“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[minkymurph]

After much discussion here, pre-destination, OSAS, double pre-destination so on and so forth are to me, no more than theological opinions and interpretations. Maybe someone who falls wasn’t ‘really’ saved in the first place but I don’t see how anyone could know that and I have never met anyone who believes they can state with any great deal of clarity who these individuals are other then themselves. Therefore, it’s theological opinion which to me has little value other than for the individual who believes it as it gives them a reassurance that other faiths perhaps cannot.

I would also say that God’s eternal plan, pre-destination and who are REALLY saved as indivuiduals, has not been revealed to us yet. We as believers hope to counted among those who receive eternal salvation but until we do, how can we be sure of any theological opinion or interpretation of scripture. I don’t believe we need to guess at what has not been revealed yet, we will know when God reveals it. I would also say that there are many who come up with interpretations of scripture in order to create the impression that they have some special kind of insight into the word of God and therefore, their interpretaions should be believed. Why should I believe Calvin any more than anyone else?

As a believer in Jesus, I would state that I am compelled to believe theological opinions and interpretations of scripture that are infallible and only what is infallible. I am not under obligation to believe theological opnions or interpretations of scripture that are open to human falliblity. I have yet to come across anyone who is prepared to stand over these teachings and state they believe they are infallible.and saying, ‘it’s in the Bible’ which is the answer I am often given when I ask if a person believes this teaching is infallible, is an inadequate answer.

 

[sola_scriptura]

My own view is similar to sola_scriptura’s in many respects vis a vie predestination. However, there are some differences.

Differences aside, though, Ruthie, predestination is a teaching of Scripture and shouldn’t be denied. We should simply believe what Scripture teaches about it. Some of the conclusions that are drawn about it, however, must be rejected as well.

It is there in Scripture to comfort troubled Christians and not meant to reveal to us the hidden will of God.

I know Luther didn’t go as far as Calvin (frankly Luther was the type of guy who wasn’t capable of ever even lifting a sword in violence against another man – even though it is legitimate self defense, he was quite a guy and one of my personal favorites in Christian history).

However, Calvin does bring hard rigorous logic to the table. God chooses all sorts of men to do His work. Luther was one type Calvin yet another.

The fact is everything is decreed by God. Not only was the reformation decreed but even the reason behind it was decreed. If God wanted to He could have softened Pope Leo’s heart toward Luther, but He did not, because God wanted the reformation to reach its full end.

If the reformation would have died out there would have never been a counter-reformation. If the church would maintained control over things who knows if we would have ever colonized North America. Who knows if the industrial revolution could have happened under such an oppressive regime. Would we ever have had men like John Locke or George Washington?

God decrees everything – Calvin just took this to its logical end. If faith is given by God, and perseverance the result of predestination, and if those who do not believe are condemned (whatever condemnation means in this context) then God must have decreed both. It’s illogical to assume otherwise.

Does this mean that God actively prevents the reprobate from having faith? This is a very hyper-Calvinist view I generally reject. God does harden hearts, however, in the general sense reprobation is presented by reformed protestants as a mere passing over. Since grace is required for regeneration then a denial of grace itself prevents regeneration and hence salvation.

In other words, even if by omission (merely not affording grace to some), God decrees reprobation. The logic seems undeniable?

 

[Ronald_E]

I think we are predestined to hate authority because human authority has abandoned us and harmed us. Authority has made demands of us that have been cruel and abusive. As soon as we gain a little freedom or courage to speak we reject all authority unless they agree with our anger about authority.
Likes attract likes in relationship based on the underlying disposition of each person. How each expresses that disposition may be superficially different but it is the same disposition.

To be truly free we must be honest with ourselves first, before we can be honest with God about our sins. Once we are honest with God we can be honest with others.

OSAS was a reaction to the hatred of all authority and created the self as authority. In being one’s own authority about God’s Word OSAS becomes the highway to heaven without any off-ramps. OSAS is the fast-food restaurant of theology.

