How to salvage OSAS in view of Rom 11 and 2Tim2

Not the pronouns in the citations. The problem is the pronouns. For example, people who nave "invited Jesus . . ." tthink the verses apply only to them and not to Catholics. OSAS is correct but there is no test for election.

 

I've been wondering about the preterist position. You may remember that from the debates with Grasshopper and Eschatologist. Whether the actual return of Christ is past or future (or typically past, and literally future), I think preterism may have been onto something in saying that they were still sort of between covenants in the NT (and thus in constant danger of "not making it") , and when the Temple was finally destroyed, then the full fruition of salvation was secured. All of those passages about falling away referred to falling back under the Law, in which Christ would be denied in order to appease the Jews, and all the scriptures on "perseverance", were pointing to something that would occur in their lifetimes. With the principle of "to whom much is given, much is expected", it would make sense that God would be harder on those who saw Jesus or were in that same generation who saw Jesus.

 

Preterism is just another example of 'loaded gun' theology. You treat the scriptures like a loaded gun and make sure you don't ever point it at yourself. Take all the warnings and apply them to Jews, or 'fake' believers, or intertestamental figures, or whoever they will stick to so they don't have to apply to me. Funny how we can wrest the blessings out of the same context that we reject the warnings from.

 

OSAS doesn't need to be "salvaged". Remember that there are several ingredients in the interpretation of scripture. First of all, it is spiritually interpreted, not intellectually (from the flesh) See 1 Cor 2:9-14. Intellectual interpretation is futile. Among the other ingredients are three essentials:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

It is also helpful if one explores the Greek language "underneath" the English, and translates English and Greek back into Hebrew. That process includes the risk of intellectualism. One begins it in an attitude of prayerful submission to what the Holy Spirit reveals, ever on guard against the wanderings of the mind. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew sentence structure places the verb at the very front of the sentence. Example: Genesis 1:1 He created, God, in the beginning. A Greek insight: When you see "Our God and Savior," the proper interpretation is "Our God-Savior," clearly identifying Jesus. Peter makes that very plain in 1 Peter 1:1. Contextually, see Col 2:9, John 1:1ff, Hebrews 1:1ff, 1 John 1:1ff, John 8:58-59. In the Greek language when one encounters a definite article used before two nouns joined by the conjunction "kai," those two nouns refer to the same thing or person. Using the dash clears up may futile debates about the deity of Jesus. Similar forms of inquiry resolve many "conflicted" issues, such as those found in the OP.

 

In otherwords the only way to defend osas is through mind games.

The idea of translating back to hebrew is ludicrous since the NT was written in Greek.

 

REALLY? WOW! I'll bet none of us knew that! Zowie! Thanks ever so! :tongue3:

Try reading the NT in English, Greek, and Hebrew (there are Hebrew-language New Testaments). Some scholarly work has been done on translating English to Hebrew instead of Greek, of course. But we all know that ... don't we? :laugh:

 

See if we would understand the real meaning of salvation by grace through faith the idea of eternal security would not be a problem. But for unamed reasons man still wants to play a part in his salvation just like Adam and Eve tried to do after their fall.

God rejected their feeble attempt to right their wrong and He rejects all works other than the works of His Son Jesus Christ.

Since we don't work to gain salvation there is nothing we can do to rid our selves of salvation since it was based on Another's work.

But when you teach a false doctrine such as work's salvation then you have to follow with an equally false doctrine that you can lose salvation.

It is so easy to see that this teaching is false. Salvation is by grace. It is something undeserved, meaning there is nothing within you that deserves salvation. So if you don't deserve it in the first place and God is not looking at your works, why are you going to be found undeserving at some point in the future when you weren't deserving in the first place.

The whole premise of losing one's salvation just doesn't even make sense, but man still to this day wants to say look at me I'm good enough. Guess what no we are not...not according to Scripture. We weren't before we were saved, we aren't after we are saved and we won't be in the future. The only thing good about us is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Again I pray that people reading these threads will not be tossed to and fro by your false teachings.

 

Bob there is no reason to deal with those texts in your OP because you have shown time and time again that you are not going to change your mind regardless of how clear it has been shown that you are in error, so why waste time?

 

Work out your own salvation

J.Jump

Hey there! I just wanted to ask you then, what do the Scriptures mean when they say:

Phil:2:12: ...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.


If we dont have anything to do with our salvation then what is it that we are supposed to be working at?

 

How many times do you want this passage covered? It has been covered numerous times by several people, yet you still ask the question, "What about..."

 

Claudia that's a great question. It has to do with the salvation of your soul. That's a totally different thing than grace through faith without works.

In order to see your soul saved you must be obedient, you must walk in the Spirit, you must be an overcomer, you must run and finish the race, you must live by faith, etc. etc. all those things that so many think have to do with eternal salvation have to do with the salvation of the soul.

Just because the term salvation is used doesn't mean it is talking about salvation by grace through faith. The nation of Israel was in need of salvation during the time of John the Baptist, Christ, the disciples/apostles, but it wasn't eternal salvation it was the salvation of their souls that were at stake.

But that has been said a number of times.

 

Bob you really are a funny guy. You are about as funny as a guy on a previous message board that said if you don't respond I win by default. That's basically what you are saying.

I leave the kindergarten games to the little kids. You have no desire to change your errant views so why do I need to respond to you. You are not my judge.

Those Scriptures in no way contradict eternal secruity. It is merely your misunderstanding of those verses that clouds your mind and causes you to teach your errant views to other people.

If someone is following this thread that truly wants to know they are more than welcome to PM me, email me or IM me and I would be more than happy to share with them.

As for you...well closed minded is a thought that comes to mind...again you have no desire to truly learn you just want to keep on spitting out your "proof" texts. Well sorry after so long of that I have to move on to other things.

You keep playing your kiddie games, because I'm sure they are enough milk drinkers around for you to have some playmates. I just pray they can see through your false teachings, but the Bible tells us that there are a lot that won't and will fall for them