How is OSAS logical?

[Spirithound]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

But what if that desire goes away? What if someone no longer cares about God? What if someone becomes an obstinate sinner? In Catholic theology, this is called mortal sin. In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”, but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

Is this logical? Protestant friends, can you defend this?

 

[SyCarl]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

But what if that desire goes away? What if someone no longer cares about God? What if someone becomes an obstinate sinner? In Catholic theology, this is called mortal sin. In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”, but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

Is this logical? Protestant friends, can you defend this?

I am a Protestant who does not believe in once saved, always saved. It is generally held by people who accept the type of predestination advocated by Calvin. If you adopt that view the OSAS flows from it.

The view is that God has absolutley predestined who will be saved. They emphasize God’s sovereignty and say that man’s choice has no part in being saved, ie being one of the elect. If man had a choice then God would not be sovereign since man’s choice plays a part. Since God will save those who are saved, if you are on of the elect you will persevere. If this wasn’t the case then God’s decision will isn’t fufilled.

There is a problem with relying on this view. First it assumes that God’s sovereignty requires that He make all decisions. In reality this is limiting His sovereignty by not recognizing that as part of His sovereignty God can decide to allow us to have a choice.

Secondly no one can be sure of being one of the elect. No one can know if they are the good soil or if they are the road or thorns where the seed is planted and springs up but ultimately dies. So it is actually quite circular. If you are one of the elect you will persevere to the end and if you persevere to the end you are one of the elect.

 

[Teflon93]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

But what if that desire goes away? What if someone no longer cares about God? What if someone becomes an obstinate sinner? In Catholic theology, this is called mortal sin. In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”, but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

Is this logical? Protestant friends, can you defend this?

The most common defense I’ve seen is, “They must not REALLY have been saved.”

 

[ForwardProgress]

OSIRSAS…

Once Saved, If Really Saved, Always Saved.

 

[rpp]

The most common defense I’ve seen is, “They must not REALLY have been saved.”

OSIRSAS…

Once Saved, If Really Saved, Always Saved.

These are accurate interpretations of this belief. And these answers lead to the next question.

How does one know if they are authentically saved?

 

[Zachary]

You only have to die.

If “being saved” has always been pre-determined, is there no free will?

 

[Philthy]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

But what if that desire goes away? What if someone no longer cares about God? What if someone becomes an obstinate sinner? In Catholic theology, this is called mortal sin. In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”, but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

Is this logical? Protestant friends, can you defend this?

It can be defended, but only selectively so, and even then pretty weakly IMHO. If the entirety of Scripture is taken into account, we see plently of evidence that Christians can fall from grace - the goats and sheep in Matt, the parable of the Sower, and especially in the “Vine and branches” metaphor. The latter analogy explicitly reveals Christ as the Vine and Christians as the “branches” ( which, BTW, are part of the same “body” as the Vine, the body of Christ) eventually being burned up.
Fortunately most of the OSAS adherents are obedient faithful whom I am in no position to judge. The doctrine, though, is dangerous because it deceives “weaker brothers” who might otherwise be converted to a deeper, persevering faith through the “fear of the lord which is the beginning of wisdom”.

 

[Philthy]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

But what if that desire goes away? What if someone no longer cares about God? What if someone becomes an obstinate sinner? In Catholic theology, this is called mortal sin. In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”, but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

Is this logical? Protestant friends, can you defend this?

It can be defended, but only selectively so, and even then pretty weakly IMHO. If the entirety of Scripture is taken into account, we see plently of evidence that Christians can fall from grace - the goats and sheep in Matt, the parable of the Sower, and especially in the “Vine and branches” metaphor. The latter analogy explicitly reveals Christ as the Vine and Christians as the “branches” ( which, BTW, are part of the same “body” as the Vine, the body of Christ) eventually being burned up.
Fortunately most of the OSAS adherents are obedient faithful whom I am in no position to judge. The doctrine, though, is dangerous because it deceives “weaker brothers” who might otherwise be converted to a deeper, persevering faith through the “fear of the lord which is the beginning of wisdom”.

 

[mark_a]

In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”, but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

What are the requirements for an act to be an “explicit rejection of Jesus”?

 

[Spirithound]

What are the requirements for an act to be an “explicit rejection of Jesus”?

From what I gather from our conversations, either a verbal or mental “Jesus I reject you”, or similar words.

 

[Mike_Brick]

From what I gather from our conversations, either a verbal or mental “Jesus I reject you”, or similar words.

And isn’t that what we “say” when we commit a mortal, deadly sin:

Grave Matter,
Knowing it is Grave Matter
Willingly do it anyway, that’s a direct rejection of Jesus.

Most So. Baptists I know, (my wife of 39 years, her now deceased father who was a preacher, and lots of friends), have never added the caviat of explicit rejection of Jesus, like your friend has. When you explain mortal sin in it’s fullest, he/she has to agree with you.

Peace

 

[StCsDavid]

My question for the OSAS crowd is why are you still here on Earth? If you believe that once you are saved you can not lose your salvation, then what prevents you from taking your own life so you can be with the Lord that much sooner? Surely Heaven is far superior to this fallen existence. I say this tongue in cheek, of course, but I wouldn’t mind an OSAS advocate to explain the purpose of life on Earth when salvation is a given.

 

[Crumpy]

The response to post #11 is that suicide is prohibited by the Bible, to put it one way.

The OSAS problem runs parallel to the other. The problem is we sin all the time.Does scripture say someplace that even the righteous man sins seven times a day? A reformed church deacon says he sins seven times before he leaves his house in the morning. Certainly, anyone who drives to work in Chicagoland sins about a dozen times before he or she gets to work.

No one has said it, but it must be implied there at least in the Calvinist stuff, that Jesus died once for all our sins, even the future ones.

But, scripture explicitly says, stop sinning. That’s quite a high standard. I wonder if the OSAS crowd meets that criterion?

This is one of those chase-your-tail type questions. Certainly it is pharasaic and beneath the calling of a Christian to probe these questions about how many sins can I get away with?

Salvation is up to the Lord. Jesus said that even some that say “Lord, Lord” will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Surely, Jesus taught a very personal and internal concept of discipleship, and I think that is far more important. God is not deceived, as it is written.

 

[Spirithound]

And isn’t that what we “say” when we commit a mortal, deadly sin:

Grave Matter,
Knowing it is Grave Matter
Willingly do it anyway, that’s a direct rejection of Jesus.

Most So. Baptists I know, (my wife of 39 years, her now deceased father who was a preacher, and lots of friends), have never added the caviat of explicit rejection of Jesus, like your friend has. When you explain mortal sin in it’s fullest, he/she has to agree with you.

Are Southern Baptists “OSAS-ers”? Absolute OSAS? My friend, like me, is a northern boy (am i showing my naivete thinking Southern Baptists are from the south? no matter…).
I explained the 3 criteria for mortal sin to him, and he rejected that as not explicit enough.

 

[Spirithound]

The response to post #11 is that suicide is prohibited by the Bible, to put it one way.

And as I asked my friend, “So what? I’m saved.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

Who denies that ? It’s basic.​

But what if that desire goes away? What if someone no longer cares about God?

Define “desire”, & “cares”.​

What if someone becomes an obstinate sinner? In Catholic theology, this is called mortal sin. In my friend’s theology, he calls it “spitting on grace”,

Which it is.​

but then reaffirms that since it is not an explicit rejection of Jesus, the person is not damned.

Which is perfectly correct​

Is this logical? Protestant friends, can you defend this?

It’s defensible ​

The objections mentioned, would tell equally against Catholic ideas. No one would ask a daft question such as "What happens if a Catholic curses God while making an act of contrition? " - at least, one hopes no one would ask it. The reason is obvious: to suppose such a thing possible on such conditions, is to suppose something that is nonsensical, because contrition is of its very nature incompatible with the slightest affection for any sin, even those that seem slight; let alone with a sin such as cursing God.

Many of the objections against God’s preservation of the elect are nonsensical in just this way - they are premised upon conditions which make a nonsense of the meaning of OSAS, so what is asked about, in such conditions, is not OSAS at all, but a meaning-less travesty of it. And that gets none of us anywhere. It certainly won’t help to persuade Protestants that those of who are Catholics sincerely wish to understand them If people don’t wish to do so, then there is no point in further discussion

To judge from some posts about OSAS, one might be forgiven for thinking that OSAS leaves no place for repentance, justification, regeneration, Christian obedience, faith in Christ as Saviour & as Lord, the practice of the virtues, or for any such thing. But if people do think something so remote from the doctrine, then there is little point in discussing it, because any fruitful discussion requires at least some knowledge of what is being discussed.

 

[Spirithound]

Who denies that ? It’s basic.​

That was just background stuff…no need to comment there

Define “desire”, & “cares”.​

“Desire” refers to the person’s wish to turn away from sin.
“Care” is being used in the usual sense of the word, as in “I don’t care”.

The objections mentioned, would tell equally against Catholic ideas. No one would ask a daft question such as "What happens if a Catholic curses God while making an act of contrition? " - at least, one hopes no one would ask it. The reason is obvious: to suppose such a thing possible on such conditions, is to suppose something that is nonsensical, because contrition is of its very nature incompatible with the slightest affection for any sin, even those that seem slight; let alone with a sin such as cursing God.​

I would like to give that situation a more charitable reading, in that it is possible to have lightning-fast changes of heart, and so the penitent truly was contrite. Catholic theology allows for such changes in salvation, OSAS doesn’t.

Many of the objections against God’s preservation of the elect are nonsensical in just this way - they are premised upon conditions which make a nonsense of the meaning of OSAS, so what is asked about, in such conditions, is not OSAS at all, but a meaning-less travesty of it.

To judge from some posts about OSAS, one might be forgiven for thinking that OSAS leaves no place for repentance, justification, regeneration, Christian obedience, faith in Christ as Saviour & as Lord, the practice of the virtues, or for any such thing. But if people do think something so remote from the doctrine, then there is little point in discussing it, because any fruitful discussion requires at least some knowledge of what is being discussed.

Sir Gottle, do you believe in OSAS? In light of your post, I see no other path for me than to declare myself an ignorant Catholic, and thus I pray thee to elaborate on your views. I truly am seeking to learn of my friend’s beliefs, if only so that I will be better able to evangelize him.

 

[DJim]

Isn’t OSAS merely a form of “works righteousness” (ironically)???

If all I have to “do” to be saved is “believe,” and then I’m saved for good, haven’t I just performed a work that I believe will “earn” me salvation?

DJim

 

[Mike_Brick]

Are Southern Baptists “OSAS-ers”? Absolute OSAS? My friend, like me, is a northern boy (am i showing my naivete thinking Southern Baptists are from the south? no matter…).
I explained the 3 criteria for mortal sin to him, and he rejected that as not explicit enough.

Since they don’t have a strong hierarchy over their churches, that depends on the local pastor. Many of them are very strong 5 “TULIP” Calvinists, some are more moderate. The strong/extreme Calvinists, (regardless of denonimation), take the position that since the fall of Adam, humankind is so depraived that individuals cannot do anything “good”, God does it all for them, if they are of the “elect”, and He ignores the “non-elect”.

Peace

 

[heisenburg]

I think my favorite to this was when a So. Bap. came to my door one day and started talking about OSAS. I asked him about those that are saved, but then become sinful later in life.

I Got the strangest response…

“Oh… they are still saved, they are called carnal Christians… They received the gift of eternal life, but they are still living sinful in this world…”

I’ve also gotten

“Oh, well, people that are truly saved don’t sin…”
“But what about where the bible says anyone who says they do not sin is a liar…”
“That only applies to non-Christians. Sin is simply something opposed to the law. Since we are not subject to the Law, we cannot sin… therefore, when the bible takes about sin, it isnt talking about Christians …”:hypno:

Its all fun and games till someone gets burned…

In Christ