Freewill and OSAS

Impossible to reconcile OSAS with the Arminian "Free will" position.

interesting that many Calvinists get this point clearly as well as the Arminians that see that OSAS can not work in a "whosoever will" system.

in Christ,

Bob

 

A very interesting topic, I say. :thumbs:

 

I would not argue that this is a weakness in the Arminian system - other than the weakness "of numbers" in that many Arminians try to hold to both the free-will construct AND to OSAS thus leaving themselves to exposed to Bible criticism from both Calvinists and fellow Arminians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Is it possible that some use the term OSAS when they mean they believe in the security of the believer? I, for one, reject the doctrine of OSAS. I do not believe the Bible bears it out in either Old or New Testaments.

However, I fully believe and place my trust in the security of the believer (John 10:28,29, etc).

The difference is this: a believer is an obeyer, a doer of the word. So long as one abides in Christ through faithful obedience to Scripture, he has nothing to fear.

I think OSAS leaves itself open to some who might take advantage of their supposed indestructible state and engage in willful sin, all the while comforting themselves with the idea that, "Though what I'm doing is wrong, I'll still go to heaven because I was saved when I was younger..." or something like that.

Now I don't recall ever hearing such taught from a pulpit, (not first-hand at least), even by those who espouse OSAS, but I've seen many people whose actions said as much, and quite loudly. Some have even said as much when questioned about their actions.

 

i'm not calvinist or the other.

i do believe in free-will though - and OSAS.

it depends on your defenition of OSAS..

i see it as: once you're genuinly saved - you won't want to stray from God at all. you want to know God in every aspect and don't want to walk away from Him.
(thus the "once saved, always saved, because you won't ever have the thought of running away from God")

but at the same time, you have free-will.

is God keeping you against your will? are you saved against your will? no.

you made the choice to receive Jesus - influenced by the Holy Spirit, yes - but not controlled by. (if we were controlled - we'd be robots - which goes against scripture)

not at all really.
as i explained above. heh.

if you are genuinly saved - it doesn't mean free-will is thrown out the window..

 

Since salvation is referred to as eternal life...can one be unborn once born (and I'm not talking about death, either). To me, comparing the will of man to the justification by God is apples and oranges. My mother and father had the free will to have sex or not, but they had no free will in the result of what came from that, my birth.

 

Watching with interest also. But I think I know what the answer will be since I've asked this same question to OSAS pastors before.

 

See below...

Christ corrected him regarding the second birth not being a physical birth as Nicodemus wrongly thought.

The very phrase born again or new birth is a similie to the physical or natural.
The illustration is intended to show the free will in a resulting birth...but no free will once the birth has taken place. Once we are born, we cannot be unborn.
Romans 2 also refers to salvation as a "circumcision of the heart". We know that circumcision was commanded in the OT, but the freedom to follow through was given. Once somebody is circumcised of their free choice, can the circumcision be undone? The arminian position claims it can be reversed. How?...who knows. To me the inconsistancy lies in the arminian position.

 

I don't think it's a case of being "unborn". It's more a case of a child being punished for disobedience. I'm sure you've considered it before now, but here's some from 2 Peter.

2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

These were members of the church that Peter described here.

2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

They had been born again, they were children of God.

2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

They had been on the right way, but had forsaken it through their own free will.

Even more illustrative might be the case of an unfaithful spouse being put away for "spiritual fornication".

 

Huh? Are you trying to state that one CAN be unborn
Birth and the mechanics of it are common sense, and not rocket science. The similie is evident.

Sure it is. Like birth, we know what circumcision is. Please tell me how your heart can be un-circumcised after it has been circumcised by God?

This is nothing more than works based salvation that frustrates grace. This view is the opposite side of the coin with Lordship Salvation.

 

You are confusing justification with sanctification.

 

As you might imagine, I've been told that before. I don't think I am, though. Any chance you might be confused?

 

No, not when it comes to God's promise. If it is up to us to maintain, it's not grace.

 

So you believe a circumcision can be undone? That is not real strong logic to stand on. God is not a God of confusion. His Word calls it a birth and circumcision. We know what both entail. To try to supernaturally explain that both can be un-done when God uses language like "everlasting" and "eternal" defies all logic and common sense.

Here you blend justification and sanctification...