 

[sola_scriptura]

After much discussion here, pre-destination, OSAS, double pre-destination so on and so forth are to me, no more than theological opinions and interpretations. Maybe someone who falls wasn’t ‘really’ saved in the first place but I don’t see how anyone could know that and I have never met anyone who believes they can state with any great deal of clarity who these individuals are other then themselves. Therefore, it’s theological opinion which to me has little value other than for the individual who believes it as it gives them a reassurance that other faiths perhaps cannot.

In general everything outside of Scripture is interpretation, whether informed or not it’s still opinion in a very technical sense. However, I find much logic in the idea of double predestination. I just wrote a response (see just above this one). Beyond that we see that Paul had this level of confidence in not only his own election but those in the early churches he built.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

However, while the idea of predestination and a high level of security in our own election enjoys ample support by scripture, there is no passages stating the reprobate are predestined to hell. There is support for this idea (i.e. John 3:18), however, no passages that expressly states this. It is a logical conclusion; and so yes in a technical sense we might say opinion.

However, logic is logic. If we must be predestined to be saved (see Eph. 1:4-5, Acts 13:48, etc.) then what of those who are not predestined? We have this loose string out there and IMO Calvin tied it. If God must do A for B to happen, then by not doing A He prevents B from happening (A = apportioning grace, B = individual salvation). By preventing B from occurring then necessarily C happens (C = condemnation). Assuming God is a perfectly rational being who knows the consequence of His actions then we must assume His decrees (whether the action is affirmative or negative – meaning giving grace or not giving it) are a manifestation of His providence.

This is the logic that led me to the Reformed view.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I think we are predestined to hate authority because human authority has abandoned us and harmed us. Authority has made demands of us that have been cruel and abusive. As soon as we gain a little freedom or courage to speak we reject all authority unless they agree with our anger about authority.
Likes attract likes in relationship based on the underlying disposition of each person. How each expresses that disposition may be superficially different but it is the same disposition.

To be truly free we must be honest with ourselves first, before we can be honest with God about our sins. Once we are honest with God we can be honest with others.

OSAS was a reaction to the hatred of all authority and created the self as authority. In being one’s own authority about God’s Word OSAS becomes the highway to heaven without any off-ramps. OSAS is the fast-food restaurant of theology.

I’m not sure if I agree with your entire statement, but I do agree with your conclusion. OSAS represents perhaps the most erroneous exegetical conclusions in contemporary Christianity (although I also think some doctrines within Mariology, intercession (particularly), patronage, and to some extent the use of icons rank up there as well).

OSAS has done much harm to the sound reformed doctrine of perseverance. I’m looking forward to seeing the doctrine dealt with – in fact I firmly believe Reformed churches must lead in dealing with this problem.

 

[ellammcg]

OSAS has done much harm to the sound reformed doctrine of perseverance. I’m looking forward to seeing the doctrine dealt with – in fact I firmly believe Reformed churches must lead in dealing with this problem.

What is the “reformed doctrine of perserverence”? Is that staying faithful to the end or something else?

 

[Jimmy_B]

What is the “reformed doctrine of perserverence”? Is that staying faithful to the end or something else?

Great question…Let’s see if sola_scriptura can answer this question, using a couple sentences…It is his belief, after all …

 

[minkymurph]

However, logic is logic. If we must be predestined to be saved (see Eph. 1:4-5, Acts 13:48, etc.) then what of those who are not predestined? We have this loose string out there and IMO Calvin tied it. If God must do A for B to happen, then by not doing A He prevents B from happening (A = apportioning grace, B = individual salvation). By preventing B from occurring then necessarily C happens (C = condemnation). Assuming God is a perfectly rational being who knows the consequence of His actions then we must assume His decrees (whether the action is affirmative or negative – meaning giving grace or not giving it) are a manifestation of His providence.

This is the logic that led me to the Reformed view.

Logic is not faith and not necessarily truth.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Logic is not faith and not necessarily truth.

Paul said let us reason together. Indeed faith in the unseen is in itself not logical from an empirical standpoint. However, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible is logical if we have faith. It cannot be understood as saying things it does not mean. Moreover, it must be understood as a perfectly consistent document. The logic is not faith argument therefore cannot win the day. To the faithful it is perfectly logical. To the reprobate it’s stupidity.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Great question…Let’s see if sola_scriptura can answer this question, using a couple sentences…It is his belief, after all …

The doctrine of perseverance is derived mostly from the confidence the Apostles had not only regarding their own election, but also that of the faithful they converted.

Luke felt this confidence regarding those who believed (Acts 13:48)?

The following passages also reflect the confidence of Paul:

*Ephesians 4:30: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

Philippians 1:6: “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 1:5: “[The elect] by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Romans 8:38-39: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.*

Paul describes the Holy Spirit of God as a “seal” and expressed certainty that the good work began in us will bring us to completion. Peter said the elect are guarded by God’s power – for salvation.

Calvinists do not buy into the idea of OSAS (eternal assurance); and practically speaking we do not claim to know who the elect are. Our doctrine of Perseverance merely reflects the confidence and certainty of Paul and the other Apostles as expressed in Scripture. It is clear that we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 9:14-23), chosen before the founding of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5), and we may have the confidence and certainty in our own election that Paul expressed so fervently. It is also clear that Paul wanted us to have this certainty and therefore it must be a good thing. It is faith in not just the existence of God and Christ and His sacrifice and resurrection, but also in the righteousness of God; a trust that God will keep His promise to us.

This level of trust in and reliance on God and a high view of His sovereignty and providence really gives us the fortitude to endure.

Sorry Jimmy, this is as short as I can describe it in.

 

[guanophore]

We believe if one reverts back to a life of sin and dies in a state of apostasy then they were likely never saved to begin with.

In addition to this concept being unscriptural and contrary to the Apostolic Teaching, it also seems to defy common sense. One cannot be in a state of “apostasy” if they were not in a state of faith in the first place. One does not fall away from something to which one was not clinging.

The other images in scripture which are well addressed just above about being “cut off” and being “in HIm” then found outside attest to the fact that people were in a state of grace, then left it.

One of these days I am going to collate all the conditional phrases about salvation that use “if” so that I can post them at times like this.

If, however, one slips and reverts back into sin for a period but returns (as the prodigal son did) and repents and dies in right standing with God then we acknowledge they did not lose their salvation. In other words the doctrine simply acknowledges predestination for what it is – a past act by God not an ongoing process.

The prodigal son could have died in the pig stye. He would be no less his father’s son, but having squandered his inheritance and refused to repent, would be a lost son.

This was the state of the vast majority of the nation of Israel. They were chosen by God, but did not recognize their saviour. They were cut off, and the Gentiles were grafted into the tree.

If God predestined you and I before the founding of the world (as Ephesians 1:4-5 clearly states) then if we are truly saved we will persevere. If we do not persevere then we were never saved to begin with. I think it would be a rare occurrence, if it’s possible at all, for one of the elect to be lost.

It is definitely possible.

I’m not a Baptist or Evangelical so I’m not an expert on OSAS (except to note there are differences between OSAS and perseverance). I do, however, think that many Evangelicals don’t truly understand their own doctrine.

I agree with you, and will add that this is also the case for Catholics. I just read further up the thread where (I think) a Catholic implied that predestination is an “error”.!

I cannot believe that any church would preach we can confess Christ one day and then turn around and become a drunken, adulteress, criminal – and die with a swig of whiskey in our mouth, with our last word being a drunken belch. If this is what OSAS means then it’s heretical, but I don’t think that properly characterizes the doctrine.

It can and does happen. We are in agreement that it is heretical, and that such behavior does not properly characterize the doctrine.

The idea that we are saved by grace, and not of ourselves (meaning not through our own efforts or will) seems to abrogate the idea that we are responsible in any way for salvation.

It may seem that way, but it does not. God provides the grace that brings us to repentance, the grace of cleansing, and the grace to persevere. The fact that we choose to participate in that grace does not change the basis of salvation, which is by grace, through faith, and not of our own works.

We are responsible to respond to His grace.

 

[guanophore]

In general everything outside of Scripture is interpretation, whether informed or not it’s still opinion in a very technical sense. However, I find much logic in the idea of double predestination. I just wrote a response (see just above this one). Beyond that we see that Paul had this level of confidence in not only his own election but those in the early churches he built.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

Did he?

" Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. 26 So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; 27 but I punish my body and enslave it,** so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified."** 1 Cor 9:24-27

“Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.”
Phil 3:12-16

It seems to me that Paul is saying that OSAS is an immature frame of mind…

 

[sola_scriptura]

Did he?

" Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. 26 So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; 27 but I punish my body and enslave it,** so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified."** 1 Cor 9:24-27

“Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.”
Phil 3:12-16

It seems to me that Paul is saying that OSAS is an immature frame of mind…

Then I’m glad I don’t ascribe to OSAS …

 

[sola_scriptura]

In addition to this concept being unscriptural and contrary to the Apostolic Teaching, it also seems to defy common sense. One cannot be in a state of “apostasy” if they were not in a state of faith in the first place. One does not fall away from something to which one was not clinging.

This is my point, so yes I agree.

The prodigal son could have died in the pig stye. He would be no less his father’s son, but having squandered his inheritance and refused to repent, would be a lost son.

I do not think the prodigal son could have been lost. This is a message to the elect that if you’ve slipped and fallen, even if you left fellowship with God, you will be welcomed upon your return. However, this really doesn’t speak to election per se. The prodigal sons will all return to the Lord:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day (John 6:37-39).

This was the state of the vast majority of the nation of Israel. They were chosen by God, but did not recognize their saviour. They were cut off, and the Gentiles were grafted into the tree.

you have to elaborate on this. In essence yes the Israelites were chosen by God, called by Him, but very few were (a remnant) were ultimately retained by God. That remnant were the elect, not the general Jewish population.

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (Romans 11:1-4).

In fact the others who stumbled over the stumbling stone were not predestined for salvation, but rather for something else:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory (Romans 9:22-23).

It is definitely possible.

I have to disagree here. I do not think the “elect” can fail. The very idea would seem to abrogate divine omniscience.

I agree with you, and will add that this is also the case for Catholics. I just read further up the thread where (I think) a Catholic implied that predestination is an “error”.!

It can and does happen. We are in agreement that it is heretical, and that such behavior does not properly characterize the doctrine.

sad but true …

It may seem that way, but it does not. God provides the grace that brings us to repentance, the grace of cleansing, and the grace to persevere. The fact that we choose to participate in that grace does not change the basis of salvation, which is by grace, through faith, and not of our own works.

We are responsible to respond to His grace.

For many years I felt we were responsible for responding to grace. However, if our response to grace is a prerequisite for salvation then it seems as if grace is no longer grace – but something wrought through our own endeavor.

In a practical sense yes we become holy, we are fervent in worship, study, love, humility, charity, and all these things. How can we not be – we’re the elect. It is said if we are to boast then boast about God, not about ourselves. I give no credit to me for my salvation … not a shred. God lifted me from the ashes so to speak & frankly there’s was little about me that a God could like

There was no freedom in my will – before I was a slave to sin, freed from sin now I’m a slave to God. I’ll be the guy shining Jesus’ shoes in heaven!

 

[ellammcg]

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day (John 6:37-39).

I’ll be the guy shining Jesus’ shoes in heaven!

