The possibly False teachings of OSAS and Eternal Security

[~candice~]

I searched for OSAS in my local Christian bookstore and saw this

http://www.koorong.c...932805273.jhtml

Nwp: Once Saved, Always Saved

R T Kendall

Paperback. 164 pages. Part of the New Westminster Pulpit Series

Price: $13.95

The Bible commands us to make our calling and election sure. Why is it then that so many Christians today struggle with the issue of assurance? Embracing the doctrine of eternal security, R.T. Kendall encourages the Christian struggling with legalism, bondage, and fear, and points us towards God's glorious promises. Once Saved, Always Saved is not a book for the complacent, as secure in our salvation we are challenged to live our lives with godly fear before the judgment seat of Christ. 164 pages, from Paternoster. <br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; ">- Publisher.

He is using OSAS and ES as synonymous. You still haven't given any evidence that OSAS is a label dreamed up by the anti-ES crowd except for saying "yes it is". There are many who use OSAS without tacking on "licence to sin" as you accuse.

Yes, but they are pro-ES AND they are part of our modern community. There are really not many in the anti-ES crowd who view it your way. "OSAS" is part of our modern vocabulary. It is part of how people talk today. It was never part of historical Christian thinking. It is a modern term and those who believe in ES, for the most part, have embraced the term, without embracing the negative connotation it possesses. But historically, the doctrine of ES has held a far different position than what the anti-ES crowd has assigned it. "OSAS" is at best another way of referring to Eternal Security but it has never meant to be flattering. It was meant to reflect the notion that once saved, you are always saved no matter what you do, even if you reject God and convert to Hinduism or something.

You don't see OSAS that way, and that's fine, but if you do an Internet search of "the doctrine of OSAS" and see what pops up, you will find that no anti-ES folks view it the way you do. I am operating from the most commonly accepted and widest conventional view of OSAS as expressed by the overwhelming majority of those who are anti-ES.

In fact, I was a Christian for over twenty years having gone to churches that believe in Eternal Security and I NEVER heard the term OSAS until started interacting with the anti-ES crowd. In fact, my biggest exposure to that term was been with anti-ES folks on this board and it has always been used by most people here in a negative sense. It has been consistently defined the anti-ES crowd on this board as a license to sin. I didn't assign that value to OSAS. The anti-ES crowd (of which you claim to belong) assigned that vlalue to it. So if ou are really concerned that it is being misrepresented, you need to convince other anti-ES folks that OSAS does not provide a license to sin.

It has only been within the last 5-10 years that proponents of ES have acquiesed to using OSAS. Major historical works on the subject never used the term OSAS that I am aware of.

Who cares how the anti-ES crowd defines it? You said yourself that even pro ES'ers are using the term OSAS as if it is synonymous. So it's time to drop the semantic argument against anti-ES, and just debate permanency of salvation. This way of refuting the anti-ES / anti-OSAS crowd by accusing them of inventing OSAS to mock ES has been done to death. I am by far not the only person considering ES and OSAS to both mean permanent salvation.

[Guest]

.... Who cares how the anti-ES crowd defines it? You said yourself that even pro ES'ers are using the term OSAS as if it is synonymous. So it's time to drop the semantic argument against anti-ES, and just debate permanency of salvation. This way of refuting the anti-ES / anti-OSAS crowd by accusing them of inventing OSAS to mock ES has been done to death. I am by far not the only person considering ES and OSAS to both mean permanent salvation.....

Amen~!

~

Backsliding?

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10

Look Up~!

O LORD, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name's sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. Jeremiah 14:7

[Guest shiloh357]

In reality, I believe in pre-destination to salvation, and God's elect will be saved because he ordained it so. Those people will continue in the faith, so they won't lose their salvation. They may walk away for a time, but they will return before they die. If they do not, they were not ordained unto salvation.

Your hatchet job on Calvinism is interesting to say the least. It makes no sense to argue against the permanency of salvation and then claim to hold to Calvinistic viewpoints that teach the very thing you don't really believe.

God doesn't predestine anyone to salvation.

