Can someone who believes in OSAS help me?

[Church_Militant]

sonseeker:

No, that is what you (pl.) do! Do you realize that you call it “dangerously” following?

You too, need to first understand the doctrine, before any fruitful discussion. Read the Boettner book above, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. A studied reading will take you several months; perhaps then we can discuss it.Except for the fact that you reverse the players, your analogy is superb! Remember, Christ is the groom! The church is the bride—the true believer! Christ will take care of the true believer, and help him in every way; He will never go His merry way, leaving the true believer; He will never commit adultery, though the true believer may (see Lk 22:31; 54-62), but Christ will restore him, (Jn 21:15-17). The true believer will never leave Christ, because, (“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.” [Jn 10:29-30]) the Father will not allow it, and because the Father and the Son are one, neither will the Son allow it.

As you rightly say that Christ says, “no matter what…we will always be married.”

Read the book; perhaps then, I will discuss it with you.

Bill,
If you are getting your information concerning Catholicism from James White and Lorraine Boettner then I can assure you that there will be almost no meaningful dialogue. White and Boettner both propound erroneous info about our most holy faith and in Boettner’s case it is mostly misinformation.

Have you read Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” which details the story on Boettner?
Here’s a very good article. The Anti Catholic Bible

I personally will not read anything by either author…I’ve read stuff on White’s own site and I have no use for such outright lies.

Catholicism rejects predestination as you very well know. And there is nothing in the ECF writings that would support it as well. If the early church did not believe it then why should those of us who follow their doctrines?
Pax tecum,

 

[sonseeker]

Elzee:

Thanks for clarifying - I really didn’t mean for the multiple choice to be constraining - I thought it would help clarify to the responder* my*

confusion on OSAS and the difficulty I’m having understanding its application. These were the only ‘answers’ I personally could come up with, so I listed them - I just can’t figure out which one is correct. If none of them are, then yes, please just give me the correct answer!OK. Here goes.

First of all, your questions are biased; you have (probably unwittingly) “loaded” them. Likewise, I am not charismatic, so I don’t view speaking in tongues as an evidence of salvation, but that is another topic.

It could be #3, except for the statement, “I’ve given up my salvation through my own choice,” Scripturally, it is not your choice to give up the salvation you have been given, nor could I understand why you would. Salvation is from God, and if He has determined that you will be saved, then you will be saved. Where it could be #3 is in the statement, “if I repent and turn back…Jesus will always welcome me back.” This is illustrated in Peter’s thrice denying the Lord Lk 22:54-62. Peter denied three times, as the Lord said he would. After realizing what he had done, Peter went out and wept bitterly v62; that is repentance. And Jesus restores Peter in Jn 21:15-17.

It could be #2, but for the statement, “I now totally reject Christ, and His work on the cross and actively try to get others to reject Him.” If you have totally rejected Him, then you fall more under question #1.

IMHO, the best answer to the questions as worded is #1. Read the parable of the sower, Lk 8:5-10. Below is the Lord’s explanation of the parable

Luke 8:11-15: “Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
12 “*Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. *

13 “*Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. *

14 “*The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. *

15 “But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Those in your questions #’s 1 & 2, fit into one of the three descriptions given in vv12, 13, or 14. The true believer is seen in v15. If we do the math, 75% of those who hear and say they believe, do not “truly” believe. According to the Lord, only 25% truly believe. Though I know that this is a parable, the numbers are interesting.

Elzee:

Would the answers to the above questions be different if I didnt’t reject my Christianity but perhaps instead entered the world of child pornography or mass murdering? I still believe that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that all my sins - past, present, and future - are forgiven and paid for through the work of Jesus on the cross. I’m just not living like I believe it.

While this is theoretically possible, as explained by Matt 16_18 in his statement on antinomianism, personally, I don’t believe that it is practically possible. How could anyone who is saved and indwelt by the H.S. do either of those two things? The whole idea is contrary to the statements concerning the Spirit’s indwelling of the believer; He is given as a seal, and a guarantee.

 

[sonseeker]

Church Militant:

Bill,
If you are getting your information concerning Catholicism from James White and Lorraine Boettner then I can assure you that there will be almost no meaningful dialogue. White and Boettner both propound erroneous info about our most holy faith and in Boettner’s case it is mostly misinformation.

Have you read Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” which details the story on Boettner?
Here’s a very good article. The Anti Catholic Bible

I personally will not read anything by either author…I’ve read stuff on White’s own site and I have no use for such outright lies.

