How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[William_C]

First let me say that you are being awfully selective in your response. You quoted all that I said, but only commented on a small part of it.

I probably won’t respond to everything you say, Philthy, at least, not all the time.

Philthy:

Paul didn’t merely say that they would fall from grace, he said that Christ would be no benefit to them. So while you can attempt to spin the definition of fall from grace so that a saved person can also be fallen from grace, you cannot explain away the plain words that Christ will be of no benefit to you.

Philthy, I’ve answered that for you, several times I believe.

But here, let me try one you may hear this time. Paul’s whole point is that those folks are attempting to be saved by the law, which is an impossibility (Rom 3:20).

Now, if you’re going to try and extrapolate that out to say that means Christ can also be of no benefit for other things, be my guest, but I have no reason to join you there, and I know that I have no ability to dissuade you from going there.

Philthy:

No one who is saved is saved without the benefit of Christ. You know that as well as I do.

That’s right.

Philthy:

I suspect that is why although you quoted it as the section you were responding to, you never actually commented on it…

Honestly, I don’t remember why.

Philthy:

Of course he is - that is the whole point of the letter.

Forgive me, Philthy, you’re right.

Philthy:

Of course he is, that’s the whole point of the letter - it isn’t written to anyone but the churches of Galatia - people he considered Christians. They were Christians who were being misled by some who claimed that parts of the law were to be included in Christianity.

My position is that anyone who is trying to be justified by the law will not be justified by grace, not just the Galatians.

Philthy:

Of course he is, that’s the whole point of the letter - it isn’t written to anyone but the churches of Galatia - people he considered Christians. They were Christians who were being misled by some who claimed that parts of the law were to be included in Christianity.
Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you* by [the] grace [of Christ] for a different gospel

This is the context of the entire letter: they received the gospel from Paul and accepted it and received the Spirit, etc etc and became Christians. And then after Paul left he gets word that they are listening to the judaizers and attempting to be justified by the law. Paul then goes into a lengthy discussion of his credentials and those of the Gospel he preached to them (ch 1- 2); the inability of the law to justify (ch 2:15 - 3) and then flat out says: Gal 3:2-5
I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?
He is using his typical rhetoric: the answer is obvious - they received the Spirit by faith
3 Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
The Spirit is the gospel, the flesh is the law. He’s asking them are they really so stupid that after receiving the Spirit that they are going to return to the law (ie the whole the point of the letter)?? He is dismayed
4Did you experience so many things in vain?—if indeed it was in vain.
This means exactly what you think it can’t mean!
5Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard?
Again, he is dismayed at their so easily departing from the gospel and employs rhetoric to make his point.

Uhhh, not at all what it says. Here it is in context: Gal 5:7-10
You were running well; who hindered you from following [the] truth? 8f That enticement does not come from the one who called you.* 9A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough.g 10I am confident of you in the Lordthat you will not take a different view, and that the one who is troubling you will bear the condemnation, whoever he may be.
They most definitely have been attempting to be justified by the law - you have to actually read the whole letter, William. Paul uses the phrase “I’m confident you will not take another view” as a means of further drawing them to his way of thinking. It’s like saying to a child after discussing how to behave while your away for the weekend “I know you’ll do the right thing” - it’s a means of being both the disciplinarian and giving praise. As if the above weren’t enough, he says in Ch4:10-11, still speaking to Christians…
You are observing days, months, seasons, and years. 11I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have labored for you in vain.
The reference to “days, months, seasons and years” is a reference to the law and Paul’s letting them know that he knows that they are trying to practice parts of the law and incorporate it into Christianity; and furthermore, that he considers it so antagonistic to the faith that he fears that his “labor” (ie his having preached the gospel to them) will ultimately be in vain because of it. Clear as a bell, friend.
Quote:

I’m not surprised and not at all offended; you can’t even see that Paul was writing the letter to the Galatians as a warning of the consequences of trying to mix the law into the gift of grace when it’s as clear as can be.

Look, Philthy, no one is going to be justified by the law, but only by grace.

Anyone of Christ’s sheep, either before they believe, or after, who take the path of being justified by the law, will be turned away from that by the intercession of their high priest, Jesus Christ, who always lives to intercede for them (Heb 7:25).

The sheep, those given to Christ by the Father, can’t lose their salvation, Philthy.

