The possibly False teachings of OSAS and Eternal Security

[~Clay]

Really N'Christ??? If that is the case, then why don't you directly address my last post, and explain the parable of the prodigal son as I laid it out. It is real easy to post what you did without being able to actually defend your position. I will address the scriptures you posted.

Okay Butero -

I'll bite, because nobody else has. But I'll be transparent and confess that I don't believe you really want to consider the response, but only want something else to debate, so that you may win the argument. I hope that you prove me wrong...

Firstly, you fail in your argument because it is petitio principii. You list as a foundational assumption that because they were both his children they were both saved (establishing their initial state). This statement has no scriptural basis what-so-ever. But, as general "begging-the-question" arguments go, it is required in order for you to arrive at your conclusion, isn't it. So you provide it w/o any justification. But see Luke 11:11 or Mat 7:9 as examples of similar uses of a father and son by Jesus in an epigram (related to a parable) which does not require the "sons" to be saved.

Secondly, you fail in your analysis because you don't seem to understand the purpose of parables. So let's talk about the parable of the prodigal son, if we may. I am open to correction if I have missed the mark.

Despite sometimes popular belief, parables were not symbolic stories whose real meaning was a mystery, hidden to all but those who had the special "inside" knowledge. They were generally simple stories that were not only well-understood by all hearers, but had particular application to the audience of the parable. We often forget that parables were not written by Jesus. They were spoken out loud by Him to a specific audience for the purpose of eliciting a specific emotional response. They were not intended to teach general moral or spiritual truths outside of the audience and context. I offer as but one of many excellent references for these statements, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," by Fee and Stuart. There are many other equally good sources.

So, like so much of the Gospels, because the audience and context of parables are important to understanding the scriptural meaning, we need to start there, and not with our list of assumptions (such as "sons == saved men"). This is completely consistent with accepted hermeneutics for the entire New Testament: Who is the audience and what is the context?

The Audience:

From Luke 15 (and I use the KJV), "publicans" (tax-collectors) and "sinners" were gathering around to hear Jesus. There were also in the audience Pharisees and scribes. I expect you would agree that the scribes and Pharisees considered themselves righteous in God's sight. The publicans and sinners would probably also agree that the scribes and Pharisees considered themselves righteous in God's sight. You should also agree that the scribes and Pharisees did not consider the publicans and sinners righteous, but as lost. Those publicans and sinners probably agreed with that sentiment.

The Context:

The Pharisees and scribes were murmuring to each other, criticizing Jesus for receiving these sinners and actually eating with them. In direct response to this accusation - that Jesus was accepting and even being personal with the wrong kind of people - "He spoke this parable unto them."

Then we get the three parables of lost things - Jesus' justification of His actions.

First we get the parable of the Lost Sheep. Who in this parable would the publicans and sinners identify with? Clearly the lost sheep. The sinners and publicans were lost. But what joy when even one of them is found! And to make it crystal clear, Jesus adds that "likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repents, more than over ninety nine just persons which need no repentance." And who would the Pharisees and scribes relate to? Obviously the 99 righteous that had no need for repentance.

Second we get the parable of the lost coin. Similar message, same result - "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents."

And without a change in scenery, we then read "And He said, A certain man had two sons..."

Jesus is still talking to those that were (considered themselves to be) sinners and those that were (considered themselves to be) righteous.

Same audience.

And He is still illustrating the response in heaven to one of the sinners being saved.

Same context.

Who would the publicans and sinners relate to in the third story? The younger lost son (as we all should). And the Pharisees and scribes? The elder son who was with the father. But if the lost son actually meant a lost son who was originally righteous, then got lost, Jesus has lost half of his audience (play on words intended). In order for Jesus's statement to be relevant to the audience (and be consistent in the context), the younger son cannot be someone who was first alive, then dead, then alive again. There is no need to make him that way. The only need for you to do that is to support your argument.

