OSAS debunked by Ezek 18 and Matt 18??

When Jesus said "I never knew you" He was saying He never had an intimate relationship with that person, not that He never had intellectual knowledge of the person.

That intimate relationship is how Jesus defined eternal life: John 17:3.

That intimate relationship is the same kind of knowing as Adam knew Eve and she conceived.

It can only happen when the person is born again in Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That is the point at which the intimate knowledge begins, and that is also the point at which heaven, for that person, begins.

Thus, when Jesus said He never knew the false teachers, He is saying they were never born again, never indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

 

Good stuff, Helen! :thumbs:

 

Are you reffering to the passage about the servant with the unbelievable debt? Well there's a double edged sword...because what if you know a Brother who does something you find sinful *drinking, smoking, swearing, pornography, Hannah Montana,...etc.* would you still be able to forgive him for offending you over and over and over again? Though I seriously doubt that there is even a .5% margin of Christ's followers not wanting to forgive one another. That still is going on the assumption that God would ever condemn one of his children. I don't read anything in Ezekiel 18 that speaks of salvation or condemnation either....

 

Page three........still awaiting anyone against OSAS who agrees with the OP.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: I am not sure what the ‘object’ of the OP is other than to reiterate ones believe that one can be once in a right relationship and then be severed from Christ. With the hundreds of posts I have made, is there any doubt that I would agree that one can be severed from Christ? There certainly should not be.

 

Just a small detail. My claim was that no one had ever supported your presentation of Matt 18 as a "saved then lost" argument that I have ever witnessed. I never saw an "amen" nor ever saw any other opponant of OSAS bring forth Matt 18 as an "evidence" that one can be saved and then become lost.

If I missed someone's support of this I will sincerely appologize.

Maybe someone here "would" accept Matt 18 as an example. I am all ears.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: What do you want me to say? I agree with BR that Matt18 is an example of forgiveness revoked. Is that what you are looking for?

PS: Thank you BR for bringing that passage to our attention.

 

What Bob was looking for was posters who have supported in the past his view of Matt 18 as debunking OSAS, meaning the man was saved and then became lost because he did not forgive another.

Have you posted to this affect in the past and do you agree with Bob's view of Matt 18 (the man was saved and then became lost because he did not forgive another) ?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: Is this by chance of one of those questions DHK would call childish?:tonofbricks:

Forgive me Steaver. I just could not resist:laugh:

 

I guess I better forgive you or lose my salvation. What if I wait until tommorrow to forgive you, let it stew in me awhile, sin a little first, enjoy being angry with you a bit. Does this mean I am lost until tommorrow?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

You getting off track again brother. Just stick to the scriptures and let the accusations be. I know it is easy to fall into that trap. See I could say the same thing.......

The part that is "confusing" to me is trying to figure out what Bob thinks we would be doing with Matt 18 if we were not tied to the false teaching of Saved then Lost?

Why would we need to "spin" Matt 18 in any way at all -- other than simply accepting what it says as long as we were not trying to "cling to Saved then Lost at all costs" when we started to read that chapter??

See?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Who is "we". Nobody has stepped up and supported your view as of yet that the man was saved and then became lost because he did not forgive another.

It is an exercise for the reader to seek the knowledge of the parable. By process of elimination one can clearly eliminate "saved then lost" since salvation is "by grace through faith and NOT of yourself". The act of forgiving another to obtain salvation would be "of yourself" and this would cause a contradiction so it must be rejected outright.

Always use all scriptures to test what you think the focus may be on. In this case the focus of "saved then lost" fails completely.

Again I see no "we" as of yet. The problem is that it is an "ideal" only in your mind and that view is contradicting "grace through faith, not of yourselves".

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: You have no promise of tomorrow. The question you should ask yourself might be, is it worth the risk of refusing to do what I know to do, when this very night my soul might in fact be required of me?

 

i will take that as a "yes", i will be lost until tomorrow.

I may not have an earthly tomorrow but i know whom I have believeth and am persuaded He is able to keep me unto that day-even if I lack personal perfection. It is a blessed hope that I pray all God's children could understand.

God Bless! :thumbs: