Circumcision and OSAS

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The last part of the verse is written with certainty. They went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
That is why they left. They were no of us; they were not believers. They were only pretenders.

 

Read the entire book. He warns against false teachers, false doctrine.
He speaks of assurances--key word "know" Ways to know for sure that you are saved. One of the evidences of a person's salvation is their faithfulness. One who either is not saved or is a false teacher will not have this mark of faithfulness. They will leave the church where faithful doctrine is taught. And thus the encouragement:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

NT circumcision is compared to the physical cutting away of the flesh under the Law.

It was a sign of the covenant between Abraham and his descendants and God. Abraham was not saved by circumcision. He was declared righteous by God before he was circumcised.

Under the new covenant, circumcision is not done by human hands, but by God. When we believe (have faith), God "cuts" away the flesh and separates it from our spirit. Our spirit is made alive by God and we are separated unto Him. We still sin because we are still living in fleshly bodies, but after the circumcision of God, we are not under the curse of sin, meaning it holds no power over us. We are freed from it's condemnation.

Because this is something that God does, it cannot be undone. It is a covenant between God and the believer. He has put His seal of the Holy Spirit on us. We are His. We cannot be condemned for sin in the judicial sense because He has separated the flesh where sin dwells from our spirit which is now living and separated unto God, or made Holy.


Ro*7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Ro*7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Ro*7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

 

The problem you are identifying might be best segmented this way--

1. OSAS for Calvinists

This is really the only model in which some kind of rationale for OSAS even exists. I as an Arminian - have to at least hand this point to the Calvinists. Because OSAS makes no sense at all in the Arminian system.

I have seen Calvinists comment on the flaw in Arminian arguments if those arguments try to claim both Arminianism - AND - OSAS... and you have to give the Calvinists credit here - they are right about the Arminian model not working with OSAS.

The 3 and 5 point Calvinists get OSAS at the "expense" of assurance - because on the one hand they faithfully accept the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints - but then they mix it with the man-made-tradition of OSAS - and LOSE the assurance of salvation -- since in that system today's ASSURANCE is "retro-deleted" if you fail to persevere ten years from today.

For the 4 point Calvinist - you get BOTH OSAS AND assurance. Because in that model "today's assurance" is never retro-deleted by tomorrows total and complete apostasy. In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints - is entirely denied.





2. OSAS for Arminians
Simply does not work if by "Arminian" you mean "free will"
-- will to CHOOSE.

While the Arminian system does provide that God supernaturally enables the lost sinner to CHOOSE.... there is NO Arminian componant that requires that God TAKE THAT CHOICE AWAY - from the person once they choose salvation.

Rather - the only thing that makes sense for the Arminian model is that once having MADE the choice for salvation - the born again saint must then "Persevere" in CHOOSING to "die daily" to "take up his cross daily" and follow Christ -- just as Romans 2:6 states. Choosing NOT to persevere -- is choosing the Matt 18 road of "forgiveness revoked".




CONCLUSION:

If your goal is "OSAS at any cost" then there is only one real option - 4 point Calvinism.


in Christ,

Bob

 

Creating Adam as a sinless holy being is something "God did" -- and it cannot be "undone".

Adam could not be "uncreated".

As it turns out -- he did NOT need to be "uncreated" to fall - and to find himself in "need of adoption" in order to go back to being (once again) a child of God.

In Matt 18 the forgiveness provided to the debtor-servant in Christ's story - is an exmple of forgiveness that only GOD can give. God alone can take it back.

In the story - that is exactly what he does.

in Christ,

Bob

 

4 Point Calvinists do not accept the Bible teaching on Perseverance of the Saints.

So for 5 Point Calvinists we have the full TULIP

T - Total Depravity of the sinful nature of man
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonment
I - Irresistable Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Three point Calvinists (almost Arminian) have T U P


Arminians can call themselves two point Calvinists -- T and P - if they wanted to.

(And of course if we correct the Calvinist U and L - to match the actual Bible meaning of U and L - then Arminians could be 4 pointers!!)

 

I don't understand the fascination with Calvinism when it comes to debating OSAS. If I understand TULIP correctly then I am a OSAS believer who does not agree with anything Calvin proposed.

 

Okay, thanks, just curious.

 

it is using circumcision as a comparison, you can only be circumcised once, and it can not be undone. The comparison was used because the jews would have understood the purpose of circumcision, and this is one of the facts of circumcision, it can not be done more then once and it can not be undone. otherwise it is a faulty comparison.

 

Which of course - makes no sense at all given that the Arminian distinctive is "free will to choose" rather than "mind locked -- no choice possible".

 

If I agree with Arminian or Calvin in anyway I have no problem saying so. I just don't think I would agree with anything in the TULIP statements. Maybe I am wrong for I have not studied them in any depth. Begin a thread and if it turns out I do agree with them then I guess you can call me a Calvinist if it makes you feel good. But hey, I don't call you an Ellen Whitist. You go out of your way to say that your beliefs are totally based on the scriptures and have nothing to do with EGW. So why can't us in the OSAS camp say the same without being labled a Calvinist?

And guess what? If TULIP turns out to be biblically acurate, then I still am not technically a Calvinist but rather just a biblical Christian just like your not a Whitist. Calvin is just another commentator.

:jesus:

 

Non sequitur, Bob. I can kill someone of my own "free will", but you cannot maintain that using this same free will I can undo the murder. Eternal life is only eternal if it is eternal In your and HP's model it ceases to be eternal, and if that was the intended truth God had in store, He would have never used "eternal", but conditional life.

 

How can one hope in something if it is dependant on us to maintain? How does a Holy Spirit filled believer (who, btw, are told will "never leave us nor forsake us") be an equation to something we must maintain? Does he indwell, leave, and indwell again?
There is no condition to hope or remaining faithful in "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish..." from John 10:28. Like I said, if you can lose it, it can never be called eternal life, and when Scripture refers to it as such it would be a lie.