But by doing that, you lose half of Jesus' audience - because the publicans and sinners would not relate to someone who was with God, then away from God, then came back to God. They would be left out of the story and have no part in the rejoicing. Additionally, you also make the parable useless in defending Jesus actions of receiving and eating with sinners. The parable now only applies if the publicans and sinners in the audience are people who were formally believing Jews (or proselytes) who then fell away to become sinners. It just doesn't work. The younger son is not someone who was alive, then dead, then alive again. He was dead, now he is alive. The father rejoices and the sinners in the audience relate. And Jesus continues to present the same message to the Pharisees and scribes - why He receives and eats with sinners.

~clay

[enoob57]

One might point out that no man can pluck us out of God's hands, and another would point out that doesn't stop you from walking out of his hand.

I believe in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture... no man equals no man... and there is no Scripture that teaches against itself -only the perversion of understanding it! Love, Steven

Being plucked out is quite differen't from walking out of your own accord. The difference is that I don't have to worry about another person plucking me out of God's hand against my will. In the other case, I am free to leave his hand if I want to. I can't "pluck" myself out of anything, but I can walk away.

Not according to John Who was very close to The Lord

1 Jn 2:19

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

NKJV

Love, Steven

[Josephus]

I am not a prophet nor a teacher but there is a grave deception when men re-assure other men about the very essence of salvation. The people that I have known left Worthy, and why did they leave? The spirit of deception is, oh so rampant. It is indeed insidious (leading to death). The overall structure of this lie is that is based on truth. Oh what a masterful play by demons. Let me say this for starters, there is (are) no guarantee, no coupon, and no short-cut to Salvation. This the fear that I had as a child, if God will condemn his unity in His Son to Crucifixion, who are we? Oh yea, right Christ took the entire burden on Himself so that we who are free – once we acknowledge and accept Him – are free to do as we please. WRONG!What kept me alive in these endless discussions was, “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth…?” Lk18:8 This is written to the people that are the “elect who cry to Him day and night” Lk 18:7 Do you cry out to him day and night? I don’t. When I went on a search for Christ one Christian advisor said, “You have to decide who you are?” I said, who are you…? The sage replied, “A sinner.” Yes folks you can be sure God will fulfill His promises but as a sinner could you fulfill yours?

It’s not even a matter of works because we cannot merit the gift of grace and the resulting salvation. That I fully agree with the OSAS and whatever name they choose to go by. I’m simply saying, God made Salvation and peace a two way street ever since he made the tree of right and wrong. Was God responsible for Adam and Eve’s downfall, yes and no is the answer. But hold on as many OSAS people will rant and rave about the subject, the Lord gave Adam and Eve RESPONSIBILITIES!!! Even though God knew this would happen, the answer is contingent on Adam and Eve, and therefore the correct phrasing is, did God want this to happen and the answer is an unequivocal NO !!!

Let’s go to Romans, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man…” Rom 2:1 And if you have judged any man in anyway you are part of this passage. Yes, you have no excuse. And the OSAS has a passage to the truth which is correct: “Christ Jesus is the one who died – more than that, who was raised – who is at the right hand of God, who is indeed is interceding for us. Rom 8:34 How are we to lose? The answer is the same way Adam and Eve lost. Adam and Eve are safe now but are you?

Yes, the debates will go on and on. But the sinner in me yearns for the Truth no matter what; there are two words that will snap my wicked soul in to attention: Obedience and Faith. These are under our control and don’t let anyone tare you away from these, for I see Judgement Day as a day that people will plead with God about not making them poverty stricken, uglier, less intelligent, less able to work crafts of art – ‘Oh God why did you put me in a position of such authority?’ Pilate is thinking this as we read. The essence is no matter what the “wise men” of our time say use your conscience and good reason of your mind. Life is a battle. A lonely battle for which you do not get earthly praise and all of us are addicted to the earth in one way or another. That’s the reason Christ washed the feet of his apostles: meaning the earth which is an advisory of Christ was in almost constant contact with the apostles – THX Watchman!!!

To the least the most...!

Oak

If one is not eternally secure, one is eternally insecure. This was the problem with the Galations, they sought to add to the finished work of Jesus. Gods promise is a new heart, an obediant heart given by His soveriegn grace to all who have been born again.

No, salvation is once and for all.

[Michae]

I used to use those phrase's at one time, OSAS but when i understood being eternally in Christ it was no longer scriptures i put together it was Him in me as my everything. Your right on the money Oak bless you

[Guest Butero]

Really N'Christ??? If that is the case, then why don't you directly address my last post, and explain the parable of the prodigal son as I laid it out. It is real easy to post what you did without being able to actually defend your position. I will address the scriptures you posted.

Okay Butero -

I'll bite, because nobody else has. But I'll be transparent and confess that I don't believe you really want to consider the response, but only want something else to debate, so that you may win the argument. I hope that you prove me wrong...

Firstly, you fail in your argument because it is petitio principii. You list as a foundational assumption that because they were both his children they were both saved (establishing their initial state). This statement has no scriptural basis what-so-ever. But, as general "begging-the-question" arguments go, it is required in order for you to arrive at your conclusion, isn't it. So you provide it w/o any justification. But see Luke 11:11 or Mat 7:9 as examples of similar uses of a father and son by Jesus in an epigram (related to a parable) which does not require the "sons" to be saved.

Secondly, you fail in your analysis because you don't seem to understand the purpose of parables. So let's talk about the parable of the prodigal son, if we may. I am open to correction if I have missed the mark.

Despite sometimes popular belief, parables were not symbolic stories whose real meaning was a mystery, hidden to all but those who had the special "inside" knowledge. They were generally simple stories that were not only well-understood by all hearers, but had particular application to the audience of the parable. We often forget that parables were not written by Jesus. They were spoken out loud by Him to a specific audience for the purpose of eliciting a specific emotional response. They were not intended to teach general moral or spiritual truths outside of the audience and context. I offer as but one of many excellent references for these statements, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," by Fee and Stuart. There are many other equally good sources.

So, like so much of the Gospels, because the audience and context of parables are important to understanding the scriptural meaning, we need to start there, and not with our list of assumptions (such as "sons == saved men"). This is completely consistent with accepted hermeneutics for the entire New Testament: Who is the audience and what is the context?

The Audience:

From Luke 15 (and I use the KJV), "publicans" (tax-collectors) and "sinners" were gathering around to hear Jesus. There were also in the audience Pharisees and scribes. I expect you would agree that the scribes and Pharisees considered themselves righteous in God's sight. The publicans and sinners would probably also agree that the scribes and Pharisees considered themselves righteous in God's sight. You should also agree that the scribes and Pharisees did not consider the publicans and sinners righteous, but as lost. Those publicans and sinners probably agreed with that sentiment.

The Context:

The Pharisees and scribes were murmuring to each other, criticizing Jesus for receiving these sinners and actually eating with them. In direct response to this accusation - that Jesus was accepting and even being personal with the wrong kind of people - "He spoke this parable unto them."

Then we get the three parables of lost things - Jesus' justification of His actions.

First we get the parable of the Lost Sheep. Who in this parable would the publicans and sinners identify with? Clearly the lost sheep. The sinners and publicans were lost. But what joy when even one of them is found! And to make it crystal clear, Jesus adds that "likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repents, more than over ninety nine just persons which need no repentance." And who would the Pharisees and scribes relate to? Obviously the 99 righteous that had no need for repentance.

Second we get the parable of the lost coin. Similar message, same result - "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents."

And without a change in scenery, we then read "And He said, A certain man had two sons..."

Jesus is still talking to those that were (considered themselves to be) sinners and those that were (considered themselves to be) righteous.

Same audience.

And He is still illustrating the response in heaven to one of the sinners being saved.

Same context.

Who would the publicans and sinners relate to in the third story? The younger lost son (as we all should). And the Pharisees and scribes? The elder son who was with the father. But if the lost son actually meant a lost son who was originally righteous, then got lost, Jesus has lost half of his audience (play on words intended). In order for Jesus's statement to be relevant to the audience (and be consistent in the context), the younger son cannot be someone who was first alive, then dead, then alive again. There is no need to make him that way. The only need for you to do that is to support your argument.

