How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[Farsight001]

Jesus says nothing in that verse about the sheep following Him being a requirement, but asserts the truth that His follow Him. Jesus is asserting a truth about His sheep.

It says, right there, plain as day, that his sheep follow him. In other words, if you don’t follow him, you are not his sheep. So yes, following him is a necessity. If you’re concluding otherwise, I am forced to conclude that you are here to troll, instead of discuss.

Obviously God doesn’t save everyone, but only those He chooses to save, so yes, God doesn’t will all to be saved, but, as the Scripture says, He only desires it.

There’s two definitions of the word will. One IS desire. So when you say he doesn’t will it, he desires it, you are flat out contradicting yourself.

Also, I disagree with you that God “accepts your choice to refuse salvation.” If He accepted it, He would simply let it go. But He doesn’t let it go. He punishes it. That is because, since the cross, God commands all men, everywhere, to be saved (Act 17:30). God certainly doesn’t accept disobedience to His commands. Perhaps you ought to craft a more accurate statement than you’ve posted regarding God’s “acceptance” of disobedience regarding salvation.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of accept, punishment, and while you’re at it, what hell actually is. Because you’re not actually disagreeing with him in what he means. You’re using words wrongly and disagreeing based on that false understanding.

Read 1 John, in it, the apostle gives a number of “tests” for determing whether or not one is the faith. In fact, at the end of the epistle, he states the reason for writing what he did was so that one could know he has eternal life, isn’t that right (cf 1 Jn 5:13)?

And? One can know they have eternal life. Great. But knowledge can be lost. I know it is dark outside. Tomorrow at noon, though, the knowledge “it is dark outside” will be lost because it is no longer dark.

If you want to hold to your church’s teaching that you cannot know you are saved, that’s fine with me.

If it were really fine with you, you wouldn’t be here talking about it.

You have a “chance” to gain salvation. It’s interesting that you’ve been taught that salvation is nothing more than a roll of the dice. I assure you, salvation is more than a roll of the dice, but it is a sure thing, fixed in the mind of God regarding those He’s chosen.

No one said roll of the dice. It is disingenuous at best, and at worst, downright dishonest, to twist his words like that.

Well, if you want to search the scripture for what isn’t there, go ahead.

You keep saying it can’t be lost after being given at the very least, half a dozen verses which clearly show that it can.

Jesus doesn’t offer salvation, but truly saves people. That’s the difference between what you believe, and what I believe.

This is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or. It is both/and. Jesus does both. He offers us salvation, and if we accept salvation, then he truly saves us.

 

[Philthy]

All of you, in your confusion, continue to insist that I’ve interpreted Jesus’ words in Jn 6:39, and in Jn 10:28. I’ve haven’t interpreted anything, Philthy, but have asked questions, and have taken the Lord at His word.

Sorry William but you most definitely have interpreted, although I understand why you would attempt to posit a valid reason(ie I haven’t interpreted) for not defending what you clearly cannot defend and for attempting to blame us ("You’re confused). It’s either that or you have some pretty serious blinders on. Again, it’s really quite simple: if the verse you posted isn’t an interpretation, then what translation is it? All mine in this thread are from the New American Bible Revised (NABR). If you can provide a translation then I would of course owe you an apology. If not, then we’ll have yet another reason to be suspicious of you, your posts, your excuses and your ability to remain objective.
Your interpretation is on top, the actual verse, with a small substitution (I substituted “My sheep” from v. 27 for the “them” in v.28 that refers to said sheep for consistency) is on the bottom:

He gives eternal life to those He saves, and** those He saves** shall never perish
I give (My sheep) eternal life, and they shall never perish.

You have substituted “those He saved” for My sheep. That is an interpretation. It ignores the context of the comments and makes nonsense of many other things Christ and his Apostles said. I have already pointed this out to you, but you act as if you haven’t actually read my posts. I - and others, including most Protestants - disagree with your interpretation and you have provided nothing to support it; nor have you defended it against legitimate refutation; nor have you integrated that interpretation with a number of other verses that clearly contradict your interpretation. And now you attempt to portray us as confused?

Blessings

 

[kempo1]

I know i am late to the party also, but when St. PAUL said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling how would william interpret that. To me it seems a little cocky to walk around and think you are so righteous and think you are so perfect that you know for a fact you are already saved. Myself, i am a sinner who has to repent daily and sometimes more than once. I do have assurance of forgiveness as granted by my savior, but until the final judgement occurs i cannot let my guard down by thinking i am good enough. That to me is putting oneself in the place of God. I cant comprehend how people can walk around and believe this nonsense osas. Wake up people!

 

[William_C]

Moreover, you did not simply refer me “to the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture” but also to your personal interpretation of it which, in turn, was derived from certain members of the Protestant Reformation.

I’ve referred you to the words of the Lord.

EricFilmer:

I stated before that your OSAS doctrine hinges upon 1) your opinion as to what it means to believe in Christ, and 2) that once someone believes in Christ his decision is somehow frozen in time and he is unable to cease believing in Christ. Nowhere in this text from John do we see your concept of what it means to believe in Christ, nor is there any timetable established. Such things are not presented in this section of John, but rather arise from an interpretation of John.

You’re ignoring what my words in favor of your own talking points.
William C:

It demonstrates no such thing Eric. The apostles didn’t interpret what they wrote, they simply wrote it.

EricFilmer:

1. Where in the Bible does it say “the apostles didn’t interpret what they wrote”? (i.e., I expect adherents of Sola Scriptura to play by its rules).

Scripture does not contain your words. Neither does it say, “the apostles did interpret what they wrote." Isn’t that correct, Eric?

EricFilmer:

1. The Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles as well as New Testament epistles contain interpretations of Scripture, so your statement is demonstrably false.

I never said the apostles didn’t interpret the Old Testament, did I (see immediately above for my words)? So your assertion that my statement is false, is itself a false and dishonest statement.

EricFilmer:

1. For 2000 years, the Catholic Church as well as all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Orthodox Churches have taught that the Apostles passed on their interpretations of God’s revelation in Sacred Tradition as well as Scripture. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that certain Reformers (but not all of them) rejected this.

…

EricFilmer:

It is wrong to criticize the OSAS doctrine for not being apostolic because only the writings of the apostles themselves are rightly considered apostolic. Therefore, all doctrines derived from an interpretation of their writings are not, by definition, apostolic.

In saying this, you are admitting that the OSAS doctrine is not plainly found in Scripture, but is instead an interpretation of Scripture. This, of course, is what I’ve been saying all along.

Please refer me to the post in which I have admitted what you assert I have admitted, rather than just offering your opinion that I’ve admitted what you assert I’ve admitted.

EricFilmer:

And how quickly you change gears! So now you’re back to saying that it is plainly found in Scripture.

See request above.

EricFilmer:

1. Gravity was not unknown to ancient Christians. Everyone believed in gravity, wrote about gravity, acknowledged gravity and operated under the effects of gravity. The only thing lacking was understanding the mathematical law of gravity. On the other hand, the ancient Christians did not believe in the OSAS doctrine. They did not write about it, acknowledge it, or operate in accordance with it. Of course, I understand that you were referring to the discovery of the Law of Gravity all along, but I am simply pointing out that it is a faulty comparison all the same. People believed in gravity prior to it being defined as a scientific law, but people did not believe in OSAS prior to it being defined as a doctrine.

Jesus believed in OSAS; the apostles did also. That’s good enough for me.

Moreover, what’s missing from Scripture is any statement that salvation can be lost. To the contrary, what can be found throughout scripture is assurance of salvation, and the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of salvation, and that believers are protected by God for salvation. So if the ancients didn’t write about it, they must have missed it.

EricFilmer:

If OSAS doctrine is draw solely upon the “plain” words of Jesus, then give me a quote from the Bible where Jesus’ description of what it means to believe in him match yours, and give me a quote where it says that from the moment that this kind of belief happens, a person’s belief in Christ is frozen in time and he no longer has the freewill to reject Jesus. Note that if you give me quotes from the Bible but then have to tell me what it means (making extrapolations beyond the plain words of the text) then the OSAS doctrine is not drawn from the “plain” words of Jesus, but rather the plain words of William C.

I’ve pointed you to the words of Jesus, Eric. That will do.

(continued below)

 

[William_C]

(continued from above)

EricFilmer:

What Jesus is saying is that if we know Jesus and follow him, we receive eternal life.

There’s no “if” stated by Jesus in those verses, Eric. You’re adding that.

EricFilmer:

He says that He gives His sheep eternal life, There is nothing here that says that while on earth a follower of Jesus is no longer free to cease following him, and therefore reject the gift of salvation.

Sure there is, Eric, it’s just that you’re in denial about it. It’s those four words, “they shall never perish.”

EricFilmer:

Just because no one can snatch a Christian from out of the hand of Christ does not mean that a Christian is not free to walk out of that hand of his own accord. So clearly explain to me how John 10:28 “destroys” anything stated by me or anyone else in this thread.

”No one,” includes the believer, Eric, and that statement is further “icing on the cake” with regard to the “they shall never perish,” statement. It’s quite clear.

EricFilmer:

Once again, if it’s “very simple” then one should see OSAS clearly stated in Scripture and we would not need to depend on the extrapolations that you have made.

MANY do see it, Eric. Thank you for your unwitting support of my assertion.