Catholicism rejects predestination as you very well know. And there is nothing in the ECF writings that would support it as well. If the early church did not believe it then why should those of us who follow their doctrines?
Pax tecum,

Hi Michael,

I understand that you dislike both men. As far as the books that I have recommended by them, one will get an understanding of sola scriptura, and an understanding about the reformed doctrine of predestination, allowing one to discuss/argue from a more imformed position; it seems that is what Elzee is after. Then perhaps she will not have such a “misunderstanding” of the those two doctrines. If you don’t want to read them, then don’t read them; I am not insisting that you, nor anyone else do. I have read refutations concerning Boettner’s book on Catholicism. I do not read him for those views, but rather for his astute works concerning doctrine. Same for White, he is well-versed in the languages, and so, is a sound exegete. I’ll look for Keating’s book.

 

[sonseeker]

deb1:

If you aren’t going to answer the question or if you think that we are too dull to understand then why post in the first place? By the way, I am the former member of a very fundamentalist Baptist church. I might understand more then you think about sola scriptura.

Sorry, but, going by your questions concerning sola scriptura in your post #7, you sound as though you know nothing about it.

deb1:

Just a question, doesn’t James White have connections to Alpha Omega? And isn’t Bottener(sorry about spelling) an anti catholic? If I read these books, would you read any Catholic book that people on this site suggested to you?

White is Alpha Omega; I believe Boettner was Presbyterian.

 

[Elzee]

sonseeker:

OK. Here goes.

First of all, your questions are biased; you have (probably unwittingly) “loaded” them. Likewise, I am not charismatic, so I don’t view speaking in tongues as an evidence of salvation, but that is another topic…

IMHO, the best answer to the questions as worded is #1. Read the parable of the sower, Lk 8:5-10. Below is the Lord’s explanation of the parable

Luke 8:11-15: “Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
12 “*Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. *

13 “*Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. *

14 “*The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. *

15 “But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance..

Thanks for taking so much time to answer me. I didn’t mean to load the questions - thanks for realizing that. After reading your reply I still have one of the same questions I started out with though…I totally agree with the passages you quote above and I think Verse 13 might best explain my confusion. Your response said that my #1 (the person was not really saved to begin with) was the best choice given what I provided (please feel free to rewrord it by the way). I’m not a scripture scholar or skilled apologist by any stretch of the imagination as you can tell from my posts on this forum, but Verse 13 says the person DID believe. These people ‘believed for awhile…’., much as the person in my example. But, they fell away. Much like the person in my example. He DID at one time believe. How can someone be 100% sure of his salvation *for the rest of his life *just because he believes now…how does he know he won’t fall away as stated in the parable?

Also, perhaps if you replace the extreme example of my last scenario with a homosexual lifestyle, adultery, or adult pornography, it would not be as improbable. But, even if it happened only once, I guess it still begs the same question…*if it is possible to fall away, how do you know that if you believe now you won’t fall away years from now? And, now that I think about it more, by the very fact that the parable says it’s possible to fall away, doesn’t that contradict OSAS? Or, is it just that OSAS is correct, but you never really know if you are saved or not until you die because you could be deceiving yourself and just think you are saved. I guess I’ve come full circle . Sorry, I’m not much better off now than when I started. *

Thanks for taking the time to address my questions.

 

[Matt16_18]

Elzee:

After reading your reply I still have one of the same questions I started out with though… Verse 13 says the person DID believe. These people ‘believed for awhile…’., much as the person in my example. But, they fell away. Much like the person in my example. He DID at one time believe. How can someone be 100% sure of his salvation *for the rest of his life *just because he believes now…how does he know he won’t fall away as stated in the parable?

… the very fact that the parable says it’s possible to fall away, doesn’t that contradict OSAS? … I guess I’ve come full circle . Sorry, I’m not much better off now than when I started.

The parable about the seeds sown on the path does indeed contradict both versions of OSAS (the antinomian version and the Calvinist version). Sonseeker is a believer in the Calvinist version of OSAS, and he believes that neither angels nor men have free will, which is why he says, “Scripturally, it is not your choice to give up the salvation you have been given”.

Now there is nothing at all “scriptural” about sonseeker’s version of OSAS, since his Calvinist-OSAS teaches that it is impossible for real Christians to be damned for being unrepentant apostates. As you are aware, even a cursory reading of scriptures shows that scriptures clearly teach that Christians can fall away, and that Christians can be come apostates. But the Calvinist-OSAS believers assert that “real” Christians cannot fall away or become apostates since irresistable grace is forced on the elect, and the elect have no choice but to be holy. So who are the people in scripture that fall away and commit the sin of apostasy? What would a non-Christian fall away from - his sinful state? And why would scriptures warn about the sin of apostasy if real Christians cannot commit this sin? How, exactly, could a non-Christian ever commit the sin of apostasy?

The central belief of Calvinist-OSAS is the absurd heresy that neither men nor angels have free will. If that is true, then there is no sense in which we say that Lucifer and Adam rebelled against the will of God. No, Lucifer and Adam were only being obedient to God’s will when they were disobedient to God’s will! Is this irrational? You bet it is, and that is why you can’t comprehend this version of OSAS – it can’t be comprehended because it is irrational and full of contradiction. The believer in Calvinist-OSAS is stuck with the irrational belief that God’s will contradicts God’s will, and they are boxed into the blasphemous assertion that the Holy and Almighty God is the source and cause of all evil in the world!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholics4Life:

I have had different answers to a similiar question/scenario.