But by doing that, you lose half of Jesus' audience - because the publicans and sinners would not relate to someone who was with God, then away from God, then came back to God. They would be left out of the story and have no part in the rejoicing. Additionally, you also make the parable useless in defending Jesus actions of receiving and eating with sinners. The parable now only applies if the publicans and sinners in the audience are people who were formally believing Jews (or proselytes) who then fell away to become sinners. It just doesn't work. The younger son is not someone who was alive, then dead, then alive again. He was dead, now he is alive. The father rejoices and the sinners in the audience relate. And Jesus continues to present the same message to the Pharisees and scribes - why He receives and eats with sinners.

~clay

You said things in your response that are false according to scripture. It is not like I desire to simply argue with you here. You said things that are patently false. First, let's look at the two sons again. How do I know they were both saved? Because they were both sons for one thing. In addition to that, I know the eldest son was saved because of what his Father said to him in Luke 15:31. "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine." His eldest son was clearly saved. Then you claim that the youngest son was not alive, then dead, then alive again. The Father makes just that claim of him. Again, look at Luke 15:24, "For this my son was dead, and is alive again.

You say that this wouldn't work because half of Jesus' audience was the religious crowd, but it wasn't intended for them to understand. According to the Bible, parables were not supposed to be easily understood by all. In Luke 8:10, speaking to his disciples, Jesus said the reason he uses parables when speaking to the multitude is that "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." The entire premise of what you wrote is false.

In addition to this, I didn't post this story simply to argue the meaning of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I was making a point that the OSAS crowd is wrong when they say that if you simply take the Bible as it is written, you have no choice but to accept their view. The fact is, there are a multitude of scriptures to support the idea you can lose your salvation. It comes down to how people interpret them.

[Guest Butero]

Ephesians 2:1-5 ASV And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; 3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: - 4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),

Ephesians 1:13-14 ASV in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, - in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Is it somehow your intention to say these verses prove OSAS?

Ephesians 2:1-5 (The Real Bible KJV)

1 AND you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

He is talking to people who have had a change in their lives as a result of true faith. They are not simply people who accepted Christ at an alter and then got up and walked as they did before. He is speaking of a true transformation that took place. This grace that is spoken of here brought about a change in behavior. What it doesn't address is someone who gets saved, and then continues for a time, and then goes back into sin. It doesn't address what will happen to such a person, but Jesus does address that in the parable of the sower. I could post it, but I am pretty sure you are familiar with it?

I doubt you will accept it, but it is my belief that the people spoken of here are those who God chose to become Christians. They will remain saved because they were chosen to be saved before they were created in the womb. The whole world has been called, but few are chosen.

EPHESIANS 1:13,14

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

My position is that once again, these are people chosen by God to be saved before they were created. The point you are trying to make is that they were sealed. Yes, I agree, and if they were to die at that time, that seal would mean they would go to heaven. At the same time, just because they were sealed, that doesn't mean they can never become unsealed. You may ask, "how can that be?" The same way you can have your name added to God's book and later blotted out.

Revelation 3:5

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

EXODUS 32:33

Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

I can easily provide more scriptures that will show that differen't kinds of sinful behavior will keep you out of heaven. Again, it is not as simple as posting a few scriptures and then thinking you have proven OSAS. I believe you can show predestination and election from scripture, but not OSAS or perseverance of the saints.

[Guest Butero]

I am not a prophet nor a teacher but there is a grave deception when men re-assure other men about the very essence of salvation. The people that I have known left Worthy, and why did they leave? The spirit of deception is, oh so rampant. It is indeed insidious (leading to death). The overall structure of this lie is that is based on truth. Oh what a masterful play by demons. Let me say this for starters, there is (are) no guarantee, no coupon, and no short-cut to Salvation. This the fear that I had as a child, if God will condemn his unity in His Son to Crucifixion, who are we? Oh yea, right Christ took the entire burden on Himself so that we who are free – once we acknowledge and accept Him – are free to do as we please. WRONG!What kept me alive in these endless discussions was, “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth…?” Lk18:8 This is written to the people that are the “elect who cry to Him day and night” Lk 18:7 Do you cry out to him day and night? I don’t. When I went on a search for Christ one Christian advisor said, “You have to decide who you are?” I said, who are you…? The sage replied, “A sinner.” Yes folks you can be sure God will fulfill His promises but as a sinner could you fulfill yours?