[~candice~]

God doesn't predestine anyone to salvation.

I agree. God predestines the church to salvation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Who cares how the anti-ES crowd defines it? You said yourself that even pro ES'ers are using the term OSAS as if it is synonymous. So it's time to drop the semantic argument against anti-ES, and just debate permanency of salvation. This way of refuting the anti-ES / anti-OSAS crowd by accusing them of inventing OSAS to mock ES has been done to death. I am by far not the only person considering ES and OSAS to both mean permanent salvation.

(sigh) Fine. You call it whatever you want. I will call it by its theologically accurate title. Hopefully there won't be any confusion.

[Arthur Durnan]

Well, like I indicated a mile orso back, Jesus offers no one only "temporal" salvation. If it's only "temporal," it's not salvation, but only partial respite until one falls back into Hell from which one was "temporally saved" in the first instance. If Calvary was insufficient to save me forever, then, alas and alack, Calvary would have to be repeated - as in the deplorable Romanist sacrifice of the mass - in order to keep me saved for a while longer until my next "dropping away." Sad it is that some kind folk come to Jesus to be saved but fail to understand His keeping power too! How weak do you feel Jesus actually is? He must be fairly weak if He cannot save, keep and guarantee Heaven to His very Own children! "Once for all, O, children believe it!; Once for all, O sinner receive it!" Hallelujah and Amen! Hello Heaven! Good-by Hell! Thank You, Lord Jesus! Come, let us all rejoice together for a Savior Who died to make Heaven our eternal home thru the blood of His Cross!

[Botz]

I really do think the OSAS/ES crowd either have not understood, or not properly refuted Butero's point.

AAAAARRRGH....I really hate labels Candice ...I am a Believer in the L-rd Jesus pure and simple and not part of the OSAS crowd (whatever that really is)...I personally happen to believe that once salvation is gained it is maintained

because it is a supernatural once and for all process that cannot revised or reversed. I don't think it was by chance that Jesus illustrated it with reference to the birthing process, but He used such graphic imagery to underline and

demonstrate its permanency...you are either a sheep or a goat, born-again or not born again.

I am not sure which point that Butero made that you are referring to, but I am happy to try and address it if you kindly refer it to me again.

If you want assurance of salvation under the ES doctrine, you first must have assurance you are a genuine Christian.

I would have thought that is a fundamental starting point...but having assurance of salvation is really a work of the Spirit that is in the heart of all Believers...the two are part and parcel of the same thing

if you don't have full assurance of salvation...in what or whom are you trusting? The deal was, repent, believe be baptised and you will be forgiven, have eternal life....or as Acts 2 puts it you will recieve the gift

of the Holy Spirit...'"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' It is the Holy Spirit who makes real

to us the promises of G-d and gives us that eternal Hope.

Conditional on this fact, it is clear you have been saved, are being saved and will be saved. But that is a big condition and uncertainty surrounding whether or not you are a genuine Christian should transfer to an equal uncertainty about your salvation.

I can't really see the problem...of course if you are unsure whether you are saved, you won't have assurance of salvation. I believe the gift of the Holy Spirit that Peter is talking about is the crux of the issue...many

people who profess faith in Jesus put themselves through so much doubt and uncertainty because they have believed the Gospel, but not really received the fullness of the Holy Spirit... I don't think I have ever met anyone who

has been full of the Holy Spirit and not known they are saved...because first and foremost the Spirit connects with our spirit and confirms we are sons of G-d so that our natural heart cry is 'Abba, Father'....just

as the first words on a babes mouth are usually Mama or Da da da.

I understand the Scriptures that people have always used to maintain the threat/warning of conditional salvation...but as far as I can see...everything has to be viewed from the position of New birth, and filtered back

through that...eg. You are eternally saved. If you don't do it this way, some of the Scriptures can be used in a way that implies we can default on the deal and not live up to our end of the bargain...but if a person

is truly saved...how foolish would they be to think they have license to do what they liked....all that would indicate to most people is that they had no idea of salvation, and were devoid of the Spirit.