 

[William_C]

WilliamC -

Please give some serious thought and prayer to my above post. Do you genuinely believe I am twisting what the letter says or do the verses say what I claim they do? Do yourself a favor: slowly read the entire letter and see if, in fact, the main point of the letter is not a warning to the Galatian Christians who were attempting to cling to the law (“days, months, seasons, years”) who, in Paul’s opinion, were putting themselves in such jeopardy that he wondered if his labor on their behalf would be “in vain”.

Blessings

Philthy

You’re assuming I haven’t done that, Philthy.

 

[William_C]

What the verse says - reasonably clearly IMHO - is to not continue to sin repeatedly (ie adding sin upon sin) and deluding yourself that it has no eternal consequences in an overconfident estimation of God’s mercy toward you when you fail to repent.

That’s not what I’m hearing, Philthy. I’m hearing Sirach say that if you keep sinning, and sinning, and sinning, don’t count on God being merciful to you and forgiving your sin, and that’s a contradiction of inspired Scripture.

Philthy:

I don’t even need to look it up to know that you are mistaken. It is your interpretation of Sirach which is wrong, and it needs to be thrown out.

I don’t even have to think twice to know that you are mistaken. It is your interpretation of Sirach that is wrong and I’m ignoring it, and Sirach.

Philthy:

Do you remember when Paul said, “what, then, shall we sin that grace may abound…? Of course not!” and, again, “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,c 4no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving.d 5Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient.”

Unrepentant sin has eternal consequences.

That’s pure fantasy. Sirach says nothing of unrepentant sin, to the contrary, the implication is that the one who is sinning is doing so because He knows God is merciful, and forgiving, but Sirach is warning, don’t be overconfident about that, He may not forgive your continued sin.

 

[EricFilmer]

**To all participating in this thread:
**
I think it is high time to clarify a number of terms and definitions, which I will now do in the following string of posts. Here is the first topic:

**Interpretation & Infallibility
**
To start with, William C has repeatedly claimed that the Catholic explanations of Scripture are interpretations whereas his are not, and that he is simply “referring” us to Scripture and “offering answers” (for example, see his comments on the top of Post #142). Moreover, he agrees that we are all “explaining texts” but he has refused to clarify the difference between what he is doing when explaining Scripture and what happens with an interpretation of Scripture (for example, see his comments in Post #147 & Post #151.

The reason why I’m bring this up is because what is going on in this thread is, most definitely, a debate concerning the interpretation of Scripture. But what William C says is happening is that he is simply stating Scripture while we Catholics are ignoring aspects of it. Naturally I challenge both aspects of this assertion.

Moreover, there are cases when a doctrine is based on certain passages of Scripture while being in contradiction (or apparent contradiction) with other passages. When a person claims that the doctrine is, nonetheless, true because the contradictions are only apparent (arising from incorrect interpretations) then naturally this person should demonstrate how he concluded what is, and is not, a valid interpretation.

If it simply comes down to accepting one possible interpretation over another possible interpretation, and a person rules in favor of one over the other when declaring a doctrine to be universal (i.e., applicable to everyone) then, naturally, he should explain the authority he is appealing to in order to make such a declaration in the first place. Catholics appeal to the authority of the Magisterium (believing that the interpretations of the Magisterium on matters pertaining to faith and morals are infallible), but, of course, this is not an avenue that a Protestant can take (or would be willing to take). If a Protestant refuses to demonstrate the authority behind his declaration then, in essence, he is acting as if he considers himself to be infallible, even if he not willing to admit it.

With this in mind, here are some definitions from dictionary.reference.com:

Interpret: verb (used with object)

1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.

Interpretation: noun

1. the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer’s work demands interpretation.
2. an explanation of the meaning of another’s artistic or creative work; an elucidation: an interpretation of a poem.

In light of this, what William C and the rest of us have been doing in this thread matches the definition of interpreting. If William wants to deny this then he is free to explain how his various comments concerning Scripture do not match this definition.

 

[EricFilmer]

Exegesis & Eisegesis

The focus of this thread (as initiated by the OP) is to examine how the OSAS doctrine can be refuted from a biblical standpoint to a Protestant who is an adherent of Sola Sciptura. Therefore, what is called for is an exegetical examination of Scripture. Simply put, this requires one to see if the authors of Scripture were actually describing OSAS (i.e., can it be demonstrated in an exegetical manner?) or do adherents of OSAS simply read an OSAS interpretation into the text, beyond what the writer intended (i.e., an example of eisegesis). With all this in mind, a clear understanding of the terms “exegesis” and “eisegesis” is in order (and, FWIW, I’m using Protestant definitions here):

Exegesis:
The act of explaining a text, in theology usually a sacred text. The purpose may be to describe the author’s meaning or to apply that meaning to a contemporary situation.