It’s not even a matter of works because we cannot merit the gift of grace and the resulting salvation. That I fully agree with the OSAS and whatever name they choose to go by. I’m simply saying, God made Salvation and peace a two way street ever since he made the tree of right and wrong. Was God responsible for Adam and Eve’s downfall, yes and no is the answer. But hold on as many OSAS people will rant and rave about the subject, the Lord gave Adam and Eve RESPONSIBILITIES!!! Even though God knew this would happen, the answer is contingent on Adam and Eve, and therefore the correct phrasing is, did God want this to happen and the answer is an unequivocal NO !!!

Let’s go to Romans, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man…” Rom 2:1 And if you have judged any man in anyway you are part of this passage. Yes, you have no excuse. And the OSAS has a passage to the truth which is correct: “Christ Jesus is the one who died – more than that, who was raised – who is at the right hand of God, who is indeed is interceding for us. Rom 8:34 How are we to lose? The answer is the same way Adam and Eve lost. Adam and Eve are safe now but are you?

Yes, the debates will go on and on. But the sinner in me yearns for the Truth no matter what; there are two words that will snap my wicked soul in to attention: Obedience and Faith. These are under our control and don’t let anyone tare you away from these, for I see Judgement Day as a day that people will plead with God about not making them poverty stricken, uglier, less intelligent, less able to work crafts of art – ‘Oh God why did you put me in a position of such authority?’ Pilate is thinking this as we read. The essence is no matter what the “wise men” of our time say use your conscience and good reason of your mind. Life is a battle. A lonely battle for which you do not get earthly praise and all of us are addicted to the earth in one way or another. That’s the reason Christ washed the feet of his apostles: meaning the earth which is an advisory of Christ was in almost constant contact with the apostles – THX Watchman!!!

To the least the most...!

Oak

If one is not eternally secure, one is eternally insecure. This was the problem with the Galations, they sought to add to the finished work of Jesus. Gods promise is a new heart, an obediant heart given by His soveriegn grace to all who have been born again.

No, salvation is once and for all.

Galatians was not about eternal security. Some people who were Jews had convinced some that in order to be saved, they had to come up under the symbolic portions of the law of Moses. If you read on in Galatians, you will find that it also gives a whole list of behavior that will keep you from inheriting the Kingdom of God. You will find that in Galatians 5:19-21. Do people who claim to be Christians do these things? The key here is that if you walk in the Spirit, you don't need to worry about the law, because the Spirit will cause you to bear fruit. Read Galatians 5:16-26. There is a lot in that passage.

[Guest shiloh357]

EPHESIANS 1:13,14

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

My position is that once again, these are people chosen by God to be saved before they were created. The point you are trying to make is that they were sealed. Yes, I agree, and if they were to die at that time, that seal would mean they would go to heaven. At the same time, just because they were sealed, that doesn't mean they can never become unsealed. You may ask, "how can that be?" The same way you can have your name added to God's book and later blotted out.

Revelation 3:5

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Ah yes, Butero's customized Calvinism...

You are reading Eph. 1:13-14 wrong. It does not say that they were chosen to be saved before they were created. It says that they were sealed AFTER they believed, not before they were born. Furthermore the word for earnest in the Greek refers to a guarantee.

As for Revelation 3:5, the promise is for those who overcome. The thing is, we don't overcome by virtue of anything we do under our own effort. How do we overcome?

