since he believes in OSAS, and Shiloh357 claims there is no such doctrine. He says it is as real as pink unicorns. You are in disagreement with me, because while I believe one can know they are saved today, that is not necessarily the case a year from now. You are in disagreement with TheTruthLivesForever, who believes you were lied to by people who told you that once you were saved, it was guaranteed forever regardless of what you do. I don't discount the sincerity of anyone arguing any side of this. If there is discord, it is because some people here think they have the only valid opinion, and they wish to silence everyone else. There 'IS' also God Who argues for Himself... the frustration of those who hear Him and know it is the Lord against those who do not! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted February 7, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 300 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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. What TRULY Born-Again Christian wants to wallow in sin? There are many different kinds of LOSSES that can be suffered by Christians, but Salvation isn't one of them. The biggest problem in this debate appears to be people taking Scripture out of context and not having a clue what is really being talked about. Example: there's a big difference between Salvation in this Age of Grace and Salvation during the Tribulation Period. Much confusion could be avoided if people would simply study the Scriptures in context, even if it requires studying multiple chapters before and after the portion of Scripture in question. In many cases, Salvation isn't even being talked about. YES, I believe in OSAS - plain, simple, blunt TRUTH that doesn't need to be watered down. The "what if" that matters is what if God's Promise of Eternal Life has been given. God keeps His Promises ALWAYS most perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 7, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Excuse me if I ramble a bit, but I am trying to get my thoughts in line while I type. Simply put, this is what I am trying to work out. We cannot save ourselves, as in salvation Salvation comes from faith, and that faith is a gift from God. (so scripture says) We are the elected, the saved. God knew from the start (whenever that may have been), that we would accept His gift. Why would he elect us, give us the gift of faith when we were unbelievers, if He knew we would turn our backs on salvation once accepting the gift of faith? One answer might be that we "thought" we had the gift, we fooled ourselves, or for some other motive (perhaps subconscious and not understood), we thought we were saved, or wanted to be, without embracing what it means. Therefore if God knew we would accept the gift of faith, of salvation, when we "hated" Him, why would He turn His back on us when we do hateful things like sin once we are saved? (I am not advocating sin under grace here, once saved we should strive to be perfect) Simply put, some may have embraced Jesus, but not His cross (as Shiloh elegantly put in his post on the cross). We cannot embrace Jesus without embracing the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted February 7, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 300 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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. They are one and the SAME. OSAS is Eternal Security, and Eternal Security is Once Saved - Always Saved. God's Promises are involved in both. You can't have Eternal Security without OSAS, and you can't have OSAS without Eternal Security. The definition is dirt simple - you either have Eternal Security and are Saved forever or you don't. If you have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, YOU HAVE IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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. They are one and the SAME. OSAS is Eternal Security, and Eternal Security is Once Saved - Always Saved. God's Promises are involved in both. You can't have Eternal Security without OSAS, and you can't have OSAS without Eternal Security. The definition is dirt simple - you either have Eternal Security and are Saved forever or you don't. If you have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, YOU HAVE IT. No, they are not one and the same. That is just wrong. OSAS has a manward focus. ES has a God-ward focus. OSAS is all about how much you can sin and get away with. ES is predicated on the promises of God and His faithfulness to honor His word. OSAS is a bogus made up label meant to characterize ES as a license to sin. It was made up by the anti-ES crowd to paint ES as teaching that you can sin and that your salvtation is unconditional regardless of how much sin you commit. Hence the "always" in OSAS. Once you are saved, you are always saved, unconditionally and thus you are free to sin without impunity. That is entirely different that ES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted February 8, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2012 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. I have no problem being upfront about it either. The OSAS crowd means OSAS, it doesn't mean "OSAS-and-sin-as-much-as-you-want". Don't confuse their doctrinal teaching with the conclusion some people erroneously make based on their doctrine. The two are NOT the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 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. I have no problem being upfront about it either. The OSAS crowd means OSAS, it doesn't mean "OSAS-and-sin-as-much-as-you-want". Don't confuse their doctrinal teaching with the conclusion some people erroneously make based on their doctrine. The two are NOT the same. The OSAS crowd can say what they want, but OSAS was created to be a charicature of ES and as such is not a doctrine. You can believe what you want, but there is not ONE anti-ES person who sees it as anything but a license to sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted February 8, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2012 OSAS is man-focused. It is about how man can live in sin still remain saved. Only the way you and a selected few others define it. OSAS is about permanency of salvation. The rest of the "stuff" about sin is just an add on that need not be there. Eternal Security is God-focused, in that it is predicated firstly on the faithfulness of God to His word. Well... if you predicate it on being a genuine believer, then that removes the risk that you are one of those who thought you were saved and actually weren't. Can't you see how this just shifts the goal post??? Now the uncertainty is whether or not the precondition has been met or not. Either way there is still that uncertainty Butero is talking about. Eternal Security has nothing to say about sinful living. Nor does OSAS. 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. Again, shifting the goal posts. If your security is predicated on being a genuine believer, and predicated on continued holiness and godly living, there is nothing to debate. The security is then found in your own assessment of whether you are a genuine believer living in holiness. Still no certainty there . Don't mistaken the permanency of salvation with the permanency of knowing you are saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted February 8, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2012 First of all Candice, I never thought that you were trying to silence anyone. I was speaking to someone else when I made that comment, and I never had you in mind. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was addressing the idea that some were guilty of sowing discord because they don't accept OSAS. You never said that or insinuated it. You say it is unfair in you opinion to say that OSAS means someone "can sin as much as they want after salvation." That all depends. I will ask you a question, and based on your answer, we will see if that is unfair? If a person gets saved, and then goes back into sin a year later, and commits adultery, steals, becomes involved in the occult, and dies in that state, based on your interpretation of OSAS, will they go to heaven? Don't worry Butero, I know you weren't speaking of me . I don't believe in OSAS, either with or without the "licence to sin" clause. My assessment would be the person you described is not currently saved. Whether they had genuine faith at any point in history I cannot be sure of. But I do believe people can lose genuine saving faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted February 8, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 8, 2012 OSAS is a bogus made up label meant to characterize ES as a license to sin. It was made up by the anti-ES crowd to paint ES as teaching that you can sin and that your salvtation is unconditional regardless of how much sin you commit. Hence the "always" in OSAS. Once you are saved, you are always saved, unconditionally and thus you are free to sin without impunity. That is entirely different that ES. Here we go again. Where is the proof that this OSAS concept was dreamed up purely by the anti-ES crowd to wrongly assert ES'ers are handing out a licence to sin??? I'm sorry but you don't have the licence to define OSAS. OSAS is a label used by many to refer to permanency of salvation. THAT is where the debate should hinge. We have already decided that EVERYONE believes there is no such thing as a genuinely saved Christian holding an attitude of a licence to sin. Why can't we drop the strawman about sin that no one believes in and debate the actual permanency of salvation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts