Loss of salvation arguements compiled...

From Post 87

Your proposal that this can be twisted and bent to nothing more than a warning to "unsaved jews" or even "saved jews only" fails for the "YOU" in Romans 11 included saved Gentiles.

How can this point be missed?

Furthermore OSAS failes whether it is SAVED Jews that are being warned OR it is SAVED Gentiles -- either of which "STANDS ONLY by your faith".


You have argued yourself into a corner -- a dead end.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Number 1 I am not sure how this places you as ta(r)get?

Do you agree that in THIS life when someone comes to Christ they are "born-again" at the moment of conversion - that a "new creation" is done as we read in 2Cor 5? That they come to salvation by faith alone - apart from the works of the law at the moment of conversion? That starting at that point they are "IN FELLOWSHIP" with Christ and by the Spirit they can cry out "Abba Father" having the Spirit of God the bears witness with their spirit that they ARE the children of God? (Rom 8).

If so - then you are fully embracing what everyone here is calling "SAVED" this side of heaven - this side of glorification.

The fact that you point to the benefits of the Gospel - past, present and future - and you admit that though we may have been born again in the PAST - and though we may PRESENTLY be "walking as Christ walked" (1John 2) -- yet in the FUTURE we may "FALL from Grace" and so be "SEVERED from Christ" (Gal 5) and in fact go to the 2nd death RATHER than going to heaven - is the same "OSAS not True" position that was shown from scripture on Page 1, and 5 and 9 and on other pages by many others incuding yourself.

How then does this place you as the proponent of any kind of OSAS at all??

What am I missing?

in Christ,

Bob

 

From post 96

#1. In Larry's response I assume that his bias for OSAS means that the "false teacher that comes to a knowledge of Christ" is someone that is NOT saved by that knowledge -- someone who REMAINS in their LOST state.

#2. Then I note that Pastor Larry is arguing that the ENDING LOST state is worse than the LOST state of their condition while KNOWING Christ. (Hence I expose his argument as a "lost vs LOSTER" kind of failed argument).


Pastor Larry - you then folllowup on that by ducking the point entirely -- and saying

So my response to you (post 104 page 11) was (and still is)

I have taken the time to reconstruct the way that you are obfuscating the dialog with your snippet quips. I show here that your approach is designed to lose focus on the point that you are ducking and it forces me to go back and reconstruct the point so the sense of the discussion remains blatantly obvious to the unbiased objective reader as we continue the dialog.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Here is yet another resonstruction of a point you are trying to duck


Post 98 page 10

Post 99 Page 10

Post 102 Page 11

Well We agree that it was NOT Christ's point - but your statement that "Those forgiven WILL Forgive" is not the opposite of the Parable. In the parable the one REALLy forgiven is condemned for NOT really forgiving others and then WE are warned that this could happen to us IF we do not forgive others JUST AS we have really been forgiven.

There is "You of course will always forgive others IF you have really been forgiven" in the text at all!!

But the discussion has to be reconstructed given your snippet repsonse so the objective unbiased reader can see what we are talking about.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: It places me in the sights of the OSAS’ers, does it not? Would not they clearly oppose what I am saying, therefore a target of theirs?

HP: I do.

HP: Well, that most likely depends. I consider our ‘saved’ position to be that of a pardon, and as such we remain in this life in a probationary state, although we are considered as ‘having been saved’ and or we are currently saved. I personally do not use the words ‘saved’ much as I believe it is a term that is misunderstood as to its meaning. I think I would prefer to refer to the saved state as entering into or retaining a present hope of eternal life.

HP: Yes. That makes you a target as well, does it not?

HP: It does not. Let there be no question about it. I do not believe in OSAS period. Sorry for any confusion.

 

Ok - got it -- thanks.

One more question please - did you "ever" hold to the idea of OSAS?

Have you ever posted on this board in favor of it?

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: That's two questions as I count them. :)

I have never in my entire life believed OSAS was true. I have never posted anything in favor of it.

 

No offence (or even offense :laugh: ) taken, I assure you. (I trust that no one took any from my post, either).

In retrospect, I was unwise to use the word "orthodox", as it is often taken to mean a blind belief in certain doctrines simply "because that is what we have always believed". Although "The Great Exchange" (the perfectly righteous Saviour taking His people's sin upon Himself, and clothing them in His righteousness) is something which has been believed and taught by many Christians over the centuries, that is not the reason I believe it. Rather, I believe the bible teaches it. 2 Corinthians 5.21:

21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​

And Paul writes in Philippians 3.9 of being ....