Some have told me that no matter what you do it doesn’t matter, because once you are saved, nothing, not even mass murdering can keep you out of Heaven.

Apart from anything else, such things are “spiritually apprehended” - the “natural man” cannot “receive” them, see 1 Corinthians 2. Only a Christian has the capacity to “make sense of” what God reveals, and only very incompletely - intellectual activity by itself cannot make God’s dealings intelligible to us. This is why grace and the Holy Spirit are so necessary: and why Christians can believe in order to understand, rather than understanding in order to believe. Intellectual effort by itself cannot make God’s ways intelligible, let alone adorable.​

A Christian will not want to commit mass murder - or any sin at all. He will want to glorify His Glorious Redeemer by the graciousness of his discipleship & his works: the more he grows to love God, the more abominable & foul the very thought of sin will become. The godlier the Christian, the more will the sins in his own heart - so far as it is still not fully regenerated - be a burden to him.

Depicting OSAS as though it were necessarily immoral, is the same as depicting Confession as necessarily immoral: both Calvinists and Catholics (for instance) are redeemed sinners - so both are capable of deeply unChristian behaviour. What both caricatures miss, is that grace is given, not to let us sin on more, but that we may sin no more. Calvinists know this as well as Catholics

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that because Catholics can have a moral certainty of being in Christ’s grace, they will then conclude that they are free to treat Him like vomit. People do not mug and batter and harm and hate and kill their friends - and He is far more and far better than that to us. What Catholic thinks he is free to hate Christ, on the plea that he can always be forgiven, by getting more grace ? The same applies to those who believe in OSAS - it is not an excuse for sin, but a powerful rebuke to it: however much it is abused by being turned into an encouragement to it. Love is not hate - sinning is not living holily - valuing grace is not the same as puking on it. Calvinists know this as well as Catholics.

Election involves moral responsibility - why is this so hard to grasp ? To be elect, does not imply that one is free to sin on more: it obliges one to live holily, graciously, Christly. It is a mighty powerful motive for a Christian to live in a way which glorifies God, edifies his brethren, and silences objectors. To judge a creed by its worst potential or actual distortions, is no way to understand it. ##

Others have told me that if you turn away from Jesus then you were never really saved,

It appears to be taken for granted that one’s whole life in God’s eyes can be deduced from one’s state at a given moment, as man sees it. Neither Scripture nor the Church support such an idea. One can lose awareness of one’s election for a time - as a punishment, say - without ceasing to be elect, & without being deprived of regaining this certainty after one is converted again. God is the most gracious & faithful Father of the elect, and though he chastises them for their sins, He does not reject them finally; because they are His, & not their own. So they may often be outwardly identical in* appearance* to the non-elect - but not in reality.​

even if you had originally thought you were and had accepted Jesus as your Saviour with your words and had meant it from your heart.

Our acceptance of Christ is not what is most important: our hearts can speak to that of God, only if He has already spoken to ours. God’s electing gracious Love is the basis for our ability to love God - we cannot love God, unless He - not we ! - take the first step. To think of anything being good or firm without God, makes no sense: He is the only Author of all good & all being. We have no good in us, which is not originally from God.​

Onlookers cannot judge from the life of a backsliding Christian that he is not elect; election is not defeated by our backsliding - God’s mercy is glorified by His faithfulness to those who are not faithful to Him. Perseverance depends on nothing native to man - it depends wholly on the faithful Love of God. Our sins do not make God less of an electing God than He is - they show forth:

• His mercy and
• His justice &
• His righteousness &
• His faithful covenantal Love: they show, not our goodness - but His.

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

Perseverance must not be confused with election - they are related, but not the same thing. As for election - the Calvinist scheme seems to be a single-step one, whereas the Catholic presentation has traditionally been a two-step one: predestination to grace - predestination to glory. And one can be predestined to grace, without being predestined to glory. There are other differences between the Catholic & Calvinist schemes as well.

Backsliding is compatible with behaving as non-elect, and it is compatible with being unfaithful to God: that does not alter the reality of God’s activity in the elect. A man may act unworthily of his election - it does not follow he is not elect, or that he has not know he is, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit to his spirit. He is not elect because he is holy & gracious - but that he may become holy & gracious by being found “in Christ” - not by his own native goodness (!!!), but by his union with the Holy & Gracious Christ. It is God’s Christ, not the Christian, Who is the Source of the stability and perseverance of the elect; if they turn from him, this is their fault and their sin - if they behave like heathens as a result, that is to be expected. But God’s disobedient children, are His children still. The elect & the non-elect may be indistinguishable to us - but it does not follow that they are indistinguishable to God.

If the elect man is behaving unworthily of his election - therefore, of his vocation to belong wholly to Christ - he is not going to be helping his capacity to attend to his Father’s voice. So, he will mistake his true state: to ignore God, is no way to learn how to heed Him. How, after all, can one be assured of a salvation which one rejects ? People can make themselves become incapable of accepting what is true - they can make themselves deaf to Christ; it does not in the least follow that He does not seek them, or that their return to Him, does not depend on His drawing them.

Which is why the condition of a Christian who is, at any one time in his life, seen to be unChristian in his mode of life, cannot be used as a disproof of the reality of his election to salvation. He who is fallen, may be raised up again - and he who walks securely now, may in the future fall grievously. That is why being elect, requires one to be energetic in “making [one’s] call and election sure”. It is certain from God’s “side” - but a slippery thing to experience from man’s “side”. Today’s persecutor, may be tomorrow’s apostle. Today’s apostle, may be tomorrow’s apostate. So the human onlooker cannot tell anything of a man’s election or perseverance by considering the man’s present state, whether Christian or not - that is God’s secret.
These things lie open to God, from Whom nothing is hid - they are “a great deep” to us, because we are not God. So our lack of understanding, is no excuse at all for insisting that what we cannot understand, is senseless or incoherent. ##

I don’t understand either belief though and it doesn’t make sense to me either way.

 

[Philthy]

sonseeker:

To understand the sufficiency of the Bible, read Scripture Alone, by James White. Once you have done that, you will understand what is meant by sola scriptura. Perhaps then we can discuss it.

Hi Sonseeker! :yup:

You are too funny! Do you really think James White is the source to go to? I dunno - he didn’t really hold his own on the sufficiency of scripture debate he had with Patrick Madrid. Here - check it out:

aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

As far as I can tell he’s got a big enough mouth, but he’s nobody in the grand scheme of things. As for Boettener, the degree of ignorance he demonstrates in his writings regarding Catholicism and Catholic theology immediately raises suspicion on any other topic he chooses to opine on. Not what I would call a scholar.

In any event, even Catholics believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, but only the material sufficiency and not the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Some would be tempted to say that you also feel Scripture is formally INSUFFICIENT when you ask others to read books not contained in Scripture, no? But I’m sure you have modified the definition of sola scriptura to accommodate reading outside materials to help explain Scripture - so that’s not a problem for you and Jimmy.

Here’s my remaining two cents:

Jesus Christ himself said that if we do not forgive others their sins neither will our Father in heaven forgive us ours. I’ll take the liberty of assuming you believe that forgiveness of sin (by God) is a prerequisite of eternal salvation. It seems pretty simple to realize that people will continue to sin against us throughout our lives - we must continue to forgive them throughout our lives in order to have our own sins forgiven - and until we do, our sins are not yet forgiven. If our sins are not yet forgiven then we are not yet saved. What am I missing?

Phil

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

deb1:

two questions. Will you answer the first question that the OP asked? I thought protestants believed that reading the bible itself was sufficient.

“Sufficient for”… what ?​

• Making ice cream ?
• Shooting a film ?
• Becoming Governor of California ?

None of those, obviously - the point is, that “sufficiency” is a relative thing: a knowledge of Greek sufficient to allow one to name all the letters of the Greek alphabet in their right order, would not necessarily show one had a knowledge of Greek sufficient to allow one to provide an edition of the Greek NT.
A Christian can have grace sufficient to love God - and have insufficient bodily strength to be an athlete.

The OP has recommended books of which some at least - all, perhaps ? - are by Calvinists, so, is presumably a Calvinist. ##

Why do I have to read outside books to understand ‘eternal security’? Doesn’t this violate a commonly held protestant belief?

That depends, on who is doing the holding - and on what belief is being referred to. What belief does reading “outside books” violate ? ​

There is no Calvinist doctrine, at least, that only the Bible is ever to be read. (Pardon the font - that’s just in case anyone seriously thinks that “Sola Scriptura” has such a meaning among Calvinists.) Calvin would never have written The Institutes"), or any of his commentaries, had he thought such a thing. The Westminster Confession (for instance) says nothing of such a notion: it could hardly do so without great self-contradiction.

See also: shortercatechism.com/ (The “Shorter Catechism” is one of the documents which constitute the “Confession”)

Those who believe a doctrine, and are competent to theologise about it, are the people who should best understand what it actually means to them. Calvinists, are the people to learn about Calvinism from.