Personally (and I'm just talking things out here) I think we can neglect our salvation and squander our inheritance as Saints, but we cannot forfeit our salvation because it is not only a gift, but a condition/a state of

grace that we are in, and is sustained entirely by G-d based on our profession of faith....Let G-d be true, and every man a liar.

I do find it intriguing and frustrating in equal measures...that there should be two camps of understanding on such an important issue, as the way you understand your salvation dictates to some extent the way you

will relate to your Heavenly Father...I sometimes picture the difference as between a loving stern father with Victorian values and a loving father who so enjoys interacting with his children...one is more approachable

that the other.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not worried what Calvin teaches. I am concerned about what scripture teaches.

Then why run to Calvinism in the first place. You are promoting (in a rather bizzare way) his exact teaching on predestination. You are supporting the notion that God ordains some to be saved, which means that you support the notion of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. Jesus died only for the elect that He foreordained to be saved and while the call goes out to all men, only those chosen can answer the call.

I am arguing against the erroneous doctrine of OSAS, the doctrine you said was false and equal to belief in pink unicorns.

Yes I did say that. So what? What is it that is erroneous about OSAS? What makes it that way?

[Guest shiloh357]

If I am promoting Calvin's exact teachings on predestination, then why call it a hatchet job? It is either his exact teachings or a hatchet job. It can't be both.

It is not either/or, it is both/and. You promoted selected portions of Calvin's teachings but discard the rest.

I have never even read Calvin's writings. I only know of Calvin that he believes in predestination, and I have a general idea what he means by that. If I am promoting his doctrines, it is because I came to see them for myself reading the Bible.

I think you know more about it than you let on. If you really don't you need to study it out and see what it is you are laying hold of and see if you really want to align yourself with any part of it.

You seem to believe that everyone has the same chance to be saved. You get saved by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and if you really repented and meant it, you will remain saved, and live as a new creature in Christ Jesus.

I believe that everyone doesn't have the same chance to be saved. God has to reveal Christ to us for us to be saved. If we get saved, it is by accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, but we will only do that if God has predestined us to do so. If we are one of those chosen people, we will remain saved, and live as a new creature in Christ Jesus.

The way I see it, we don't have an equal chance at salvation. Some are born in America where the gospel is readily preached. Some are born in Muslim nations, where Christianity is illegal. Some are born in areas of the world with no knowledge of God whatsoever. There is nothing equal about that. Then there are people like the Apostle Paul, who had a personal appearance by Christ before he believed, yet his teacher Gamileo had no such experience, because he wasn't God's chosen vessel.

I believe that the Gospel is available to all. That is not the same as saying that everyone has an equal chance. Logistically, there are people who don't have the same exposure to the Gospel as we have in the US. But that does not mean that the Gospel is not just as available in terms of who gets or doesn't get access to God's grace.

The notion that God ordains or chooses some to be saved is not a bibliclal teaching. You could not have gotten that from the Bible. The Bible says that God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance. It is not God's will to lose anyone to hell. He has not chosen some to be saved and left others out.

The Gospel is for the whole world, not a selected group. John 3:16 says "WHOSOEVER believeth..." Whosoever is all inclusive. It doesn't limit salvation to one group of people. Jesus died so that ALL men would come to repentance and faith in Him.

[Guest shiloh357]

As far as Calvanism goes, all I know of it is that I knew some people that were Primitive Baptist about 30 years ago, and I visited their church once. I was told they were Calvanists, and that they believe that those who are chosen to be saved will be saved, and those predestined lost will be lost. When I use the term Calvanism, it is only a label to indicate a basic belief system. I don't know that much about his specific teachings. In recent days, I have had the opportunity to go through the Bible repeatedly on the road with the Alexander Scourby cds, at a fairly rapid speed. It gives you a differen't perspective when you hear it read straight through repeatedly than even reading it yourself a few chapters at a time. I had already read the Bible through more than a dozen times. I could see pre-destination in scripture from the OT to the NT.