• E.A. Livingstone, ed., Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 209.

Exegesis < Greek exègeisthai (to interpret) < ex- (out) + hègeisthai (to lead). Related to English ‘seek’.]
To interpret a text by way of thorough analysis of its content. In its most basic Bible-relevant meaning, exegesis means finding out what the Spirit originally was saying in the Bible passage through its author. Exegesis is what comes out of the Bible, as against what gets read into it. (Of course, the ways we use to find out from the Bible are often merely ways to put something into it ‘between the lines’. That’s really eisegesis in a Halloween costume.) In a more theological setting, exegesis means what comes from the use of certain methods of studying the Bible. Just about every imaginable method already has a name, and there are all sorts of mixes, but the main types are :
• historical (using the form, word choices, editing work, historical context, main themes, and so on, to find what it meant back when it was written or when it happened),
• canonical (treating the Bible as an whole document designed to be what a specific community lives by),
• symbolic/allegorical (figuring out what each character and event represents),
• rational (thinking it through using logic and deductive techniques).
(Source: SpiritHome.com)

Exegesis is contrasted eisegesis:

Eisegesis < Greek eis- (into) + hègeisthai (to lead)]
Eisegesis is what’s being done when someone interprets the Bible according to notions that were born outside of the Bible. It’s when we read stuff into Scripture.
…The hard work uncovers what the Bible is telling us, and the obedience sets aside the ideas we cherish so that we may take on the Bible’s vision. The same living and learning that would have made us do an eisegesis of the text instead becomes the raw material for re-visioning our lives and thoughts (hermeneutics) in the light of what the Spirit reveals in Scripture (exegesis).
(Source: SpiritHome.com)

 

[EricFilmer]

Predestination

I have already given an overview of the Catholic teaching on predestination, which can be found in Post #156. To this, I would like to add some additional information on this subject:

Traditionally, Christians have defined predestination in a manner that acknowledges that while on earth we can (through the grace of God) begin to experience heavenly life, but only in a limited way. For example:

For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. (1Cor 13:9-12, RSV)

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1Cor 2:9, RSV).

Scripture depicts eternal life as something that is in the future (Mt 19:29; Mk 9:43-47; Ti 1:2; 3:7; Jude 21) and also based upon our fidelity (empowered by God’s grace acting in accordance with our free will) to his commandments (Mt 19:16-17; 25:46; Jn 3:36; Rom 2:6-10; 1 Tm 6:18-19; Jas 1:12; 2 Tm 2:12). Therefore, the traditional explanation of predestination takes all of these biblical aspects into account.

Furthermore, although Protestants teach predestination, not all ascribe to the OSAS doctrine. As a matter-of-fact, speaking as a former Protestant, belief in the OSAS doctrine (at least as understood in Calvinism) is only found within a minority of Protestantism. Consider, for example, this definition from a Protestant Bible dictionary, and note its similarities to the Catholic understanding of the term.

Predestination: God’s purposes in grace directed toward those whom He will ultimately save to the uttermost.

…God’s plans will always be fulfilled (Ps. 33:10-11; Job 9:12; Dan. 4:35). He is in control of all of history so that even minor details are part of His work (Prov. 21:1; 16:1, 9, 33). Nothing can prevent the fulfillment of His predictions (Isa. 14:24-27, 44:24-45; Prov. 19:21).

Along with these passages that emphasize God’s priority in grace, there are many texts that affirm the importance of repentance and faith (Rom. 19:9-14; Acts 2:38), and the need of the sinner to “come” to Christ (Rev. 22:17). Paul says that Christians are predestined by God, and yet he urges, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” because “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:9-13 HCSB).

Though Christians today may not be able to understand how all of that works, they can affirm it as true, and they must certainly obey the call of God to the work of ministry.

• The Concise Holman Bible Dictionary (B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN, 2010), 503-504.