A snippet which may be relevant to this thread:

"Piety defined by Calvin. In his first Catechism (published in French in 1537 and in Latin in 1538), John Calvin defined the untranslatable word pietas, which for him was the shorthand symbol for his whole understanding and practice of Christian faith and life:

“True piety does not consist in a fear which willingly indeed flees God’s judgment, but since it cannot escape is terrified. True piety consists rather in a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness,** and dreads offending Him worse than death**. And whoever have been endowed with this piety dare not fashion out of their own rashness any God for themselves. Rather, they seek from Him the knowledge of the true God, and conceive Him just as He shows and declares Himself to be.”**" **


##

 

[iwonder]

Elzee:

I posted this question on another thread for ‘Pastor Bob’ but he didn’t answer it. Could someone please help me understand the OSAS position given the scenario I have below? I’ve asked a friend of mine who believes in OSAS but she said it was rather complicated and would need to get back to me (that was about 4 months ago.). I would love to hear from someone who could answer this with concrete answers as opposed to answering it with ‘questions’. OSAS has always confused me and I would honestly like to try and understand it better.

Here’s the scenario:

Let’s say at the age of 15 I accepted Jesus and my Lord and Savior and this faith was obviously what I’ve heard referred to as ‘saving faith’. For 6 years it was obvious my life was dedicated to Jesus - I was active in evangelizing others, was baptized in the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and helped bring many people to the Lord. I was on fire for the Lord. Then I go off to college. I get lazy in my Christian faith and am exposed to people of many different faiths. I become intrigued with a non-Christian faith and 2 years later I begin worshiping with this non-Christian faith, renouncing my Christianity. I no longer believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He is no longer, in my heart or my mind, my Lord and Savior. I am now dedicated to bringing Christians over to my newly found truth and am leading people away from Christ. In this scenario:

1. Was I never saved to begin with, because if I had been, I wouldn’t have rejected Jesus 8 years later? If so, then how would I ever know I was saved since I can’t predict the future? Did I only think I was saved but really wasn’t all those years I was dedicating my life to Jesus?
2. I’m still saved and if died tonight I would to to heaven, even though I now totally reject Christ and his work on the cross and actively try to get others to reject Him?
3. I’ve given up my salvation through my own choice - not God’s - but if I repent and turn back I can once again be assured of my salvation because Jesus will always welcome me back.

Would the answers to the above questions be different if I didnt’t reject my Christianity but perhaps instead entered the world of child pornography or mass murdering? I still believe that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that all my sins - past, present, and future - are forgiven and paid for through the work of Jesus on the cross. I’m just not living like I believe it.

Thank you!

Child- I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. What in the world is and OSAS? Have you thought of finding therapy?

 

[sonseeker]

Elzee:

These people 'believed for awhile

…’ much as the person in my example. But, they fell away. Much like the person in my example. He DID at one time believe. How can someone be 100% sure of his salvation *for the rest of his life *just because he believes now, how does he know he won’t fall away as stated in the parable?

Also, perhaps if you replace the extreme example of my last scenario with a homosexual lifestyle, adultery, or adult pornography, it would not be as improbable. But, even if it happened only once, I guess it still begs the same question…if it is possible to fall away, how do you know that if you believe now you won’t fall away years from now*? *And, now that I think about it more, by the very fact that the parable says it’s possible to fall away, doesn’t that contradict OSAS? Or, is it just that OSAS is correct, but you never really know if you are saved or not until you die because you could be deceiving yourself and just think you are saved. I guess I’ve come full circle. Sorry, I’m not much better off now than when I started.Elzee, it seems to me that your main sticking points are

1. According to the parable it is possible to believe and then to fall away for good, thus disproving OSAS.
2. How do I know if I am a believer?

Notice, again, that there are three types who “believe” and then fall away. But the last type in v15, “hears with an honest heart…holds fast…bears fruit with perseverance;” the one in verse 15 does not fall away.

What the first three lack, the last one possesses, “an honest heart (regenerated), holds fast to what has been heard, bears fruit and perseveres.” In the teaching of the parable, three out of four profess a said belief that does not save. Only one professes a true belief that does save.

Look at Judas Iscariot. He spent a number of years with the Lord, and the other 11, saying that he believed. His faith was a “said faith,” it was not real, saving faith. In the end, he lacked what the one in v 15 possessed: holding fast, bearing fruit, perseverance. Judas did not “truly believe,” as evidenced by his betrayal of the Lord.It would seem that this falling away can take some time. There is no formula given; it may be a week, a month, a year, or many years.

As far as committing the sins you mentioned—gay lifestyle, adultery, pornography—there is only one sin that scripture says is unforgivable, and none of those you list is it. As far as the parable contradicting OSAS, on the contrary, it illustrates it: there are three types who “believe,” but fall away because their faith is not real, and so, cannot save. There is only one who has a faith that is real, and it does save: the one with the honest heart, who holds fast, bears fruit and perseveres.

Your difficulty comes from a system that tells you that cannot know for certain whether you are saved, let alone know that you are always saved. They tell you that you have “been saved, are being saved, and will be saved,” but those words are hollow, because they also tell you that you cannot know for certain. To say that you know that you are truly, and always saved, they say, is presumption. I think that the presumption is telling you that you cannot know, when God’s word tells you that you can know; in fact, you do know, if indeed you are a true believer.

