Once Saved Always Saved?

The bible teaches neither. And I bet if I or someone shows you the application of these scriptures you posted, staying in context, applying hermeneutics and requiring harmony between them, you would not change your mind but would just move on to post some more scriptures which you believe teach your pov.

Do you study scripture applying the rules of context and harmony?

:jesus:

 

To the many here who advocate OSAS, I pose this question: If OSAS is an important and valid Christian doctrine, why was it not conceived until the 16th Century? Before Calvin, this doctrine was not debated or written about because it didn't even exist. All Christians everywhere just assumed that falling from grace was a concept as integral to Christianity (and as undebatable) as the fact of Jesus dying on the cross. Don't you think that if OSAS were a valid doctrine, someone somewhere would have proposed it over a span of 1550 years?

And since it wasn't proposed, don't you think that makes a mockery out of these words of Christ?

• But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26.
• Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not over power it. Matthew 16:18.

Nevertheless, we see scores upon scores of Christian writers down through the centuries who never question the notion that you can fall from grace . . . and never a one who advocates or even suggests the concept of eternal security of OSAS.

 

If you can fall from Grace, then is it really Grace? You are regressing back to a works salvation that is based on how you live, and not on grace. If you want to be judged by the Law, you go ahead, but I choose Grace.

Perhaps it wasnt addressed or questioned because it is unbiblical.

AJ

 

please explain to me the difference between losing it and forfeiting it? sounds like splitting hairs to me.

AJ

 

You haven't shown any evidence to prove this. I am not aware that anyone just assumed anything of the sort. Different doctrines have become at focus during different times in history. Nothing about that assumes anything of the sort. Of course scripture is clear on the matter:

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Our salvation is incorruptible. How about yours?

 

"You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Galatians 5:4. Paul thought you can fall from grace, at least those Christians who had been saved and then reverted to the Jewish practices of the law. When they did they had fallen from grace. You cannot fall from something unless you once occupied the position from which you fell. In this case the people Paul was addressing had been in a state of grace but were no longer in such a state.

 

AJ, those who believe a saved person can become lost again run the gamut on how that happens. A few on the extreme side will say that certain sins, or even any sin, will cause someone to lose their salvation. Then there are many who do not look to any particular sins as jeopardizing salvation, but they see it as a conscience choice to reject or forfeit salvation. They say that since coming to faith in Christ is based on a free will decision, that same decision can later be reversed. So I would say those in this latter camp are ones who say you can "forfeit your salvation," while those who say a sin or sins can reverse your salvation are those in the "lose your salvation" camp.

 

Nor have you shown anything to disprove it. I would like for someone to show me anything written between 100 and 1550 that advocates or suggests the doctrine of eternal security.

 

The Apocalypse of Bob 15:7-8 (Dated around and between 100 and 1550 CE). In which it states: Along will come a Frankish deposed priest from the great lake in the Alps that is Geneva by which his doctine of the turkish flower will establish God's everlasting covenant of eternal security. :laugh: Its right up there with the book of Hezikiah.

 

Why not start things off on the right foot.
You post authentic and reliable information that during those years Bible believers outside cults and the RCC et.al believed one could lose their salvation.
That would be a better starting point.

 

Huh? the folks seeking to justified by the law were the Jews. Is this verse addressing born again christians or followers of the law?

I am a born again christian, not a follower of the law.

AJ

 

What is your definition of a cult? These are the definitions listed by the web based Webster Dictionary:

The first one can apply to all religions
The second one relies on the definition of Orthodoxy which is defined this way:

the first definition you have yet to prove because it seems those time periods cover when the Catholic church was preeminant there for in the Majority so not meeting the requirements of definition number 5 for cults since we're not speaking of a small group but rather a large one.
Protestants and especially baptist do not express faith by the early Christian ecumenical creeds. And except for Angus Dei no one here is Orthodox. There for on the basis of your argument Zenas may say baptist fit the definition of cult more close than the Catholic church from 100 AD to 1550 AD. Not that I'm saying baptis are a cult but your point doesn't make headway.

So to make your point a valid one we must agree to a definition of cult.

 

Just as we have cults today, they had cults back then: gnostics, and many others. Origen was a heretic even by RCC standards, let alone by our standards. The object of our faith is Christ. One ought to be able to point to those who have Christ as the object of their faith, and are orthodox in their doctrine, not "cultish" in their doctrine. Is that too much to ask?

 

Ok I understand the first two sentences.

But after that I'm not sure what you mean because I'm just asking what your definition of a cult or cultish is. And one means of doing that is by supplying what you mean by Orthodox doctrine.

 

Your statement: "All Christians everywhere just assumed that falling from grace was a concept as integral to Christianity (and as undebatable) as the fact of Jesus dying on the cross." assumes proof not in evidence. Since Scripture teaches the Eternal Security of the Believer perhaps the true believers saw no need to debate the doctrine.

Also you must be aware that most of Church History in the west has been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Communion. Also the Roman Catholics developed the doctrine of works salvation, the inevitable outcome of a doctrine that assumes God cannot keep those who belong to Him and a doctrine that eventually led to the Reformation.

Furthermore, the two passages you quote reinforce the doctrine of Eternal Security of the Saints not negate it.

 

Can I assume you own a Bible. I believe most of it, though written before 100 AD, was compiled after 100 AD.

 

Ah....
where were the writings of the "true" churches during this period corrupted by the Roman Catholic church? Unless the gates of Hell overcame the church until 1500? OR was it an apochryphal (hidden) church?

 

The point you are trying to make eludes me!

 

Look at CARM's statement of faith. That is about as orthodox as one can get.
It is here:

http://www.carm.org/statement-faith