OSAS

[Bright Raven]

I fail to see why it doesn’t apply, please explain.

If I understand the OSAS camp, the criteria for salvation is one a believer. Yes, only Christians will be saved, but looking at this verse and others it comes down how do we live our life as a follower of Christ. Do we subject ourselves to his authority and commands or do we live as we choose.

It’s clear they were not saved in the end. What is Jesus’ charge against them? You didn’t believe in me or you’re not a believer? No, he tells us the reason they did not enter in, “you who practice lawlessness.'”

Looking at the previous verse we see some who were saved and what is the reason given that they entered in? but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

This is in agreement with this passage in John that tells us how we can know we are in him.
1 Jn. 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

Simple. If you are not saved how can you fall away.

 

[turbosixx]

If a person claims to have a salvation episode, and nothing much ever changes, or even if that person sincerely accepts Christ, and then goes back into the very same things he 'came out of', then the likelyhood is that first 'conversion' was just a flash in the pan...just like Jesus says here...

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

I agree also like Jesus says here:
Luke 8:13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

This is not never were saved but saved and did not continue. Here is what never were saved looks like.
Luke 8:12 Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

I'm trying to understand OSAS because I would love to believe it. Who wouldn't want to believe it, but I must challenge it to see if it is truth. So far it's not passing the test.

 

[Bright Raven]

I agree also like Jesus says here:
Luke 8:13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

This is not never were saved but saved and did not continue. Here is what never were saved looks like.
Luke 8:12 Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

I'm trying to understand OSAS because I would love to believe it. Who wouldn't want to believe it, but I must challenge it to see if it is truth. So far it's not passing the test.

Why not just believe, is it that hard;

John 10:27-29Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

27 My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me.

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand.

29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

 

[turbosixx]

Simple. If you are not saved how can you fall away.

I agree, you cannot fall from a position you do not hold. Using the same logic, Paul is telling these people they have fallen from grace and been severed from Christ. They had received grace and had been part of the body of Christ.

Gal. 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

 

[turbosixx]

Why not just believe, is it that hard;

John 10:27-29Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

27 My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me.

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand.

29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

I would love to believe OSAS, who wouldn't? In order for me to believe it, I have to see it in scripture. I haven’t been pointed to a passage(s) that prove OSAS.

Looking at the verse you quoted verse 27 is the key, “they follow me”. I totally agree, if we are following Christ the next two verses apply without a doubt but what if we stop following Christ?

How can we know for sure we are following Christ? How can we know for sure we are in him? The bible tells us.

1 Jn. 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

If you have another passage that you feel supports OSAS please show me and maybe tell me in your words how you understand it tells us OSAS.

 

[turbosixx]

TTT

 

[God's Truth]

Why not just believe, is it that hard;

John 10:27-29Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

27 My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me.

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand.

29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Those scriptures are for people who keep having faith and obedience.

 

[Zeke]

An often used, but misunderstood and cast as a shibboleth for anyone who thinks he or she has some special knowledge that the rest of us better pay attention to; all contrary to Rev. 7:9, of course. :AMR:

We should avoid two errors: first, that all men shall be saved; second, that only few men will be saved. The preponderance of Scripture teaches the universal spread and acceptance of the Gospel at some point in history. Folks with this view appeal to Matt. 7:13, 14; 20:16; 22:14; Luke 13:23, 24. The passages in Matthew 7 and Luke 13 are parallel passages and already contain much of the answer in their contexts.

Matthew, moreso than Luke, emphasizes the wideness of the way to destruction; Luke mentions only the narrow, or strait, gate. This is a warning contrasting Christianity with other approaches to God. The word translated "broad" in Matthew 7:13 means "spacious" or "roomy" and carries with it the idea of living comfortably and without troubles. The words "narrow" and "wide," describing the gates are relative terms.

In other words, these only derive meaning in contrast to one another. There are two paths, and the two gates, or doors, standing at the head of each, the straight and narrow and the comfortable and wide. In Luke's account, he uses the same word for "gate," as John uses in 10:9 to give a metaphorical description of Jesus, "door." So, Jesus is contrasting salvation through him with other paths of salvation. It is through much tribulation we enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22).