If you want to know the marks of a true believer, so that you can be sure that you are one, read 1 John. The dominant theme of that book is “Christian assurance.” It is a unique kind of assurance, and it has more bearing on how we live our lives than the words themselves would indicate.

1 Jn 5:9 says, “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater.” It goes on to say that God has given us eternal life, and that life is in His Son, and if you have the Son you have life. Your leaders say no; God’s apostles say yes. Paul echoes John; in 2 Cor 1:20, he says all the promises of God in Christ are YES!

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #32)

John’s epistle is very practical, showing that a believer can be assured of his salvation in that God has brought about fundamental changes in his life; that involves truth. He has given him a desire to pursue and obey Christ’s commandments; that involves righteousness. He has given him a new relationship with other believers; that involves love. When all three of those are present, one can claim to have entered into a well-rounded, vital, growing experience of belief and salvation.

Why was 1 John written? The clearest answer is expressed by John near the end of the epistle in 1 Jn 5:13:*These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. *How interesting it is, that you are told that you cannot know when John says quite clearly that you can.

John makes the same statement near the end of his gospel: John 20:31: but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. I think it is clear: John says you can know.

The word “know” is an important one in this epistle; it is all about knowing. In 5:13 his desire is that believers understand that his purpose for writing the book is so that the believer will “know” that he has eternal life. Many similar statements are found throughout the epistle: By this we know that we are in Him (2:5); I have written to you, children, because you know the Father (2:13); But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know (2:20); I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know (2:21); we know that we are children of God…(3:2); ***We know ***that ***we have passed out of death into life ***(3:14); We know the truth (3:19); We know that He lives in us…(3:24); We know that we are children from God (4:4); We know that we live in Him and He in us (4:13); We know that we love the children of God; We know…we know…we know…(5:18-20). In spite of what you are being told, the true believer knows. If you do not know, there are two reasons that I can think of: 1) you are poorly taught; 2) you are not a believer.

John gives three practical tests by which one can know if he is a believer, and if he has eternal life. They are: 1) The moral test (the test of righteousness or obedience). 2) The social test (the test of love). 3) The doctrinal test (the test of belief in Jesus Christ).

The moral test does not mean that the believer is without sin, in fact, John says that the one who says that he is without sin deceives himself and makes God a liar (1:8,10); it does mean that he must be progressing in righteousness so that his profession is increasingly matched by his conduct. If it is not, it is rejected (1:6). The second test is a test of one’s relationship to other believers. The believer should love other believers, as well as non-believers. Failure to show love is self-deception, and attempting to deceive others. The third test is theological; John claims that that the true believer believes that the preexistent Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became flesh at the time that He did, and that He died for the sinner’s sins.

It is difficult to understand eternal security without an understanding of the biblical teaching of predestination and election. They are all interwoven, and that study will take years to fully grasp.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

sonseeker:

Elzee, it seems to me that your main sticking points are

1. According to the parable it is possible to believe and then to fall away for good, thus disproving OSAS.
2. How do I know if I am a believer?

Notice, again, that there are three types who “believe” and then fall away. But the last type in v15, “hears with an honest heart…holds fast…bears fruit with perseverance;” the one in verse 15 does not fall away.

What the first three lack, the last one possesses, “an honest heart (regenerated), holds fast to what has been heard, bears fruit and perseveres.” In the teaching of the parable, three out of four profess a said belief that does not save. Only one professes a true belief that does save.

Look at Judas Iscariot. He spent a number of years with the Lord, and the other 11, saying that he believed. His faith was a “said faith,” it was not real, saving faith. In the end, he lacked what the one in v 15 possessed: holding fast, bearing fruit, perseverance. Judas did not “truly believe,” as evidenced by his betrayal of the Lord.It would seem that this falling away can take some time. There is no formula given; it may be a week, a month, a year, or many years.

As far as committing the sins you mentioned—gay lifestyle, adultery, pornography—there is only one sin that scripture says is unforgivable, and none of those you list is it. As far as the parable contradicting OSAS, on the contrary, it illustrates it: there are three types who “believe,” but fall away because their faith is not real, and so, cannot save. There is only one who has a faith that is real, and it does save: the one with the honest heart, who holds fast, bears fruit and perseveres.

Your difficulty comes from a system that tells you that cannot know for certain whether you are saved, let alone know that you are always saved. They tell you that you have “been saved, are being saved, and will be saved,” but those words are hollow, because they also tell you that you cannot know for certain. To say that you know that you are truly, and always saved, they say, is presumption.

What - AFAICS at least - the Council of Trent is rejecting, when it rejects such a claim, is the species of certainty proper to a credal affirmation: IOW, a Christian cannot (as it were) treat his certainty of salvation as though it were the same sort of thing as the Incarnation - presumably because the theological motive we have for saying “I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord…[Who] was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary…” is not the same motive, as the motive we have for the certainty of our election in Christ. The one certainty is public - the other is private. The election of the Christian, certain as it may be to him experimentally, cannot be treated as a dogma - unlike the Incarnation, which can. The reason ? The Primacy of Christ, presumably.​

What we can certainly have, is a very high degree of moral certainty that we are in the friendship of Christ; in no way whatever is a Catholic condemned to a life of fear and uncertainty: “fear and trembling” is not the same in the Christian as in the non-Christian - for their motives differ: filial fear is not servile fear. God is not a Divine Panther, waiting to spring on us the moment we sin - He is our gracious Father, even as He is also The Most Holy God: that is why we have boldness, parrhesia, to pray, “Our Father…”. ##

I think that the presumption is telling you that you cannot know, when God’s word tells you that you can know; in fact, you do know, if indeed you are a true believer.

However, although we can know, it does not follow that we come to this knowledge immediately upon being apprehended by Christ. It is not even as important to know this knowledge, as to know that Christ is our Saviour. To know that Christ is “my Saviour” in particular - and not only “our Saviour” in general - may take many years. God’s faithfulness to us is far more important than our knowing - rather than surmising - how we stand in relation to Him. God’s goodness may be less clearly discernible to us, for not being interiorly confirmed to us to by the witness of the Holy Spirit - that does not make it any less real and effective. And it is God Who is Sovereign - not man. God is Sovereign in election, Sovereign in Redemption, Sovereign in Atonement, Sovereign in bestowing His grace according to His good will & pleasure, Sovereign in speaking to our hearts and inclining our wills to love what He Loves, Sovereign in maintaining us in existence and in His grace.​

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

Man is *not *Sovereign - that makes all the difference between the two. And because God is Sovereignly Good & Righteous in all His ways, there is - objectively speaking - no reason for the Christian not to cling to God, Who is reliable, instead of to his own experience, which is by no means reliable: “let God be true, and every man a liar”.

Apart from anything else, we “walk by faith and not by sight”: so it is not of the first importance to be assured of our own assurance: but it is of the very first importance, that we should be rightly disposed to Christ, *so as to confess that He *“is Lord, to the glory of the Father”. For it matters immensely that every knee should bow to Him, and give glory to Him; and to do that, we need, not assurance of our own state, but grace to glorify His.

Besides, it is not by anxiously enquiring after our own security that we shall find it - the more we have eyes only for Him, the more certain we are of being eternally secure. IOW - we shall find it, and shall enjoy it, by not seeking it, but by forgetting it so that we may rather be united with Him. By forgetting self, and remembering Him and having Him always before our eyes, we shall find ourselves - but not otherwise. Only by dying can we be made alive for ever: but self-centred Christianity has not died to self, so it cannot be conformed to Christ’s Death & Resurrection. That is the paradox - by not “seeking what is [our] own”, we shall inherit Christ, and all that is His; for by seeking Christ, and not ourselves, we shall be returning to Him the love with which He unfailingly Loves us. If that is not eternal security, what is ? ##

If you want to know the marks of a true believer, so that you can be sure that you are one, read 1 John. The dominant theme of that book is “Christian assurance.” It is a unique kind of assurance, and it has more bearing on how we live our lives than the words themselves would indicate.

1 Jn 5:9 says, “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater.” It goes on to say that God has given us eternal life, and that life is in His Son, and if you have the Son you have life. Your leaders say no; God’s apostles say yes. Paul echoes John; in 2 Cor 1:20, he says all the promises of God in Christ are YES!

(continued below)

 

[Matt16_18]

Gottle of Geer:

Depicting OSAS as though it were necessarily immoral, is the same as depicting Confession as necessarily immoral: both Calvinists and Catholics (for instance) are redeemed sinners - so both are capable of deeply unChristian behaviour. What both caricatures miss, is that grace is given, not to let us sin on more, but that we may sin no more.

There are reasonable Calvinists that believe that men are capable of being disobedient to God’s will, and there are extremely unreasonable Calvinists that simply refuse to accept this obvious truth. An OSAS-Calvinist that insists neither angels nor men have free will is also asserting that the “elect" are either NOT capable of “deeply unChristian behaviour”, or they are asserting that when the elect do manifest “deeply unChristian behaviour”, it is because God has forced the Christian to commit evil.

The the theology that underpins the Calvinist version of OSAS is indeed an immoral and blasphemous theology since it makes God responsible for all evil. How is it possible to utter any greater blasphemy that to accuse the All Holy and Almighty God as being the source and cause of all that is evil?

 

[allhers]

O.S.A.S. (once saved always saved) hummmmm:wave:

If we were already “saved” then why would God have come to earth in the person of Jesus to begin with when Adam and Eve sinned and turned away from HIM? Why wouldn’t God have just said, Oh well, its o.k. you’re already “saved” anyway, don’t worry about it. ???

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Matt16_18:

There are reasonable Calvinists that believe that men are capable of being disobedient to God’s will, and there are extremely unreasonable Calvinists that simply refuse to accept this obvious truth.

Maybe I’ve been living in a cocoon populated by “reasonable” Calvinists - might their “unreasonable” brethren be the antinomians ?​

An OSAS-Calvinist that insists neither angels nor men have free will is also asserting that the “elect" are either NOT capable of “deeply unChristian behaviour”, or they are asserting that when the elect do manifest “deeply unChristian behaviour”, it is because God has forced the Christian to commit evil.

Two things:​

1. Although Catholics and Calvinists both speak of “free will”, they differ because they mean different things by the term. A similarity of language conceals a substantive difference: they are not talking about quite the same thing.
2. God is not the Author of evil - Calvin could hardly be clearer on that. What he does, is draw attention to the passages in the Bible which assert divine responsibility for evil. Divine Providence includes secondary causes - he knows that. I think the reason he is accused of teaching what he does not, is that he is not a metaphysician in his approach, but takes his case from Scripture - IOW, a difference in theological method between him and Catholics, say, may well be what lies behind much of the confusion on this point. ##

The the theology that underpins the Calvinist version of OSAS is indeed an immoral and blasphemous theology since it makes God responsible for all evil.

In some sense, He is - Scripture says so. God is in some sense responsible for evil, because God does not make it impossible for angels or men to sin - by making them, and sustaining them, He makes their defection and disobedience possible; but evil is still an abomination to Him. He is not the Author of evil, and cannot be, because He is Holy and Righteous. There is a great mystery here, and I can’t see into it much at all - which is one reason I come here Calvin was also aware of this mystery - the obscurity of God’s ways to man, and the danger and rashness of presuming to peer too greedily into them, is something he never stops talking about.​

How is it possible to utter any greater blasphemy that to accuse the All Holy and Almighty God as being the source and cause of all that is evil?

It would be difficult to top that - but I cannot find Calvin teaching this. The idea was as revolting to him as it is to us.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

allhers:

O.S.A.S. (once saved always saved) hummmmm:wave:

If we were already “saved” then why would God have come to earth in the person of Jesus to begin with when Adam and Eve sinned and turned away from HIM? Why wouldn’t God have just said, Oh well, its o.k. you’re already “saved” anyway, don’t worry about it. ???

Because salvation is through Christ.​

 

[Matt16_18]

Gottle of Geer:

Maybe I’ve been living in a cocoon populated by “reasonable” Calvinists - might their “unreasonable” brethren be the antinomians?

Neither the Calvinist version of OSAS nor the antinomian version of OSAS is reasonable. The Calvinist version of OSAS is outrageous blasphemy that accuses God of being the source and cause of all evil. The antinomian version of OSAS teaches that Christians can commit any sin they feel like committing with the assurace that they can never be damned. Could anything be more unreasonable than either of these two variations of OSAS?

God is not the Author of evil - Calvin could hardly be clearer on that.

Calvin also wrote that Christians could be damned by losing their faith, so one could make a case that Calvin never believed in OSAS. But Calvin was a poor theologian, and he wrote many contradictory things, and one can take the babblings of Calvin and make a case for OSAS if one desires. Who really knows what Calvin believed? It is a moot point, and the topic of the thread is not what Calvin believed, it is a thread about the heresy of OSAS, and there definitely is a version of this heresy that one can rightly label “Calvinist”.

If one takes the writings of John Calvin and combines that with the Protestant belief in the private interpretation of scripture, what results is a potent combination for the creation of heresy. All Calvinists are heretics, of course, but Calvinists embrace a very broad spectrum of heresy. On the one end of the spectrum are the more reasonable Calvinists that have preserved much of their Catholic heritage in matters of doctrine. On the other end of the spectrum are “Calvinists” that are far more closely related to the Gnostic Docetists in their doctrine than they are to Christians in their doctrine.

God is in some sense responsible for evil, because God does not make it impossible for angels or men to sin - by making them, and sustaining them, He makes their defection and disobedience possible; but evil is still an abomination to Him. He is not the Author of evil, and cannot be, because He is Holy and Righteous.

But sonseeker is asserting that angels and men do not have free will, and that there is no possibility for either angels or men to be disobedient to God’s will. Sonseeker is saying that God is indeed the Author of evil. And sonseeker is hardly the only Calvinist that I have ever debated that maintains the position that created beings are incapable of being disobedient to the will of God. So again, it is really a moot point about what Calvin may or may not have believed - what we are discussing is what a particular group of self identified “Calvinists” believe about their version of OSAS.