Featured OSAS is a misleading term

His question does have some measure of validity as Iconoclast in another thread inferred that he rejected Romans 7:14-25 refers to the fallen nature in a saved person. I am not saying he does but his response sure inferred that.

 

I've got to take issue with this yet again. Lordship Salvation teaches a submission to Christ as Lord over your life, that it goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ to be saved. It also focuses on a changed life as the result of salvation. To that extent, there is nothing contrary to biblical teaching. However, constantly on this board we see it stated in absolute terms that we should have serious doubts about a person who claims to believe in Christ but does not have good works evident in his life.

Obviously the Bible does teach that faith in Christ will result in a changed life. Perhaps no where is this more thoroughly and accurately discussed in than James' letter to the brethren, specifically chapter 2, vv. 14-26. However, the absolutist view we see expressed in the more legalistic churches today fails to take into account each person is different, and each person's circumstances, past behaviors, and spiritual growth are different. As a result, efforts to judge a person's salvation by his/her fruit are not at all biblical.

Matthew 7, NASB
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged."​

Christ speaks clearly of judging a person's salvation in this passage, and it does not contradict Paul who asks in one of his epistles if we are not aware that we will one day judge the angels. First, angels can't be saved if they have fallen, and secondly, the judgment Paul criticizes is that sought in the courts by Christians, rather than their turning to biblical principles to resolve differences among them.

If we are "fruit inspectors," and I believe we are, we are nonetheless incapable of stating "You have no fruit. You are not saved." What we are empowered and capable of saying is "You have no fruit. Perhaps we should help disciple you." Too often here and elsewhere in the Christian world, we prefer to say the first without qualification to do so.

 

You have shown here you are responding out of fear of the worst case scenario. It is not necessary and leads to misrepresentations of others views. It robs you of your integrity.

 

What I have shown here is that there are unbiblical opinions expressed under the flag of Lordship Salvation. Not that all references to the concept are unbiblical, but that it is used to express concepts that are unbiblical. And that's all I've ever attempted to say.

 

It is independent of our actions as His keeping power is not based upon any kind of works performed IN OUR PERSON but solely in the person of Christ.

Progressive sanctification is not designed to procure justification in any manner or degree as progressive sanctifcation varies in degree from one saint to another, whereas the basis of justification is invariable - sinless righteousness - found only in the Person of Christ and NEVER found in our person in this life.

To men alone, and even then it is not trustworthy evidence (Mt. 7:21-23). No child of God is "given to sin" in regard to their inclinations (Rom. 7:18) but the will to do good can still be there WITHOUT external evidence or even CONTRARY external evidence (Rom. 7:15-25). Lot is a perfect example of the lack of EXTERNAL evidence for men while INTERNAL evidence for God ("his heart was vexed" - something unseen to men).

Those saints who are sinning externally are at the same time laboring not to sin (Rom. 7:15-21).

Children of God do sin but the difference is they don't get away with it. They can labor in sin for a great deal of time as in the case of David, Solomon and Lot but do not get away with it.

Here is where we have common ground. The child of God never revels in sin, but willful sin is always a struggle for him, even though he can continue in that struggle so that chastening is necessary. If not, then chastening would be unnecessary wouldn't it?? Hence, chastening is absolute proof that a child of God can continue in sin for long periods of time.

 

I see our "works" as being our "fruits". The "works" we do are the evidence of who we are working for. "By the fruit they bear, you will now them".... rings ever true here.

I am looking at this from a lifetime of someone's life, and not just a "snippet"...looking at the photo album as a whole and not just one photo.


A serious question to further the discussion....can someone be saved for five years, produce zero works, and be saved?

 

The fruits allow "YOU" to know them but when Jesus speaks of knowing His sheep no fruits are mentioned as he is omniscient and says "I know my sheep"

Since this is a hypothetical question I will provide a hypothetical Biblical response - 1 Cor. 3:14-15. However, such a case is not probable but not impossible from strictly an OUTWARD observable view point. However, it is impossible from an INTERNAL observable viewpoint as in the case of Romans 7:15-25.

 

What about the persistent sin, Ref? The believer trapped in addiction, who cannot seem to draw on the strength of the Holy Spirit within him? Did Jesus not have to rebuke His disciples because they could not, with all earnest prayer and faith, cast out the demon in the young lad? On what basis did He rebuke them? I see this kind of faith every day -- true faith, but faith that is overcome by flesh and sin. My effort is to get them to a place that their real faith is strong enough. But you and others -- unless I am mistaken, and if so please point that out -- would say they have no faith at all.

The word "practices" in this passage is the Greek poieo, the root of the word poiema which is the word "workmanship" in Ephesians 2:10. Both words mean "a work," though the latter takes on the meaning "masterpiece" in the Pauline passage. The key to understanding the word in John's epistle is that it takes on an intent on the part of the worker. It is a deliberate, planned effort. Addiction and many other sins are not so simply understood.

The intent is almost always the exact opposite, not to drink or use drugs, not to view pornography, not to lie, not to commit adultery. But the ingrained behavior overcomes the faith of the worker who, as it is said in Romans 7:19, finds it difficult if not impossible to do "the good that I want," but instead does "the evil that I do not want." It can be claimed that Paul does not write of the saved here, but the fact is, given the dualality of the Spirit and the flesh side by side in the believer, as Paul writes of in Galatians 5:17, this is also the lot of the Christian when his/her faith is weak or ignored. All the theological arguments to the contrary cannot disprove that statement. The simple fact is, all the verbs used in Romans 7:14-25 are present tense.

Only the depraved revel in their sin. Accrediting "reveling" in sin to a believer is unbiblical. I would ask why Paul writes of a "Godly sorrow" leading to repentance? The unbeliever is incapable of Godly sorrow.

