The possibly False teachings of OSAS and Eternal Security

[Guest shiloh357]

And whether we are like Shiloh357 who doesn't believe that God actually makes vessels for honor and dishonor,

Hi Clay,

That is not what I said. What I said is that God does not create people to destroy them.

When Paul said that God makes some vessels for honor and some for dishonor, he is referring to service. A potter might take a lump of clay and create an expensive vase that is worth thousands of $$, or he could take the same lump of clay and make a set of cereal bowls from it. The potter is sovereign over the clay. The clay has no authority over the potter and no right to tell the potter what it will be made into.

It should be pointed out that Romans 9 is Paul's defense of the sovereignty of God to use people the way he chooses to use them. Romans 9 is not about God creating some for salvation and others for destruction. Romans 9 is about service not salvation. It was God's sovereign right to choose Jacob over Esau. It was God's sovereign right to 'cause a partial blindness to come over the Jews (Rom.11). It was God's sovereign right to incite Pharoah's pride in order to use Pharoah as an instrument of His justice and to show His power through Pharoah.

[Guest Butero]

I am not saying there are no standards. I am saying people should not be tying salvation to external rules and regulations invented by men.

Anytime a minister gets up and expounds on scripture, you have a situation where they are technically adding to the Word. Let's take hair length for instance. In 1 Corinthians, it states that nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but to the woman, it is her glory. If a minister gets up and adds his interpretation to that to either say it is wrong for women to have short hair or men to have long hair, or he explains it in a way where it doesn't matter, he is guilty of adding man's external rules to the scripture. In reality, the only way to avoid that is to simply read the scripture and let the individuals decide what it means for themselves?

Then you have the issue of women in pants. I have been to a church in Charlotte where the Pastor said it was a "Jezebel" spirit behind women in pants. He uses the scripture in Deuteronomy 22:5 and the word effeminate in the NewTestament to show it is sinful. Another minister may say that the word pants isn't in scripture, and say he is wrong, but both are adding to the Word. The only way to avoid this is to get rid of all preaching of scripture and simply read the words exactly as written, and let people figure it out for themselves. If it is wrong for ministers to interpret scripture in a way you don't agree with, and you want to call it man made rules, I would have to conclude that preaching is dangerous, and one should stick to reading the Bible for themselves and reject man-made doctrines altogether. Either minister could be wrong on either side of any issue.

[Guest shiloh357]

Anytime a minister gets up and expounds on scripture, you have a situation where they are technically adding to the Word.

No, they are not. Expository preaching is not "adding" to the Word of God. Adding to the Word of God means to exalt man-made regulations, traditions and observances to the same authority as Scripture. In some cases, such a Deut. 4;2 it referred to adding pagan observances from the surrounding nations in the worship of God.

Giving one's own commentary on what they believe the Scripture is saying does not qualify as "adding to the Word of God."

It is when people tie external, man-made rules to salvation, as if violating those rules jeopardizes one's salvation, that comes closer to adding to the Word of God.

If it is wrong for ministers to interpret scripture in a way you don't agree with, and you want to call it man made rules, I would have to conclude that preaching is dangerous, and one should stick to reading the Bible for themselves and reject man-made doctrines altogether. Either minister could be wrong on either side of any issue.

That is not what I said. If a preacher wants to believe in silly things like, "a Jezebel spirit" and say that it is wrong for women to wear pants, I can disagree and I can live with that. But if that preacher is tying salvation to wearing pants, if he is teaching that a womn's salvation is conditional upon her not wearing pants, he has crossed the line, and that point is not merely an issue with differences in interpretation. At that point it, amounts to a gospel.

[Guest Butero]

Anytime a minister gets up and expounds on scripture, you have a situation where they are technically adding to the Word.

No, they are not. Expository preaching is not "adding" to the Word of God. Adding to the Word of God means to exalt man-made regulations, traditions and observances to the same authority as Scripture. In some cases, such a Deut. 4;2 it referred to adding pagan observances from the surrounding nations in the worship of God.

Giving one's own commentary on what they believe the Scripture is saying does not qualify as "adding to the Word of God."

It is when people tie external, man-made rules to salvation, as if violating those rules jeopardizes one's salvation, that comes closer to adding to the Word of God.

If it is wrong for ministers to interpret scripture in a way you don't agree with, and you want to call it man made rules, I would have to conclude that preaching is dangerous, and one should stick to reading the Bible for themselves and reject man-made doctrines altogether. Either minister could be wrong on either side of any issue.

That is not what I said. If a preacher wants to believe in silly things like, "a Jezebel spirit" and say that it is wrong for women to wear pants, I can disagree and I can live with that. But if that preacher is tying salvation to wearing pants, if he is teaching that a womn's salvation is conditional upon her not wearing pants, he has crossed the line, and that point is not merely an issue with differences in interpretation. At that point it, amounts to a gospel.