There are two other contrasting terms used in these passages, "many" and "few." Again, these are relative terms and give no real information as to the actual number of those saved. In Luke's account (which is the chronological Gospel, see Luke 1:3 nd forward, he writes "in order"), this question is raised immediately after we are told that Jesus taught that the kingdom of God would fill the earth. Yet, at the time Jesus spoke, the church was still a "little flock" (Luke 12:32) waiting to receive the kingdom. In Matthew, the warning has been placed in a block of teaching expressing the difficulty of being saved and the ease with which men deceive themselves in this matter. The warning is for men to avoid taking the path that attracts the most and easiest attention of men.

At the time that Jesus spoke these words, it was historically true that neither had most of mankind been saved nor would most of the Jews to whom he preached then be saved. However, it shall always remain true that the preaching of Christianity will be wider than its reception.

The passages in Matt. 20:16 and 22:14 both rely upon the previous teaching. However, in these passages, there is an explanation offered. "Many" are called but "few are "chosen." The difference between the many and the few is that between calling and election (no matter how you specifically view "election"). The call of the Gospel is always wider than its reception. Hence, the contrast.

The reason is because not all who hear the outward preaching are elect of God. The Greek literally reads, "many are called, but few are elect." Throughout most of history, the contrast between the "many" and the "few" has been numerically significant. Yet, the contrast is what we might express by the words "more" or "less." More people are called, or bidden, less people are chosen.

If you consider that there are more people alive today than throughout all of human history and, presumably, this will continue to be the case during the millennium, then, if most people living during the millennium are saved, most people in history will be too. One thousand years of ever increasing mankind numerically being brought to faith is layering of twenty generations of men, each larger than the previous, being redeemed. Thus, in heaven, the number of the elect is a number no man can number (cf. Rev. 7:9).

Even during the millennium, though the vast majority of men will be saved, the hearing of the Gospel will still be wider than the election of God. The difference is that during the millennium, though fewer will be elect than hear the Gospel, the number of the elect will be greatly increased so as to fill all the world. "The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (i.e., everywhere).

More always hear than are saved. This is not, however, a concept that necessitates thinking the final number of the saved will be few. Less will be saved than heard the Gospel but, in the end, the overarching theme of Scripture is that Christ came to save the world not just a few scattered individuals. Just as all die in Adam, so all are made alive in Christ. Paul's point challenges credulity if he meant by "all" a number so significantly smaller than the number of people who ever shall exist that the mass of mankind is reprobate and counted for naught. It is clear the tree of humanity is to be pruned of its diseased branches but pruning does not entail cutting off the vast majority of the branches of a tree.

The divine intention is stated throughout Scripture to save innumerable multitudes. Christ did not die for each and every individual of mankind but He most certainly evidently died for a large enough portion of mankind that it could be considered the "all," "the whole world," "all men," etc. While it is true less will be saved than hear, or even profess the true religion, that does not mean the number of saved will be small or even smaller than the total number of the lost.

For example, it appears that no more than one third of the angels fell (Rev. 12:4 and following; it may be less, this may not refer to the whole). Should we suppose that God, who made man in his own image, and the Son of God, who took upon himself not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, should have purposed to redeem a lesser percentage (one-third) of men than angels were kept from apostasy? This seems to misrepresent the claim that God's redemption of men is more exalted than his upholding and confirming of the elect angels (1 Pet. 1:12 and forward).

Note: The above provided with a tip of the hat to Jim Dodson, Covenanter.org.


AMR

Sly intellectual escape clause their oh deceived one, You're dogma is no better than the legal craft that has it's own definitions for words to deceive and hide behind, no heart song in you're fake spiritual theory that disregards all things being gathered into the One. SIGH.......................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[Town Heretic]

Sly intellectual escape clause their oh deceived one, You're dogma is no better than the legal craft that has it's own definitions for words to deceive and hide behind, no heart song in you're fake spiritual theory that disregards all things being gathered into the One.

He offers meat, scripture, substance to consider and you respond with poor grammar and worse rhetoric. That's no real rebuttal on your part and poorer manners.

