History of OSAS

[apothanein kerdos]

Eusibias was not always correct in his historical writings. Again, I ask you, how could Paul had refered to the writer of a book that wasn't written until the mid to late 2nd century?

And it is so clear in its anti-OSAS message that it is obvious that the original teaching of the Church was also anti-OSAS.

It also says that the Holy Spirit was the son of God and that Jesus became the son of God by obeying good works. Are you asserting that the early church believed that as well? You're grasping at straws here when you have to point to heretical writings to back up what you believe.

[Khristeeanos]

Eusibias was not always correct in his historical writings. Again, I ask you, how could Paul had refered to the writer of a book that wasn't written until the mid to late 2nd century?

And it is so clear in its anti-OSAS message that it is obvious that the original teaching of the Church was also anti-OSAS.

It also says that the Holy Spirit was the son of God and that Jesus became the son of God by obeying good works. Are you asserting that the early church believed that as well? You're grasping at straws here when you have to point to heretical writings to back up what you believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am waiting until you respond to my post in the other OSAS thread until I reply to your comments here.

[HisWordIsSufficient]

OSAS is a misguiding, unscriptural doctrine snuk in by the enemy.

That means Judas Iscariot can be a disiple, saved obvously, then betray Jesus, but still go to heaven!!! Coz after all, once saved always saved right? I dont think so. No way. Its just not true.

Why in the word does it say that people will go to Jesus and say, but Lord we cast out demons in your name, we healed the sick, ect ect, and he will say, depart from me, i never knew you!

Matt 7:21-23 "

[Work in Progress]

OSAS is a misguiding, unscriptural doctrine snuk in by the enemy.

No, it wasn't snuck in by satan, it's in the Holy Scriptures. Many Scriptures talk of God's preserving of us until the last day - all of which have been posted already.

That means Judas Iscariot can be a disiple, saved obvously, then betray Jesus, but still go to heaven!!! Coz after all, once saved always saved right?

Where did you get the idea that Judas was saved in the first place? He was simply "talking the talk" but he wasn't "walking the walk". People like that sit next to you in Church every week.

God is 100% Sovereign, 100% of the time. He can not fail, therefore He can not have a plan that fails. He has a perfect plan. He has chosen some to Him, and those, He has promised are His forever. The Scripture says "He who has started a good work in you will perfect it until the last day..." and "No one can pluck them from His hand". (Among other verses) To paint some loser God who had a plan, but His creation thwarted it and now He is seeking to salvage something from the wreckage, does a grave injustice to the Holiness and Sovereignity of God. Be careful of giving too much power to the imperfect creation, rather than the perfect creator.

[Work in Progress]

God doesn't have a plan that fails. His plan is not that every person that calls Jesus Lord, Lord, will be eternally secure. His plan is to redeem a people unto himself that will serve him with their whole heart.

Amen! That is exactly what I believe also.

What I believe Scripture says? God has a plan. He is omiscient, omipotent and omnipresent. His plan included His people - and He is sovereign enough that He doesn't have to sit back and wring His hands because it is messed up by His creation. He also sent His son to die for (seal) those He saves - did Christ die for those who will never believe and are in hell? If so, then Christ's perfect sacrifice wasn't enough? I think not. God said His wish is for everyone to be saved - so since not everyone is, poor God didn't get His way and wasn't powerful enough to bring His plan to fruition? Again, I think not. The answer, IMO, is that one is not understanding the true nature of God.

If you really believe those that dispute eternal security are giving too much power to the creation, then you should embrace the doctrine of Calvin, that no one has any choice of whether to be saved or lost, because for God to be truly in full control, he wouldn't leave that decision in our hands. With that in mind, there would be no reason for altar calls, or commitment cards like Billy Graham gives out. To go to an altar or fill out a card are works, and means God is not in full control.

I am a Calvinist. And your definition of the doctrine Calvin expounded on is somewhat misleading IMO.

No, it is not in the Holy scriptures. You interpret scriptures to imply there is an unconditional eternal security to all Christians, but you can't prove it to be correct. I have read every argument anyone could come up with in favor of this view and none prove you right. It is only one way of looking at it.

Yes, I do believe the verses such as "He who started a perfect work in you will complete it...." and the others are very clear about security. I also believe Scripture tells us of a Sovereign God who does not account to His creation and who cannot fail. However, I do agree with you that it is one way of looking at it and one interpretation - same as the others. That is why I don't argue it. I don't wish to get sucked into the arrogance that often accompanies these topics. Thank you for your reply!

[Work in Progress]

ITA! And I also agree about doctrinal differences. I used to be dogmatic and arrogant in my youth, but have overcome a lot of that now. (I hope. I'm always working on it! ) There are things that I absolutely will not budge on that a believer MUST believe to be saved, but the other doctrinal issues - even though I strongly believe in what I see the Bible as saying (and am a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist, former Arminian (worst kind of Calvinist, loL!) , I still refuse to say there is no room for error, as none of us are perfect as is God, nor do we have perfect understanding. BTW - I hope you didn't take my comments about the arrogance that comes out in this issue as directed at you.

What I thought was misleading was:

With that in mind, there would be no reason for altar calls, or commitment cards like Billy Graham gives out. To go to an altar or fill out a card are works, and means God is not in full control.

You seem to imply that Calvinists don't believe in alter calls or witnessing or "works" because "God is in total control and has already picked who is saved anyway. " While I have heard of people like that (we normal Calvinists call them "TR's" (totally reformed), lol), I've never actually known one. Anything like that would be totally contary to Scripture. Of course we are to witness, and Scripture speaks of the importance of works AND faith. If I read too much into your words, forgive me. I have just heard so many people who don't have a clue about Calvinism claim they "know" what Calvinists believe, regardless of the facts, and it's so bad it pretty much amounts to slander.

[Smalcald]

What are the implications of believing or rejecting the once saved always saved arguments, either way for a Christian?

Would someone who believes they have eternal security sin more than someone who does not believe they have eternal security does? Is that the concern? So I guess if I believe I have eternal security I would indulge my flesh and not worry about hell? The problem with that is that someone who has true faith would not want to indulge his or her flesh. He who does not have true faith is not saved; anyone who does have true faith will try to follow Christ, what more can we say about this?

I think the broader question is, is it possible to play at faith, to think you have faith, when all you really have is a kind of sweet fraud filled with pride and presumption? I think this is what Jesus is speaking of when He meets those in the end that always thought they were His but were not. I don

[menegroth]

i know this isn't the debate spot but more for church hsitory, which i don't much of and not really that important to me atm I read my bible and if i question soemthign i pray about it. but as far as the losign slavation whenever i think about it i always think of that verse ( pullign a blank on where it is) i thinks its jesus talkign if i remember right he says that not even his father can take it away from you, now to me if God the Almighty himself can't take away your salvation and his son part of the trinity said so... well to me it can't be done heh if God can't well i can't imagine lil ol' me is goign to be able to accomplish it, i can't tie my shoes half the time let alone hear millions of prayers and create a planet with millions of people and trees etc etc etc etc and the list goes on, so i just worry about putting my shoes on the right feet (managing to tie them some days) and rely on that verse. perhaps i am taking it out of context tho now i cant recall where it is exactly to check, ah the dilemas of a terrible memory and not beign able to tie my shoes most days.

Josh

[Work in Progress]

I actually do know someone that is a member of the Primitive Baptist Church that believes exactly what I said.  She believes we are predestined saved or lost before we were ever created in the womb.  She believes God created some to go to hell and others to go to heaven.  She also says that when the Bible speaks of God's love, that love is only directed to those chosen to be saved.  Her explaination of how one knows they are saved is that they have a desire to be saved.  She also told me her chuch is the true Baptist faith and the others have all compromised in that they believe in works to be saved such as altar calls. 

If this is incorrect, it was not me slandering the church.  This is what I was told by a member of a church that claimed to be a follower of Calvin.  Perhaps she was mistaken on the church's true stand, and if that is the case I would certainly be interested in knowing the truth on the matter, but I did not just make this stuff up for effect.  To my knowledge, that is what this woman's church teaches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no problem with her predestination stance, obviously, as I see that in Scripture. "God created some to go to hell" sounds like a TR. And the part I bolded makes her as bad as those who slander Calvinists in my book. Is she saying that they believe the part about altar calls that saves them is the good work of the Preacher, or the person going to the alter? Either way, I think she is doing a disservice to non-calvinists with that claim.

My concern isn't with that, it is for the people that are holding to the notion that because they prayed a prayer in the past accepting Christ, they can live as they please and still be saved.

Amen, Brother.

[Smalcald]

What are the implications of believing or rejecting the once saved always saved arguments, either way for a Christian?

Would someone who believes they have eternal security sin more than someone who does not believe they have eternal security does? Is that the concern?