EricFilmer:

Therefore, you are not supporting OSAS with what the Bible clearly presents, but rather your interpretation of it.

As you said above, Eric, “if it’s ‘very simple’ than one should see OSAS clearly stated in Scripture,” and as I said, MANY do. Thanks again for your support.

EricFilmer:

And yet, as others have done in this thread, there are other ways of interpreting such Scripture passages which do not support OSAS. But you seem to think that your interpretation is the “absolute” truth which should be recognized as a universal Christian doctrine.

As do you regarding your interpretation.

EricFilmer:

After all, in this thread you’re acting as if your interpretation is the correct interpretation. Does this mean that you are claiming to have the power of infallibility? If so, then show support for having such authority.

No one is infallible, Eric.

EricFilmer:

You say that the answer “is in the passage” so, therefore, one should expect to see OSAS clearly stated therein. But is it? No.

You’ve taken my words out of context, Eric. My assertion regarding what is in the passage, had nothing to do with OSAS.

EricFilmer:

It’s starting to look like you’re dodging my question. Here it is again: The question at hand is what does it mean to believe in Jesus? Therefore, if you’re saying that this means to “believe in Jesus in the correct way” then clearly explain what “the correct way” is.

So now you’re interested in my “interpretation” of scripture regarding what it means to believe in Jesus. That’s funny.

EricFilmer:

Then explain how.

The verse states it Eric.

EricFilmer:

I don’t see anything in Ephesians which states that once people accept Jesus they are, from that moment on, denied the freewill to reject him.

I don’t see anything in Scripture which states man has a free will.

Did God consult you before you were born, Eric? Did you choose the circumstances of your birth, the geography of it, your family? Or did God decide that for you?

Where’s your free will asserted?

Moreover, if God decided that for you, and He did, why do you deny Him the right to decide your eternity?

 

[William_C]

no text, dupe

 

[William_C]

First of all, I did not see anything in bmonk’s post about salvation being “nothing more than a roll of the dice.” It is obvious to see that such a notion is not what he meant by his usage of the word “chance.” He meant “chance” as in “opportunity”, not random luck.

Salvation isn’t a role of the dice.

EricFilmer:

Secondly, salvation is a gift of love, and therefore, as with all true gifts of love, it must be freely offered to the beloved, and the beloved must be free to accept or reject it. So bmonk is absolutely correct when he stated that Jesus offers salvation.

As I said, Jesus is a truly saves.

EricFilmer:

Your various statements about our salvation being predetermined and not being something that is offered is contrary to the very essence of what a gift of love entails. If a gift of love is forced on someone, then by that very action it ceases being a gift of love.

Please cite the post in which I said, “salvation isn’t something offered.”

 

[William_C]

I know i am late to the party also, but when St. PAUL said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling how would william interpret that.

I’m not going to interpret it. Folks here don’t like that.

But, notice it’s YOUR salvation to which Paul refers. That’s a possessive pronoun.

Where in the passage does Paul assert YOUR salvation can be lost?

 

[kempo1]

William free will has been around since adam and eve. Think about it if there were no free will why did they eat the apple! What kind of God would we serve if he didnt grant us free will? Thank God for free will what a blessing!

 

[kempo1]

I’m not going to interpret it. Folks here don’t like that.

But, notice it’s YOUR salvation to which Paul refers. That’s a possessive pronoun.

Where in the passage does Paul assert YOUR salvation can be lost?

Why would you have to work it out if it is guaranteed? If you dont understand this simple statement by St. PAUL you really are confussed my brother.

 

[William_C]

No one is trying to refute the words of the Lord. We’re trying to get through to you that you clearly don’t understand the meaning of the words of the Lord. Several posters now, have provided proper context and given in depth explanations as to exactly why Jesus’ words don’t mean what you claim they do. Thus far you have completely neglected to address these in depth explanations, choosing instead to belittle and vainly repeat yourself, over and over, and over again. And you know what Jesus says about vain repetitions, so shame on you.

I don’t have time to address every statement made to me.

I’ll answer those that interest me.

Farsight001:

Then maybe you should take off the blindfold.

You haven’t proven I’m wearing one.

Farsight001:

This is nothing but a lie here. You have interpreted Jesus’ words.

I haven’t lied about anything. When questioned about Scripture, I have, at times, explained the words.

However, I’ve not initiated any interpretations, but have only pointed to Christ’s words.

Farsight001:

If you read words and take them to mean something, you have, by definition, interpreted them. Even if the statement is simply “2+2=4”, your decision to conclude that it is a mathematical statement (as opposed to a secret code, words in a made up language, etc.) is an interpretation. Every statement you read, every conclusion you come to based on another’s words is, by definition, an interpretation. So yes, you have interpreted Jesus’ words, and as we have painstakingly explained in detail several times, with in depth supporting arguments and numerous clarifications with scriptural support, your interpretation is wrong.