I do have one more question for you Shiloh. You are saying that any minister can interpret the Bible as they see it, and that is ok, unless they say your behavior can effect your salvation. How far do you take that? Let's say that a person is a professing Christian, and a minister says that fornication will cause them to miss out on their inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. The person has been having casual sex. Is that imposing man-made rules on that person because the minister tied their salvation to what he is preaching? Should he be limted to simply saying fornication is wrong and leaving it at that?

[Guest shiloh357]

I do have one more question for you Shiloh. You are saying that any minister can interpret the Bible as they see it, and that is ok, unless they say your behavior can effect your salvation. How far do you take that? Let's say that a person is a professing Christian, and a minister says that fornication will cause them to miss out on their inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. The person has been having casual sex. Is that imposing man-made rules on that person because the minister tied their salvation to what he is preaching? Should he be limted to simply saying fornication is wrong and leaving it at that?

Let's be clear about what I said. I am saying that if you are making salvation conditional on man-made rules, you are adding to the Word of God. By "man-made" rules, I am referring to telling people how much jewelry they can wear, what kind of music they can listen to, how they wear their hair, and so forth. While agree that there is attire that is inappropriate Christians, I do not believe we can make salvatoin conditional upon someone following what I or someone else believes a Christian should wear or listen to. That amounts to control.

The example you raise about fornication does not at all resemble the examples I have endeavored to provide. I think you and I both know that people who are living in sin are not genuine believers, no matter what they say they are. That is not tying salvation to works. Rather it is simply the knowledge that a person who live in reckless impenitent sin does not have a authentic profession of faith.

Tying salvation to works means that salvation is said to be conditional upon keeping a laundry list of do's and don'ts mostly made up by people who want to control and intimidate others.

[Guest Butero]

I do have one more question for you Shiloh. You are saying that any minister can interpret the Bible as they see it, and that is ok, unless they say your behavior can effect your salvation. How far do you take that? Let's say that a person is a professing Christian, and a minister says that fornication will cause them to miss out on their inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. The person has been having casual sex. Is that imposing man-made rules on that person because the minister tied their salvation to what he is preaching? Should he be limted to simply saying fornication is wrong and leaving it at that?

Let's be clear about what I said. I am saying that if you are making salvation conditional on man-made rules, you are adding to the Word of God. By "man-made" rules, I am referring to telling people how much jewelry they can wear, what kind of music they can listen to, how they wear their hair, and so forth. While agree that there is attire that is inappropriate Christians, I do not believe we can make salvatoin conditional upon someone following what I or someone else believes a Christian should wear or listen to. That amounts to control.

The example you raise about fornication does not at all resemble the examples I have endeavored to provide. I think you and I both know that people who are living in sin are not genuine believers, no matter what they say they are. That is not tying salvation to works. Rather it is simply the knowledge that a person who live in reckless impenitent sin does not have a authentic profession of faith.

Tying salvation to works means that salvation is said to be conditional upon keeping a laundry list of do's and don'ts mostly made up by people who want to control and intimidate others.

The problem is Shiloh, everyone will differ on what constitutes a "man-made" rule. If the minister believes that it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants, then he believes it is a sin. Based on what you just said, he would therefore believe that a woman who would wear pants isn't really saved. The problem is that nobody agrees on what is "man-made."

By the way, I agree with what you said in your other post, that expository preaching isn't adding to the Word of God. I just wasn't sure how far you were taking things? Thanks for clearing that up.

[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

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem is Shiloh, everyone will differ on what constitutes a "man-made" rule. If the minister believes that it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants, then he believes it is a sin. Based on what you just said, he would therefore believe that a woman who would wear pants isn't really saved. The problem is that nobody agrees on what is "man-made."

I think we know what "man-made" means. It's just that there are some who want to muddy the waters on what it means. They are prisoners to religion and they grab isolated Scriptures, ignore the intent of the author and fill it with their subjective views and then use it as a hammer to keep others under their thumb. "If you do this or don't do that, you will go to hell" is the usual tack they take. They never really know from one day to next if they are really saved or if they have been good enough. A preacher who teaches that salvation is conditional on what someone wears or how they wear their hair, or whatever is a wicked shepherd. He teaches a false Gospel. He should have his ordination pulled and forever banned from the pulpit. He is a liability to the Kingdom of God and has no place teaching or preaching in any church.

By the way, I agree with what you said in your other post, that expository preaching isn't adding to the Word of God. I just wasn't sure how far you were taking things? Thanks for clearing that up.

You are welcome.

[~Clay]

Wow - I've been gone from the board for over a year and I come back to find Shiloh and Butero still hijacking topics by arguing with each other.

Some things never change...

[Michae]

Rightly divifing the word of truth, dividing what is written to you as a born again believer.

Being able to divide soul and spirit, there are verse's that deal with soul and verse's that deal with spirit. We can not fully understand the word of God without dividing these.

The shism in the body worldwide is due to a lack of leaders dividing what is Too us and what is just For us as far as life application. Many in religion today depend on their leaders to give them what they need as a result a major division in the Body of Christ keeps us separateded.

Another thought on the Body is many believe what they believe saves them and it makes them very head strong. Paul would say "I know In whom I have believed".