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

(1Jn 5:4-5)

Those that have overcome are those who have put their faith and trust in Jesus. That is the ONLY way we overcome. So what Jesus is saying is that those who are born of God will not have their names, blotted from the book of life. I would also add (and there are several good sources that affirm this) the word "not" in Rev. 3:5 is actually two words in Greek and form a double negative. It is an emphatic reference that means, "no, by no means, not, never." From that perspective the verse could and should be read, "He that is born of God, the same shall be clothed in white raiment and will not, no not ever blot his name out of the book of life, but If will confess his name before my Father and before His angels."

[Guest Butero]

EPHESIANS 1:13,14

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

My position is that once again, these are people chosen by God to be saved before they were created. The point you are trying to make is that they were sealed. Yes, I agree, and if they were to die at that time, that seal would mean they would go to heaven. At the same time, just because they were sealed, that doesn't mean they can never become unsealed. You may ask, "how can that be?" The same way you can have your name added to God's book and later blotted out.

Revelation 3:5

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Ah yes, Butero's customized Calvinism...

You are reading Eph. 1:13-14 wrong. It does not say that they were chosen to be saved before they were created. It says that they were sealed AFTER they believed, not before they were born. Furthermore the word for earnest in the Greek refers to a guarantee.

As for Revelation 3:5, the promise is for those who overcome. The thing is, we don't overcome by virtue of anything we do under our own effort. How do we overcome?

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

(1Jn 5:4-5)

Those that have overcome are those who have put their faith and trust in Jesus. That is the ONLY way we overcome. So what Jesus is saying is that those who are born of God will not have their names, blotted from the book of life. I would also add (and there are several good sources that affirm this) the word "not" in Rev. 3:5 is actually two words in Greek and form a double negative. It is an emphatic reference that means, "no, by no means, not, never." From that perspective the verse could and should be read, "He that is born of God, the same shall be clothed in white raiment and will not, no not ever blot his name out of the book of life, but If will confess his name before my Father and before His angels."

Yes Shiloh, you are correct that the passage in question never says those people believed because God created them to believe before they were born. It is still the case. God knows everything we will do down to the smallest detail. He was able to tell Peter he would deny him thrice. He was able to tell them that Judas would betray him. He tells us that he knew Jeremiah before he created him in the womb. The Bible says Paul was a chosen vessel, and how many other Pharisees did God go to such extremes to cause them to believe? How many died in their sins, while Paul was spared?

I noticed that you addressed Revelations with regard to one's name being blotted out, a person who is an overcomer by the way, but you failed to address the verse I posted in the Old Testament. Those who endure to the end are people created to endure. There is a fine line here. Yes, we have free will, but when our creator knows what we will do when he creates us, in a way, we don't have free will.

[oak]

Though I modified my original post partially accepting OSAS and Eternal Security in that I believe in rejoicing about our Salvation in Christ and believing on his Name, but I still hold that our need to repent is of great importance. However, I’m surprised by Taylor’s writing: “Salvation is secure, NO MATTER WHAT, EVEN IF WE WALK AWAY” (in conversation about the Prodigal Son).

Please don’t be offended by this Taylor and I know you are talking about the Prodigal Son, parable, but I feel you’re off the mark here. Yes, the prodigal son did come back but let’s not be hasty in leaving faith. I don’t think the point of the parable is in walking away and remaining saved. It is rather that if you come to or regain your good senses (repent) God will take you back. There is a chance that in walking away that you will begin to resemble this scripture: “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” Luke 6:66 This leads into another point what man knew who would leave and who would stay? Only God the Holy Trinity knew. This is a scary example of being in the midst of Christ and not fully recognizing Him. Using a label will not do the job.

I may be wrong on this one, but for me the Cross not only looks salvational but sacrificial, loving, reconciliational etc. And all these merge in a magical way. For example if we want to be Christ-like we will at one point have to show sacrifice. “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifice….” Rom 12:1 Salvation is the main point of the Cross but you may need to look more closer to find that Salvation is intertwined with other gifts and virtues. You can preach a sermon on the Cross and love. Also, don't be decieved the Cross is not only for salvation but condemnation as well (to those who ignore it). I know we'd like everything to be nice and rosey but I never thought of Salvation as a cake walk through one prism, one paradigm.

Oak