 

[bybee]

Sly intellectual escape clause their oh deceived one, You're dogma is no better than the legal craft that has it's own definitions for words to deceive and hide behind, no heart song in you're fake spiritual theory that disregards all things being gathered into the One. SIGH.......................................................................................................................................................................................

AMR is a gentleman and a scholar. One may disagree with him and he continues to be a gentleman and a scholar.
One cannot make the same assertion in your case.

 

[chrysostom]

AMR is a gentleman and a scholar. One may disagree with him and he continues to be a gentleman and a scholar.

do you agree with

total depravity
unconditional election
limited atonement

I don't

even when it is being promoted by a gentleman and a scholar

even the respected salesman can promote damaged goods
and
that makes them even more dangerous

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

even the respected salesman can promote damaged goods
and
that makes them even more dangerous

The irony...

Verbum Domini

 

[Zeke]

AMR is a gentleman and a scholar. One may disagree with him and he continues to be a gentleman and a scholar.
One cannot make the same assertion in your case.

I agree he knows a lot of intellectual theory, But, The Calvinist have their own way of slandering those they deem uneducated as being disqualified to speak on spiritual issues.

You're assertions don't change that.

 

[Zeke]

He offers meat, scripture, substance to consider and you respond with poor grammar and worse rhetoric. That's no real rebuttal on your part and poorer manners.

I changed my response to you TH, I wish you well.

 

[oatmeal]

No one can prove this is biblical using Jesus' word because Jesus did not teach it.

Show us OSAS believers if you think you can quote Jesus' word to prove it.

This is purely man-made doctrine.

It is not of Jesus.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Evidently, everlasting life is a good thing that God made available to believers by the work of His son.

 

[Town Heretic]

I changed my response to you TH, I wish you well.

Thanks Zeke. I'm not trying to drum on your noggin, only suggesting that when someone gives you a considered response it warrants a considered answer instead of name calling and dismissal. Or, if you can't muster it (for whatever reason, including interest) perhaps not addressing it at all is the best course.

 

[Zeke]

Thanks Zeke. I'm not trying to drum on your noggin, only suggesting that when someone gives you a considered response it warrants a considered answer instead of name calling and dismissal. Or, if you can't muster it (for whatever reason, including interest) perhaps not addressing it at all is the best course.

Dismissal being a relative perception we all indulge in, some like it presented in a more diplomatic style than others. Plus the nature of this site being what it is feeds on such energy, just doing my part to keep the beast fed.

In the scope of things going on a little saucing response from me is the least of the coming worries to think about.

 

[Lon]

I agree he knows a lot of intellectual theory, But, The Calvinist have their own way of slandering those they deem uneducated as being disqualified to speak on spiritual issues.

You're assertions don't change that.

No, sorry, it is rather the 'intelligent' than particularly a Calvinist. We get slammed a lot, so I'll not take the inane jib to heart, but it isn't called for.
I don't like your 'feel-good new-age religious emoting' either, but I don't pick at U-ran(ia) weirdos in general. I expect a bit of scapegoating, but this is a bit absurd. He posted this clear back in October. You are coming at it like 1) it had your name on the e-mail and 2) like it came yesterday.

In the scope of things going on a little saucing response from me is the least of the coming worries to think about.

Back to the 'intelligent' slam: Emoting is the worst kind of theology. It does first, thinks later or not at all. That's what you gave up.

...no heart song in you're fake spiritual theory that disregards all things being gathered into the One. SIGH....

This is pure "Zeke-emotion" with little substance and not 'really' theology. You can try to package it that way, but it isn't. Theo-logy means "Study" (not emoting of) "God." You new-agers gave that up. You do a lot more 'feel' than study after the rejection.

2Ti 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
2Ti 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
<cough>...<Urantia thread>...<cough> -Lon

 

[Zeke]

Sigh.

 

[Town Heretic]

Dismissal being a relative perception we all indulge in, some like it presented in a more diplomatic style than others. Plus the nature of this site being what it is feeds on such energy, just doing my part to keep the beast fed.

In the scope of things going on a little saucing response from me is the least of the coming worries to think about.

It's not the end of the world, but it is a quick way to end conversation. And if we're not at least attempting that then what are we doing, exactly?