See immediately preceding reponse.

 

[William_C]

Why would you have to work it out if it is guaranteed?

Why wouldn’t you have to work it out. Is your sactification complete when you believe? How about your righteousness?

kempo1:

If you dont understand this simple statement by St. PAUL you really are confussed my brother.

You don’t understand what a possessive pronoun is. Why is that?

 

[William_C]

Got to go for a while, gentlemen.

Keep it short, sweet, and coherent.

I’m not going to respond to everything you throw at me.

Deal with it.

 

[Farsight001]

I don’t have time to address every statement made to me.

I’ll answer those that interest me.

That’s not how it works. You involved yourself in this discussion. Either you participate or you don’t, end of story. Picking and choosing what you want to respond to is selfish, disingenuous, dishonest, and offensive to those who put forth the efforts to type out those responses. If you’re not going to respond to what people say, go find another forum to post at.

Let me also point out that your decision to acknowledge what you want to in our posts and ignore what you don’t is perfectly reflected in your approach to scripture - acknowledging what you like and rejecting what you don’t.

You haven’t proven I’m wearing one.

I haven’t proven 2+2=4 either, yet it is painstakingly obvious to every thinking person on the planet.

I haven’t lied about anything. When questioned about Scripture, I have, at times, explained the words.

You said you didn’t interpret, when you, by definition, did interpret. That is one lie. You also put words into another poster’s mouth, multiple times with your use of the “roll of the dice” phrase. This is something I would also consider a lie.

However, I’ve not initiated any interpretations, but have only pointed to Christ’s words.

Yes, once again, you have interpreted - by the very definition of the word interpret. You can deny it all you want, you’re just plain wrong and you look really really big-headed when you do it. Any perspective or understanding on any words, phrase, sentence, poem, song, book, or any other sort of text, even the correct perspective, is, by definition, an interpretation. Your decision to conclude that Jesus’ words (which you actually changed instead of providing exactly!) means that salvation cannot be lost is an interpretation, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I would go so far as to suggest that your continued decision to refuse to admit that you are presenting an interpretation is actually lie #3.

See immediately preceding reponse.

Which doesn’t address the fact that by the very definition of the word interpret, you are providing an interpretation.

 

[Farsight001]

Got to go for a while, gentlemen.

Keep it short, sweet, and coherent.

I’m not going to respond to everything you throw at me.

Deal with it.

FYI, the moderators here usually “deal with it” (i.e. your decision to start an argument and not finish it) by banning the one who does it because it’s against the ToS. You say you won’t respond to everything we throw at you. Well you started this, and you reap what you sew. If it’s overwhelming to you, you can admit this and request that we set some sort of discussion parameters. If you remain to proud to do that, though, then you dig your own grave.

 

[kempo1]

Why wouldn’t you have to work it out. Is your sactification complete when you believe? How about your righteousness?

You don’t understand what a possessive pronoun is. Why is that?

I think you are going in circles and have put yourself in a corner. According to your previous posts about what you believe, which is OSAS, you could throw out St. Pauls statement. If you are guaranteed salvation according to what you believe what is there to work out? Do you see the confusion in this doctrine? It goes against itself!

 

[Farsight001]

Why wouldn’t you have to work it out. Is your sactification complete when you believe? How about your righteousness?

You don’t understand what a possessive pronoun is. Why is that?

He understands what a possessive pronoun is quite fine. Clearly, however, you do not.

 

[William_C]

I think you are going in circles and have put yourself in a corner.

You know, I was just thnking the same thing about you.

kempo1:

According to your previous posts about what you believe, which is OSAS, you could throw out St. Pauls statement. If you are guaranteed salvation according to what you believe what is there to work out?

Explain why having salvation means you no longer have to work out your salvation, especially when Catholics believe salvation is a process?

kempo1:

Do you see the confusion in this doctrine?

No.

kempo1:

It goes against itself!

No it doesn’t. It goes against what you believe, and that’s what bothers you.

 

[William_C]

He understands what a possessive pronoun is quite fine.

Maybe, maybe not. He hasn’t answered yet, unless you’re him, under a different screen name. Are you?

Farsight001:

Clearly, however, you do not.

You’re projecting again.

 

[William_C]

FYI, the moderators here usually “deal with it” (i.e. your decision to start an argument and not finish it) by banning the one who does it because it’s against the ToS. You say you won’t respond to everything we throw at you. Well you started this, and you reap what you sew. If it’s overwhelming to you, you can admit this and request that we set some sort of discussion parameters. If you remain to proud to do that, though, then you dig your own grave.

With this post, I have put on my ignore list.

It’s official. :tiphat: