Do You Believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved"

[Thaddaeus]

Arthur Curnan,

One more time. I LOVE John 3:16! "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should one day perish, having received only temporal life." If one loses it, pray tell, WHAT did one receive in the FIRST instance? And how many times can one "lose" it again? Anyways, praise God for John 3:1-7 where Jesus said, "Ye must be born again...and again...and again." Amen indeed: everlasting salvation as a token on a chessboard!

This is one of the most used texts of OSAS proponents, yet the language totally denies the concept.

The problem is that you are equating Christ's work with the offer or man's response to the Work of Christ.

The Work of Christ is complete. It is totally outside of the perameters of man's influence or control of any kind.

It is World as well. This is cosmos. It is the very universe which Christ saved from the curse of Adam, not just human beings and surely not only some. If He did not save all, He could not have saved some, it is an impossibility.

However, the world "believeth" or believes" separates individual man from mankind. It is man who must repond to the offer of union of communion with God. We were saved just so we could have this union. This is what mankind fell from due to the fall. It is not the fall. We were created to be in union with God. We were created to do this freely. We (mankind) were redeemed, reconciled, justified, made right with God, JUST SO WE COULD CHOOSE FREELY TO BE UNITED WITH HIM.

Find any text that refutes that concept and understanding?

Edited November 2, 2006 by Thaddaeus

[larryt]

larryt,

I don't see being saved and cast into the lake of fire as 2 aspects of salvation in any way shape or form.

They are if you are equating being saved as referring to the Work of Christ on the Cross and the lake of fire to the denial or rejection of Christ's offer of salvation as a result of His saving mercy of mankind. They are not one and the same as your next statement atests.

It is not an offer of salvation but a COMMAND TO believe and repent.

1Jo 3:23

[Thaddaeus]

Larryt,

It is not an offer of salvation but a COMMAND TO believe and repent.

1Jo 3:23

[GeneV]

Nicely put Thaddaeus!!!

[larryt]

Larryt,

It is not an offer of salvation but a COMMAND TO believe and repent.

1Jo 3:23

[graymousey]

"DO YOU BELIEVE IN ONCED SAVED ALWAYS SAVED ?"

From God's side, yes; He is faithful, From man's side, no; we can turn away.

Since my mind is made up, that I will cling to the Lord no matter what, I dare say (by His grace only) that I have eternal security.

But I wouldn't dare to assure others that they have, since I don't know the intent of their hearts.

[Thaddaeus]

Larryt,

Just where did you ever get the idea that God HAD to save ANYBODY. God would have been perfectly just in condemning everyone to hell. He was under NO obligation to save anybody.

And again I ask you to show the scriptures you base your statements upon.

Who said anything about that He HAD to save anyone. That He would have been just in condemning to Hell would have been impossible without Christ's redemptive work.

Man WAS already condemned. How can God condemn man twice, to what besides death.

We are born condemned in Adam. Christ redeemed us from Adam. That is what He saved mankind from. It is known as the fall. The texts that spell that out have already been given.

Mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

That is referencing the final judgement. Not salvation. Keep your metaphors separate.

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Again, last judgement, not salvation. This does not have goats in it either, but those on left hand and right hand. Wrong metaphor.

Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. Man is cast in there because man has been more willing to follow the devil that the God that created him.

This is not spoken of in the original metaphor to which sheep is applicable.

And just what is death? It is separation from God. Hell is eternal separation from God. When Adam sinned he was separated from God.

That also happened but as a result of the fall. Adam died, a physical death, He became mortal. Man was not created to be mortal, but immortal. This death, then brought sin which is what keeps man from being in union and communion with God. Christ overcame death. physical death, gave mankind life. Because He gave man life but did not change our human nature in this life, nor eradicate sin or the get rid of the devil, God also needed to atone for the sins of man now that He was freed from death and able to be in union with God. But to be in union with God in this life the sin factor also must be solved and He did so by His atonement of our sins.

And you are right, the second death is a separation from God, spiritually and eternally. That is hell. Hell is, as I stated before, only possible because of Christ's redemptive work. We were all headed to permanent death under Adam.

God still knew about it. They didn't understand about many of the NT mysteries that were revealed in Christ. That doesn't mean that they weren't there. And you never did address the rich man in torment as Jesus Christ was teaching the abode of the ungodly.

We are not addressing what God might have known or not known. We just don't know. We can only speak of what He has revealed to us. Hell was there, because God had operated with man all the way through history as if man was already saved through Christ. But that reality is not forthcoming in the OT. So there is a separation, but knowledge of by those in either place. God must of necessity been present in both places. Both individuals in either place was alive.

Read it again. I didn't say they were righteous but that they THOUGHT they were righteous. Jesus came to save sinners. If a man will not admit he is a sinner he CANNOT be saved.

Again, whether you thought you or someone else was or only thought they were righteous is irrelevant. We are all sinners. It is the ONLY adjective that describes every single one of us. no exceptions.

As I have stated hell has nothing to do with salvation. God would be perfectly just in casting everyone into hell and not saving anyone.

It has everything to do with the salvation of individual man. It is the difference between a beleiver and unbeliever. Neither of these could occur if Christ had not redeemed mankind, (saved mankind from the fall, from the judgement of Adam.). It is an impossibility of condemning mankind or any individual to hell without first giving him life in order to stand for another judgement. A judgement that is just and merciful.

Where do you get the idea that all mankind was saved. Christ only died for his sheep. He laid His life down for His sheep.

From all of the texts that I already gave to you. Including the whole of chapter 10 of John. Read it again as well as all the text that clearly show Christ died form mankind. for sinners, for the ungodly. My question was: Who is not a sinner, who is not ungodly for whom Christ would not have died?

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

There you have it in plain language. He not only saved mankind, everyone without exception, but He also saved the WORLD. That is cosmos, every rock and tree, every thing in His created order. Now, how could you get that to mean some kind of limitation on some human beings?

Joh 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

The context is with belief, not the saving of mankind. Context is very important.

When it says He came so save sinners you need to put it in the context. The pharisees THOUGHT they were righteous. That is why they weren't saved. They didn't SEE THEMSELVES as sinners.

They saw themselves as sinners. But only special sinners. They being Jews thought that Christ was only for them, the Jews. This is the whole argument of Paul with his hypothetical Judaizers in Romans, especially from chapters 8-12. Both John and Paul were quite emphatic that Christ came to save all, Jews and Gentiles. These are the only two distinct groups in the Bible. When the Temple vail was rent, it meant the distinctions in humanity ceased to exist. There are no exclusions, no exceptions, none were left out.

Mt 9:13 But go ye and learn what (that) meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

Yes, and since we are all sinners, Christ came to call all because He saved all from the bondage to death and sin.

Mr 2:17 When Jesus heard (it), he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Christ is being emphatic. Are there any righteous, what does Paul say to this question?

The whole fall was in the foreknowledge of God. And it is only to those that receive Him that He gives eternal life.

The created order is in the foreknowledge of God. Nothing is left out. But, yes, those that received Him, that beleived, will have everlasting life WITH HIM. All of mankind will have eternal life. Hell is eternal life with spiritual separation from God.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, (even) to them that believe on his name:

I am not sure just how you want to use this text. It does not make any distinction between unbeleivers and beleivers, except to say those that recieved Him are beleivers.

And there will be 2 resurrections. The first to eternal life(Rev. 20:4-6)

Well, both are to eternal life. The first one is referencing our baptism. When we died and rose with Christ. See Romans 6. It is a spiritual resurrection. The second one is a physical one which occurs at the last day, just prior to the judgement. The text in Rev 20:4-6 clearly spells this out.

Acts 24:15 The resurrection of the just to eternal life and the resurrection of the unjust to eternal destruction.

Yes, and it verifies that the resurrection of the last day will be for every soul that ever lived. All will rise because Christ arose. Through His Incarnation, assuming our human natures made all men alive, immortal and we shall all rise from the dead. Christ is the first fruits of them that slept. He is the first born of the dead. Do you know of any who did not die?

Re 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works

Would this not include every soul that ever lived? Who would be excluded? If you find any, then you can say that Christ did not redeem all of mankind.

I find none of the verses you list above indicate the universality of Christ's redemptive work unless you take them OUT OF CONTEXT.

They are in context that gives them the meaning of Christ's universal -redemptive work. Find any text that refutes, either we are not all sinners or ungodly, That Christ is not the first fruit of them that slept. That the Incarnation did not occur, or that Christ did not assume our human natures. If you can do that then we can talk more regarding any view that might show some limitation on the work of Christ, besides all the verses that directly state that He did indeed save mankind from the fall.

Then you do not believe the bible.

It is because I beleive the Bible that I know that God does not hate. God is love. Can you get hate from love. Do you have a better idea or concept to show that the relationship of man towards God is in the perception of man with God, not God with man. The wrath of God is what man percieves it to be, not what God gives.

Pr 6:16 These six (things) doth the LORD hate: yea, seven (are) an abomination unto him:

And don't forget all the abominable things that are equated with the things God hates.

Same thing. All these references do not equate hate with God but from mans perception and understanding. That is why they are called anthropomorphic statments.

Somewhat like a magnet. A magnet only attracts. But if something is not attracted to it, can we say that it is simply something that it does not attract rather then something that it is repelling?

If one is only attracting, then it must be the other that is repelling, Same with God. God is love. He radiates love, He eminates love. That cannot be construed to be hate. But mans repulsion, mans rejection, or sin of man is not hated, but not attracted to God's love.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Thaddaeus

[Guest nicholus]

This is for the one's who believe this. !) If once saved always saved is true does that mean once I'm saved I have no choice but to go to heaven. 2) What if I were to walk away. (Don't use the "excuse" maybe you weren't saved to begin with. Because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I was.)

[Smalcald]

It is a bizarre argument. I mean the whole argument kind of goes in circles. If I say I don't believe in OSAS then I am accused of saying that God cannot keep us as He promised, if I show examples of that happening, well those people were not really saved, it goes around and around.

I think we are stuck.

Maybe a better tact would be to talk about the implications of each belief for the believer

[Smalcald]

Thanks for your response Cardcaptor.

Can I summarize a little, and tell me if I am hitting it. You are saying that the implication for a believer of OSAS is that it actually may lead a person away from faith in Christ? Or at least it may lead them into a false faith in that it takes away the need for repentance, but if there is no need for repentance it says we are not really sorry for our sins, if we are not sorry for our sins, how can we be saved? Thus when we are not really in our heart sorry for our sins, we just keep right on doing them, like your brother.

You know I agree with part of what you are saying from an implication point of view. I will continue to disagree from the point of view of what actually saves us, but that is a different topic as we were talking about implications. I believe it is possible to walk away from faith (not because we sin too much but because we don't really have faith anymore).

Do you see any danger in not believing in OSAS for the life of a believer, kind of the other side of the coin? For me the danger may be that one would think that they can stand righteous before God without Christ, that somehow our own efforts would earn us salvation, or that we had somehow actually accomplished getting rid of our sin in this life, and thus once again have nothing to be sorry for or ask repentance for. I can see that as a sort of trap one must be careful of. The other may be living a life of fear and torment, counting the numerous sins, trying to remember what to repent of, and never really trusting Christ. This seems like a possible problem.