 

[EricFilmer]

Free Will & Slavery

William C has asserted in this thread that humans cannot have free will because the Bible describes humans as being slaves. To this I point out that there is a distinction between “freedom” and “free will”. A slave loses his freedom, but retains his free will (after all, even though his actions are dictated to him and he is required to obey, he can still choose not to obey such commands and instead rebel). Therefore, asserting that humans in the Bible are described as slaves does not indicate that we are deprived of free will, or that we cannot make choices.

Here are some elaborations on the manner in which free will is presented in the Bible:

Man possesses intellect and consequently free will. Biblical proof for this is had in the command enjoined in paradise as well as in all later injunctions, threats, and promises. Just a few quotations, “Behold, I place before you today blessing and cursing; blessing if you are obedient to the command of Yahweh, cursing if you are not obedient to the commands of Yahweh (Deut 11:26-28; 30:15-20) …Behold, I place before you the way of life and the way of death (Jer 21:8) …If you want to, you are able to keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is matter for your decision. He has placed fire and water before you; toward which you choose, stretch out your hand. Life and death lie before a man, whichever he selects will be given him” (Sir 15:15-17).

• Dr. Paul Heinisch, William G. Heidt, O.S.B., trans., Theology of the Old Testament (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1955), 171.

Here is a good overview (and, FWIW, a Protestant one) of how concepts of free will and slavery are dealt with from a biblical standpoint:

Freedom: The ability of a person or group of person to be and do what they want instead of being controlled by another. …We do not have the power to do what we want to, whether that be to fulfill the law, love others or save ourselves. The kind of freedom all persons have is the kind of freedom slaves have.

According to the law, no person is to have complete mastery of another. A person can only be used as a slave for six years. If mistreated during that time, they are to be released. Also, every 50 years all slaves are to be freed, regardless of how many years of their slavery they have served (Ex. 21:2-11, 26-27; Lev. 25:10; Deut. 15:12-18). Whoever is oppressed is viewed as a slave, and God desires that the oppression stop.

…The NT depicts all persons as being in slavery – the slavery of sin (John 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12; 2Pet. 2:19). All people have the opportunity to obtain release from bondage to sin by choosing to follow Christ (Rom. 6:12-14; 10:9-12). The power of sin and grace are stronger than ourselves (Rom. 7:15-25; see 6:16).

…If we yield to grace, given through Jesus Christ, the Spirit has the power to lead us into life and truth (Rom. 6:19; Eph. 1:11-14). As we continue to live in Christ, He uses His power to mold us more and more into His image (2Cor. 3:18; Phil. 1:6). Following our every desire is not what freedom is. We are free from our former master: sin; but we are servants. As servants of Christ, we have freedom to disobey our Master and responsibility to direct our actions to fulfill the purposes of Christ (Rom. 6:1, 2, 15, 18, 22; 1Pet. 2:16).

• The Concise Holman Bible Dictionary (B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN, 2010), 245-246.

 

[EricFilmer]

Hope

The Pauline Doctrine of Hope
Glory will only be awarded to those who “persist in doing good” (Rom 2:7f; cf Heb 6:12). But human freedom is weak (Rom 7:12-25). Can the Christian then really hope to take part in the promised inheritance (Col 4:24)? He can and should hope as Abraham did, “hoping against all hope.” He can hope because of his faith in the promises (Rom 4:18-25) and in the virtue of his trust in the faithfulness of God who strengthens the faithfulness of man (1Thess 5:24; 1 Cor 1:9; cf Heb 10:23) from the time of his initial calling to the attainment of glory (Rom 8:28-30).

The fulfillment of these promises in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:20) plays a fundamental role in Paul’s thought. The glory awaited is present reality (2 Cor 3:18 – 4:6) though invisible (2 Cor 4:18; Rom 8:24f). One who is baptized is already arisen (Rom 6:1-7; Col 3:1).

…Paul’s own personal hope gives us an excellent example. It appears in his soul with an extreme intensity. It laments that it is not yet achieved (2 Cor 5:5; Rom 8:23) and rejoices in the thought of the awaited future (1Cor 15:54ff). In this light even the most legitimate of human hopes lose all their value (Phil 3:8). Drawing its support only from the grace of God and not from works (1Cor 4:4; 15:10; Rom 3:27), hope provides by its dynamism the strength needed for the race (Phil 3:13f) and the combat (2Tim 4:7) which Paul carries on in order to achieve his mission, while at the same time he guards against being “disqualified himself” (1Cor 9:26f).

• Xavier Léon-Dufour, ed. Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1967), 213.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)