...found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

If anyone should object that it says the righteousness comes "by faith" (thinking of your words "a result of our fulfilling the conditions of salvation i.e., repentance and faith), there are other verses which speak of our justification being "by faith" (Romans 3.28; Romans 5.1; Galatians 2.16 and Galatians 3.24)

Philip Eveson wrote a balanced (at least in my view) article about N. T. Wright in the June 2004 edition of Evangelical Times, which can be seen online here:

http://www.evangelical-times.org/Website_Pages/ArticleDetail.php?articleID=1654

I'll leave it there - I don't want to go too far off topic for this thread.

 

That is in keeping with the Romans 3 "Justified by faith apart from the works of the Law". And certainly we see this as the subjective, individual and past - justification "past" as Paul says in Romans 5 "having been justified by faith we HAVE peace with God".

But in Dan 7 and in Romans 2 and in James 2 we see ANOTHER aspect of justification that is corporate, objective and judicial. "Judgment passed in FAVOR of the saints" with the rule "those who are DOERS of the Law WILL BE justified" Romans 2.

One past tense - (at the moment of salvation) and one "in the future" "On the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge the secrets of mankind through the man Christ Jesus" Romans 2. It is that Dan 7, Romans 2, James 2 concept of justification future that brings into light all the OSAS-debunking texts that show not only that perseverance is required but even shows those who are IN Christ being "Severed from Christ" Gal 5.

 

HP: Thanks for your explanation David. Possibly in the near future we will have opportunity to discuss together these issues. Have a great day in the Lord!

 

These texts all point to HOLDING on to the salvation that you HAVE -- and warn against the real problem of failing to do so.

But if one fails to HOLD what they have - then the circular argument "they never had anything to hold on to" is dead.

 

the amazing thing is that Christians would argue that these warning texts don't really mean what they say and nobody should notice as they downsize scripture in favor of OSAS.

My question is this - how can you so blatantly edit and downsize scripture like that in favor of man-made-tradition and then claim that no one should point out such a rework of scripture?

in Christ,

Bob

 

So much interest in OSAS and the fact that it lacks Bible evidence showing up on this thread lately!

What is going on? A new "awakening"??

 

I thought the subject of the Topic was to
help an individual compile:

Loss of salvation arguements compiled


I don't think they were interested in compiling
OSAS arguments.

I know I have more arguments favoring OSAS
than 'loss of salvation'.

I've been on Bulletin Boards Since June 1984
arguing OSAS. I know for sure if someone
starts a topic: "things you should do to stay
saved" -- said topic will die in a fortnight on
page 2 to 4.

Any ol' OSAS versus 'loss of salvation thru _____ '
discussion will go into the third-to-fifth topic on the
same subject (unless stopped by the PTB
/Powers that be/ for tacky postin').

 

AAA,
Just look at this, one of 'the best' from no one less than our dear Bob Ryan!:
"Heb 3:6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence..."

Taking Bob's 'logic', the faithfulness of Christ can be destroyed by human neglect! He may have it - I won't!

 

GE:
Not expected; have you seen a Laodicean Christian who could? No self-satisfied person can 'awake'!

BobRyan, this issue between OSAS and free will is not from yesterday; men of intelligence and men of both intelligence and integrity have been engaged in it for centuries. The latter group to the annoyance of popery, the first to its glee. You side with the antichrist if you like - 'the choice is yours'. Just like in the days of Joshuah who told the unfaithful Israelites to go choose between the false gods, because the one true God isn't there for man's picking and choosing.

 

It is always so flattering every time GE makes ME the author of scripture -- and by simply QUOTING the text -- blames ME for it's very existence!!

I find it difficult to get others beside GE to come out so directly in favor of doctrinal error where they admit that the very EXISTENCE of the text is in opposition to their false doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The point is I have seen more posts (on all of these threads and from both Baptists and non-Baptist) in favor of the Biblically correct doctrine on free over OSAS that I am just surprised to see that this point of truth is so well accepted and understood among the members of this board. Your response above also mentions the many threads on this topic.

I take encouragement from that fact -

in Christ,

Bob

 

I find it interesting that Ezek 18 and Matt 18 make the same point about one declared by God to be righteous and declared to be forgiven receives the blessing "he shall live" in Ezek 18.

But then in both chapters the case of one who FALLS away from that steadfast position in Salvation.

John 15 deals with those severed from Christ THOUGH they were formerly abiding in Christ -- and when severed they are burned in the fire - they die.

In Romans 11 we see again the description of those who are severed from Christ.

in Gal 5:4 again we see the condition described as "fallen from Christ" and as "severed from Christ".

Some translations describe it as the benefits-effects-blessing of Christ in the Gospel becoming "useless" and "of no use" in that severed condition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

BR:

"John 15 deals with those severed from Christ THOUGH they were formerly abiding in Christ -- and when severed they are burned in the fire - they die."

GE:

The creature I admire most is a guide dog for the blind; he never gets bored or tired, realising full well the human will never learn to see though he may guide him over the same route every day of his life.