Then you need to study Calvinism out and see if you want to continue aligning yourself with it. When you use the term Calvinism, you create an image in the minds of others about what you believe. If you dont' really know anything about it as you claim, it would behoove you stop using it until you are clear on what it is so as not engender so much confusion about what it is you are calling "Calvinism." This is not a smorgasboard where you pick and choose according to your tastes.

Let's look at what you are saying about the gospel being for everyone. You say that whosoever means whosoever, yet scripture says that many are called but few are chosen.

That is referring to service only. It is not talking about salvation.

If what you are saying is true and accurate, why isn't everyone saved?

I said that salvation is available to every one. It is not somelthing that is imposed by God on anyone. It is a free gift that you are able to accept or reject.

We know they are not, and we also know God has the ability to save every soul if he desires to. Why doesn't everyone have the same chance to be saved?

Why is everyone not born in a country where the Gospel is freely available??? They just aren't. That is why the church is commissioned to take the Gospel to the world.

Why are some born to Christian parents and others to heathens? Why do some have one chance after another to come to Christ over a very long life, while another sinner may die in his youth, with perhaps only one chance? It doesn't seem fair does it, so why is it so hard to comprehend the idea that some are chosen saved and others are not?

1. Where a person is born has nothing to do with whether or not they are chosen to be saved. God does not choose some to be born in one place and others to born somehwere else.

2. It cannot be believed because the Bible NOWHERE says that God has chosen to save some and not others. That is the product of a rather bizzare handling of Scripture.

Let's look at Bible prophecy. If we really have free will to choose our destiny, then we could in theory completely thwart the will of God, and prevent the great tribulation from occuring, by simply rejecting the anti-Christ. Israel could wise up and reject his peace treaty.

For the most part, we make our own choices. God has some future events set by His own good pleasure and they are inevitable. But God gives us free will in most areas of our lives. You are free to choose your spouse, how many children you want, what house to buy, what kind of car or computer to own. You are free to live anywhere you choose to live. We should always seek God's guidance in those choices, but they are our choices to make.

Salvation is a free gift of God's grace. You can accept it or reject it. You can choose to reject the wooing of the Spirit and choose to live and die in continued separation from God. God knows who will accept His offer and He knows who will not. But nothing in Scripture suggests that God chooses who will or will not be saved.

If we really have free will, then Pharoah could have avoided the plagues by letting Israel go, but God said he would harden his heart.

The hardening of pharoah's heart was not the removal of His free will. Pharoah made his own choice and God used pharoah's hard heart to be his undoing. God did not force Pharoah at any point. God knew that Pharoah's heart would be hardened with every plague His sent. But Pharoah's heart was already hardened even before His first encounter with Moses.

If Peter had free will, he could have avoided denying the Lord thrice, but once Jesus said that he would do so, it was going to happen. Judas could have rejected the 30 pieces of silver. The Jews could have decided to accept Jesus and not crucified him. In other words, all of what God said would occur could have been prevented, and still could, if we really have free will.

None of those things stem from a lack of free will. If we follow your logic, if Adam had freewill he would not have eaten from the forbidden tree, which would then place the problem of sin upon God and not on Adam. The reason the Bible rightly lays the blame on Adam for our sinful nature, is that Adam committed his sin with both eyes open and He did so freely. He was not predestined by God to sin. No one is predestined by God to sin.

The bottom line is that if God knows who we are and what we will do, and he still makes us in the fashion he does, we really have no free will. If God knows us and that we will reject or accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, though we may make the decision, we really had no choice, because it was already settled in the mind of God. You see this plainly throughout the Bible.

No we don't. Knowing what will happen and making it happen are not the same thing. I can know and predict with 100% accuracy what my brother wil do in certain situations. I know him like the back of my hand and I have seen him in action in the past. I know what he will order if we go to particular restauraunt. That does not mean that I caused him to order what he ordered. God knows the sins will commit next year. That does not mean He predestined me to commit those sins.

Yeah sorry, but I am just not buying that stuff. I think you need to research Calvinism a little better instead of coming up with this Calivnistic/anti-OSAS hybrid thing you have going.