#1. I wonder how that squares against the following two verses?
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
KJV Jn 17:11-12

#2. shoes in heaven? depressing thought for me, ecstatic thought for my daughter

 

[Jimmy_B]

I have to disagree here. I do not think the “elect” can fail. The very idea would seem to abrogate divine omniscience.

Does this mean that these “elect” never sin?

 

[sola_scriptura]

#1. I wonder how that squares against the following two verses?
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
KJV Jn 17:11-12

#2. shoes in heaven? depressing thought for me, ecstatic thought for my daughter

Jesus prayed to God for the holiness of His elect. I’m not sure how this should diminish the confidence the elect may have in their own salvation.

Our confidence means that we totally rely on God for our holiness, realizing that it is not something we can achieve through our own efforts. We have faith in God’s righteousness; that He will always intervene on our behalf in all matters. For those who love God all things work for the good.

Our confidence is really because we have faith in God’s righteousness. We believe God will not break His promise. We truly believe the Holy Spirit dwells within us, we don’t just think it might be possible. We do not believe God would have regenerated us if He did not want to save us. We have faith, God’s promise was whosoever believed in the one He sent shall not be put to shame.

I’m not sure why you think this confidence is so bad? Why Christians should go around thinking God might let us down?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Does this mean that these “elect” never sin?

Of course not, but we do believe we are reborn and strive unto sanctification. Our rebirth means we are new men, no longer slaves to sin. Freed from sin we are now slaves to God. This means we are in fact a new being, one who will avoid sin.

If we do stumble on account of the infirmities of our flesh we have every confidence that our advocate in heaven, our one mediator, will speak for our behalf before the Father; and will forgive us. To think otherwise gives the devil an edge. It gives him the ability to separate you and I from God every time we stumble. If we think with every small mistake we make that we will be doomed the devil delights.

Moreover, such a belief reflects a lack of confidence in God’s righteousness. To think God will cast away His children for making mistakes is to think of God as unlike any other father. One who would cast his children out of his house for making mistakes – when children will always make mistakes. Is that the God we see in the prodigal son? Of course not.

 

[cazayoux]

Moreover, such a belief reflects a lack of confidence in God’s righteousness. To think God will cast away His children for making mistakes is to think of God as unlike any other father. One who would cast his children out of his house for making mistakes – when children will always make mistakes. Is that the God we see in the prodigal son? Of course not.

Exactly.
And Jesus left a method to deal with an individual reconciling himself with the Lord after such a failing.
John 20:23
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

How are these men to forgive sins of individuals, if those individuals do not first tell their sins?

michel

 

[minkymurph]

The logic is not faith argument therefore cannot win the day. To the faithful it is perfectly logical. To the reprobate it’s stupidity.

It’s not about winning, it’s about truth. I’ve no doubt many people think OSAS and double pre-destination are perfectly logical and routed in scripture. That does not in itself make these beliefs true. It does not necessarily make them untrue; however human logic is subject to human fallibility even if it is claimed that that logic is derived from scripture. There are many logical arguements that are reputed to be derived from scripture. Which one of them is true and why?

God is not simply a God of logic and reason. He is a God not just of truth, but divine truth which he communicates to mankind. I could come up with numerous interpretations of certain passages of scripture but I would not claim any of them to be divine truth and I would not say that anyone else is compelled to believe my interpretation in order to gain salvation.

If we can all interpret scripture for ourselves however, why should my interpretations not carry the same weight as Calvin or Luther? If Calvin was right, then Luther must have been wrong as they disagreed. In that case you would have to question not only everything he said, but the Bible itself due to the fact that Luther accepted the Canon of scripture decided by the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church cannot interpret scripture, what if they where wrong in their decision regarding the Canon of Scripture? It could be argued that Luther and Calvin, who disagreed with each other, agreed with the Church on the Canon of scripture and they did not accept books that supported Catholic beliefs, but why did they accept all others? Surely the Catholic Church can’t have got something right?