2 Corinthians 7
8 For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it-for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while -
9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.
10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. ​

The Corinthians were without doubt believers. Yet they sinned greatly in approving of the sin of the young man who was sleeping with his stepmother. It required Paul's intervention to get them to repent, and as a result of following Paul's instruction and putting the man out of the church, he also repented, he also being a believer. These passages tell me that sin in the believer is not so simple as ...

Christians can be trapped in -- here it comes -- strongholds of their own making. The "construction process" almost always began before their salvation, but the stronghold persists long afterwards in some cases. It is not torn down on the first day in all cases. That neither negates their salvation, nor their imputed righteousness from Christ. It proves nothing other than sin is difficult to overcome when the Spirit and the flesh live next to one another, and they do so in all of us. There but for the grace of God ...

 

I think one must distinguish between visible fruit versus invisible fruit (Rom. 7:18). Hence, just because at any given time visible fruit cannot be seen, or worse yet at such a given time fruit of the flesh is being seen outwardly, that does not provide a platform to make the absolute charge there is no fruit because it cannot be observed with the eye as in his "righteous heart was vexed" but his external life did not convey it.

 

May I ask you some questions and ask you to carefully think about them before answering?

1. What is born again? Is it your body? Is it your soul? Is it your spirit? (see Jn. 3:6).

2. The new creature is what has been "created in Christ Jesus" by quickening (Eph. 2:1,5,10). Has your body been quickened?

3. Why does the person in Romans 7:14-25 distinguish between different aspects of his human nature when it comes to the source of sin? He says it is no longer "I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" "that is in my flesh"???

4. Why is the Christian exhorted to "put on" the new man and "put off" the old man if he is all new creature???

5. What aspect of the unregenerated man "delights in the law of God" - Rom. 7:21 when considering Romans 8:7?

 

If you think about this, it would make sense that some holding to LS doctrine would no longer see us as even having a sinful nature/flesh, as that would mean that any sinning would be done by either us in our new naturers, or the Holy spirit, so of course no real saint would do that!

So if you continue to have some sin issues...

 

Very well stated....

Though I still struggle trying to figure if as Christians, the sin nature has been eradicated...

Some things just take more time in pounding out...

 

Paul also clearly states in Galatians 5:16, 17 that the Spirit and the flesh are at war with one another in the believer. So while the new creation exists, the "old man" is easily resurrected if the believer fails to call upon the Spirit's leadership.

Then how does Paul say what is clearly said in the Galatians passage?

This makes more sense than the statements made earlier in the same post. The reason the Christian battles the flesh is because it is not put to death in reality, but only spiritually. Abandoning the leadership of the Spirit puts the believer back into the flesh, to act on his own will.

 

convicted1

:wavey: Correct Con 1 and I would like to publically thank you for seeing this correctly and speaking to it.

When I ask this poster to respond to questions I ask him based on His posts he does not respond. If I suggest he uses scripture...he hides, but will say something like this????

 

The Biblicist

563 “…if we died with him…” (sunapeqa,nomen)., i.e., were identified or brought into union in his death.

564 Eph. 4:22–24 should read as does Col. 3:10—as a present condition based on a past fact, i.e., “you have [already] put on…you have [already] put off…” not as a command.

Cf. the use of the aor. inf. of result, which views the action as past. 220
:thumbs::wavey::thumbs:

 

Can't find a way...and not trying to, either....to disagree with this...


:thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Antime my Brother, anytime.....too much slandering going on in here....needs to be stopped....


If you're expecting more than three verses from him, you'll be disappointed....

 

You would do well to find out if scripture even supports this supposed "sin nature" that Protestants and Catholics speak of

The early Greek thinking church used "nature" in a totally different way than the Western, Latin thinking church does

To the early church, "nature" meant substance - spirit nature and flesh nature. Spirit and body. Dichotomy of substance. Immaterial nature and material nature.

With a Western, Latin mindset, "nature" morphed into construct and disposition. Bent and inclination.


Nobody is made with two "natures" inside of them, elsewise you would be made with two spirit beings inside of you. If you have two spirit beings inside of you at birth, one of them is a demon. You have one material nature, your physical body. You have one immaterial nature, your spirit.

The material nature, coming from Adam, is corrupt and sinful from conception.

The immaterial, coming from God, is not created in corruption, nor did Adam have the power to corrupt what God would later make. God breathes into each of us a sinless inner being. But at that time when each of us goes his own way, we become altogether corrupted.

The Biblicist asked what is born again - spirit, soul, body? That's an excellent question, and one which is lacking an answer in virtually all the church.

He is referring to substance. Which aspect of your substance is born again? So why does almost all of Christendom reduce "born again" to a mere change in disposition?

There is a recreation of your inner being. All your sins are removed by the blood of Christ. You are washed, cleansed, purified, and have put on a NEW MAN in your unseen parts.

Then you become a partaker of the Divine Nature, the Holy Spirit. He comes to dwell in you when you believe. So now you have YOUR sinless spirit and HIS sinless Spirit in you.

And you are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of bodily redemption, when your material "nature" will be raised from the ground a new creation with all the sin removed from your body

That's why 1John 3:9 says that the one who is born of God is not able to sin, yet he says in 1:8 that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves. He's striking against Gnosticism, which taught that we are a spirit being looking to escape the material world, so the flesh does not matter.

We are not. We are looking for our sin-wrecked body to be redeemed just as our spirit being has already been


Born Again is a LITERAL removal of sin. That's why Paul says he rejoices in his inner man, but fails in his flesh. He says in Titus 3:5 that we have been washed in regeneration, and Jesus calls the resurrection by the same word, regeneration, in Matthew 19:8-29.