Featured OSAS is a misleading term

So your position is that using the phrase "OSAS" may give people a license to live anyway they want while still calling themselves Christians.

Do I understand you correctly?

 

What term do you believe can be used to protect against that.

 

OK I do not see how one will work any better than the other. PLease fill me in on your thoughts on this.

 

Those of us holding to OSAS see that the Trinity Themselves saved us, and each On eof them are at work to keep us staying saved, as the father gave us to His Son, and the Spirit sealed us until the Day of glorification!

Those who hold to that and yet still live carbal lives are those ignorant of what it really stands for, as that understanding frees us to live for Chrsit out of live and devotion!

 

The physical body also needs to be cleansed of sin. Titus 3:5 says we are saved by the "washing of born again" and in Matt 19:28-29 Jesus used this same "born again" to refer to the resurrection.

Here is a thread where I was in the process of demonstrating that our physical body is sin-wrecked, and will be raised without sin:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=92916&highlight=body+stand

The focus was on 1Cor 15, and in that passage Paul makes clear that every man dies because of Adam, and every man will be raised because of Christ. Our physical body is sin-wrecked from conception, our spirit is not.

To hold the view that we are created spiritually dead because of Adam, you have one train wreck on your hands. There are numerous problems with this view.

1) If spiritual death is passed physically, then you have a Christ who was born spiritually dead. He is, after all, a physical descendant of Adam. The Roman Catholic Church recognized this problem long ago, and concocted a hoax of Immaculate Conception to try to relieve the difficulty

2) If spiritual death is passed to every physical descendant except Christ, then you have a Christ who was not made like us in all things, per Hebrews 2:14

3) If babies are born spiritually dead, then no baby who dies physically will be saved from hell. Augustine held this view, that babies are not able to have faith in Christ and therefore cannot be saved. But someone concocted an "age of accountability" doctrine to try to relieve the tension

4) The view that Romans 5:12-21 is speaking of spiritual death ignores 2 points - Paul uses the same kind of language in 1Cor 15, which is clearly in the context of physical death and resurrection. Also, the universal application found in Rom 5:18-19 would support the idea that everyone is going to go to heaven if you hold to a spiritual death/life application. Or you have to try to twist the wording to mean that all die in Adam, but not all are raised in Christ. And you have to twist the wording of verse 19 to say that "many" refers to all in death, but the "many" does not mean all in life.

I've made no such claim that sin arises from the material to the spirit. I've simply stated that sin is a complex issue, and is portrayed in scripture as rebellion, an issue of the mind, a disease, and filth.

If there is a "biblical order", then quote the scriptures. I've quoted many scriptures to support my views, as well as referencing two other threads where I explained some of these points in greater detail.

And you have simply asserted your position without any cohesive appeal to scripture. If your view is scriptural, then you should have scripture to demonstrate it through and through. And you shouldn't have to concoct extra-biblical doctrines to relieve tension.


Assertion and demonstration are not the same thing

 

Yes, "needs to be" but has not been, is not, and shall not until 1 Cor. 15:51-58 - which is yet future.

Titus 3:5 has absolutely no context reference to the body - nada, nothing. Matthew 19:28-29 refers to the post-resurrection state of the world - a new world.

Future resurrection is not an issue as I admit the body will not be cleansed from sin until the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:51-58.

First, there is nothing being created in the natural order as creation ceased on the sixth day in Genesis 1:31.

Second, the principle of reproduction after its own kind is the only means to further man and beast - NOT PART of man but the WHOLE man. Quoting scriptures where the spirit is said to come from God, no more proves your point than me quoting scriptures where the material substances is formed by God in the womb proves that the body comes directly from God and not through the process of reproduction.

Don't attribute your straw man argument to me! I am not the one arguing that we are only PARTIALLY reproduced - you are the one making that false scenario. Man is being reproduced body soul and spirit as a WHOLE and it is the "spirit" that is "dead" which man inherents from Adam. The infant has is spiritually dead and that is why he is subject to death in the body, just as when Adam first died spiritually that made him subject to physical death. You are the one reversing this order - death begins with the spirit not the body in the Biblical order.

Not so! The sin principle is reproduced father to father, that is why Jesus was conceived by "The Holy SPIRIT" - otherwise, he would be born with a "dead" spirit.

This is a rediculous argument. The scripture clearly marks the exception is that "IN HIM was found no sin", his spirit was sinless like Adam before the fall, thus a SECOND Adam. He was human in spirit, soul and body, as his spirit came directly from God just as Adam's did - sinless.

The fact is that all who do go to hell will be judged at the Great White Seat "according to their works" based upon knowing right from wrong. Babies have no works that can be judged on that basis. Therefore, dying infants are saved in Christ exactly as they were condemned in Adam. If the unborn infant John the Baptist can leap for joy in the womb at hearing about Christ, I don't think God will have a problem with imparting regenerating knowledge to dying infants (2 Cor. 4:6). If God can preach the gospel to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) I don't think He will have any problem doing so to dying infants.

Let's be specific! What language are you talking about?

Take note of verse 17 and the words "which receive" distinguishing them from those "in Adam" which do not "receive." Second, All mankind was "created" in Adam but not all mankind are "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10).

You may not have intended that, but your interpretation certainly does make that claim. You stated that the "spirit" is created directly by God, WITHOUT SIN. You have also stated that "sin" is passed down through the material flesh, as you have ruled out the "spirit" as the source of sin.

I did! Genesis 2:17 "in the day" they eat they will die. I did, Ephesians 2:1 where they are already dead in spirit but are not yet dead physically. In each case the Biblical order of death begins with the spirit not the flesh.

You need to read things better before making such outlandish charges. I have referred to Genesis 2:17; Eph. 2:1 as the order for death in spirit prior to physical death in previous posts. Just read more carefully.

 

You have to make the physical material flesh the source of sin as you deny that the spirit of man is defiled by sin when given. You are teaching gnosticism that attributes evil to the material flesh. Paul distinguishes "my flesh...this body.....my members" from the law of sin which dwells "in" the flesh, just as he distinguishes the "inward man" from the "law of God."

 

My point is that the phrase "Perseverance of the Saints" can be just as easily co-opted. I do not see anything about it, that would make those of whom you speak of detered from using it. In fact I here it used just as much as the other one gets used almost interchangabley.