Knights pick 10-23-2002

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Sheepdog

Originally posted by chance
I put less value in the OSAS doctrine than I used to. For one thing, it seems to go against the experience of many who know people who claimed to be and showed themselves t be solid Christians and then turn their backs on it all later in life. You would think if they were always saved that they would be making progress in their sanctification becoming more and more conformed to the image of Christ.

I really like the idea of always becoming a Christian as Sanders quotes Rob Roberts as saying in the preface of his book. becoming and being conformed are identical in my mind.

Also, the practically universally held observation that people become more and more solid in their character as they age and less and less prone to deviations from that character supports the idea that God wants us to get on the right path, so to speak (biblically ;)), and folow that path through to completion - being just like Jesus. As I see it (along with C S Lewis) there are two paths you can go down. One leads you closer to the image of Christ and the otehr leads you further from it. Today I would say it is more important what direction a person is going than whether or not they have made a strong decision for Christ as their savior. There are those who claim to have chosen Christ yet go off in the wrong direction and cause harm to those around them and to themselves. The direction you are going is of greatest importance, not what knowledge you have.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything 1013 said above. I couldn't have said it better. One thing he may have wanted to ad though is this: We choose to be conformed to the image of Christ and in so choosing we choose to develop compatibilistic freedom, freedom which predictably chooses the right and rejects the wrong. Our becoming compatibilistic is part of our comforming to Christ's image. The more conformed we are the more we will obey Christ and reject evil and so on. There is less and less variation or spontaneity where evil in our lives is concerned. Our choices determine our being and as we live out our lives our being comes to determine our choices. Does that make sense Jaltus?


Chance... I have never addressed you before, and I will try to respond as respectfully as possible.

Your view on the flesh & the spirit is completely backwards from biblical Christianity. Your comments about sanctification shows that your emphasis is completely on conforming & completion of the flesh. Maturity in Christ is not behavior modification, or to stop sinning. Maturity is when we have come to be totally dependent on Him, and to completely trust in the sufficiancy of God and His saving work, not ours.

Walking in the flesh is when we turn from faith in what Jesus has done through Christ's shed blood, to trusting in our efforts, works, behavior, etc. to maintain a right relationship or to be "like" Jesus. If God did not make you complete in Him when you believed, then your hope is in your ability, and not in God's.

There are those who claim to have chosen Christ yet go off in the wrong direction and cause harm to those around them and to themselves

The reason for this is because they have believed the same message that your proclaiming, and have given up because they could never attain to this "phantom christian" that the religious community has created to control their people.

You have perfectly presented the foundational teaching of a "false gospel" that incapacitates the church into self examination and obsession with the flesh.

Paul said "The mind set on the flesh, is DEATH".

In Hebrews we are told to: "set aside the sin that so easily intangles us" This is does not mean to stop sinning! It means to get your eyes off of you and what you are doing and to set your eyes on Jesus "the author & perfector of faith"!

"As you have received Christ Jesus, so walk in Him". You did not receive Him through behavior modification. You received Him "by grace, through faith".
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
And the most shameful post is awarded to....

And the most shameful post is awarded to....

Originally posted by Jaltus
Originally posted by Knight Are you asserting that God would have preferred that the Hebrew midwives NOT lied to the Egyptian King?
Of course! God worked despite them, not because of them.
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
I realize 1013 lives with his mom so him not being OSAS is understandable. I will grant Chance the same leverage that he probably lives at home as well. Nah! I trust they have great input as to their reason.
 

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
I realize 1013 lives with his mom so him not being OSAS is understandable.

but, lets not forget that moi has defended the rationality of your position to jaltus. :kiss:

also some of the base beliefs that sheepdog is working from is something that I'd assume that none of you guys hold to, namely that Christians cannot sin (since you, knight have said that we can greive God). Pretty much, all of us fall somewhere in between two extremes of a Jaltus(ov and osas incompatible) and a sheepdog (real christians never sin after salvation).

I don't think that chance nor I have given much of a biblical defence for our point of view on OSAS focusing mainly on the philosophical side of things though I wouldn't say that Jaltus and arminian haven't. This just simply isn't my area. But Jaltus' original topic is very much my area because it is primarily a philosophical question on the coherence of the ov and osas.

I don't think that it is a bad thing that there is variety within the open view (to which this subject is relevent) as it surely shows that we do indeed think for ouselves.
 
Last edited:
Y

Yxboom

Guest
Originally posted by 1013


but, lets not forget that moi has defended the rationality of your position to jaltus. :kiss:
That you did and by the way 1013.....it's ok. You are still saved buddy.

In the TOL chat the night you and I were on. I spoke with Jaltus about the topic of OV and OSAS. Goose was with us. We talked about a good hour or so on the issue. I think mostly because of the lame delay in the chat.
Anyway, I'm not speaking for Jaltus as he can correct me if I err, but it appeared that the issue stems from by who's perspective is OSAS. And not if OSAS is Scriptural and even coherently exists within theological models (specifically OV). We agreed that at the very least that in God's perspective a person is OSAS; whereas, our perspective calls us to judge rightly and inspect fruits...so to escape easy believism we should not account OSAS to anyone who flaunts Christian. The difference in God's and man's perspective. Ergo deathbed conversions would be a paradox for there are no works to justify the man's "easy-believism" but are granted OSAS. Hope that helps ;)

Where lies my confusion is that you ascribe to Inclusivism yet my understanding within inclusivism is the answer to OSAS. Namely.......it fits within the OV model.
 

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
1013.....it's ok. You are still saved buddy.

whew! I'm so relieved.

We agreed that at the very least that in God's perspective a person is OSAS; whereas, our perspective calls us to judge rightly and inspect fruits...so to escape easy believism we should not account OSAS to anyone who flaunts Christian. The difference in God's and man's perspective.

note that this is also Jaltus' way of holding to lfw and the edf. I didn't find that useful though as I feel that only one of three facts can be true at a time regardless of who's perspective your looking at. A) it is absolutely certain that your destiny is heavenward B) You could possibly go to heaven and you could possibly go to hell, and C) you are certainly going to hell. Jaltus wants to hold that we have libertarian free will in accepting Christ (which means that it is possible to do so but possible to refrain from doing so) while accepting that for that person, from God's perspective, A or C have always been true and knowable. Since I hold this as incoherent, I don't see it helping him in issues of OSAS.

Where lies my confusion is that you ascribe to Inclusivism yet my understanding within inclusivism is the answer to OSAS. Namely.......it fits within the OV model.

one of my primary reasons for accepting the ov is an absolute rejection of reprobation (to put it simply the certainty of damnation before birth). And it necessarily requires inclusivism (or post mortem evangelization) then as well. but since You can hold to OSAS with or without a belief in reprobation, I don't see that it works well with or against the ov on that ground.
 
Last edited:

Lucky

New member
Hall of Fame
If there's anything I remember about Sheepdog, it's that he loved to show off his POTDs. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top